Hey everyone,

We Googlers are working on updating and clarifying the guidelines of
this group... and your input is very much welcomed!

Overally, we're pretty pleased with how this group has grown (monthly
post counts have *doubled* since July!) and how it's helped both Google
and Webmasters over the last months.  We realize, though, that it may
be time for some changes.

What I think we're going to go with is, generally, two pinned posts per
section:
1) Guidelines about participation in the group.
2) A quick set of links to answers for commonly asked questions.

The first one, I believe, is where your input could be most valuable
right now.

I'd like to note up front, however, what's not really worth debating in
this thread:
- Googler posting volume.  We're going to continue to focus more on
identifying critical issues and working with colleagues to get stuff
improved, fixed, etc.
- Removal of personal-attack posts.  We can't promise to catch 100% of
attacking posts, but we'll delete the ones we come across (or the ones
that are multi-flagged via the "Report" links).

But your thoughts are welcome on the broader issue:  how can we best
encourage folks to post in ways that make this group more efficient,
more friendly, more enjoyable overall?  Contrastingly, in addition to
personal attacks, what would you like us to absolutely prohibit?

And within that...
- What kind of subject titles do you think are best?  What type do you
hate?  URL in subject title?
- Signatures?  Love 'em?  Hate 'em? 1 line? 4 lines?
- Would you like to see more site-specific queries?  More general
Webmaster discussions as they relate to Google?

And beyond that, what do you particularly like about this group?  What
would you like to see improved?

I'm looking forward to your responses, and I wish you all a great
weekend in the meantime :-)

Regards,
Adam

P.S. -- If you haven't already done so, take a moment to check out our
new Groups interface:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help

Note that this group -- and all other Google Groups -- will eventually
switch over to this new format.  One particular benefit is that -- when
posting -- users will often see pretty closely-related threads on the
right-hand side... which may help prevent them from asking questions
that've already been asked and answered a lot :-)

The kind I most hate?  Probably the kind you most hate as well: "ADAM
LASNIK PLEASE HELP" (or any title that addresses a person, rather than
an issue).  URLs should stay out of subject titles (and usernames, for
that matter; you should think about adding a block for the @ character
in names).

Beyond that, the main thing I'd really like to see is you guys putting
some of the posters like softplus (there are others deserving as well,
I'm sure; I just haven't really been paying much attention to this
group lately; maybe Robbo webado?) in moderator positions.  Since the
Googlers here can't stop every personal attack post and spam thread,
why not delegate that task to people who would willingly do the task
for free?  If done right, it could definitely make this group a much
more...livable place.  I know FredC suggested in another thread that
hardcore posters on here ought to have titles, but I think you should
go ahead and fully leverage the fine bunch of nerds you've assembled
here. :)

I'm glad that you're finally responding directly to criticisms of the
group overall, and taking suggestions about it.  The first step, as
they say, is admitting you have a problem. :p

Seeing as the group appears in the Webmaster Help section, help really
ought to be the main focus.

The flow I'd like to see is that when a webmaster comes here with a
problem, he can go to the relevant section, read the FAQs, and have a
good chance of having his question answered.  The next step would be to
post his question, with a strong probability of having it resolved
through discussion, even if that resolution is for the group to reach a
consensus that the hoped-for result is not appropriate given the
circumstances.  In certain cases when the argument breaks down into one
set of speculations opposing another, that would be a good time for a
Googler to provide some facts.  Case in point: the W3C pissing match.
I know you don't want to discuss the Googler role, Adam, but here and
there is a need for an apt word to establish an authoritative precedent
that can be cited.

I'd like to see a section for new webmasters with the emphasis on new
sites having a good initial "handshake" with Google.  That should also
keep noobs and mean old dogs away from each other and keep other topics
more focused.  Call it "The Sandbox". :D

As far as site-specific discussion goes, yes, I feel that would be very
helpful and can be done without giving up too much sensitive
information.  An example here is Vanessa's comments concerning Sussie's
site.  Again, authority was provided to settle unresolved conflict at
no risk to how Google conducts its business.

A Google News section would be good, again with the emphasis being on
developments that may be causing anomalies in user accounts or search
results.

Details:
--Crawling, indexing, and ranking is a huge subject area, could be
chopped into thirds.
--"See more topics" should be ordered by most recent post rather than
original thread date.
--An edit key would be most welcome.
--URLs in subject headings?  A dumb choice but why not?  See comment
re: mean old dogs.
--Signatures: Two lines and optional URL ought to be plenty.

I can see a lot of potential in the group for improving the quality of
both websites and search results, which means better functioning of the
web generally.  Very good stuff!

