Okay - this is aimed at Google.
[ To clarify, that means it is Not aimed at the Google Team - just the
"corporate Identity" ... make sense? ]
Okay - it seems to have happened again.
Another occasion when something has happened (polite for "gone wrong")
- and someone from Google has gone to some site (SEO community/source-
point etc.) ... and talked to the folks there.
Thats good.
Thats understandable.
Thats even smart (can't believe I'm complimenting the G-Corp).
Information Syndication is an important thing.
...BUT...
Why are you not putting it on the Google Blog?
Why is it not Pinned as a topic here?
Why does it not put an alert message in the GWMT?
Seriously people, find the person who makes these sort of
decisions .. .and loosen that persons tie - it's obviously causing
some sort of blood/oxygen deficiency.
You have a Blog ... Use It.
It is unbelievable daft that you have to go and post to such places to
get the news out.
Surely such sources/sites should be signing up to info from the Google
Blog!
Then discussing it.
Then inviting/asking for ,ore information.
.
[ end of whinging post ]
[ NOTE: If there was a posting about this occurrence - please ignore
this post, and point me to it ;) Thank you ]
[ Support Request -:- If you think it would be "nice" for Google to
announce things at Google places before elsewhere, please feel free to
put your name down and/or comment - and if you are a GT, and think you
could get away with it, that would be nice too :D ]
> Okay - this is aimed at Google.
> [ To clarify, that means it is Not aimed at the Google Team - just the
> "corporate Identity" ... make sense? ]
> Okay - it seems to have happened again.
> Another occasion when something has happened (polite for "gone wrong")
> - and someone from Google has gone to some site (SEO community/source-
> point etc.) ... and talked to the folks there.
> Thats good.
> Thats understandable.
> Thats even smart (can't believe I'm complimenting the G-Corp).
> Information Syndication is an important thing.
> ...BUT...
> Why are you not putting it on the Google Blog?
> Why is it not Pinned as a topic here?
> Why does it not put an alert message in the GWMT?
> Seriously people, find the person who makes these sort of
> decisions .. .and loosen that persons tie - it's obviously causing
> some sort of blood/oxygen deficiency.
> You have a Blog ... Use It.
> It is unbelievable daft that you have to go and post to such places to
> get the news out.
> Surely such sources/sites should be signing up to info from the Google
> Blog!
> Then discussing it.
> Then inviting/asking for ,ore information.
> .
> [ end of whinging post ]
> [ NOTE: If there was a posting about this occurrence - please ignore
> this post, and point me to it ;) Thank you ]
I must confess I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to... ?
If you could point me in the right direction I might be able to give
you a more useful response...
Sorry - instead of "blowing steam" ... I'll try "constructive".
There are times when there are "problems".
Things like the recent upset in teh SERPs - which was apparently
caused by something like a bad batch of data or incorrectly added
data...
Things like Google not wanting to index files ending in 0
That - is treated differently to _
etc. etc. etc.
These problems are not dealt with Here, nor in the Blog.
Instead, it seems that places like Moz, RoundTable, SEWatch etc... get
a visit and a chat/post/call about it.
It's then down to those that "know" they have to look for issues to go
around all those sites/communities and find that there is a problem.
Why?
You have a perfectly good system here to make such announcements.
It's centralised.
It's associated.
It's public.
It's logical.
Surely it makes more sense that when there is an issue that comes to
light - that it shoudl be announce on something @ Google, and not
passed on to some community somewhere, and wait for hte rest of the
world to stumble upon it.
Sure - have the chats/calls/interviews whatever - after the
announcement.
Why not provide a Feed for it?
A special part of the Google Blog?
A new Group just for that sort of thing?
.
There - does that make a little more sense?
Not having a go at the G Team - just strikes some of us as a little
backwards.
> I must confess I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to... ?
> If you could point me in the right direction I might be able to give
> you a more useful response...
> There are times when there are "problems".
> Things like the recent upset in teh SERPs - which was apparently
> caused by something like a bad batch of data or incorrectly added
> data...
> Things like Google not wanting to index files ending in 0
> That - is treated differently to _
> etc. etc. etc.
> These problems are not dealt with Here, nor in the Blog.
> Instead, it seems that places like Moz, RoundTable, SEWatch etc... get
> a visit and a chat/post/call about it.
> It's then down to those that "know" they have to look for issues to go
> around all those sites/communities and find that there is a problem.
> Why?
> You have a perfectly good system here to make such announcements.
> It's centralised.
> It's associated.
> It's public.
> It's logical.
> Surely it makes more sense that when there is an issue that comes to
> light - that it shoudl be announce on something @ Google, and not
> passed on to some community somewhere, and wait for hte rest of the
> world to stumble upon it.
> Sure - have the chats/calls/interviews whatever - after the
> announcement.
> Why not provide a Feed for it?
> A special part of the Google Blog?
> A new Group just for that sort of thing?
> .
> There - does that make a little more sense?
> Not having a go at the G Team - just strikes some of us as a little
> backwards.
> On Nov 5, 7:50 pm, Susan Moskwa wrote:
> > I must confess I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to... ?
> > If you could point me in the right direction I might be able to give
> > you a more useful response...
I think to some extent you're bringing up a valid point in that we
could definitely do more to communicate quirks. One the other hand,
I've seen how many of these things are completely blown out of
proportion by people who are not really affected. What would it help
the general webmaster public that (just making this up) "we had a
glitch on datacenter XYZ, resulting in some sites being ranked
differently"? Would that information help them? or would it just worry
them more? To me, bringing all of that information out into a
centralized location would possibly not make much sense to the average
webmaster, it would confuse them and leave them wondering if they need
to change anything.
One issue which I suppose you're hinting at is the comment left by
Matt Cutts on Webmaster World recently: http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/018599.html (be direct next time, it's much easier to follow :-)). The comment
left by Matt was "I think this was a short-term issue and things
should be back to normal pretty soon (if not already)." The issue was
something that came up on the weekend and as far as I know did not
really surface here. To me, it's fine to leave it at that. There's
nothing vital missing by not reporting it in a central location.
Rankings change all the time. Interacting with the people who brought
the issue up is in my opinion a good thing. Is this something you all
would like listed here? What would it help you with?
