[This thread will be opened right after the event]

Hey everyone,

Thanks for attending our third live online webmaster chat!

If you already filled out the survey you were prompted with
immediately following the chat, thanks!  If you didn't -- or you'd
like to offer additional feedback -- this is the place to do it!

- Did you find the signup instructions clear?
- Were the WebEx and Google Moderator platforms effective and
intuitive?
- What did you especially like about the chat overall?
- What could be added or improved for our next event?

Definitely looking forward to your feedback :)

#1 Yes
#2 Yes, though Moderator sure could use some features, probably not
what you were asking, but not being able to sort makes 382 questions
quite daunting and less likely to be read.
#3 I like that you concentrated on debunking many of the top SEO
myths, too much effort is spent on worthless endeavors and addressing
those myths are good for all.
#4 Take that Speaker Phone and stomp on it till it's little itty bitty
pieces and give everyone their own headset in the room.

On Oct 20, 6:54 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:

1. Yes, clear sign-up instructions.
2. The WebEx and Google Moderator platforms were effective and
intuitive.
3. I enjoyed John Mueller’s SEO Myth Buster presentation.
4. The event was fine. I'd just recommend doing them more often.

Thanks for all the information which you shared, very helpful :-)

Adam,

The feedback form on the survey cut off comment at an unspecified # of
characters. Had to keep paring down until I'm not sure what it said:-)

What I wanted to express is that given the number of Googlers
involved, the diversity and level of expertise of people attending and
the amount of time taken in the end cries out for for an online
conference rather than a webinar. Why not pre-schedule sessions for
different audiences and different levels of expertise, and only have
the most relevant Googler's at each? Would make the whole process more
efficient for both you and us. For those presentation that will
include slides, pre-publishing the slides would help potential
attendees determine if it's important for them.

Morris

Love the feedback!

- We're still trying to track down why the sound wasn't great.  We use
these same speakerphones for all our internal meetings (across
countries!) and have never had a problem.  But next time, we'll
broadcast from meeting rooms that have multiple microphones
(throughout the room, not just centrally), so that should help quite a
bit... and we'll also check with Webex to make sure they're giving us
enough high quality bandwidth to support such a large group of
attendees (over 600 at the peak!)

- Moderator's new, and I totally agree with you, JLH... I want some
additional features for it, too.  I'll be chatting with the moderator
engineers to see what can be added before our next chat.  For
instance, I think there are some great opportunities for filtering and
sorting...

- About event frequency... heh, it'd be fun to do these weekly, but
you can probably imagine the amount of time it takes to put these
together and the collective time it takes throughout the team.  One
thing I think would be great would be to start offering these chats in
timezones and languages better suited to non-Americans.

- I didn't know there was a character limit on the survey form until
you and Tim mentioned this.  I'll see if it's possible to increase
that!

- Re: segmenting / expanding this into multiple sessions -- that's an
intriguing idea.  On one hand, I think it's important for even the
most advanced SEOs to re-hear the basics and basic mythbusting, even
if it seems rudimentary.  But on the other hand, you're absolutely
right that there are varying abilities, different levels of experience
and knowledge.  Plus it's pretty draining to type frantically or speak
for a lot of 2 hours :).  [oh, and point taken on making slides
available; I know our legal/PR folks are touchy about this sort of
thing, and in large part for good reason.  The information on this
stuff changes rapidly, and we're reluctant to have people passing
around outdated material.  But still, I definitely see the benefit of
making this available in ways other than just 'in real time.']

Keep the feedback coming!

Other than the sound issue, everything was great and instructions were
very clear.  Favorite, hmmm..... I'd have to say the "flash round"
q&a!  Looking forward to next time....

-Brian

On Oct 22, 3:04 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:

Hi Gang-

Q1: Did you find the signup instructions clear?
A1: I found the sign-up clear, but I found out about the event through
@mattcutts' friendfeed.

Q2: Were the WebEx and Google Moderator platforms effective and
intuitive?
A2: WebEx was fine and I loved the presentations.  I would have been
good to have question categories; onsite, offsite, server, ecommerce
etc.

Q3: What did you especially like about the chat overall?
A3: I liked the real-time interactive part of the chat; text questions
and listen to the answer.

Overall I think it was awesome! I love that Googlers are hitting the
myths of the search engine industry. If you all could invite me to the
next event that would be great!

Thanks
@AnneHaynes

On Oct 20, 6:54 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:

yea, it was very clear  :)

Google Moderator is intuitive and very good platform, as well as
webex, but second service sometimes had some bugs with audio...

I like what Google talking with webmasters from eye to eye and
answering them questions.. other things not important

we need to save the conference results at least chat in .txt format or
presentations..
But all was on the great level!

Thank you guys!

(My disclaimer: any information being offered by Google is greatly
appreciated. Any criticism being made by myself is meant to be
constructive and usually given only when asked: usually with an
apology made in advance if an idea was frivolous, misunderstood or a
nonissue.)

