When I look at the posting statistics in this forum, I'm floored by how often some of you post--and with helpful, content-filled responses, too! A lot of what Googlers do on this forum is "silent" (we take back your feedback/suggestions to our teams, investigate problems that you report, etc., and we don't usually post an update every time we do so), so I certainly won't be approaching "top poster" status anytime soon; but it's obvious to me that many of you must have following threads down to a science. Would you mind sharing some of your productivity tips?
How do you keep up with what's going on? Do you use the Google Groups UI? Do you use our RSS feeds to follow threads? How do you decide which threads to read? Do you stop by a couple times a day, or are you constantly following new posts as they come in? I'd love to pick your brains and get some ideas on how to become a more efficient/effective participant during the time I spend here.
I'm a very minor poster here, but I do try to drop by every day when possible.
Sorry to be negative, but the search here sucks - I generally have to view my profile to find threads I posted to. I'm reluctant to start adding feeds to my reader in order to keep up. I wouldn't mind getting an alert when a thread is updated (if I can specify on a thread-by-thread basis only).
In terms of what to read - I check for post count and sometimes the starring to decide whether to read particular threads. Also look at the last poster - some folk are very worthy of a read.
Ignore virtually all threads about pagerank going from 4 to 3 'I'm worried about my pagerank'. Might be interesting to see if there is any correlation between thread title and responses given. Not sure if JohnMu looked at this previously.
Rgds Richard
PS - I'm sure you wont remember the issue I got in touch with about previously, but I followed up during the week [#176342323]
> When I look at the posting statistics in this forum, I'm floored by > how often some of you post--and with helpful, content-filled > responses, too! A lot of what Googlers do on this forum is > "silent" (we take back your feedback/suggestions to our teams, > investigate problems that you report, etc., and we don't usually post > an update every time we do so), so I certainly won't be approaching > "top poster" status anytime soon; but it's obvious to me that many of > you must have following threads down to a science. Would you mind > sharing some of your productivity tips?
> How do you keep up with what's going on? Do you use the Google Groups > UI? Do you use our RSS feeds to follow threads? How do you decide > which threads to read? Do you stop by a couple times a day, or are you > constantly following new posts as they come in? I'd love to pick your > brains and get some ideas on how to become a more efficient/effective > participant during the time I spend here.
Again, I'm a relatively low-volume poster here. Ditto on the Cardinal's comment about the search; I mainly use my profile to keep track of things but, depending on my personal activity level, I also occasionally bookmark threads if they're in a busy group and likely to disappear into oblivion after five minutes.
I try to stop by at least once a day when time/work allows. As for determining factors about what I read, post title & snippet [Good point there about trying to correlate title with response numbers], reply count, starring and the thread-starter & last-poster all play a role. Now that I think about it, it's kind of hard to rationalise. I just scan my way down the page(s) to see what may be interesting.
> When I look at the posting statistics in this forum, I'm floored by > how often some of you post--and with helpful, content-filled > responses, too! A lot of what Googlers do on this forum is > "silent" (we take back your feedback/suggestions to our teams, > investigate problems that you report, etc., and we don't usually post > an update every time we do so), so I certainly won't be approaching > "top poster" status anytime soon; but it's obvious to me that many of > you must have following threads down to a science. Would you mind > sharing some of your productivity tips?
> How do you keep up with what's going on? Do you use the Google Groups > UI? Do you use our RSS feeds to follow threads? How do you decide > which threads to read? Do you stop by a couple times a day, or are you > constantly following new posts as they come in? I'd love to pick your > brains and get some ideas on how to become a more efficient/effective > participant during the time I spend here.
Hi Susan I would post a lot more, if only the groups had a mobile-friendly interface :-)
When I am short on time, I concentrate on the following kinds of threads: - go back to page 30 (aka the day before yesterday, lol) and check threads that either have no responses or only two or three, with the last one not by one of the "trusted regulars" - threads that come back with repetitive posting by the "trusted regulars" (ie if they post more than once, it is likely something interesting) - threads started by one of the "trusted regulars" - threads older than a day or so, last responded to by one of the "untrusted regulars" (when I can imagine that the answer was not correct and I don't want to leave it at that) - threads where I notice that old myths are being dug up - "hacks" (mention that and I'll come for a visit :-); I even have alerts on various forms of that for these groups) - complicated technical issues with weird calculations, algorithms, etc. (brain-food)
A sure way to make sure that I don't reply: - starting the same thread in multiple groups or multiple times in the same group (I want a delete button, heh). - lots of exclamation points in the title (ok, sometimes it works)
What I try to avoid: - grabbing the first answer to a thread. There are so many really great people here and I don't want to take their chance at getting a great first-response in. That includes a lot of new users. - posting when upset
When I have the time, I'll ignore most of that and just post whenever I can, haha, day and night.
The big problem is, as I see it, that there are so many new threads being posted in the main group that if you only check once a day, you are bound to miss many of them (the average front-page time is way under 24 hours, on the days I checked). The best time to get work done (in the groups) seems to be morning my time (say 7:00-12:00 UTC), since the US is asleep and the number of new threads isn't growing exponentially. Too much online activity can be bad for answering a poster: it makes it hard to spend the time required to write out a good answer. Sometimes a good answer that takes 30 minutes to work out and write down can save a thread from going back and forth over days.
My workflow: When I reply to a topic, I star the thread. That way I can track to see when people respond. When a topic is vital, I will subscribe to it via email. Sadly, sometimes the stars and the email subscriptions fail, so you have to be on the watchout all the time.
The #1 problem that really kills post frequency of the regulars is ... technical difficulties. "Groups down" is one thing, but postings disappearing is even worse. Stars not working. Email alerts not working. Posting and getting the "all ok" but then the post disappearing. It's hard to justify spending time here, helping people, when you see your work going to /dev/nul. It appears to be better now, but it would be really nice that IF things were going whacko, some sort of notification was given right away. It's no problem to go away and do something else for a day, if you know it's being worked on. But going in and answering posts for an hour or more only to find out that all of your work was for nothing... is extremely frustrating... and it remains frustrating for a long time afterwards.
The #2 problem is something JLH mentioned once (or twice? not sure): Googler participation. I hope we can push that up a bit (a lot?)!!! His comment, and it's really how I see it as well (and saw it in the past years here): "Log on and just tell us the weather, what you had for dinner, the local time, if there is such thing as a -XXX penalty (whoops I snuck a real one in there!!), what's heavier a pound of feathers or a pound of gold, anything would be appreciated. Any comments with a blue badge lets us know that we are not alone there." Imagine doing hours of "Google" support here and not even being certain that "the company" notices.
Oops, that one turned out rather long :-).
Something to ponder until I bother you with even more suggestions: how about something like this: http://www.eeqp.com/ for the groups? I lived off of the ticker for two months and managed to do over 1800 posts in that time.
Read every new post and track old ones through the "Active Older Topics" interface.
> Do you use the Google Groups UI?
Yes, along with a little help from my "friends". ;-)
> Do you use our RSS feeds to follow threads?
Nope. Does it work?
> How do you decide which threads to read?
I don't decide, I read them all. The question is, which threads do I decide to reply in.
> Do you stop by a couple times a day, or are you > constantly following new posts as they come in?
I"ll say constantly, but I have a "helper" so that I know when there is a new thread or a reply to something I am watching. Also, I work on a bajillion different things during a given day and take often breaks in between finishing a page or touching up a script or when switching from one project to another so I have lots of short breaks that I see what is waiting and then go from there.
> I'd love to pick your > brains and get some ideas on how to become a more efficient/effective > participant during the time I spend here.
Then you'd not be wanting to pick my brain. Effective, brute force usually is, but efficient, no way.
Hmm.. Susan, I usually follow a similar strategy to John.
First and foremost I scan down the page for items without a response - there is usually a reason - either the question is one we don't have a standard answer for (I like them) or more likely, the person hasn't put the question in a way that is clear - so I'll often prompt them a bit and try and get the ball rolling.
Then I scan the second page, in particular if there are older posts without an responses from people I know / trust.
If there is something in particular that seems to be a common problem that we all don't have a real answer to, I like to start a thread abt it, but I haven't done that in a while.
> Read every new post and track old ones through the "Active Older > Topics" interface.
> > Do you use the Google Groups UI?
> Yes, along with a little help from my "friends". ;-)
> > Do you use our RSS feeds to follow threads?
> Nope. Does it work?
> > How do you decide which threads to read?
> I don't decide, I read them all. The question is, which threads do I > decide to reply in.
> > Do you stop by a couple times a day, or are you > > constantly following new posts as they come in?
> I"ll say constantly, but I have a "helper" so that I know when there > is a new thread or a reply to something I am watching. Also, I work on > a bajillion different things during a given day and take often breaks > in between finishing a page or touching up a script or when switching > from one project to another so I have lots of short breaks that I see > what is waiting and then go from there.
> > I'd love to pick your > > brains and get some ideas on how to become a more efficient/effective > > participant during the time I spend here.
> Then you'd not be wanting to pick my brain. Effective, brute force > usually is, but efficient, no way.
ahh, that's a no as half the time, they don't work
>>Do you stop by a couple times a day
Depends on my day but usually yes
As for what I respond to...it's more like "What I don't respond to" If there are multiple posts asking the very same thing on the very same day, I have started to skip some rather than post "Hey you? Can't you read?"
For following threads I use whichever of the two is working favorites (aka Stars) or my profile. When short on time, I quickly scan the x new of x which is next to never working on all threads, just some of the threads.
If Google Groups functions all worked even "most" of the time, everyone could be more productive.
> When I look at the posting statistics in this forum, I'm floored by > how often some of you post--and with helpful, content-filled > responses, too! A lot of what Googlers do on this forum is > "silent" (we take back your feedback/suggestions to our teams, > investigate problems that you report, etc., and we don't usually post > an update every time we do so), so I certainly won't be approaching > "top poster" status anytime soon; but it's obvious to me that many of > you must have following threads down to a science. Would you mind > sharing some of your productivity tips?
> How do you keep up with what's going on? Do you use the Google Groups > UI? Do you use our RSS feeds to follow threads? How do you decide > which threads to read? Do you stop by a couple times a day, or are you > constantly following new posts as they come in? I'd love to pick your > brains and get some ideas on how to become a more efficient/effective > participant during the time I spend here.
A good frined of mine is a Doctor in pyschology and she pointed out that forums by their very nature can become addictive. Many who make a post will return to see if a response has been made and then go on to make another post in reply. Whilst doing that they see another thread upon which they can't resist a post -and so it goes on feeding a desire to communicate/help or whatever, in much the same way as any addiction. A common trait of those with addictive personalities is that they have a fearsome memory of the subject-matter of their addiction - e.g. card- counting gamblers or which horse came third in the 1986 derby etc. I think for some it boils down to their personal memory of all the threads they have been involved with. Not that i am saying those who regularly post have an addictive personality, as those above who are here to geniunly help have their own productivity tools, however she thinks from occasionally viewing this forum that some show signs of a memory that can only be associated with an addictive personality.
I admit that I didn't post much recently due to my workload and a recently popped up time waster stealing more than 100% of my spare time (moving my blog from Blogger to WordPress because many readers told me that they can't handle the Blogger thingy), but here is what I do when I've time on my hands.
No. Err. Start over. Here is what I did way back when everything worked somewhat smoothly (I'm referring to the old sitemaps group). I tagged all threads I've posted to or which had interesting contents. That means I read everything. First thing in the morning was to check my favorites list for new replies and cover that. Next I went to the main page, read everything and replied where I was able to contribute something useful.
Since all that is broke nowadays (thread tags don't really work, way more posts so that I can't read everything) I changed my behavior. Now I'm checking the main section for unanswered threads with a somewhat meaningful title and threads where I've posted a reply (hopefully still tagged, for obvious reasons I miss out on some replies to my stuff and increase the number of unanswered direct questions). I avoid large threads because I think they're 80% trolled and don't reply to PageRank stuff or sitelinks questions any more. Ok, I tell noobs that toolbar PR is just for fun.
When in time pressure, I just check out this section. All attempts to use RSS-ish stuff to automate things turned to miserable failure projects. I never used email options coz my inbox gets stuffed enough. I stick with the UI.
As for the silent reading, please ask the group folks to add a flag "read by a Googler" at least for posts passing by the average BS detector. ;)
And when we're talking about regular superstars, there's only JohnMu who deserves this award, and since you've shanghaied him we've to live without rockstars here, at least for a while. ;) I'm looking forward to praising you in the same way soon! :)
> A good frined of mine is a Doctor in pyschology and she pointed out > that forums by their very nature can become addictive. Many who make a > post will return to see if a response has been made and then go on to > make another post in reply. Whilst doing that they see another thread > upon which they can't resist a post -and so it goes on feeding a > desire to communicate/help or whatever, in much the same way as any > addiction. > A common trait of those with addictive personalities is that they have > a fearsome memory of the subject-matter of their addiction - e.g. card- > counting gamblers or which horse came third in the 1986 derby etc. I > think for some it boils down to their personal memory of all the > threads they have been involved with. Not that i am saying those who > regularly post have an addictive personality, as those above who are > here to geniunly help have their own productivity tools, however she > thinks from occasionally viewing this forum that some show signs of a > memory that can only be associated with an addictive personality.
Seems like a common theme here seems to be that the UI is seriously flawed - particularly for keeping track of threads you've commented on and have received replies - sure, you can do that with the 'email replies to me' option - but if you're replying to lots of theads, the 'more options' -> 'email me replies' little hidden facility is a bit of a dog leg with each thread - I seriously think that there should be a more visible way to enable these emails - like perhaps a button?
That would not only help us, but it would also stop people from posting, forgetting they'd posted, and never coming back to check.
> I admit that I didn't post much recently due to my workload and a > recently popped up time waster stealing more than 100% of my spare > time (moving my blog from Blogger to WordPress because many readers > told me that they can't handle the Blogger thingy), but here is what I > do when I've time on my hands.
> No. Err. Start over. Here is what I did way back when everything > worked somewhat smoothly (I'm referring to the old sitemaps group). I > tagged all threads I've posted to or which had interesting contents. > That means I read everything. First thing in the morning was to check > my favorites list for new replies and cover that. Next I went to the > main page, read everything and replied where I was able to contribute > something useful.
> Since all that is broke nowadays (thread tags don't really work, way > more posts so that I can't read everything) I changed my behavior. Now > I'm checking the main section for unanswered threads with a somewhat > meaningful title and threads where I've posted a reply (hopefully > still tagged, for obvious reasons I miss out on some replies to my > stuff and increase the number of unanswered direct questions). I avoid > large threads because I think they're 80% trolled and don't reply to > PageRank stuff or sitelinks questions any more. Ok, I tell noobs that > toolbar PR is just for fun.
> When in time pressure, I just check out this section. All attempts to > use RSS-ish stuff to automate things turned to miserable failure > projects. I never used email options coz my inbox gets stuffed enough. > I stick with the UI.
> As for the silent reading, please ask the group folks to add a flag > "read by a Googler" at least for posts passing by the average BS > detector. ;)
> And when we're talking about regular superstars, there's only JohnMu > who deserves this award, and since you've shanghaied him we've to live > without rockstars here, at least for a while. ;) I'm looking forward > to praising you in the same way soon! :)
> All the best! > Sebastian
> On Aug 25, 6:10 pm, silverstall wrote:
> > A good frined of mine is a Doctor in pyschology and she pointed out > > that forums by their very nature can become addictive. Many who make a > > post will return to see if a response has been made and then go on to > > make another post in reply. Whilst doing that they see another thread > > upon which they can't resist a post -and so it goes on feeding a > > desire to communicate/help or whatever, in much the same way as any > > addiction. > > A common trait of those with addictive personalities is that they have > > a fearsome memory of the subject-matter of their addiction - e.g. card- > > counting gamblers or which horse came third in the 1986 derby etc. I > > think for some it boils down to their personal memory of all the > > threads they have been involved with. Not that i am saying those who > > regularly post have an addictive personality, as those above who are > > here to geniunly help have their own productivity tools, however she > > thinks from occasionally viewing this forum that some show signs of a > > memory that can only be associated with an addictive personality.
Personally I just use the regular ole groups UI. Yeah it's clunky, fails often, and has a lot less features than my newsreader did over a decade ago, but this isn't about that is it?
I use the thread star system to save what I feel are memorable threads, ones that have some value for future discussions, but as discussed that feature is quite unrealiable so I've started to just use my own firefox bookmarks, which are synched up across all the computers I use. I've got several folders for saving threads or posts based on several criteria, for example memorable Googler posts goes in its own folder with a descriptive title on the link (i.e Adam on Supplemental). I;ve then save threads and posts to more granular hierarchy after that (link building, supplemental, penalties, redirects, etc) As far as following active threads that disappear into 2nd pages, having a folder just for those threads works great with "open all tabs" option. As threads are answered sufficiently, in my opinion, they get removed from that folder and let to disappear into obscurity.
Choosing what to get involved with is another subject all together. I'll have to echo others sentiments of looking for posts with only 1 response. I also always check out the profiles of my favorite regulars to see what they've had to say since those are the people I learn the most from. The hardest part of this interface is trying to discern intent on the poster. It's always a balancing act trying to decide if they are simply sincerely ignorant or deviously manipulative. Not unlike your own goals, I sure don't want any advice I may give to be used to further some spammers activities. Generally those type of people have many many sites in their own little link network which is pretty easy to discover, even without those wonderfully fancy tools you all must have. I'd much rather help the honest site owner who is more interested in running their business than trying to learn the ins and outs of working with search engines, for those people I want to give a quick answer that they can implement and move on.
There are other elements to this wonderful group, thousands of conversations with people and you learn the personalities, which makes it fun. We have many open discussions where people from all walks of life and corners of the globe contribute their own ideas, which is wonderful.
I do need to work on my own tolerance. With JohnMu leaving to work for Google I fear their is going to be a great void left in leadership of the group. For my own part I'm going to have to be less confrontational and more forgiving, I'll uses Johns lead as a prime example.
