It's just getting too busy to put everything into one 'Crawling, indexing and ranking' board. The s:n ration is getting far to high to cope with. Some of the questions very often don't relate to real problems at all.
If people know my posting history here they probably know I'm happy to help people, so I hope this doesn't come across negatively. But if something isn't done soon success will be the downfall of this place.
> It's just getting too busy to put everything into one 'Crawling, > indexing and ranking' board. The s:n ration is getting far to high to > cope with. Some of the questions very often don't relate to real > problems at all.
> If people know my posting history here they probably know I'm happy to > help people, so I hope this doesn't come across negatively. But if > something isn't done soon success will be the downfall of this place.
I do agree though, it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff at times.
I don't know what I would suggest though to deal with it other than a "Wrong forum/group" bin into which all incorrectly sited posts/threads get tossed but that's not such a good solution either. :-(
I try hard every time to not become one of the forum jack*$$es that always treat the noobies with "did you search for it, its been covered before" Though I must admit that I have when not 3 posts earlier the same question was asked and answered.
We've had some pretty long threads on improving the format and it doesn't go anywhere so I'm just resigned to the fact that it is what it is.
> I do agree though, it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff at > times.
> I don't know what I would suggest though to deal with it other than a > "Wrong forum/group" bin into which all incorrectly sited posts/threads > get tossed but that's not such a good solution either. :-(
I suggest we open up a sub-forum for "pagerank", "link:-query", "site:- query" and "my site disappeared and I didn't do anything other than the obvious black-hat tricks that everyone else is using".
Then we could concentrate on the remaining 10 posts/day. :-)
Darn, we need a giant FAQ here. Anyone want to join up and set one up together? Perhaps we can set up a wiki with posting only by "moderators"? I would even love to put Ricks pagerank-is-broken posts in it, he's got a point there somehow and I think it is important to keep critical voices in the FAQ as well. (it doesn't help anyone to just publish how "it should be" instead of "how it appears to be to the webmaster" :-)) Anyone up to it?
> Darn, we need a giant FAQ here. Anyone want to join up and set one up > together? Perhaps we can set up a wiki with posting only by > "moderators"? I would even love to put Ricks pagerank-is-broken posts > in it, he's got a point there somehow and I think it is important to > keep critical voices in the FAQ as well. (it doesn't help anyone to > just publish how "it should be" instead of "how it appears to be to > the webmaster" :-)) Anyone up to it?
This would be great John, I'm on it, if it is OK :)
I was thinking... (please all, do not panic) There are a lot of postings about hacked sites and sites taking over content of other sites by 302 redirects or by copy and paste or slurping, or linking of images, etc. I think this is quite serious and would need a separate category.
> I suggest we open up a sub-forum for "pagerank", "link:-query", "site:- > query" and "my site disappeared and I didn't do anything other than > the obvious black-hat tricks that everyone else is using".
> Then we could concentrate on the remaining 10 posts/day. :-)
> Darn, we need a giant FAQ here. Anyone want to join up and set one up > together? Perhaps we can set up a wiki with posting only by > "moderators"? I would even love to put Ricks pagerank-is-broken posts > in it, he's got a point there somehow and I think it is important to > keep critical voices in the FAQ as well. (it doesn't help anyone to > just publish how "it should be" instead of "how it appears to be to > the webmaster" :-)) Anyone up to it?
> I was thinking... (please all, do not panic) > There are a lot of postings about > hacked sites > and sites taking over content of other sites > by 302 redirects or by copy and paste > or slurping, or linking of images, etc. > I think this is quite serious and would need a separate category.
Cristina, that is something that is going to be even more of a problem in the future. And even without it escalating, you do not want to know how many sites are currently hacked and do not even know it. It's scary.
Providing a good search facility is way better than categorizing. Especially in a world where so many topics tagged differently are indeed closely related.