... "stuff you didn't like, ideas for next time ..."

Well ..., I expected the caliber of the technical aspects of a
production coming from Google to be better. This shouldn't be confused
with the desire to make the presentation be informal while having fun
-- which is good.

a. Audio Quality: Not the technical one that may or may not have
occurred. Some of that was probably "noob stuff" or a Webex issue. It
was the microphone doing a "group pickup". Its distracting "whole
room" quality  doesn't feel right and is a hard follow for
understanding the idea being discussed. Everyone should sound the way
John did after his audio correction was made.

b. Images: Being able to view the group in a video feed would be
interstesting and compelling; unless there are universal
accessablility or bandwidth issues (maybe get the YouTube team
involved and develope a cool low key solution?). Otherwise, an
alternative could be jpegs of each (unless they're shy) in the
Presentation window.

c.Text: The questions being discussed would be easier to follow if
someone would be able to have it display "immediately" in the
Presentation window.

Thanks again. Regardless, looking forward to the next event.

- Easy signup; yes.
- Effective; yes. Intuitive; okay (my first time using both plaforms).
- The learning experience.
- (See the reply above)

On Oct 20, 4:54 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:

Hi Adam

On the whole Moderator was a better platform than has been used
previously (just one computer was fine this time) and I found the
sound less confusing than it has been.  Really annoying to exceed my
character limit in my considered feedback and not even be given a clue
how many characters I had to play with!  However, I've got over that
now ;-)  Good to see a new poster this am following my suggestion to
post his questions on the chat and then have Matt answer 2 - a new
evangelist for Webmasters I imagine!

It is useful to re-state the basics regularly particularly as the
Search Engines are constantly innovating so what was true six months
ago isn't necessarily true now, and, realistically, a broader view is
more useful to more people.  Howwever, there are areas where more of a
drill-down would be good, but, equally, I can see the magician
wouldn't want to give away his secrets.  Also, on the slides thing -
is it my imagination or was there really a "print slides" option? I
didn't because I've never bothered to link a printer to that
particular computer, but I'm sure I saw it?

Anyway, thanks to you all.

Becky

1) I thought the sign up were clear - and even at 5am in New Zealand I
logged in ok (early start)
2) easy to follow - sound could be improved, some presenters talked a
little fast (possible would help with better sound quality)
3) Chat - too many stupid and irrelevant posts/questions - too fast to
keep up with, so did not bother following
4) A way of keep slides for memory retention - would be fantastic if
the forthcoming archive could contain the slides for memory retention

Cheers
Peter

#1 Very Simple and straightforward.
#2 Yes, helps having dual monitors during a webex/gmoderator event.
#3 I can use the information to debunk some of the myths management
believes :) I liked the way questions were handled in the gmoderator
and am interested to read responses. Voting is awesome.
#4 Speakerphone is ok, but there was a lot of issue on the board about
volume and clarity. That may be something to review, I could hear OK,
but who knows in the future? Also, the chat box on webex was flying
constantly with useless comments, perhaps that could be used only for
important things, like finding out how to get audio or when a speaker
isn't clear enough.

It was a great session and I look forward to the next.
I hope the presentaions are posted as someone said they would be on
the blog. I need that for this Friday!
Very useful.

Thanks again.

Why is Google using Webex which require webmasters to use a Windows
only Active X component. I use Ubuntu and therefore had to use another
computer in order to attend. Sad, sad, sad.

On Oct 20, 6:54 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:

Hi there,
First of all I'd like to thank you for the initiative.
Here's some quick feedback:

1. When logging in, I was asked to download some stuff which took me
nearly 10 minutes. It would have been more helpfull to have downloaded
them beforehand if I knew about it.
2. The stream was chopped up, I couldn't hear the discussion in whole.
Just bits and pieces of conversation. Toward the end of the chat it
got a bot better though.
3. Other panelists' occasional background laughter made it even harder
to follow the conversation.
4. While trying to fill the survey I was repeatedly told that I had
written too many words. Cutting down the text to the bare minimum was
of no avail and I finally gave up replying to the survey.

I'd appreciate a link to where the chat might be available.
Thanks
Helix

On Oct 21, 1:54 am, Adam Lasnik wrote:

Hi Adam

Wasn't able to join as it was on @ 3am Australian time and just
couldn't keep the eyes awake for it.  Hoping there might be a
recording made available?

Great to see the positive comments here - obviously something worth
seeing.

Michael

1) Yes
2) No sorting of question made it a fruitless effort
3) Provided an indication that there were people at Google who wanted
to help
4)a- sign off window aused safari to freeze
4)b- difficult to hear at times
4)c- suggest having the questions submitted in advance, chosen, and
circulated as an agenda so we can decide whether or not to listen
4)d- too much time spent on myths

at 4:54 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:

Adam,

For fun I'll assume you meant me here:-)

A point I brought up at the last web meeting was that there needs to
be a paid channel, just for the sake of getting needed questions
answered. There was some discussion of this, and the view from Google
was, (paraphrase) "Understand the need but we've been trying to avoid
this for appearances sake, if nothing else." Unfortunately, I missed
the Moderator question queue today until there were several hundred
questions already, so I held off on the question I really need
answered. I won't ask it here because it's not the right place, I
guiltily dropped part of it on Matt Cutts blog today, not the right
place either, but neither are the forums with the peer reactions that
aren't exactly answers.