The other issue you mention is the ".0" file name issue that came up
in June: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/dont-end-your-urls-with-exe/ Again, this is something that was changed (we do index URLs with ".0")
because of a report we saw. I haven't seen any threads here about this
issue and to be honest, I'm not aware of any other site that had
issues with it. How would it help you to know of this change?
At any rate, I think it's important to interact with other sites when
they bring up legitimate issues. The web is larger than our group here
and I'm glad that there are lots places for almost everyone to
interact with people they enjoy interacting with :-). When important
(and relevant for the average webmaster) issues come up, you can be
sure that we'll post about them here too.
So, to sum it up: what kind of announcements are you all really
looking for here?
Thanks for the reply
(feeling more than a little pushy to be honest - but I do think it's
worth pushing a little for ;))
.
Info on any/all "issues" as/when they arrive?
I agree 100% with the idea/point that in some (most?) cases such
occurrences may have little bearing to some (many?) site owners etc.
But there are occasions when such things are influential.
Additionally, having a centralised (and logical) initial outlet for
such information means people can "look" for themselves at the
"root". They don't have to dig it up, scan through numerous sites
etc.
" Want the latest on Google and possibly strange results? - Go look to
Google for the info. "
As to handling the questions/queries of the effect etc.
Where better to state that it will not touch most people, that it
shouldn't have any real negative for the majority etc.?
Who are people more likely to believe, who are people more likely to
pay attention to and what location are people to be more comfortable
accepting it from...
- some poster in some community ?
- someone from Google in some community ?
- someone from Google at Google ?
.
So long as some thought and planning is put into it ... (and it's not
like you lot are short on commonsense or logic, nor lack experience on
information handling and provision!) ... then I'm sure the main issues
of misunderstanding, wild-fire and misinformation can be dealt with
easily enough.
All you need do is make the announcements as and when they occur.
State what has happened, when it happened, how fast you caught onto it
(if relevant!), the possible effect, and the fact that it is not going
to have a major influence, will only touch X types etc.
In one fell swoop you've not only become much more open and direct -
you're also stopping potential "fires" from flaring :D
I'm sure some of the others could throw in even better points/ideas as
well...
:wanders of to find JLH:
> I think to some extent you're bringing up a valid point in that we
> could definitely do more to communicate quirks. One the other hand,
> I've seen how many of these things are completely blown out of
> proportion by people who are not really affected. What would it help
> the general webmaster public that (just making this up) "we had a
> glitch on datacenter XYZ, resulting in some sites being ranked
> differently"? Would that information help them? or would it just worry
> them more? To me, bringing all of that information out into a
> centralized location would possibly not make much sense to the average
> webmaster, it would confuse them and leave them wondering if they need
> to change anything.
> One issue which I suppose you're hinting at is the comment left by
> Matt Cutts on Webmaster World recently:http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/018599.html > (be direct next time, it's much easier to follow :-)). The comment
> left by Matt was "I think this was a short-term issue and things
> should be back to normal pretty soon (if not already)." The issue was
> something that came up on the weekend and as far as I know did not
> really surface here. To me, it's fine to leave it at that. There's
> nothing vital missing by not reporting it in a central location.
> Rankings change all the time. Interacting with the people who brought
> the issue up is in my opinion a good thing. Is this something you all
> would like listed here? What would it help you with?
> The other issue you mention is the ".0" file name issue that came up
> in June:http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/dont-end-your-urls-with-exe/ > Again, this is something that was changed (we do index URLs with ".0")
> because of a report we saw. I haven't seen any threads here about this
> issue and to be honest, I'm not aware of any other site that had
> issues with it. How would it help you to know of this change?
> At any rate, I think it's important to interact with other sites when
> they bring up legitimate issues. The web is larger than our group here
> and I'm glad that there are lots places for almost everyone to
> interact with people they enjoy interacting with :-). When important
> (and relevant for the average webmaster) issues come up, you can be
> sure that we'll post about them here too.
> So, to sum it up: what kind of announcements are you all really
> looking for here?
I think it's a good idea in general, however ... we make tons of
changes all the time (I remember something like >450 changes last year
mentioned in some interview). Within those changes, there are always
going to be things that we will decide - upon evaluating the actual
results - to review and perhaps pull back. Apart from the fact that a
lot of these changes are part of our "secret sauce," so we wouldn't be
able to mention these anyway.
The problem I see is that search on a whole is a very, very
complicated process which is not comparable to a generic consumer
product that has "bugs" with "workarounds" and similar elements.
Issues with Webmaster Tools are much easier to handle and keep track
of than anything that might come into play with crawling, indexing,
and ranking. Also, when something does come up in that pipeline
somewhere, we're going to make sure that it's addressed ASAP and not
going to be something that (if it is relevant and impactful) will be
left long enough to merit being mentioned as an open issue.
Perhaps it would help if you could post some examples of issues which
were relevant to many sites but not handled here? Which issues have we
failed to address here that would have made your life easier if we had
done more to document them?
I've fought that fight before; battered, bruised, scarred, and
dejected from it. Nothing I could add that hasn't been said before.
The only thing I can do is be a good steward to the members here and
try to point out pertinent information found on other non-official
portals and share them. You have to remember that not everyone is as
personally invested in the importance of this group as the regular
users (googlers and mortals).
> Thanks for the reply
> (feeling more than a little pushy to be honest - but I do think it's
> worth pushing a little for ;))
> .
> Info on any/all "issues" as/when they arrive?
> I agree 100% with the idea/point that in some (most?) cases such
> occurrences may have little bearing to some (many?) site owners etc.
> But there are occasions when such things are influential.
> Additionally, having a centralised (and logical) initial outlet for
> such information means people can "look" for themselves at the
> "root". They don't have to dig it up, scan through numerous sites
> etc.
> " Want the latest on Google and possibly strange results? - Go look to
> Google for the info. "
> As to handling the questions/queries of the effect etc.
> Where better to state that it will not touch most people, that it
> shouldn't have any real negative for the majority etc.?
> Who are people more likely to believe, who are people more likely to
> pay attention to and what location are people to be more comfortable
> accepting it from...
> - some poster in some community ?
> - someone from Google in some community ?
> - someone from Google at Google ?
> .
> So long as some thought and planning is put into it ... (and it's not
> like you lot are short on commonsense or logic, nor lack experience on
> information handling and provision!) ... then I'm sure the main issues
> of misunderstanding, wild-fire and misinformation can be dealt with
> easily enough.
> All you need do is make the announcements as and when they occur.
> State what has happened, when it happened, how fast you caught onto it
> (if relevant!), the possible effect, and the fact that it is not going
> to have a major influence, will only touch X types etc.
> In one fell swoop you've not only become much more open and direct -
> you're also stopping potential "fires" from flaring :D
> I'm sure some of the others could throw in even better points/ideas as
> well...
> :wanders of to find JLH:
> On Nov 7, 1:47 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > Hi Autocrat
> > I think to some extent you're bringing up a valid point in that we
> > could definitely do more to communicate quirks. One the other hand,
> > I've seen how many of these things are completely blown out of
> > proportion by people who are not really affected. What would it help
> > the general webmaster public that (just making this up) "we had a
> > glitch on datacenter XYZ, resulting in some sites being ranked
> > differently"? Would that information help them? or would it just worry
> > them more? To me, bringing all of that information out into a
> > centralized location would possibly not make much sense to the average
> > webmaster, it would confuse them and leave them wondering if they need
> > to change anything.
> > One issue which I suppose you're hinting at is the comment left by
> > Matt Cutts on Webmaster World recently:http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/018599.html > > (be direct next time, it's much easier to follow :-)). The comment
> > left by Matt was "I think this was a short-term issue and things
> > should be back to normal pretty soon (if not already)." The issue was
> > something that came up on the weekend and as far as I know did not
> > really surface here. To me, it's fine to leave it at that. There's
> > nothing vital missing by not reporting it in a central location.
> > Rankings change all the time. Interacting with the people who brought
> > the issue up is in my opinion a good thing. Is this something you all
> > would like listed here? What would it help you with?
> > The other issue you mention is the ".0" file name issue that came up
> > in June:http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/dont-end-your-urls-with-exe/ > > Again, this is something that was changed (we do index URLs with ".0")
> > because of a report we saw. I haven't seen any threads here about this
> > issue and to be honest, I'm not aware of any other site that had
> > issues with it. How would it help you to know of this change?
> > At any rate, I think it's important to interact with other sites when
> > they bring up legitimate issues. The web is larger than our group here
> > and I'm glad that there are lots places for almost everyone to
> > interact with people they enjoy interacting with :-). When important
> > (and relevant for the average webmaster) issues come up, you can be
> > sure that we'll post about them here too.
> > So, to sum it up: what kind of announcements are you all really
> > looking for here?
...John Mu...
Okay, I'll rephrase to be more definitive/concise/correct...
I'm not suggesting that "every change" to the algorytm be announced
(would be nice though ;)).
But the things that get "mentioned" at places like SEO Moz, SEO Round
Table, SE Watch, WebMasters World etc...
when people like Matt Cuts, Google Guy etc...
drop of some information...
...why is that info not provided in the Google Blog?
Why is it that it's dispersed to other locations, but not shown at
Google?
Things like the - and _ (hyphen/dash and underscore) information ...
why was that not covered here, but elsewhere?
Same goes for the files ending with 0 etc.
Why are these "mentioned" to folk like Rand, but not made as a public
statement on the Webmaster Blog?
Why should folks have to go hunting there and everywhere, instead of
"here" ?
Fair enough - these may not be "earth shattering" nor effecting
millions - but the point stands...
if Google has something to say - why is it not saying it from it's own
platform?
Why not provide the same info that it does to these other "sources" in
it's own location first .. .then point those places/people to it...
then let the discussions begin?
> I've fought that fight before; battered, bruised, scarred, and
> dejected from it. Nothing I could add that hasn't been said before.
> The only thing I can do is be a good steward to the members here and
> try to point out pertinent information found on other non-official
> portals and share them. You have to remember that not everyone is as
> personally invested in the importance of this group as the regular
> users (googlers and mortals).
> On Nov 7, 8:30 am, Autocrat wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply
> > (feeling more than a little pushy to be honest - but I do think it's
> > worth pushing a little for ;))
> > .
> > Info on any/all "issues" as/when they arrive?
> > I agree 100% with the idea/point that in some (most?) cases such
> > occurrences may have little bearing to some (many?) site owners etc.
> > But there are occasions when such things are influential.
> > Additionally, having a centralised (and logical) initial outlet for
> > such information means people can "look" for themselves at the
> > "root". They don't have to dig it up, scan through numerous sites
> > etc.
> > " Want the latest on Google and possibly strange results? - Go look to
> > Google for the info. "
> > As to handling the questions/queries of the effect etc.
> > Where better to state that it will not touch most people, that it
> > shouldn't have any real negative for the majority etc.?
> > Who are people more likely to believe, who are people more likely to
> > pay attention to and what location are people to be more comfortable
> > accepting it from...
> > - some poster in some community ?
> > - someone from Google in some community ?
> > - someone from Google at Google ?
> > .
> > So long as some thought and planning is put into it ... (and it's not
> > like you lot are short on commonsense or logic, nor lack experience on
> > information handling and provision!) ... then I'm sure the main issues
> > of misunderstanding, wild-fire and misinformation can be dealt with
> > easily enough.
> > All you need do is make the announcements as and when they occur.
> > State what has happened, when it happened, how fast you caught onto it
> > (if relevant!), the possible effect, and the fact that it is not going
> > to have a major influence, will only touch X types etc.
> > In one fell swoop you've not only become much more open and direct -
> > you're also stopping potential "fires" from flaring :D
> > I'm sure some of the others could throw in even better points/ideas as
> > well...
> > :wanders of to find JLH:
> > On Nov 7, 1:47 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > > Hi Autocrat
> > > I think to some extent you're bringing up a valid point in that we
> > > could definitely do more to communicate quirks. One the other hand,
> > > I've seen how many of these things are completely blown out of
> > > proportion by people who are not really affected. What would it help
> > > the general webmaster public that (just making this up) "we had a
> > > glitch on datacenter XYZ, resulting in some sites being ranked
> > > differently"? Would that information help them? or would it just worry
> > > them more? To me, bringing all of that information out into a
> > > centralized location would possibly not make much sense to the average
> > > webmaster, it would confuse them and leave them wondering if they need
> > > to change anything.