> On Mar 7, 10:17 am, cristina wrote:> I was thinking... (please all, do not panic) > > There are a lot of postings about > > hacked sites > > and sites taking over content of other sites > > by 302 redirects or by copy and paste > > or slurping, or linking of images, etc. > > I think this is quite serious and would need a separate category.
> Cristina, that is something that is going to be even more of a problem > in the future. And even without it escalating, you do not want to know > how many sites are currently hacked and do not even know it. It's > scary.
The real issue here is that Google is the only one that can implement change on this site. The changes need to occur here IMO - setting up another site would be a fantastical gesture, but it wouldn't change what happens here as much as making the required changes to the group.
I haven't had much time to post over here the last wee while, but when I came along yesterday and saw some of the threads it just made me think meh.
Dear Google please make it easier for us to make it easier for others :)
> I suggest we open up a sub-forum for "pagerank", "link:-query", "site:- > query" and "my site disappeared and I didn't do anything other than > the obvious black-hat tricks that everyone else is using".
> Then we could concentrate on the remaining 10 posts/day. :-)
> Darn, we need a giant FAQ here. Anyone want to join up and set one up > together? Perhaps we can set up a wiki with posting only by > "moderators"? I would even love to put Ricks pagerank-is-broken posts > in it, he's got a point there somehow and I think it is important to > keep critical voices in the FAQ as well. (it doesn't help anyone to > just publish how "it should be" instead of "how it appears to be to > the webmaster" :-)) Anyone up to it?
I've got some fear of abandonment going on with the group right now, sad because there is a ton of information here, just not organized in any form that's useful. Oh I know that if you search you can find it, but if people actually did that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I learned a long time ago in sales/marketing you don't give people what they need but what they want. All you need is a search box, however people want to be able to browse through a clickable site structure.
Not sure where to go with this but you would think that there would be a business benefit for google to help get the message out clearer to webmasters, it only helps the index as a whole, which is the heart of their business model.
> The real issue here is that Google is the only one that can implement > change on this site. The changes need to occur here IMO - setting up > another site would be a fantastical gesture, but it wouldn't change > what happens here as much as making the required changes to the group.
> I haven't had much time to post over here the last wee while, but when > I came along yesterday and saw some of the threads it just made me > think meh.
> Dear Google please make it easier for us to make it easier for > others :)
> Everyone wins and the kids are happy.
> Rgds > Richard
> On Mar 7, 8:58 am, softplus wrote:
> > I suggest we open up a sub-forum for "pagerank", "link:-query", "site:- > > query" and "my site disappeared and I didn't do anything other than > > the obvious black-hat tricks that everyone else is using".
> > Then we could concentrate on the remaining 10 posts/day. :-)
> > Darn, we need a giant FAQ here. Anyone want to join up and set one up > > together? Perhaps we can set up a wiki with posting only by > > "moderators"? I would even love to put Ricks pagerank-is-broken posts > > in it, he's got a point there somehow and I think it is important to > > keep critical voices in the FAQ as well. (it doesn't help anyone to > > just publish how "it should be" instead of "how it appears to be to > > the webmaster" :-)) Anyone up to it?
I think the problem is going to get bigger and bigger over time -- this is the only "official" Google forum and it is promoted through so many of the Google services. That will constantly bring "newbies" to the forums who will automatically ask the same questions over and over again. As soon as the newbie's grow it would be nice to keep them onboard as "answerers", but I think the logical progression is to move to one of the other large forums where the medium to high level webmasters hang out.
Over time that leaves the hard core group who for some reason or other wants to hang out here and answer questions and a gigantic influx of newbies who keep asking the same questions over and over again (hey, that's what a forum is for).
Look at the main forum here - the main page overflows almost every 2-3 hours. It is almost impossible to keep up and even to just browse the threads to find hard questions that might get lost. Splitting it into subforums would be a good idea to keep topics together -- not just for those browsing/helping but also for those asking.