Based on what I hear from Google, there *may* be a fundamental problem
with the way my navigation is structured. I could fix it all manually
over some tens of hours, losing the ability to use my old web design
tool at the same time, or I could upgrade to a new HTML editor/CMS
system at the cost of a hundred or more hours. I'd much rather give
$100 to Google's favorite charity simply to find out if I'm
interpreting what you're saying correctly. If the question turns out
to be complicated for some reason, I'd gladly donate more. It's not
just the cost in time that I'm confronted with, but the possibility
that making the navigation changes I assume are desirable could
actually be wrong and hurt my site, adding insult to loss.

As far as I know, there is no definitive non-Google source from which
I can get an answer.

Morris

Hey,
is there a transcript anywhere, I missed the majority of the chat due
to flaky internet in Beijing.
Thanks

On Oct 21, 7:54 am, Adam Lasnik wrote:

I missed the entire chat due to some unknown problem. I registered
with my email id and all, but when I tried to join the chat, my
information didn't load on that page. I tried register again. But it
says "You are already registered, please contact host for your id".
When will be the next chat ? I'm waiting for it.

Yes I found the instructions clear and it worked fine.

The platforms were effective enough for 'myself.'

Did not really enjot the chat unfortunately, found it too boring and
switched off after half an hour or so wishing I had not rushed home.

Next time perhaps we can have subject breakdown, an agenda, to know
whether  it is worth attending?

I am no expert at all but the very fact that I am using the webmaster
area shows that I am not totally ignorant. Unfortunely all the info I
heard or saw was just way too basic and therefore not helpful at all,
in fact it wasted my valuable time and that dissapointed me. I was
very interested in hearing what other people asked of you etc but was
not going to wait around for hours without knowing if there was
anything interesting to come. I could only judge based on what I was
seeing therefore I thought that in all probablity only the most basic
of questions would be selected for discussion.

Did anybody that attended learn something new or interesting and think
it is worth listening to the recorded version if/when available?

Regards

Sarah

On Oct 21, 1:54 am, Adam Lasnik wrote:

Thank you all for taking the time to put WebEx together. However, I
have a few suggestions to help make future WebEx’s more successful.

1. The WebEx would be more effective if it were focused on a specific
audience.

Suggestion:
Have multiple WebEx’s for people at different levels in their career;
a one size fits all, does not always work – perhaps a sales
presentation yes but an educational presentation no, it does not work.

2. Google asked us to input and vote on questions we wanted answered.

Suggestion:
Pay attention to the people and use the information (results) to
organize the structure of the WebEx.

Take the top (not random) 10 or 20 questions with the most votes and
answer them in order; no matter how tough they are.

Also, have a deadline (day before the WebEx) to input you questions.
This will give Google moderators time to prepare for the meeting and
also give the participants structure and an expectation of what is to
come.

3. Put effort into preparing for the presentation

Suggestion:
The presentation was 2 hours and there were only a couple Googlers who
prepared some sort of visuals. Also, there were not a lot of questions
were answered for a meeting that lasted 2 hours.

For the most part it looked as though there was little to no
preparation. Being prepared will give you credibility – you simply
can’t rely on a company name like Google to speak for your
credibility. You earn credibility by preparing your presentation and
sharing your knowledge.

4. Have an agenda

Suggestion:
Preparing for your meeting by having an agenda; this will allow the
meeting to have structure and not seem like a free for all. Refer to
#3

5. Work Smart Not Hard

Suggestion:
Use technology sensibly and proportionally.

6. Remove the chat box

Suggestion:
Just because you can have a chat box does not mean you need to have
one. Moderators were not able to focus because there were paying too
much attention to the chat as they were trying to give their
presentation. Basically, this is became a free for all.

In addition, you can use the chat box to post questions directly to
the moderator but not allow others to see what the questions are.
There is no need to use a website to post the questions. Refer to #5

On Oct 22, 3:04 pm, Adam Lasnik wrote:

- Yes, the instructions were very clear.
- There was problem with audio only and in feedback form an unexpected
limit of words was there.
- I liked the uncovering of myths by John.
- Need more sessions and more frequently.

Congratulations! Great job!

Much easier to read than the moderator answers:

http://www.pagetrafficblog.com/google-webmaster-chat-questions-answer...

(don't knew who's site it is)

On Oct 23, 10:42 am, Preeti Prakash wrote:

Thats cool,
very good questions and answers!

On Oct 24, 6:47 am, JLH wrote:

Thanks JLH...I had gone through the post and the person had explained
evrything very well... Thanks again...

On Oct 24, 9:47 am, JLH wrote: