Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  • Jump to page:
    #1
  1. Sick of BL's, PR + Google
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    865
    Rep Power
    40

    Googleguy speaks! Some good clarifications


    An intereresting thread by Googleguy at WMW, clarifies some interesting things

    http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/29720.htm

    Sorry if it has already been posted, not been around much

    Comments on this post

    • Bernard agrees : Thanks for the heads up
  2. #2
  3. KSL Consulting
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    427
    Rep Power
    17
    Without a subscription to their forum, it seems we cannot read this post! Login and password required. Can anyone summarise what the points of interest are?

    Thanks!


    Originally Posted by thewormman
    http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/29720.htm
  4. #3
  5. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    573
    Rep Power
    16
    Just register at WMW and You will be able to read this post.

    Another Good Thread: http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/29727.htm
    Last edited by eclipse; Jun 2nd, 2005 at 05:18 AM.
    Pharmacea.org - New OP Affiliate Program. Join us!. Generic and Brand medications. High 28% commission.
  6. #4
  7. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    599
    Rep Power
    14
    http: //www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/29720.htm


    - The Google World
    -- Google News
    ---- GoogleGuy's posts


    GoogleGuy - 3:12 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)


    Hey moderators, let me know if there's any way to lock this thread for a while so that only I can post in it. That would let me put out a few posts that won't get lost in the Bourbon shuffle. I think maybe WebGuerrilla set it up last time?




    vitaplease - 5:57 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)


    Go ahead in this thread Googleguy.


    Fellow WebmasterWorld members - this is Googleguy only for the moment - all other replies will be deleted for the moment.



    GoogleGuy - 7:52 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)


    Many thanks, vitaplease and Woz and the other mods who keep things running so well here. I've got to run a meeting early tomorrow morning, so let me just start by noting a few things. I'll start by repeating the message #567 from thread 3. reseller was asking for a little bit of an indexing outlook for the next few day and how much flux to expect. I said:
    reseller, currently, a few data centers have some different data that should be everywhere in a few days. I'll keep people posted on the status of things, and collect feedback closer to the end after things are settling down more. I'd expect that things will be back to their normal level of everflux by New Orleans. But we do have incremental indexing after all, so it's normal to expect a certain amount of change to the index every day or so (aka everflux). In fact, everflux is a pretty good analogy. If you go back to summer 2003, update Fritz was the beginning of the transition from a monthly update to an incremental index. It caused a lot of comments, because plenty of people were happy with an index that only changed once a month. A lot of the thickness in my hide started with Fritz during summer two years ago. happy! Summer in the northern hemisphere is often a good time for a search engines to work on revamping different parts of our system and improving our quality; typically search engine traffic is lower in the summer due to seasonality. So the summer is a good time to think about things like bringing in new signals of quality and ways to rank pages, plus doing things like reorganizing our webmaster pages, etc. etc.



    It's true that the summer (northern hemisphere) is when traffic is lower and sometimes it's easier to roll new things into crawling/indexing/scoring. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we worked on revamping our webmaster pages, for example. The SEO and quality guidelines pages have aged pretty well, but other parts of the webmaster section need to be reorganized; there's a few places where there's the same info (e.g. about robots.txt) repeated in several places or scattered over different pages. It's not trivial to reorganize that much info, esp. since it's translated into so many languages. But better to go ahead and start, and then if we want to tune those pages later, that's okay. I've been aching for a long time to mention somewhere official that sites shouldn't use "&id=" as a parameter if they want maximal Googlebot crawlage, for example. So many sites use "&id=" with session IDs that Googlebot usually avoids urls with that parameter, but we've only mentioned that here and on a few other places. Getting started on things like that will be nice. I appreciate the people who sat down and tried to tease out the info on our current webmaster pages and organize it more logically.