My idea about the FAQ site is something I've been thinking about for a while now, but it's something that I think needs to be done right - otherwise it's just yet another one of those self-proclaimed SEO expert sites. I think it would be great to funnel the know-how here in the groups and put it into a community site especially for this group. I think it is important that a site like that is "community-owned" and not at the mercy of any one person (though in practice it would have to have a "final decision" and owner). As much as I like your Sitemaps- FAQ, Sebastian (just to single someone out who I know can bite back if needed :-)), I think it could be seen as another SEO-ego-site (though I know this is not the case, but what would the average webmaster think?). I really believe it would have to be obviously community driven and should include contrary opinions alongside the facts as they are known (if any :-)). I am not certain if a site like that would be better off being run by Google or just being "endorsed" by Google (or even being sponsored to a part by Google).
What do you think?
One reason I would love a site like that is that it might be possible to answer all those duplicate questions with a simple link - and it would quickly be possible for relatively new users to do the same: "oh here comes another 'when is my pr going to change' question: see FAQ1292". Not would new users be able to help even newer users, but the advice could be relatively consistent (hopefully) and it could help fight those false-truths that are so abundant in SEO. Then there's the factor that the experienced users could quickly recognize questions that were not yet answered (no links to the FAQ) - they could concentrate on those questions and work out a response (instead of having to explain PR yet again). And of course there's the big "G- factor" in the back: questions that are not even fully answered by the experienced users could point to real problems that need to be pushed to the engineers. Or perhaps the experienced users could get a "signal" that they could set to let the Googler's home in on tough questions or possible bugs / problems.
It would be great if the Groups-interface could help with that, but I doubt that we have a chance of getting changes in that regards. I would love to have a flag that the original-poster could set to signal that the answer was "ok, question resolved". Perhaps even a way for experienced users to "bury" a question that is obviously a duplicate (after answering with a FAQ link). Oh and while they're at it, give me 24 extra hours a day :-)).
What do you all think? Would it make sense to work on a FAQ-site like that? Should it be connected to Google somehow? Should it be run by Google? Should it not have any connections to Google at all (ie no direct endorsement in these groups)? Should it be community-run? Open for all or only for the "proven" posters?
I for one would love to help set something like this up and I would certainly do some sort of sponsoring to cover the hosting and such. To me if it could help me to concentrate on "harder" postings here (instead of having to weed through all the small things - and having to see small issues get lost in the mass of threads...) it would be worth it. I think if we put a good plan together, we can probably count on Google helping us (and I just know that sooner or later Google employees will be helping there).
Agreed completely, but and the big BUT as you mention, anything not on a google.com domain or with a little blue G in it is just more SEO Fodder which we all have 500 links to in our bookmarks.
For instance, webmasterworld is great for technical coding issues but worthless as tits on a bull for specific site problems as they don't allow mentioning a site specifically, digital point allows free conversation but is full and I mean full of people that just give out real bad information.
Could 10 people get together and build the best most accurate authoritative Google SEO forum/wiki/blog available yet? I'm sure we could, but once its moved off of google.com and Vanessa doesn't step in every once and a while to set things straight it's just another self annointed authority, as you clearly said but I seemingly felt the need to reiterate.
So what am I saying other than nothing? If you want to start something, count me in as a contributer, heck if for no other reason that we could all add our adsense code and make $0.38 a month on our own posts. Or if Adam wants to set up a subdomain for us at webmasters.google.com and email me the ftp details I'll have the wiki up and running by tonight.
Oh, and there should be beer, anything is better with beer.
> I think the problem is going to get bigger and bigger over time -- > this is the only "official" Google forum and it is promoted through so > many of the Google services. That will constantly bring "newbies" to > the forums who will automatically ask the same questions over and over > again. As soon as the newbie's grow it would be nice to keep them > onboard as "answerers", but I think the logical progression is to move > to one of the other large forums where the medium to high level > webmasters hang out.
> Over time that leaves the hard core group who for some reason or other > wants to hang out here and answer questions and a gigantic influx of > newbies who keep asking the same questions over and over again (hey, > that's what a forum is for).