> > > One issue which I suppose you're hinting at is the comment left by
> > > Matt Cutts on Webmaster World recently:http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/018599.html > > > (be direct next time, it's much easier to follow :-)). The comment
> > > left by Matt was "I think this was a short-term issue and things
> > > should be back to normal pretty soon (if not already)." The issue was
> > > something that came up on the weekend and as far as I know did not
> > > really surface here. To me, it's fine to leave it at that. There's
> > > nothing vital missing by not reporting it in a central location.
> > > Rankings change all the time. Interacting with the people who brought
> > > the issue up is in my opinion a good thing. Is this something you all
> > > would like listed here? What would it help you with?
> > > The other issue you mention is the ".0" file name issue that came up
> > > in June:http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/dont-end-your-urls-with-exe/ > > > Again, this is something that was changed (we do index URLs with ".0")
> > > because of a report we saw. I haven't seen any threads here about this
> > > issue and to be honest, I'm not aware of any other site that had
> > > issues with it. How would it help you to know of this change?
> > > At any rate, I think it's important to interact with other sites when
> > > they bring up legitimate issues. The web is larger than our group here
> > > and I'm glad that there are lots places for almost everyone to
> > > interact with people they enjoy interacting with :-). When important
> > > (and relevant for the average webmaster) issues come up, you can be
> > > sure that we'll post about them here too.
> > > So, to sum it up: what kind of announcements are you all really
> > > looking for here?
Hmmm... I will now speak from personal, embarrassing and painful
experience.
I am usually somebody who will be first to announce: oops, I moofed. I
screwed up, I had this bug. Now I fixed it, don't worry.
.... Naively thinking that honesty at this level is appreciated.
Well it's not, by and large. People start worrying. They get the sense
that there are tons of bugs just waiting to be found and fixed.
At one point I started hearing things such as "she makes a lot of
errors". Note, no mention was being made of me also fixing my own
errors as soon as I discovered them. And this would apply even to bugs
not of my own doing, but which I would be fixing.
And it doesn't matter if it's a small inconsequential bug or big
whopper of a bug.
So now I have to disguise bug fixes under "enhancements". I hate
this, but there you have it. Be honest and have them all look down on
you.
The only other ploy some (successful) people use is passing the
problem to somebody else who can then take the blame for everything
that's gone wrong since the great floods.
So what's this got to do with Google and this thread?
Not much, except possibly some things don't need disclosure to the
general public who may very likely misunderstand the issues and panic,
worry, loose faith, or worse, use such announcements to justify why
their site got clobbered, despite the case not being even close.
> ...John Mu...
> Okay, I'll rephrase to be more definitive/concise/correct...
> I'm not suggesting that "every change" to the algorytm be announced
> (would be nice though ;)).
> But the things that get "mentioned" at places like SEO Moz, SEO Round
> Table, SE Watch, WebMasters World etc...
> when people like Matt Cuts, Google Guy etc...
> drop of some information...
> ...why is that info not provided in the Google Blog?
> Why is it that it's dispersed to other locations, but not shown at
> Google?
> Things like the - and _ (hyphen/dash and underscore) information ...
> why was that not covered here, but elsewhere?
> Same goes for the files ending with 0 etc.
> Why are these "mentioned" to folk like Rand, but not made as a public
> statement on the Webmaster Blog?
> Why should folks have to go hunting there and everywhere, instead of
> "here" ?
> Fair enough - these may not be "earth shattering" nor effecting
> millions - but the point stands...
> if Google has something to say - why is it not saying it from it's own
> platform?
> Why not provide the same info that it does to these other "sources" in
> it's own location first .. .then point those places/people to it...
> then let the discussions begin?
> Is that making any sense?
> .
> ...JLH...
> Yup.
> :sigh:
> On Nov 7, 8:06 pm, JLH wrote:
> > ":wanders of to find JLH: "
> > I've fought that fight before; battered, bruised, scarred, and
> > dejected from it. Nothing I could add that hasn't been said before.
> > The only thing I can do is be a good steward to the members here and
> > try to point out pertinent information found on other non-official
> > portals and share them. You have to remember that not everyone is as
> > personally invested in the importance of this group as the regular
> > users (googlers and mortals).
> > On Nov 7, 8:30 am, Autocrat wrote:
> > > Thanks for the reply
> > > (feeling more than a little pushy to be honest - but I do think it's
> > > worth pushing a little for ;))
> > > .
> > > Info on any/all "issues" as/when they arrive?
> > > I agree 100% with the idea/point that in some (most?) cases such
> > > occurrences may have little bearing to some (many?) site owners etc.
> > > But there are occasions when such things are influential.
> > > Additionally, having a centralised (and logical) initial outlet for
> > > such information means people can "look" for themselves at the
> > > "root". They don't have to dig it up, scan through numerous sites
> > > etc.
> > > " Want the latest on Google and possibly strange results? - Go look to
> > > Google for the info. "
> > > As to handling the questions/queries of the effect etc.
> > > Where better to state that it will not touch most people, that it
> > > shouldn't have any real negative for the majority etc.?
> > > Who are people more likely to believe, who are people more likely to
> > > pay attention to and what location are people to be more comfortable
> > > accepting it from...
> > > - some poster in some community ?
> > > - someone from Google in some community ?
> > > - someone from Google at Google ?
> > > .
> > > So long as some thought and planning is put into it ... (and it's not
> > > like you lot are short on commonsense or logic, nor lack experience on
> > > information handling and provision!) ... then I'm sure the main issues
> > > of misunderstanding, wild-fire and misinformation can be dealt with
> > > easily enough.
> > > All you need do is make the announcements as and when they occur.
> > > State what has happened, when it happened, how fast you caught onto it
> > > (if relevant!), the possible effect, and the fact that it is not going
> > > to have a major influence, will only touch X types etc.
> > > In one fell swoop you've not only become much more open and direct -
> > > you're also stopping potential "fires" from flaring :D
> > > I'm sure some of the others could throw in even better points/ideas as
> > > well...
> > > :wanders of to find JLH:
> > > On Nov 7, 1:47 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > > > Hi Autocrat
> > > > I think to some extent you're bringing up a valid point in that we
> > > > could definitely do more to communicate quirks. One the other hand,
> > > > I've seen how many of these things are completely blown out of
> > > > proportion by people who are not really affected. What would it help
> > > > the general webmaster public that (just making this up) "we had a
> > > > glitch on datacenter XYZ, resulting in some sites being ranked
> > > > differently"? Would that information help them? or would it just worry
> > > > them more? To me, bringing all of that information out into a
> > > > centralized location would possibly not make much sense to the average
> > > > webmaster, it would confuse them and leave them wondering if they need
> > > > to change anything.