    GoogleGuy - 7:59 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)


    taps, in message 33 of the first Bourbon thread you mention that you sometimes see your meta description shown instead of the typical Google snippet. That's something that we've been experimenting with for a little while. To be honest, I'm not sure what the exact criteria are for using the meta description instead of a normal snippet, but it's independent of the update. You can assume that we're always looking at different ways of giving snippets (from the text of the page, from an ODP description, from meta descriptions) and trying to find what's the most useful result for a searcher.


    I have to admit that I'm so conditioned to our regular snippets that when we show one of the other types of descriptions, it's a little jarring for me. But I've been keeping an open mind and trying to figure out when I like it vs. when it just keeps me from getting the info I want faster.



    GoogleGuy - 8:07 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)


    One thing that I noticed in the first 300 posts or so was a discussion about whether backlinks or PageRanks were also being updated at the same time. In general, I wouldn't fixate too much on backlinks or PageRank during an update. The external backlinks/PR that we show have at least a couple factors that complicate analysis. First off, they are a snapshot in time, and the actual backlinks/PageRank used for ranking are from a different time interval. Another complicating factor is that we don't show every backlink on Google; we only show a subset of the backlinks we have internally. [One of the things we needed to do on our webmaster pages revamp was to go back and make sure it's clear that we only show a sampling of the backlinks we know about, not all backlinks.] The snapshotting + asynchronous nature + subsampling actions means that it's pretty hard to trace the reason for a ranking change back to a particular exported view of backlinks or PageRank. This is an area where I wouldn't read as much into the particular backlinks or PageRank that you see at any particular instant in time. Also, if a backlink or PageRank external update happened at the same time as ranking changes, I wouldn't read too much into how closely in time they happen together.


    Just as a guide for people who don't eat and breathe WebmasterWorld, we typically show new backlink sample sets every 3-5 weeks or so. We have a bank of machines that computes PageRank continuously (and continually, I suppose; I wasn't an English major), but we only export new visible PageRanks every 3-4 months or so.



    GoogleGuy - 8:15 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)


    One thing that is more clear if you read update threads in one big chunk (instead of in-the-trenches as posts are being made) is how folks can get off onto different (and sometimes mistaken) tangents. One of those tangents was that Google would penalize pages that had <iframes>.


    I've never heard the suggestion that Google would penalize for iframes before reading it in the thread. Plenty of legit sites use iframes, so it wouldn't make sense to penalize for it. Powdork gave the right response in message 337 of the first Bourbon thread. Now I can easily believe that some search engine spiders would have trouble with iframes just like some spiders have trouble with frames. But I wouldn't expect iframes to cause any penalties.

    So it's kind of like the whole urban myth that was going on for a while about "if you use javascript to change the text in the status bar, a search engine may penalize you." Sometimes these things just get started, I dunno where. Most of the time there's level heads around to say "that just doesn't sound right; it doesn't hold together with common sense." So I'll debunk the iframe myth now for good measure.



    GoogleGuy - 8:26 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)


    Sometimes a tangent isn't such a bad thing though. For example, partway into the Bourbon discussion, wattsnew asked if there was a technical guide on how to handle www vs. non-www, relative vs. absolute linking, and links to different pages such as / vs. index.html vs. default.asp. My rule of thumb is to pick a root page and be as consistent as possible. I lean toward choosing htt p://www.yourdomain.com/ but that's just me; htt p://yourdomain.com/ would work as well. Then I recommend that you make things as simple as possible for spiders. I recommend absolute links instead of relative links, because there's less chance for a spider (not just Google, but any spider) to get confused. In the same fashion, I would try to be consistent on your internal linking. Once you've picked a root page and decided on www vs. non-www, make sure that all your links follow the same convention and point to the root page that you picked. Also, I would use a 301 redirect or rewrite so that your root page doesn't appear twice. For example, if you select htt p://www.yourdomain.com/ as your root page, then if a spider tries to fetch htt p://yourdomain.com/ (without the www), your web server should do a permanent (301) redirect to your root page at h ttp://www.yourdomain.com/


    So the high-order bits to bear in mind are
    - make it as easy as possible for search engines and spiders; save calculation by giving absolute instead of relative links.
    - be consistent. Make a decision on www vs. non-www and follow the same convention consistently for all the links on your site. Use permanent redirects to keep spiders fetching the correct page.