> Look at the main forum here - the main page overflows almost every 2-3 > hours. It is almost impossible to keep up and even to just browse the > threads to find hard questions that might get lost. Splitting it into > subforums would be a good idea to keep topics together -- not just for > those browsing/helping but also for those asking.
> My idea about the FAQ site is something I've been thinking about for a > while now, but it's something that I think needs to be done right - > otherwise it's just yet another one of those self-proclaimed SEO > expert sites. I think it would be great to funnel the know-how here in > the groups and put it into a community site especially for this group. > I think it is important that a site like that is "community-owned" and > not at the mercy of any one person (though in practice it would have > to have a "final decision" and owner). As much as I like your Sitemaps- > FAQ, Sebastian (just to single someone out who I know can bite back if > needed :-)), I think it could be seen as another SEO-ego-site (though > I know this is not the case, but what would the average webmaster > think?). I really believe it would have to be obviously community > driven and should include contrary opinions alongside the facts as > they are known (if any :-)). I am not certain if a site like that > would be better off being run by Google or just being "endorsed" by > Google (or even being sponsored to a part by Google).
> What do you think?
> One reason I would love a site like that is that it might be possible > to answer all those duplicate questions with a simple link - and it > would quickly be possible for relatively new users to do the same: "oh > here comes another 'when is my pr going to change' question: see > FAQ1292". Not would new users be able to help even newer users, but > the advice could be relatively consistent (hopefully) and it could > help fight those false-truths that are so abundant in SEO. Then > there's the factor that the experienced users could quickly recognize > questions that were not yet answered (no links to the FAQ) - they > could concentrate on those questions and work out a response (instead > of having to explain PR yet again). And of course there's the big "G- > factor" in the back: questions that are not even fully answered by the > experienced users could point to real problems that need to be pushed > to the engineers. Or perhaps the experienced users could get a > "signal" that they could set to let the Googler's home in on tough > questions or possible bugs / problems.
> It would be great if the Groups-interface could help with that, but I > doubt that we have a chance of getting changes in that regards. I > would love to have a flag that the original-poster could set to signal > that the answer was "ok, question resolved". Perhaps even a way for > experienced users to "bury" a question that is obviously a duplicate > (after answering with a FAQ link). Oh and while they're at it, give me > 24 extra hours a day :-)).
> What do you all think? Would it make sense to work on a FAQ-site like > that? Should it be connected to Google somehow? Should it be run by > Google? Should it not have any connections to Google at all (ie no > direct endorsement in these groups)? Should it be community-run? Open > for all or only for the "proven" posters?
> I for one would love to help set something like this up and I would > certainly do some sort of sponsoring to cover the hosting and such. > To me if it could help me to concentrate on "harder" postings here > (instead of having to weed through all the small things - and having > to see small issues get lost in the mass of threads...) it would be > worth it. I think if we put a good plan together, we can probably > count on Google helping us (and I just know that sooner or later > Google employees will be helping there).
I guess that's the big question - how Google-tied should it be?
It could be:
1. Google-owned (on google.com), Google-run (based on our feedback). Oh wait, they already have that :-)
2. Google-owned (on google.com), community-filled Would that be like here, free-for-all with the occasional "G" comment? Would that be any different?
3. Google-owned (on google.com), "expert"-filled Perhaps in a Google-Answers style, with verified experts (based on our posts here? verified by Google-employees?) being the ones that fill out the information. How far do the experts have to be on Google's side always? (I like critical voices as well)
7. External, non-Google-supported, community-filled Has anyone else ever tried experts-exchange? It works fairly well actually (at least it did when I was there; not because of me of course)
Personally, I would prefer the verified expert-style over free-for-all editing/posting but that might move the bias to the people who chose the experts. My gut-feeling says that "Google-supported" would be better than "Google-owned", especially since Google would likely not want to invest into creating an exclusive platform that would not be re-usable millions of times (or could we build on top of something existing?).