If you observe the group, you'll notice that a lot of the regulars use the same values for judgeing which threads to get involved in. The insincere ones usually don't get much action, those people tend to be drive bys anyway.
I used the feeds much more earlier along with a firefox plugin to hide some posters before, but those situations have been cleaned up pretty well.
You brought it up so I guess that means its free to comment on it, regarding the working silently behind the scenes. I do not doubt that comment at all, I've seen proof of it on my own with other Googlers. Of course I'd love to see more "official" responses, it maddens me when I know as a company you have the resources to do such a thing but I can also understand why the company may not want to have more of a public face. What really upsets me however is two things. It drives me nuts when I see an apparent Googler dry spell (they do seem to come by in cycles) here, but then I notice Googlers freely contributing to private commercial blogs and forums, sending them traffic, adding credence to their efforts at brand building, while ignoring the only "official" Google webmastering open forum source. The 2nd thing that upsets me most is the only negative advice given by googlers with very little positive advice, I actually believe it must be a coorporate policy as it's evident all over the place. Tons and tons of "don't do this..., Don't ever do that...., avoid this..., stay away from... but never anything positive. OK, sure there are some positive statements but if you look at them they are all usually quite vague such as "create great content...generate a buzz...etc). Google definitely needs a positive face telling people WHAT to do, you've got tons telling people WHAT NOT to do. The thing is if all you do is tell people what not to do, and don't back that up with positive what to do advice, then people start to translate that message as anything that is not specifically mentioned as a NOT TO DO is considered ok.
Okay, I've written enough about the group. In conclusion the most important things to take from this is 1) yes the groups interface is quite limited and buggy 2) the toughest part of the effort is deciding who should be helped and who shouldn't 3) you've got a great community here, and 4) I'd still love to see more official Google POSITIVE advice.
> When I look at the posting statistics in this forum, I'm floored by > how often some of you post--and with helpful, content-filled > responses, too! A lot of what Googlers do on this forum is > "silent" (we take back your feedback/suggestions to our teams, > investigate problems that you report, etc., and we don't usually post > an update every time we do so), so I certainly won't be approaching > "top poster" status anytime soon; but it's obvious to me that many of > you must have following threads down to a science. Would you mind > sharing some of your productivity tips?
> How do you keep up with what's going on? Do you use the Google Groups > UI? Do you use our RSS feeds to follow threads? How do you decide > which threads to read? Do you stop by a couple times a day, or are you > constantly following new posts as they come in? I'd love to pick your > brains and get some ideas on how to become a more efficient/effective > participant during the time I spend here.
> Personally I just use the regular ole groups UI. Yeah it's clunky, > fails often, and has a lot less features than my newsreader did over a > decade ago, but this isn't about that is it?
> I use the thread star system to save what I feel are memorable > threads, ones that have some value for future discussions, but as > discussed that feature is quite unrealiable so I've started to just > use my own firefox bookmarks, which are synched up across all the > computers I use. I've got several folders for saving threads or posts > based on several criteria, for example memorable Googler posts goes in > its own folder with a descriptive title on the link (i.e Adam on > Supplemental). I;ve then save threads and posts to more granular > hierarchy after that (link building, supplemental, penalties, > redirects, etc) As far as following active threads that disappear > into 2nd pages, having a folder just for those threads works great > with "open all tabs" option. As threads are answered sufficiently, in > my opinion, they get removed from that folder and let to disappear > into obscurity.
> Choosing what to get involved with is another subject all together. > I'll have to echo others sentiments of looking for posts with only 1 > response. I also always check out the profiles of my favorite > regulars to see what they've had to say since those are the people I > learn the most from. The hardest part of this interface is trying to > discern intent on the poster. It's always a balancing act trying to > decide if they are simply sincerely ignorant or deviously > manipulative. Not unlike your own goals, I sure don't want any advice > I may give to be used to further some spammers activities. Generally > those type of people have many many sites in their own little link > network which is pretty easy to discover, even without those > wonderfully fancy tools you all must have. I'd much rather help the > honest site owner who is more interested in running their business > than trying to learn the ins and outs of working with search engines, > for those people I want to give a quick answer that they can implement > and move on.
> There are other elements to this wonderful group, thousands of > conversations with people and you learn the personalities, which makes > it fun. We have many open discussions where people from all walks of > life and corners of the globe contribute their own ideas, which is > wonderful.
> I do need to work on my own tolerance. With JohnMu leaving to work > for Google I fear their is going to be a great void left in leadership > of the group. For my own part I'm going to have to be less > confrontational and more forgiving, I'll uses Johns lead as a prime > example.
> If you observe the group, you'll notice that a lot of the regulars use > the same values for judgeing which threads to get involved in. The > insincere ones usually don't get much action, those people tend to be > drive bys anyway.
> I used the feeds much more earlier along with a firefox plugin to hide > some posters before, but those situations have been cleaned up pretty > well.
> You brought it up so I guess that means its free to comment on it, > regarding the working silently behind the scenes. I do not doubt that > comment at all, I've seen proof of it on my own with other Googlers. > Of course I'd love to see more "official" responses, it maddens me > when I know as a company you have the resources to do such a thing but > I can also understand why the company may not want to have more of a > public face. What really upsets me however is two things. It drives > me nuts when I see an apparent Googler dry spell (they do seem to come > by in cycles) here, but then I notice Googlers freely contributing to > private commercial blogs and forums, sending them traffic, adding > credence to their efforts at brand building, while ignoring the only > "official" Google webmastering open forum source. The 2nd thing that > upsets me most is the only negative advice given by googlers with very > little positive advice, I actually believe it must be a coorporate > policy as it's evident all over the place. Tons and tons of "don't do > this..., Don't ever do that...., avoid this..., stay away from... but > never anything positive. OK, sure there are some positive statements > but if you look at them they are all usually quite vague such as > "create great content...generate a buzz...etc). Google definitely > needs a positive face telling people WHAT to do, you've got tons > telling people WHAT NOT to do. The thing is if all you do is tell > people what not to do, and don't back that up with positive what to do > advice, then people start to translate that message as anything that > is not specifically mentioned as a NOT TO DO is considered ok.
