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.