I wouldn't worry too much about Adsense, I don't think the users would be the kind to click on lots of ads (I can't get much out of SEO-type users) - but revenue sharing is definitely a requirement (imho). I still think it should be added here as well, but have no smart idea as to how it should be split up. (How does 50/50 sound, JLH? :-))
> 1. Google-owned (on google.com), Google-run (based on our feedback). > Oh wait, they already have that :-)
Only just.
> 2. Google-owned (on google.com), community-filled > Would that be like here, free-for-all with the occasional "G" comment? > Would that be any different?
No
> 3. Google-owned (on google.com), "expert"-filled > Perhaps in a Google-Answers style, with verified experts (based on our > posts here? verified by Google-employees?) being the ones that fill > out the information. How far do the experts have to be on Google's > side always? (I like critical voices as well)
Too risky for Google. Requires human intervention on their part.
> > 1. Google-owned (on google.com), Google-run (based on our feedback). > > Oh wait, they already have that :-)
> Only just.
> > 2. Google-owned (on google.com), community-filled > > Would that be like here, free-for-all with the occasional "G" comment? > > Would that be any different?
> No
> > 3. Google-owned (on google.com), "expert"-filled > > Perhaps in a Google-Answers style, with verified experts (based on our > > posts here? verified by Google-employees?) being the ones that fill > > out the information. How far do the experts have to be on Google's > > side always? (I like critical voices as well)
> Too risky for Google. Requires human intervention on their part.
> We've got lots of carrots, but where's the stick?
> On Mar 7, 4:33 pm, Red Cardinal wrote:
> > > 1. Google-owned (on google.com), Google-run (based on our feedback). > > > Oh wait, they already have that :-)
> > Only just.
> > > 2. Google-owned (on google.com), community-filled > > > Would that be like here, free-for-all with the occasional "G" comment? > > > Would that be any different?
> > No
> > > 3. Google-owned (on google.com), "expert"-filled > > > Perhaps in a Google-Answers style, with verified experts (based on our > > > posts here? verified by Google-employees?) being the ones that fill > > > out the information. How far do the experts have to be on Google's > > > side always? (I like critical voices as well)
> > Too risky for Google. Requires human intervention on their part.
Sebastian is right as always. I also think that categorizing is not so easy to do, and not always useful.
Sometime ago it was a thread in which the author of the original posting wrote something like thank you guys, it is good to know you are there (or something like that). If one is logged on and one sees a question one can answer, then why not?
How about something like that specific to the common questions here? I really like the way they have the tips interlinked and tagged. great idea! (I just don't understand how they plan on keeping everything running for free, without ads :-)).
Reading your replies and ideas I guess I should refine my short statement:
> Providing a good search facility is way better than categorizing. > Especially in a world where so many topics tagged differently are > indeed closely related.
We're dealing with a cpl. of reasons why posters, esp. first time posters, seldom articulate their pains accurately and never seem to search for existing answers before they create a new thread: - the number of redundant and off-topic questions is overwhelming - localizing the few signals buried under shitloads of noise is a tough task, even for regulars - expressing a problem can be done in sooo many ways, in most cases a new poster will not identify her/his actual problem by reading obscure thread titles which indeed cover it - the search terms a non-savvy questioner uses are not suitable to find answers because they don't match the vocabulary and wording of professional replies, actually they lead to helpless posts - most folks are not able to analyze their problem because they have no clue how a search engine works or what web development is all about, hence their questions have, at first sight, nothing to do with their problems and we have to ask for the most basic info (e.g. URLs) - many questioners write in a foreign language - everybody believes her/his situation is absolutely unique, abstract thinking in models and patterns is pretty uncommon - ...
Next when a poster got a reply in many cases the answer is plain false, misleading, speculative, or just more noise. Folks coming here for help expect answers and take what they get as serious help, actually they've no chance to identify our trolls and clueless clowns, so they say thanks and implement nonsense based on crappy advice. As long as BS is not tagged as BS and ass clowns with 25 accounts can rate their shabby posts with 5 stars the frustration curve will rise. At the moment there is nobody able to stop intended as well as unintended bafflements. The assets of this forums are Googlers stepping in, but they can't handle every post for various reasons. Although Google states "we've not enough time to answer particular questions" that's IMO not the whole story. Goggle could easily afford the human resources. The problem is that answering every question or correcting every provoking or speculative post would give spammers way too much ammo at hand. If we want Google to keep the flag flying with delivering accurate and relevant search results we can't ask for exhaustive moderation and particpation.