> Okay, I've written enough about the group. In conclusion the most > important things to take from this is 1) yes the groups interface is > quite limited and buggy 2) the toughest part of the effort is deciding > who should be helped and who shouldn't 3) you've got a great community > here, and 4) I'd still love to see more official Google POSITIVE > advice.
> John
> GO BADGERS!
> On Aug 25, 1:41 am, Susan Moskwa wrote:
> > When I look at the posting statistics in this forum, I'm floored by > > how often some of you post--and with helpful, content-filled > > responses, too! A lot of what Googlers do on this forum is > > "silent" (we take back your feedback/suggestions to our teams, > > investigate problems that you report, etc., and we don't usually post > > an update every time we do so), so I certainly won't be approaching > > "top poster" status anytime soon; but it's obvious to me that many of > > you must have following threads down to a science. Would you mind > > sharing some of your productivity tips?
> > How do you keep up with what's going on? Do you use the Google Groups > > UI? Do you use our RSS feeds to follow threads? How do you decide > > which threads to read? Do you stop by a couple times a day, or are you > > constantly following new posts as they come in? I'd love to pick your > > brains and get some ideas on how to become a more efficient/effective > > participant during the time I spend here.
> I forgot to add, the other key to being effective is to follow up.
> On Aug 27, 3:04 am, JLH wrote:
> > Hi Susan,
> > Personally I just use the regular ole groups UI. Yeah it's clunky, > > fails often, and has a lot less features than my newsreader did over a > > decade ago, but this isn't about that is it?
> > I use the thread star system to save what I feel are memorable > > threads, ones that have some value for future discussions, but as > > discussed that feature is quite unrealiable so I've started to just > > use my own firefox bookmarks, which are synched up across all the > > computers I use. I've got several folders for saving threads or posts > > based on several criteria, for example memorable Googler posts goes in > > its own folder with a descriptive title on the link (i.e Adam on > > Supplemental). I;ve then save threads and posts to more granular > > hierarchy after that (link building, supplemental, penalties, > > redirects, etc) As far as following active threads that disappear > > into 2nd pages, having a folder just for those threads works great > > with "open all tabs" option. As threads are answered sufficiently, in > > my opinion, they get removed from that folder and let to disappear > > into obscurity.
> > Choosing what to get involved with is another subject all together. > > I'll have to echo others sentiments of looking for posts with only 1 > > response. I also always check out the profiles of my favorite > > regulars to see what they've had to say since those are the people I > > learn the most from. The hardest part of this interface is trying to > > discern intent on the poster. It's always a balancing act trying to > > decide if they are simply sincerely ignorant or deviously > > manipulative. Not unlike your own goals, I sure don't want any advice > > I may give to be used to further some spammers activities. Generally > > those type of people have many many sites in their own little link > > network which is pretty easy to discover, even without those > > wonderfully fancy tools you all must have. I'd much rather help the > > honest site owner who is more interested in running their business > > than trying to learn the ins and outs of working with search engines, > > for those people I want to give a quick answer that they can implement > > and move on.
> > There are other elements to this wonderful group, thousands of > > conversations with people and you learn the personalities, which makes > > it fun. We have many open discussions where people from all walks of > > life and corners of the globe contribute their own ideas, which is > > wonderful.
> > I do need to work on my own tolerance. With JohnMu leaving to work > > for Google I fear their is going to be a great void left in leadership > > of the group. For my own part I'm going to have to be less > > confrontational and more forgiving, I'll uses Johns lead as a prime > > example.
> > If you observe the group, you'll notice that a lot of the regulars use > > the same values for judgeing which threads to get involved in. The > > insincere ones usually don't get much action, those people tend to be > > drive bys anyway.
> > I used the feeds much more earlier along with a firefox plugin to hide > > some posters before, but those situations have been cleaned up pretty > > well.
> > You brought it up so I guess that means its free to comment on it, > > regarding the working silently behind the scenes. I do not doubt that > > comment at all, I've seen proof of it on my own with other Googlers. > > Of course I'd love to see more "official" responses, it maddens me > > when I know as a company you have the resources to do such a thing but > > I can also understand why the company may not want to have more of a > > public face. What really upsets me however is two things. It drives > > me nuts when I see an apparent Googler dry spell (they do seem to come > > by in cycles) here, but then I notice Googlers freely contributing to > > private commercial blogs and forums, sending them traffic, adding > > credence to their efforts at brand building, while ignoring the only > > "official" Google webmastering open forum source. The 2nd thing that > > upsets me most is the only negative advice given by googlers with very > > little positive advice, I actually believe it must be a coorporate > > policy as it's evident all over the place. Tons and tons of "don't do > > this..., Don't ever do that...., avoid this..., stay away from... but > > never anything positive. OK, sure there are some positive statements > > but if you look at them they are all usually quite vague such as > > "create great content...generate a buzz...etc). Google definitely > > needs a positive face telling people WHAT to do, you've got tons > > telling people WHAT NOT to do. The thing is if all you do is tell > > people what not to do, and don't back that up with positive what to do > > advice, then people start to translate that message as anything that > > is not specifically mentioned as a NOT TO DO is considered ok.
> > Okay, I've written enough about the group. In conclusion the most > > important things to take from this is 1) yes the groups interface is > > quite limited and buggy 2) the toughest part of the effort is deciding > > who should be helped and who shouldn't 3) you've got a great community > > here, and 4) I'd still love to see more official Google POSITIVE > > advice.
> > John
> > GO BADGERS!
> > On Aug 25, 1:41 am, Susan Moskwa wrote:
> > > When I look at the posting statistics in this forum, I'm floored by > > > how often some of you post--and with helpful, content-filled > > > responses, too! A lot of what Googlers do on this forum is > > > "silent" (we take back your feedback/suggestions to our teams, > > > investigate problems that you report, etc., and we don't usually post > > > an update every time we do so), so I certainly won't be approaching > > > "top poster" status anytime soon; but it's obvious to me that many of > > > you must have following threads down to a science. Would you mind > > > sharing some of your productivity tips?