> > > > One issue which I suppose you're hinting at is the comment left by
> > > > Matt Cutts on Webmaster World recently:http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/018599.html > > > > (be direct next time, it's much easier to follow :-)). The comment
> > > > left by Matt was "I think this was a short-term issue and things
> > > > should be back to normal pretty soon (if not already)." The issue was
> > > > something that came up on the weekend and as far as I know did not
> > > > really surface here. To me, it's fine to leave it at that. There's
> > > > nothing vital missing by not reporting it in a central location.
> > > > Rankings change all the time. Interacting with the people who brought
> > > > the issue up is in my opinion a good thing. Is this something you all
> > > > would like listed here? What would it help you with?
> > > > The other issue you mention is the ".0" file name issue that came up
> > > > in June:http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/dont-end-your-urls-with-exe/ > > > > Again, this is something that was changed (we do index URLs with ".0")
> > > > because of a report we saw. I haven't seen any threads here about this
> > > > issue and to be honest, I'm not aware of any other site that had
> > > > issues with it. How would it help you to know of this change?
> > > > At any rate, I think it's important to interact with other sites when
> > > > they bring up legitimate issues. The web is larger than our group here
> > > > and I'm glad that there are lots places for almost everyone to
> > > > interact with people they enjoy interacting with :-). When important
> > > > (and relevant for the average webmaster) issues come up, you can be
> > > > sure that we'll post about them here too.
> > > > So, to sum it up: what kind of announcements are you all really
> > > > looking for here?
But this in no way means I'd not like to see a more centralized
depository if important information.
And probably the stress is on important.
Not everything Matt Cutts says in this or that other forum need be
earth shattering. Who's reading between lines? Not me, got enough
trouble just reading the lines ;)
> Hmmm... I will now speak from personal, embarrassing and painful
> experience.
> I am usually somebody who will be first to announce: oops, I moofed. I
> screwed up, I had this bug. Now I fixed it, don't worry.
> .... Naively thinking that honesty at this level is appreciated.
> Well it's not, by and large. People start worrying. They get the sense
> that there are tons of bugs just waiting to be found and fixed.
> At one point I started hearing things such as "she makes a lot of
> errors". Note, no mention was being made of me also fixing my own
> errors as soon as I discovered them. And this would apply even to bugs
> not of my own doing, but which I would be fixing.
> And it doesn't matter if it's a small inconsequential bug or big
> whopper of a bug.
> So now I have to disguise bug fixes under "enhancements". I hate
> this, but there you have it. Be honest and have them all look down on
> you.
> The only other ploy some (successful) people use is passing the
> problem to somebody else who can then take the blame for everything
> that's gone wrong since the great floods.
> So what's this got to do with Google and this thread?
> Not much, except possibly some things don't need disclosure to the
> general public who may very likely misunderstand the issues and panic,
> worry, loose faith, or worse, use such announcements to justify why
> their site got clobbered, despite the case not being even close.
> On Nov 7, 3:46 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > ...John Mu...
> > Okay, I'll rephrase to be more definitive/concise/correct...
> > I'm not suggesting that "every change" to the algorytm be announced
> > (would be nice though ;)).
> > But the things that get "mentioned" at places like SEO Moz, SEO Round
> > Table, SE Watch, WebMasters World etc...
> > when people like Matt Cuts, Google Guy etc...
> > drop of some information...
> > ...why is that info not provided in the Google Blog?
> > Why is it that it's dispersed to other locations, but not shown at
> > Google?
> > Things like the - and _ (hyphen/dash and underscore) information ...
> > why was that not covered here, but elsewhere?
> > Same goes for the files ending with 0 etc.
> > Why are these "mentioned" to folk like Rand, but not made as a public
> > statement on the Webmaster Blog?
> > Why should folks have to go hunting there and everywhere, instead of
> > "here" ?
> > Fair enough - these may not be "earth shattering" nor effecting
> > millions - but the point stands...
> > if Google has something to say - why is it not saying it from it's own
> > platform?
> > Why not provide the same info that it does to these other "sources" in
> > it's own location first .. .then point those places/people to it...
> > then let the discussions begin?
> > Is that making any sense?
> > .
> > ...JLH...
> > Yup.
> > :sigh:
> > On Nov 7, 8:06 pm, JLH wrote:
> > > ":wanders of to find JLH: "
> > > I've fought that fight before; battered, bruised, scarred, and
> > > dejected from it. Nothing I could add that hasn't been said before.
> > > The only thing I can do is be a good steward to the members here and
> > > try to point out pertinent information found on other non-official
> > > portals and share them. You have to remember that not everyone is as
> > > personally invested in the importance of this group as the regular
> > > users (googlers and mortals).
> > > On Nov 7, 8:30 am, Autocrat wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the reply
> > > > (feeling more than a little pushy to be honest - but I do think it's
> > > > worth pushing a little for ;))
> > > > .
> > > > Info on any/all "issues" as/when they arrive?
> > > > I agree 100% with the idea/point that in some (most?) cases such
> > > > occurrences may have little bearing to some (many?) site owners etc.
> > > > But there are occasions when such things are influential.
> > > > Additionally, having a centralised (and logical) initial outlet for
> > > > such information means people can "look" for themselves at the
> > > > "root". They don't have to dig it up, scan through numerous sites
> > > > etc.
> > > > " Want the latest on Google and possibly strange results? - Go look to
> > > > Google for the info. "
> > > > As to handling the questions/queries of the effect etc.
> > > > Where better to state that it will not touch most people, that it
> > > > shouldn't have any real negative for the majority etc.?
> > > > Who are people more likely to believe, who are people more likely to
> > > > pay attention to and what location are people to be more comfortable
> > > > accepting it from...
> > > > - some poster in some community ?
> > > > - someone from Google in some community ?
> > > > - someone from Google at Google ?
> > > > .
> > > > So long as some thought and planning is put into it ... (and it's not
> > > > like you lot are short on commonsense or logic, nor lack experience on
> > > > information handling and provision!) ... then I'm sure the main issues
> > > > of misunderstanding, wild-fire and misinformation can be dealt with
> > > > easily enough.