But we can nag for more of Google's core competence here in the Google Groups, that's search. Search can be more than entering a keyword in a form field to get a more or less relevant set of results on submit. FAQish search starts with a request for clicks on drill-down options. Articulating and refining a question by clicking on cascading radio- set buttons or check-boxes labeled in plain english (and translated in other languages) is way easier than doing a search against a database populated with more noise than signal. The answers would be pulled from Google's help system, not from GG posts, until narrowing down the question reveals that the help system has no adequate answer, or the questioner decides that s/he wants unbiased answers/opinions. Look at the "post your question" function, the search results at the right are a good start - unfortunately they give the thread title too much weight. I think a combination of this feature and a well thought out drill-down mechanism could considerably reduce the noise.
I doubt Google will support a 3rd party initiative. Although any off- site construct may be helpful for webmasters, if it's too much 3rd party driven where is the point for Google? We've tons of SEO forums and whatever already, and this group. 99.99% of all posters want a Google resource. Why not make it better and more useful? Maybe Google asks us for help or input at least, that'll be fun ;)
> Providing a good search facility is way better than categorizing. > Especially in a world where so many topics tagged differently are > indeed closely related.
> > On Mar 7, 10:17 am, cristina wrote:> I was thinking... (please all, do not panic) > > > There are a lot of postings about > > > hacked sites > > > and sites taking over content of other sites > > > by 302 redirects or by copy and paste > > > or slurping, or linking of images, etc. > > > I think this is quite serious and would need a separate category.
> > Cristina, that is something that is going to be even more of a problem > > in the future. And even without it escalating, you do not want to know > > how many sites are currently hacked and do not even know it. It's > > scary.
> How about something like that specific to the common questions here? I > really like the way they have the tips interlinked and tagged. great > idea! (I just don't understand how they plan on keeping everything > running for free, without ads :-)).
"identify our trolls and clueless clowns" ~ Hey, I resemble that remark!
Agreed, of course. The google connection is sizzle in this steak and removing that and we've got just another steak. We've asked for changes numerous times to the interface and haven't really seen any positive feedback, but hey its still worth a try. That little light blue start at the top of threads, which adds a complete thread to the favorites could be used better. We need a system where actual good and right answers are easily tagged and saved for future referel, beyond me cuting and pasting something in my bookmarks telling the 900th person how to get sitelinks.
Perhaps some tiers to the thread watch star would work. Joe-average (us) could star it as a helpful answer, tie the answer with the original question somehow with a related star. Also have a NOT HELPFUL answer star. At the end of the day/month/eon Googlers can add their own stamp of approval to the helpful stamped posts. Make their job be a positive affirmation of the consensus of the group. They don't have to moderate or add an opinion to the negative stars, nor even affirm all of the positive ones, just the ones that are correct and fit withing their guidelines of information given out to the general public.
For example, Adams long post on what supplementals are should be starred as being accurate, and perhaps a follow up or two. Even though someone may star their own or their buddies post saying that using capital letters in your H2 tags causes supplemental results, that of course wouldn't make the cut and would just fall to the floor with the other chaff.
Now promenently displayed at the top of the forum would be a GOOGLER ENDORSED FAQ sticky that loads up all of the starred posts. At least then we've got something to point the simple often asked questions and can get to the meat of the story.
Granted as Sebastian said the average noob doesn't read FAQ or search or do anything but post, "my site has been dropped from google is it broke?" But I think you'll find that if they are even ignored they'll come back to check for a response and perhaps muster up a little ingenuity and look for an answer, which in the current system requires a technical knowledge that they just don't have. Someone may have the idea that having the dub-dub-dub version and the non-dub-dub-dub version is bad so they come here looking for answers, they are not going to search for 301 redirect or conicalization, they are going to search for WWW which should return about 500,000 results.