> > > How do you keep up with what's going on? Do you use the Google Groups > > > UI? Do you use our RSS feeds to follow threads? How do you decide > > > which threads to read? Do you stop by a couple times a day, or are you > > > constantly following new posts as they come in? I'd love to pick your > > > brains and get some ideas on how to become a more efficient/effective > > > participant during the time I spend here.
> > I forgot to add, the other key to being effective is to follow up.
> > On Aug 27, 3:04 am, JLH wrote:
> > > Hi Susan,
> > > Personally I just use the regular ole groups UI. Yeah it's clunky, > > > fails often, and has a lot less features than my newsreader did over a > > > decade ago, but this isn't about that is it?
> > > I use the thread star system to save what I feel are memorable > > > threads, ones that have some value for future discussions, but as > > > discussed that feature is quite unrealiable so I've started to just > > > use my own firefox bookmarks, which are synched up across all the > > > computers I use. I've got several folders for saving threads or posts > > > based on several criteria, for example memorable Googler posts goes in > > > its own folder with a descriptive title on the link (i.e Adam on > > > Supplemental). I;ve then save threads and posts to more granular > > > hierarchy after that (link building, supplemental, penalties, > > > redirects, etc) As far as following active threads that disappear > > > into 2nd pages, having a folder just for those threads works great > > > with "open all tabs" option. As threads are answered sufficiently, in > > > my opinion, they get removed from that folder and let to disappear > > > into obscurity.
> > > Choosing what to get involved with is another subject all together. > > > I'll have to echo others sentiments of looking for posts with only 1 > > > response. I also always check out the profiles of my favorite > > > regulars to see what they've had to say since those are the people I > > > learn the most from. The hardest part of this interface is trying to > > > discern intent on the poster. It's always a balancing act trying to > > > decide if they are simply sincerely ignorant or deviously > > > manipulative. Not unlike your own goals, I sure don't want any advice > > > I may give to be used to further some spammers activities. Generally > > > those type of people have many many sites in their own little link > > > network which is pretty easy to discover, even without those > > > wonderfully fancy tools you all must have. I'd much rather help the > > > honest site owner who is more interested in running their business > > > than trying to learn the ins and outs of working with search engines, > > > for those people I want to give a quick answer that they can implement > > > and move on.
> > > There are other elements to this wonderful group, thousands of > > > conversations with people and you learn the personalities, which makes > > > it fun. We have many open discussions where people from all walks of > > > life and corners of the globe contribute their own ideas, which is > > > wonderful.
> > > I do need to work on my own tolerance. With JohnMu leaving to work > > > for Google I fear their is going to be a great void left in leadership > > > of the group. For my own part I'm going to have to be less > > > confrontational and more forgiving, I'll uses Johns lead as a prime > > > example.
> > > If you observe the group, you'll notice that a lot of the regulars use > > > the same values for judgeing which threads to get involved in. The > > > insincere ones usually don't get much action, those people tend to be > > > drive bys anyway.
> > > I used the feeds much more earlier along with a firefox plugin to hide > > > some posters before, but those situations have been cleaned up pretty > > > well.
> > > You brought it up so I guess that means its free to comment on it, > > > regarding the working silently behind the scenes. I do not doubt that > > > comment at all, I've seen proof of it on my own with other Googlers. > > > Of course I'd love to see more "official" responses, it maddens me > > > when I know as a company you have the resources to do such a thing but > > > I can also understand why the company may not want to have more of a > > > public face. What really upsets me however is two things. It drives > > > me nuts when I see an apparent Googler dry spell (they do seem to come > > > by in cycles) here, but then I notice Googlers freely contributing to > > > private commercial blogs and forums, sending them traffic, adding > > > credence to their efforts at brand building, while ignoring the only > > > "official" Google webmastering open forum source. The 2nd thing that > > > upsets me most is the only negative advice given by googlers with very > > > little positive advice, I actually believe it must be a coorporate > > > policy as it's evident all over the place. Tons and tons of "don't do > > > this..., Don't ever do that...., avoid this..., stay away from... but > > > never anything positive. OK, sure there are some positive statements > > > but if you look at them they are all usually quite vague such as > > > "create great content...generate a buzz...etc). Google definitely > > > needs a positive face telling people WHAT to do, you've got tons > > > telling people WHAT NOT to do. The thing is if all you do is tell > > > people what not to do, and don't back that up with positive what to do > > > advice, then people start to translate that message as anything that > > > is not specifically mentioned as a NOT TO DO is considered ok.
> > > Okay, I've written enough about the group. In conclusion the most > > > important things to take from this is 1) yes the groups interface is > > > quite limited and buggy 2) the toughest part of the effort is deciding > > > who should be helped and who shouldn't 3) you've got a great community > > > here, and 4) I'd still love to see more official Google POSITIVE > > > advice.
> > > John
> > > GO BADGERS!
> > > On Aug 25, 1:41 am, Susan Moskwa wrote:
> > > > When I look at the posting statistics in this forum, I'm floored by > > > > how often some of you post--and with helpful, content-filled > > > > responses, too! A lot of what Googlers do on this forum is > > > > "silent" (we take back your feedback/suggestions to our teams, > > > > investigate problems that you report, etc., and we don't usually post > > > > an update every time we do so), so I certainly won't be approaching > > > > "top poster" status anytime soon; but it's obvious to me that many of > > > > you must have following threads down to a science. Would you mind > > > > sharing some of your productivity tips?
> > > > How do you keep up with what's going on? Do you use the Google Groups > > > > UI? Do you use our RSS feeds to follow threads? How do you decide > > > > which threads to read? Do you stop by a couple times a day, or are you > > > > constantly following new posts as they come in? I'd love to pick your > > > > brains and get some ideas on how to become a more efficient/effective > > > > participant during the time I spend here.
Thank you so much for all of your thoughtful advice! This confirms one of my suspicions (time to ditch the RSS), and I'll be trying out some of your suggestions over the next few weeks. FYI I'll be travelling for a good chunk of September, but will be diving back in after that.
@JohnMu: Thanks for the tips. We're all looking forward to seeing a blue badge next to your great contributions!