Pete

Adam, I believe you've seen my thoughts dotted about the place :) But
here are some nuts & bolts observations:
1. Ask new posters to place their URL in the POST, as opposed to just
their profile. Time is money, and I don't have the time to go looking
in someone's profile for an URL.
2. Commonly asked questions - will this be 'official' or links to
previous threads? I'm sure you guys can crunch the group to figure out
what the most frequent issues are, and I would suggest these are
covered in easy to understand terms.
3. I have suggested previously additional fora for more technical and
low-level stuff that comes up from time to time.
4. A clear method for posters to elicit a response from Google - in
instances where there is a large number of posters in one thread
seeking a response from Google you should have some mechanism for us to
flag our concern (something like the report feature?). (Issues like the
cloaking threads come to mind, and I think leaving such issues without
even an acknowledgement loses quite some goodwill here in the group).

Leave them out - currently there is no issue, and people generally
respond here out of the kindness of their hearts IMO. Introduce
signatures and the altruism is diluted. Of that I am 100% sure.

What do you mean? Initiated by Google?

2 steps forward, one step back in my view - as much as I dislike this
interface, I find the beta group lacking. Cant elaborate right now but
will try to post some thoughts at some stage.

For "more efficient" I think we need to find a way to reference
existing information in these groups. Someone once said that if you
search here, you find discussions, not knowledge - that is a large
problem. I know Google's webmaster support sections are growing all the
time ( http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/ ) - but sometimes the
best answer is not an official one by Google. That's not meant in an
"evil" way, but sometimes things are not as black and white as an
official answer has to be ;-).

Also, to aid "findability", I would love to see basic SEO elements
added to the groups interface -- like page titles with post / thread
titles and clean h1-h3-tags for postings in a thread. One reason why is
because the information here is getting lost at a high rate - things
are disappearing, old "knowledge" is posted again and again, Google
confirmations are in one thread, the same question is in many others,
etc. If basic SEO elements were applied, it could mean that search
would be much more useful (not the groups-based search, but general
web-search which should include groups-postings). I don't know how much
it will help, but it will make a small difference (at least to me :-) -
I use search all the time).

I agree with all other wishes here -- Red Cardinal seems to have summed
it up nicely again. Pete's comment about newbie's also makes a lot of
sense. We need to make sure that the existing content does not scare
people away who are afraid to "ask a stupid question" but can't find an
answer.

I don't like the new interface either. I like it "plain, readable and
usable" :-). (oops, am I implying that the new interface isn't any of
that? <big smile>). I would absolutely love an edit-button, if only for
the first 10-30 minutes of a post. How many times do I post something
only to proofread it, lol.

John

#1
---
Being explicitly accused of racism, especially by foreigners who are
NOT personally familiar with the crime problem in New Orleans, or by
those who do NOT know the difference between racism and bigotry,
between making a bigoted or a racist statement, or those who do NOT
know the difference between commenting on a local crime problem, in a
totally different newsgroup, and racism.

#2
---
Also, anybody who brings up prior posts made on other forums, groups,
and newsgroups.  What I do outside of this group is nobodies business,
period.

#3
---
Further, accusations of causing some young girl on the other side of
the planet to go blind, die, or whatever.  Defamatory statements which
are obviously false on their face should not be tolerated.

====

But, what should be totally acceptable for public discussion is why
certain long time posters, repeatedly try to waste the time of novices.
 I am referring, of course, to W3C web page validation.  Or those
offering help, when they have absolutely no idea what the problem at
hand happens to be.

1) I like signatures for a personal sign-off.

2) "Would you like to see more site-specific queries?" I think, "where
has my site gone" deserves its own subforum, at least the desperate
souls will feel like someone is listening.

3) Groups Beta should be moved back to Alpha, way too many features
that free open source newsgroup and forum software already offer that
are missing from Beta.  Pretty dissappointing for a tech company to
push something like that.

4) URLs shouldn't be active until a certain time period has expired, it
would eliminate a lot of daily spam posts.

Hi Folks

I would like to see the "rate this post" tool encouraged more. Going
with Google's democracy of the web concept, users who regualrly receive
postitive ratings are presumably providing good advice. If the search
feature were tweaked to return results based on rating or usefulness,
this would be a good way for people to find information that has
already been  covered rather than starting a new thread.

I think the idea of appointing moderators is a good one - people who
have been here for a while, offer good advice and show your level of
Nancy Reaganism in the just say no area in not responding to persoanl
attacks would be a good choice for moderators - I think I qualify on
the first two - but am guilty of taking the bait with regard to
responding to personal insults - so I am probably out.

If ever there was a self-made case for being added to the pre-modded
comment list....
N-H-P Might I suggest that everything I do in public is public.
Anything I wish to remain private I do in private. The Internet is
public, not private.

Adam, I have another suggestion - publish our reputation with EVERY
post, not just in our profile. Oh, and one more, I think where it is
feasible to show that a user has re-registerd under a different alias
her/his prior reputation should follow them.

Rgds
Richard

Actually, I happen to think that this is extremely bad advice, unless
you want a Good Old Boy's club designed to SPAM the novices out of
their money with the same old, tired, and WRONG recommendations.

The USA is a Republic for good reason.  :)