So stick that ENDORSED asked/answered questions thing at the top and go get yourself a copy of FRONTPAGE98 and make it a flashing, scrolling, and blinking banner and we are off to the races.
> Reading your replies and ideas I guess I should refine my short > statement:
> > Providing a good search facility is way better than categorizing. > > Especially in a world where so many topics tagged differently are > > indeed closely related.
> We're dealing with a cpl. of reasons why posters, esp. first time > posters, seldom articulate their pains accurately and never seem to > search for existing answers before they create a new thread: > - the number of redundant and off-topic questions is overwhelming > - localizing the few signals buried under shitloads of noise is a > tough task, even for regulars > - expressing a problem can be done in sooo many ways, in most cases a > new poster will not identify her/his actual problem by reading obscure > thread titles which indeed cover it > - the search terms a non-savvy questioner uses are not suitable to > find answers because they don't match the vocabulary and wording of > professional replies, actually they lead to helpless posts > - most folks are not able to analyze their problem because they have > no clue how a search engine works or what web development is all > about, hence their questions have, at first sight, nothing to do with > their problems and we have to ask for the most basic info (e.g. URLs) > - many questioners write in a foreign language > - everybody believes her/his situation is absolutely unique, abstract > thinking in models and patterns is pretty uncommon > - ...
> Next when a poster got a reply in many cases the answer is plain > false, misleading, speculative, or just more noise. Folks coming here > for help expect answers and take what they get as serious help, > actually they've no chance to identify our trolls and clueless clowns, > so they say thanks and implement nonsense based on crappy advice. As > long as BS is not tagged as BS and ass clowns with 25 accounts can > rate their shabby posts with 5 stars the frustration curve will rise. > At the moment there is nobody able to stop intended as well as > unintended bafflements. The assets of this forums are Googlers > stepping in, but they can't handle every post for various reasons. > Although Google states "we've not enough time to answer particular > questions" that's IMO not the whole story. Goggle could easily afford > the human resources. The problem is that answering every question or > correcting every provoking or speculative post would give spammers way > too much ammo at hand. If we want Google to keep the flag flying with > delivering accurate and relevant search results we can't ask for > exhaustive moderation and particpation.
> But we can nag for more of Google's core competence here in the Google > Groups, that's search. Search can be more than entering a keyword in a > form field to get a more or less relevant set of results on submit. > FAQish search starts with a request for clicks on drill-down options. > Articulating and refining a question by clicking on cascading radio- > set buttons or check-boxes labeled in plain english (and translated in > other languages) is way easier than doing a search against a database > populated with more noise than signal. The answers would be pulled > from Google's help system, not from GG posts, until narrowing down the > question reveals that the help system has no adequate answer, or the > questioner decides that s/he wants unbiased answers/opinions. Look at > the "post your question" function, the search results at the right are > a good start - unfortunately they give the thread title too much > weight. I think a combination of this feature and a well thought out > drill-down mechanism could considerably reduce the noise.
> I doubt Google will support a 3rd party initiative. Although any off- > site construct may be helpful for webmasters, if it's too much 3rd > party driven where is the point for Google? We've tons of SEO forums > and whatever already, and this group. 99.99% of all posters want a > Google resource. Why not make it better and more useful? Maybe Google > asks us for help or input at least, that'll be fun ;)
> Sebastian
> On Mar 7, 12:50 pm, Sebastian wrote:
> > Providing a good search facility is way better than categorizing. > > Especially in a world where so many topics tagged differently are > > indeed closely related.
> > > On Mar 7, 10:17 am, cristina wrote:> I was thinking... (please all, do not panic) > > > > There are a lot of postings about > > > > hacked sites > > > > and sites taking over content of other sites > > > > by 302 redirects or by copy and paste > > > > or slurping, or linking of images, etc. > > > > I think this is quite serious and would need a separate category.