@Sebastian: Thanks for the congrats!
@JLH: I'm torn between wanting to provide explanations (we were at X conference, we were working on Y big launch, etc.) and not wanting to seem like I'm just putting forward excuses. We do--and will continue to--monitor industry blogs/forums as well as our own Help Group, because each have different audiences and we want to get a diversity of feedback (as well as respond to issues that we think require a response, regardless of what URL they originate on). We also share your concerns about the health of this group, and maintaining critical mass around discussions here is something we take into consideration. But sometimes you're reading an article (maybe in your free time) and you just want to comment on it, y'know? I think the question shouldn't so much be "Are we paying more attention to X, Y or Z" as "Are we adequately serving our Help Group?", and that's an issue we're constantly thinking about and working to improve.
As for your feedback about negative responses... I hear what you're saying. Is there anything in particular you had in mind? My inclination is to say that it's hard to get too specific about "what you, as a webmaster, should do" without that advice becoming irrelevant to many people. There are so many different ways to make a successful site, so the advice we offer has to be generalizable and thus will always feel somewhat vague. Additionally, Google is not in the business of SEO, so our "advice" is never going to get as specific as many people here would like it to be. ;-)
> Thank you so much for all of your thoughtful advice! This confirms one > of my suspicions (time to ditch the RSS), and I'll be trying out some > of your suggestions over the next few weeks. FYI I'll be travelling > for a good chunk of September, but will be diving back in after that.
> @JohnMu: Thanks for the tips. We're all looking forward to seeing a > blue badge next to your great contributions!
> @Sebastian: Thanks for the congrats!
> @JLH: I'm torn between wanting to provide explanations (we were at X > conference, we were working on Y big launch, etc.) and not wanting to > seem like I'm just putting forward excuses. We do--and will continue > to--monitor industry blogs/forums as well as our own Help Group, > because each have different audiences and we want to get a diversity > of feedback (as well as respond to issues that we think require a > response, regardless of what URL they originate on). We also share > your concerns about the health of this group, and maintaining critical > mass around discussions here is something we take into consideration. > But sometimes you're reading an article (maybe in your free time) and > you just want to comment on it, y'know? I think the question shouldn't > so much be "Are we paying more attention to X, Y or Z" as "Are we > adequately serving our Help Group?", and that's an issue we're > constantly thinking about and working to improve.
> As for your feedback about negative responses... I hear what you're > saying. Is there anything in particular you had in mind? My > inclination is to say that it's hard to get too specific about "what > you, as a webmaster, should do" without that advice becoming > irrelevant to many people. There are so many different ways to make a > successful site, so the advice we offer has to be generalizable and > thus will always feel somewhat vague. Additionally, Google is not in > the business of SEO, so our "advice" is never going to get as specific > as many people here would like it to be. ;-)
> Thank you so much for all of your thoughtful advice! This confirms one > of my suspicions (time to ditch the RSS), and I'll be trying out some > of your suggestions over the next few weeks. FYI I'll be travelling > for a good chunk of September, but will be diving back in after that.
> @JohnMu: Thanks for the tips. We're all looking forward to seeing a > blue badge next to your great contributions!
> @Sebastian: Thanks for the congrats!
> @JLH: I'm torn between wanting to provide explanations (we were at X > conference, we were working on Y big launch, etc.) and not wanting to > seem like I'm just putting forward excuses. We do--and will continue > to--monitor industry blogs/forums as well as our own Help Group, > because each have different audiences and we want to get a diversity > of feedback (as well as respond to issues that we think require a > response, regardless of what URL they originate on). We also share > your concerns about the health of this group, and maintaining critical > mass around discussions here is something we take into consideration. > But sometimes you're reading an article (maybe in your free time) and > you just want to comment on it, y'know? I think the question shouldn't > so much be "Are we paying more attention to X, Y or Z" as "Are we > adequately serving our Help Group?", and that's an issue we're > constantly thinking about and working to improve.
> As for your feedback about negative responses... I hear what you're > saying. Is there anything in particular you had in mind? My > inclination is to say that it's hard to get too specific about "what > you, as a webmaster, should do" without that advice becoming > irrelevant to many people. There are so many different ways to make a > successful site, so the advice we offer has to be generalizable and > thus will always feel somewhat vague. Additionally, Google is not in > the business of SEO, so our "advice" is never going to get as specific > as many people here would like it to be. ;-)
> As for your feedback about negative responses... I hear what you're > saying. Is there anything in particular you had in mind? My > inclination is to say that it's hard to get too specific about "what > you, as a webmaster, should do" without that advice becoming > irrelevant to many people.
Susan, I don't think any advice from G can be considered "irrelevant". At some point in time, EVERYONE is going to eventually find it relevant and certainly important. I for one, and I'm sure many agree, would rather, and easily put up with redundancy, monotony or irrelevance (with regards to comments), rather than vagueness or no input at all.
> There are so many different ways to make a > successful site, so the advice we offer has to be generalizable and > thus will always feel somewhat vague.
Unfortunately a site cannot be considered "successful" unless it's in the G main index due to the massive SE market share G enjoys. Hence the reason for more specific input and advice.
> Additionally, Google is not in > the business of SEO, so our "advice" is never going to get as specific > as many people here would like it to be. ;-)
You (google) doesn't have to be in the business of SEO to offer "advice" on getting in and STAYING in the G index and on why people's whitehat pages and sites get deleted. Only YOU (google) can offer that type of advice and assistance.
Site owners DO FOLLOW that "advice" and it doesn't help. That is the problem. They'll follow them to the letter, yet still end up having whitehat pages and whole sites deleted. There's also those that not only DON'T follow it, but VIOLATE IT, yet receive no penalty and are rewarded for it. That's because your algo's don't work. That's the 'simple' reality of it and why it's IMPERATIVE for specific feedback from G to help those by the millions that didn't violate anything, yet suffered. Remember "do no evil"?
> But I'm not saying this to try to shut you down,
Neither am I. ;-)
> FYI I've passed this thread on to a few teams since I think you guys > have given some great feedback. Thanks for keeping it positive, > too. :)
Sorry, all positive-feedback is not realistic. ;-) Randy
Thanks for the Badger's music, that was great! Reminds me I have to figure out what game I'm going to this fall, I think its going to have to be Michigan on 11/10. I get my season tickets every year but usually sell them off except for the one game, just wish I lived closer.