> > > > All you need do is make the announcements as and when they occur.
> > > > State what has happened, when it happened, how fast you caught onto it
> > > > (if relevant!), the possible effect, and the fact that it is not going
> > > > to have a major influence, will only touch X types etc.
> > > > In one fell swoop you've not only become much more open and direct -
> > > > you're also stopping potential "fires" from flaring :D
> > > > I'm sure some of the others could throw in even better points/ideas as
> > > > well...
> > > > :wanders of to find JLH:
> > > > On Nov 7, 1:47 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > > > > Hi Autocrat
> > > > > I think to some extent you're bringing up a valid point in that we
> > > > > could definitely do more to communicate quirks. One the other hand,
> > > > > I've seen how many of these things are completely blown out of
> > > > > proportion by people who are not really affected. What would it help
> > > > > the general webmaster public that (just making this up) "we had a
> > > > > glitch on datacenter XYZ, resulting in some sites being ranked
> > > > > differently"? Would that information help them? or would it just worry
> > > > > them more? To me, bringing all of that information out into a
> > > > > centralized location would possibly not make much sense to the average
> > > > > webmaster, it would confuse them and leave them wondering if they need
> > > > > to change anything.
> > > > > One issue which I suppose you're hinting at is the comment left by
> > > > > Matt Cutts on Webmaster World recently:http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/018599.html > > > > > (be direct next time, it's much easier to follow :-)). The comment
> > > > > left by Matt was "I think this was a short-term issue and things
> > > > > should be back to normal pretty soon (if not already)." The issue was
> > > > > something that came up on the weekend and as far as I know did not
> > > > > really surface here. To me, it's fine to leave it at that. There's
> > > > > nothing vital missing by not reporting it in a central location.
> > > > > Rankings change all the time. Interacting with the people who brought
> > > > > the issue up is in my opinion a good thing. Is this something you all
> > > > > would like listed here? What would it help you with?
> > > > > The other issue you mention is the ".0" file name issue that came up
> > > > > in June:http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/dont-end-your-urls-with-exe/ > > > > > Again, this is something that was changed (we do index URLs with ".0")
> > > > > because of a report we saw. I haven't seen any threads here about this
> > > > > issue and to be honest, I'm not aware of any other site that had
> > > > > issues with it. How would it help you to know of this change?
> > > > > At any rate, I think it's important to interact with other sites when
> > > > > they bring up legitimate issues. The web is larger than our group here
> > > > > and I'm glad that there are lots places for almost everyone to
> > > > > interact with people they enjoy interacting with :-). When important
> > > > > (and relevant for the average webmaster) issues come up, you can be
> > > > > sure that we'll post about them here too.
> > > > > So, to sum it up: what kind of announcements are you all really
> > > > > looking for here?
ANd, you managed to say it much more "nicely" and "concisely" than I
did.
It's not All the info - just the sort of things that get 'mentioned'
elsewhere ... those should be mentioned by G, at G.
It not only means more open/honest - it means direct and permits "Fire
Control" and "Damage Limitation" and even (to some extent)
"Preventative Measure".
You say it - you can say it how you like, and wrap it in a way
(preceed it and/or follow it) with enough additional text that it can
put people more at ease.
.
Hey folks - just to let everyone know, there was a minor issue with
one of the US DCs.
This resulted in some 'unrefined' data being incorporated into the
index (this means that some of the sites included/updated were not
ranked quite as fully as they should have been).
For a very short time, this could have caused some results in the
SERPs to have been slightly unusual in regards to rank position and
site quality.
For most users/searchers, there would have been no discernible
difference/issue. For a few (with specific searches), the results may
have been as described.
To help put your minds at ease, we caught the issue within a few
hours.
The techs made a fantastic effort, and resolving the issue fast - and
the strange results should already be disappearing.
There are no expected problems from this.
.
There - long winded, a little bit of spin and word play - but people
can be told, a golden light can be shone, and folks don't have to hear
about it through word of mouth (or "viral" means for those in the SEM
world ;)).
> But this in no way means I'd not like to see a more centralized
> depository if important information.
> And probably the stress is on important.
> Not everything Matt Cutts says in this or that other forum need be
> earth shattering. Who's reading between lines? Not me, got enough
> trouble just reading the lines ;)
> On Nov 7, 8:44 pm, webado wrote:
> > Hmmm... I will now speak from personal, embarrassing and painful
> > experience.
> > I am usually somebody who will be first to announce: oops, I moofed. I
> > screwed up, I had this bug. Now I fixed it, don't worry.
> > .... Naively thinking that honesty at this level is appreciated.
> > Well it's not, by and large. People start worrying. They get the sense
> > that there are tons of bugs just waiting to be found and fixed.
> > At one point I started hearing things such as "she makes a lot of
> > errors". Note, no mention was being made of me also fixing my own
> > errors as soon as I discovered them. And this would apply even to bugs
> > not of my own doing, but which I would be fixing.
> > And it doesn't matter if it's a small inconsequential bug or big
> > whopper of a bug.
> > So now I have to disguise bug fixes under "enhancements". I hate
> > this, but there you have it. Be honest and have them all look down on
> > you.
> > The only other ploy some (successful) people use is passing the
> > problem to somebody else who can then take the blame for everything
> > that's gone wrong since the great floods.
> > So what's this got to do with Google and this thread?
> > Not much, except possibly some things don't need disclosure to the
> > general public who may very likely misunderstand the issues and panic,
> > worry, loose faith, or worse, use such announcements to justify why
> > their site got clobbered, despite the case not being even close.
> > On Nov 7, 3:46 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > > ...John Mu...
> > > Okay, I'll rephrase to be more definitive/concise/correct...
> > > I'm not suggesting that "every change" to the algorytm be announced
> > > (would be nice though ;)).
> > > But the things that get "mentioned" at places like SEO Moz, SEO Round
> > > Table, SE Watch, WebMasters World etc...
> > > when people like Matt Cuts, Google Guy etc...
> > > drop of some information...
> > > ...why is that info not provided in the Google Blog?
> > > Why is it that it's dispersed to other locations, but not shown at
> > > Google?
> > > Things like the - and _ (hyphen/dash and underscore) information ...
> > > why was that not covered here, but elsewhere?
> > > Same goes for the files ending with 0 etc.
> > > Why are these "mentioned" to folk like Rand, but not made as a public
> > > statement on the Webmaster Blog?
> > > Why should folks have to go hunting there and everywhere, instead of
> > > "here" ?
> > > Fair enough - these may not be "earth shattering" nor effecting
> > > millions - but the point stands...
> > > if Google has something to say - why is it not saying it from it's own
> > > platform?
> > > Why not provide the same info that it does to these other "sources" in
> > > it's own location first .. .then point those places/people to it...
> > > then let the discussions begin?
> > > Is that making any sense?
> > > .
> > > ...JLH...
> > > Yup.
> > > :sigh:
> > > On Nov 7, 8:06 pm, JLH wrote:
> > > > ":wanders of to find JLH: "
> > > > I've fought that fight before; battered, bruised, scarred, and
> > > > dejected from it. Nothing I could add that hasn't been said before.
> > > > The only thing I can do is be a good steward to the members here and
> > > > try to point out pertinent information found on other non-official
> > > > portals and share them. You have to remember that not everyone is as
> > > > personally invested in the importance of this group as the regular
> > > > users (googlers and mortals).
> > > > On Nov 7, 8:30 am, Autocrat wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the reply
> > > > > (feeling more than a little pushy to be honest - but I do think it's
> > > > > worth pushing a little for ;))
> > > > > .
> > > > > Info on any/all "issues" as/when they arrive?
> > > > > I agree 100% with the idea/point that in some (most?) cases such
> > > > > occurrences may have little bearing to some (many?) site owners etc.
> > > > > But there are occasions when such things are influential.
> > > > > Additionally, having a centralised (and logical) initial outlet for
> > > > > such information means people can "look" for themselves at the
> > > > > "root". They don't have to dig it up, scan through numerous sites
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > " Want the latest on Google and possibly strange results? - Go look to
> > > > > Google for the info. "
> > > > > As to handling the questions/queries of the effect etc.
> > > > > Where better to state that it will not touch most people, that it
> > > > > shouldn't have any real negative for the majority etc.?
> > > > > Who are people more likely to believe, who are people more likely to
> > > > > pay attention to and what location are people to be more comfortable
> > > > > accepting it from...
> > > > > - some poster in some community ?
> > > > > - someone from Google in some community ?
> > > > > - someone from Google at Google ?
> > > > > .
> > > > > So long as some thought and planning is put into it ... (and it's not
> > > > > like you lot are short on commonsense or logic, nor lack experience on
> > > > > information handling and provision!) ... then I'm sure the main issues
> > > > > of misunderstanding, wild-fire and misinformation can be dealt with
> > > > > easily enough.
> > > > > All you need do is make the announcements as and when they occur.
> > > > > State what has happened, when it happened, how fast you caught onto it
> > > > > (if relevant!), the possible effect, and the fact that it is not going
> > > > > to have a major influence, will only touch X types etc.
> > > > > In one fell swoop you've not only become much more open and direct -
> > > > > you're also stopping potential "fires" from flaring :D
> > > > > I'm sure some of the others could throw in even better points/ideas as
> > > > > well...
> > > > > :wanders of to find JLH:
> > > > > On Nov 7, 1:47 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Autocrat
> > > > > > I think to some extent you're bringing up a valid point in that we
> > > > > > could definitely do more to communicate quirks. One the other hand,
> > > > > > I've seen how many of these things are completely blown out of
> > > > > > proportion by people who are not really affected. What would it help
> > > > > > the general webmaster public that (just making this up) "we had a
> > > > > > glitch on datacenter XYZ, resulting in some sites being ranked
> > > > > > differently"? Would that information help them? or would it just worry
> > > > > > them more? To me, bringing all of that information out into a
> > > > > > centralized location would possibly not make much sense to the average
> > > > > > webmaster, it would confuse them and leave them wondering if they need
> > > > > > to change anything.
> > > > > > One issue which I suppose you're hinting at is the comment left by
> > > > > > Matt Cutts on Webmaster World recently:http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/018599.html > > > > > > (be direct next time, it's much easier to follow :-)). The comment
> > > > > > left by Matt was "I think this was a short-term issue and things
> > > > > > should be back to normal pretty soon (if not already)." The issue was
> > > > > > something that came up on the weekend and as far as I know did not
> > > > > > really surface here. To me, it's fine to leave it at that. There's
> > > > > > nothing vital missing by not reporting it in a central location.
> > > > > > Rankings change all the time. Interacting with the people who brought
> > > > > > the issue up is in my opinion a good thing. Is this something you all
> > > > > > would like listed here? What would it help you with?
> > > > > > The other issue you mention is the ".0" file name issue that came up
> > > > > > in
[ Just to ensure clarity and understand - if anyone is reading the
prior post - it is an Example! It is not real, not from Google and
not to be taken literally !!! ]
> But this in no way means I'd not like to see a more centralized
> depository if important information.
> And probably the stress is on important.
> Not everything Matt Cutts says in this or that other forum need be
> earth shattering. Who's reading between lines? Not me, got enough
> trouble just reading the lines ;)
> On Nov 7, 8:44 pm, webado wrote:
> > Hmmm... I will now speak from personal, embarrassing and painful
> > experience.
> > I am usually somebody who will be first to announce: oops, I moofed. I
> > screwed up, I had this bug. Now I fixed it, don't worry.
> > .... Naively thinking that honesty at this level is appreciated.
> > Well it's not, by and large. People start worrying. They get the sense
> > that there are tons of bugs just waiting to be found and fixed.
> > At one point I started hearing things such as "she makes a lot of
> > errors". Note, no mention was being made of me also fixing my own
> > errors as soon as I discovered them. And this would apply even to bugs
> > not of my own doing, but which I would be fixing.
> > And it doesn't matter if it's a small inconsequential bug or big
> > whopper of a bug.
> > So now I have to disguise bug fixes under "enhancements". I hate
> > this, but there you have it. Be honest and have them all look down on
> > you.
> > The only other ploy some (successful) people use is passing the
> > problem to somebody else who can then take the blame for everything
> > that's gone wrong since the great floods.
> > So what's this got to do with Google and this thread?
> > Not much, except possibly some things don't need disclosure to the
> > general public who may very likely misunderstand the issues and panic,
> > worry, loose faith, or worse, use such announcements to justify why
> > their site got clobbered, despite the case not being even close.