> > > Cristina, that is something that is going to be even more of a problem > > > in the future. And even without it escalating, you do not want to know > > > how many sites are currently hacked and do not even know it. It's > > > scary.
There are a few questions that are repetitive, like the confusion between the sitemap and the mini-list of links in the SERP for a major site, or the results for a link: search, but other questions can be answered only after the specific URL is known.
I think the list of main features appearing in answers of general help to most sites is not very large: - the canonical URLs issue - set up HTTP response 404 (Not Found) for non-existent URLs (if possible) - good inbound links with relevant anchor text - no link farms - good content - no hidden content - good robots.txt file - frames redirection sites do not work with Google Webmaster Tools - JavaScript navigation - not very good - content written by JavaScript - not good - what is the supplemental index?
I think it would be good to get this list right, what do you all think?
> Reading your replies and ideas I guess I should refine my short > statement:
> > Providing a good search facility is way better than categorizing. > > Especially in a world where so many topics tagged differently are > > indeed closely related.
> We're dealing with a cpl. of reasons why posters, esp. first time > posters, seldom articulate their pains accurately and never seem to > search for existing answers before they create a new thread: > - the number of redundant and off-topic questions is overwhelming > - localizing the few signals buried under shitloads of noise is a > tough task, even for regulars > - expressing a problem can be done in sooo many ways, in most cases a > new poster will not identify her/his actual problem by reading obscure > thread titles which indeed cover it > - the search terms a non-savvy questioner uses are not suitable to > find answers because they don't match the vocabulary and wording of > professional replies, actually they lead to helpless posts > - most folks are not able to analyze their problem because they have > no clue how a search engine works or what web development is all > about, hence their questions have, at first sight, nothing to do with > their problems and we have to ask for the most basic info (e.g. URLs) > - many questioners write in a foreign language > - everybody believes her/his situation is absolutely unique, abstract > thinking in models and patterns is pretty uncommon > - ...
> Next when a poster got a reply in many cases the answer is plain > false, misleading, speculative, or just more noise. Folks coming here > for help expect answers and take what they get as serious help, > actually they've no chance to identify our trolls and clueless clowns, > so they say thanks and implement nonsense based on crappy advice. As > long as BS is not tagged as BS and ass clowns with 25 accounts can > rate their shabby posts with 5 stars the frustration curve will rise. > At the moment there is nobody able to stop intended as well as > unintended bafflements. The assets of this forums are Googlers > stepping in, but they can't handle every post for various reasons. > Although Google states "we've not enough time to answer particular > questions" that's IMO not the whole story. Goggle could easily afford > the human resources. The problem is that answering every question or > correcting every provoking or speculative post would give spammers way > too much ammo at hand. If we want Google to keep the flag flying with > delivering accurate and relevant search results we can't ask for > exhaustive moderation and particpation.
> But we can nag for more of Google's core competence here in the Google > Groups, that's search. Search can be more than entering a keyword in a > form field to get a more or less relevant set of results on submit. > FAQish search starts with a request for clicks on drill-down options. > Articulating and refining a question by clicking on cascading radio- > set buttons or check-boxes labeled in plain english (and translated in > other languages) is way easier than doing a search against a database > populated with more noise than signal. The answers would be pulled > from Google's help system, not from GG posts, until narrowing down the > question reveals that the help system has no adequate answer, or the > questioner decides that s/he wants unbiased answers/opinions. Look at > the "post your question" function, the search results at the right are > a good start - unfortunately they give the thread title too much > weight. I think a combination of this feature and a well thought out > drill-down mechanism could considerably reduce the noise.
> I doubt Google will support a 3rd party initiative. Although any off- > site construct may be helpful for webmasters, if it's too much 3rd > party driven where is the point for Google? We've tons of SEO forums > and whatever already, and this group. 99.99% of all posters want a > Google resource. Why not make it better and more useful? Maybe Google > asks us for help or input at least, that'll be fun ;)