> > Thank you so much for all of your thoughtful advice! This confirms one > > of my suspicions (time to ditch the RSS), and I'll be trying out some > > of your suggestions over the next few weeks. FYI I'll be travelling > > for a good chunk of September, but will be diving back in after that.
> > @JohnMu: Thanks for the tips. We're all looking forward to seeing a > > blue badge next to your great contributions!
> > @Sebastian: Thanks for the congrats!
> > @JLH: I'm torn between wanting to provide explanations (we were at X > > conference, we were working on Y big launch, etc.) and not wanting to > > seem like I'm just putting forward excuses. We do--and will continue > > to--monitor industry blogs/forums as well as our own Help Group, > > because each have different audiences and we want to get a diversity > > of feedback (as well as respond to issues that we think require a > > response, regardless of what URL they originate on). We also share > > your concerns about the health of this group, and maintaining critical > > mass around discussions here is something we take into consideration. > > But sometimes you're reading an article (maybe in your free time) and > > you just want to comment on it, y'know? I think the question shouldn't > > so much be "Are we paying more attention to X, Y or Z" as "Are we > > adequately serving our Help Group?", and that's an issue we're > > constantly thinking about and working to improve.
> > As for your feedback about negative responses... I hear what you're > > saying. Is there anything in particular you had in mind? My > > inclination is to say that it's hard to get too specific about "what > > you, as a webmaster, should do" without that advice becoming > > irrelevant to many people. There are so many different ways to make a > > successful site, so the advice we offer has to be generalizable and > > thus will always feel somewhat vague. Additionally, Google is not in > > the business of SEO, so our "advice" is never going to get as specific > > as many people here would like it to be. ;-)
> > But I'm not saying this to try to shut you down, so let me know if you > > have further thoughts...
> > FYI I've passed this thread on to a few teams since I think you guys > > have given some great feedback. Thanks for keeping it positive, > > too. :)
Susan, my concerns were more of being on a global reach scale. Right now people get their news from thousands of sources and that diversity means that most people aren't getting the same message. Interaction with the community is imperative for good public relations and that should be continued, but I think if we had a more central location for disseminating information more people would be on the same page. For example, let's say there's a heated discussion on www.searchenginewebsitelandforumMOZroundtable.com about filing reconsideration requests and Adam jumps in and says, "Relax, we were all in a special Googler training seminar last week and the requests will be caught up with by the end of this week. We'll be back to getting through most within two week of submission soon" Well, thats a pearl of knowledge that should be served up in some official capacity. If that statement were just cut-n-pasted here by someone with a blue badge, you can be rest assured that it would be quoted, cited, and linked to a lot. When Joe-blow-webmaster rolls into the group and says, " I filed my reconsideration request 12 weeks ago, how long should I wait?" Well I can quote Adam on www.searchenginewebsitelandforumMOZroundtable.com and that will answer the question, but it would be better to point them to a post with a BLUE BADGE on it so they know that someone from Google said it. I know who Adam is, but not everyone will know that they should be looking to www.searchenginewebsitelandforumMOZroundtable.com blog comments for answers, they come to Google.com and eventually get lead here when the help center doesn't have the answer. It still works the way it is, but it sure would work better if Googlers made a concentrated effort to at least CC the group on help issued elsewhere. We keep hearing that you have to limit your engagements so that the masses are served better and answer only questions that help the most people, having that information in one place would go a long way to meeting that goal.
As far as positivity, that was more of a general observation, do with it as you will. I've just noticed watching all the coverage of SES San Jose that everyone seems to be reporting, "Google says don't do this, don't do that..." I don't see a cheerleader out front being positive. Sometimes you have to think of the masses like children, if you constantly are harping on them about what they can't do, they tend to find workarounds for what they can do, on the other hand if you are giving them positive directions they tend to go in that direction. People like to be lead not disciplined. I'm not saying that you need to come out and say things positivley at a granular level, "Use H1 tags with 7 words to rank better" kind of way, but rather instead of saying, "avoid thin affiliate pages" which just causes everyone to rewrite the manufactures copy in their own words (either manually or with a frankenstein aggregator), discuss how Google would like to see unique concepts as well as just unique wording in order to serve up a variety of sites. The web is quite full of ways to describe the Hilton hotel in Dallas, let's work on some unique concepts that would make me want to visit another site about it.
> Thank you so much for all of your thoughtful advice! This confirms one > of my suspicions (time to ditch the RSS), and I'll be trying out some > of your suggestions over the next few weeks. FYI I'll be travelling > for a good chunk of September, but will be diving back in after that.
> @JohnMu: Thanks for the tips. We're all looking forward to seeing a > blue badge next to your great contributions!
> @Sebastian: Thanks for the congrats!
> @JLH: I'm torn between wanting to provide explanations (we were at X > conference, we were working on Y big launch, etc.) and not wanting to > seem like I'm just putting forward excuses. We do--and will continue > to--monitor industry blogs/forums as well as our own Help Group, > because each have different audiences and we want to get a diversity > of feedback (as well as respond to issues that we think require a > response, regardless of what URL they originate on). We also share > your concerns about the health of this group, and maintaining critical > mass around discussions here is something we take into consideration. > But sometimes you're reading an article (maybe in your free time) and > you just want to comment on it, y'know? I think the question shouldn't > so much be "Are we paying more attention to X, Y or Z" as "Are we > adequately serving our Help Group?", and that's an issue we're > constantly thinking about and working to improve.
> As for your feedback about negative responses... I hear what you're > saying. Is there anything in particular you had in mind? My > inclination is to say that it's hard to get too specific about "what > you, as a webmaster, should do" without that advice becoming > irrelevant to many people. There are so many different ways to make a > successful site, so the advice we offer has to be generalizable and > thus will always feel somewhat vague. Additionally, Google is not in > the business of SEO, so our "advice" is never going to get as specific > as many people here would like it to be. ;-)
|