> > On Nov 7, 3:46 pm, Autocrat wrote:
> > > ...John Mu...
> > > Okay, I'll rephrase to be more definitive/concise/correct...
> > > I'm not suggesting that "every change" to the algorytm be announced
> > > (would be nice though ;)).
> > > But the things that get "mentioned" at places like SEO Moz, SEO Round
> > > Table, SE Watch, WebMasters World etc...
> > > when people like Matt Cuts, Google Guy etc...
> > > drop of some information...
> > > ...why is that info not provided in the Google Blog?
> > > Why is it that it's dispersed to other locations, but not shown at
> > > Google?
> > > Things like the - and _ (hyphen/dash and underscore) information ...
> > > why was that not covered here, but elsewhere?
> > > Same goes for the files ending with 0 etc.
> > > Why are these "mentioned" to folk like Rand, but not made as a public
> > > statement on the Webmaster Blog?
> > > Why should folks have to go hunting there and everywhere, instead of
> > > "here" ?
> > > Fair enough - these may not be "earth shattering" nor effecting
> > > millions - but the point stands...
> > > if Google has something to say - why is it not saying it from it's own
> > > platform?
> > > Why not provide the same info that it does to these other "sources" in
> > > it's own location first .. .then point those places/people to it...
> > > then let the discussions begin?
> > > Is that making any sense?
> > > .
> > > ...JLH...
> > > Yup.
> > > :sigh:
> > > On Nov 7, 8:06 pm, JLH wrote:
> > > > ":wanders of to find JLH: "
> > > > I've fought that fight before; battered, bruised, scarred, and
> > > > dejected from it. Nothing I could add that hasn't been said before.
> > > > The only thing I can do is be a good steward to the members here and
> > > > try to point out pertinent information found on other non-official
> > > > portals and share them. You have to remember that not everyone is as
> > > > personally invested in the importance of this group as the regular
> > > > users (googlers and mortals).
> > > > On Nov 7, 8:30 am, Autocrat wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the reply
> > > > > (feeling more than a little pushy to be honest - but I do think it's
> > > > > worth pushing a little for ;))
> > > > > .
> > > > > Info on any/all "issues" as/when they arrive?
> > > > > I agree 100% with the idea/point that in some (most?) cases such
> > > > > occurrences may have little bearing to some (many?) site owners etc.
> > > > > But there are occasions when such things are influential.
> > > > > Additionally, having a centralised (and logical) initial outlet for
> > > > > such information means people can "look" for themselves at the
> > > > > "root". They don't have to dig it up, scan through numerous sites
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > " Want the latest on Google and possibly strange results? - Go look to
> > > > > Google for the info. "
> > > > > As to handling the questions/queries of the effect etc.
> > > > > Where better to state that it will not touch most people, that it
> > > > > shouldn't have any real negative for the majority etc.?
> > > > > Who are people more likely to believe, who are people more likely to
> > > > > pay attention to and what location are people to be more comfortable
> > > > > accepting it from...
> > > > > - some poster in some community ?
> > > > > - someone from Google in some community ?
> > > > > - someone from Google at Google ?
> > > > > .
> > > > > So long as some thought and planning is put into it ... (and it's not
> > > > > like you lot are short on commonsense or logic, nor lack experience on
> > > > > information handling and provision!) ... then I'm sure the main issues
> > > > > of misunderstanding, wild-fire and misinformation can be dealt with
> > > > > easily enough.
> > > > > All you need do is make the announcements as and when they occur.
> > > > > State what has happened, when it happened, how fast you caught onto it
> > > > > (if relevant!), the possible effect, and the fact that it is not going
> > > > > to have a major influence, will only touch X types etc.
> > > > > In one fell swoop you've not only become much more open and direct -
> > > > > you're also stopping potential "fires" from flaring :D
> > > > > I'm sure some of the others could throw in even better points/ideas as
> > > > > well...
> > > > > :wanders of to find JLH:
> > > > > On Nov 7, 1:47 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Autocrat
> > > > > > I think to some extent you're bringing up a valid point in that we
> > > > > > could definitely do more to communicate quirks. One the other hand,
> > > > > > I've seen how many of these things are completely blown out of
> > > > > > proportion by people who are not really affected. What would it help
> > > > > > the general webmaster public that (just making this up) "we had a
> > > > > > glitch on datacenter XYZ, resulting in some sites being ranked
> > > > > > differently"? Would that information help them? or would it just worry
> > > > > > them more? To me, bringing all of that information out into a
> > > > > > centralized location would possibly not make much sense to the average
> > > > > > webmaster, it would confuse them and leave them wondering if they need
> > > > > > to change anything.
> > > > > > One issue which I suppose you're hinting at is the comment left by
> > > > > > Matt Cutts on Webmaster World recently:http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/018599.html > > > > > > (be direct next time, it's much easier to follow :-)). The comment
> > > > > > left by Matt was "I think this was a short-term issue and things
> > > > > > should be back to normal pretty soon (if not already)." The issue was
> > > > > > something that came up on the weekend and as far as I know did not
> > > > > > really surface here. To me, it's fine to leave it at that. There's
> > > > > > nothing vital missing by not reporting it in a central location.
> > > > > > Rankings change all the time. Interacting with the people who brought
> > > > > > the issue up is in my opinion a good thing. Is this something you all
> > > > > > would like listed here? What would it help you with?
> > > > > > The other issue you mention is the ".0" file name issue that came up
> > > > > > in June:http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/dont-end-your-urls-with-exe/ > > > > > > Again, this is something that was changed (we do index URLs with ".0")
> > > > > > because of a report we saw. I haven't seen any threads here about this
> > > > > > issue and to be honest, I'm not aware of any other site that had
> > > > > > issues with it. How would it help you to know of this change?
> > > > > > At any rate, I think it's important to interact with other sites when
> > > > > > they bring up legitimate issues. The web is larger than our group here
> > > > > > and I'm glad that there are lots places for almost everyone to
> > > > > > interact with people they enjoy interacting with :-). When important
> > > > > > (and relevant for the average webmaster) issues come up, you can be
> > > > > > sure that we'll post about them here too.
> > > > > > So, to sum it up: what kind of announcements are you all really
> > > > > > looking for here?
|