    Those rules of thumb will serve you well no matter what with every search engine, not just with Google. Of course, the vast majority of the time a search engine will handle a situation correctly, but anything that you can do to reduce the chance of a problem is a good idea. If you don't see any problems with your existing site, I wouldn't bother going back and changing or rewriting links. But it's something good to bear in mind when making new sites, for example.



    GoogleGuy - 8:39 am on June 2, 2005 (utc 0)


    Okay, now I'm all carpal tunnely from typing on the laptop. Here's a recommendation that I hope everyone at least knows about. On WebmasterWorld, if you click on "control panel" at the top of the page, you can select to show up to 30 messages on each page of a thread. Highly recommended for long threads.

    Comments on this post

    • Bernard agrees : Thanks for taking the time to share (and edit) that info
    • Cygnus agrees : I appreciate the data transformation over into this format.
    • Chatmaster agrees : Thanks for going through the effort!
    Last edited by 1976AD; Jun 2nd, 2005 at 06:38 AM.
  8. #5
  9. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    834
    Rep Power
    17

    Talking


    Wow. Big deal.
    SootleDir - When only the finest link will do | Webmaster Forum |
  10. #6
  11. Sick of BL's, PR + Google
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    865
    Rep Power
    40
    Originally Posted by LilOptimizer
    Wow. Big deal.
    Yea I know it's not the answer to the universe but at least it clarifies a couple of points that are allways being asked
  12. #7
  13. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    www.rescuemyreputation.com
    Posts
    797
    Rep Power
    0
    I think it was a whole lot of nothing and think the "googleguy" does not even work for google

    Comments on this post

    • Bud Wiser agrees : if he does work for google it helps explain google's inconsistancies ;)
    • sorvoja : http://www.google.com/intl/en/googleblog/2004/08/greets-from-googleguy.html
  14. #8
  15. No Profile Picture
    SEO Apprentice
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hattiesburg, MS
    Posts
    267
    Rep Power
    15
    yeah, the "How to link" section definitely clears up a few things for me. I've always heard this stuff, but never knew what was true and what wasn't.
  16. #9
  17. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    25
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by OptWizard
    I think it was a whole lot of nothing and think the "googleguy" does not even work for google
    First, thanks for Posting the info.

    Over Memorial day weekend when PR went blank a majority of this forum predicted PR was gone for good. On Monday Googleguy posted PR would be back up in an hour or so, nothing to worry about, and BOOM within an hour or so, PR came back into our Lives. Got to give him credit for that statement and "potenital inside information". A few rare posters predicted PR would be back, but didn't nail a timeframe like GG. So he has some credibility.

    Eric G
  18. #10
  19. Contributing User
    SEO Chat High Scholar (3500 - 3999 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    3,874
    Rep Power
    24
    He DOES work for Google. While his comments are usually extremely vague and not very helpful, he does occasionally say enough to clear something up.
  20. #11
  21. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Somewhere IN NJ
    Posts
    622
    Rep Power
    17
    He has been around forever it feels like, Im sure google knows what he posts. Im just curious what he knows. The information he just provided is helpful, however I dont think its going to make anyone's job easier.
  22. #12
  23. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    I live on the internet
    Posts
    575
    Rep Power
    15
    Originally Posted by newbieuk23
    Without a subscription to their forum, it seems we cannot read this post! Login and password required. Can anyone summarise what the points of interest are?

    Thanks!
    Just load up as Google and you can read it also! ;p

    GoogleGuy > Like I mentioned before, summer is a good time to work on pulling in new pieces of infrastructure and ways to rank/score pages.

    Nice to know!
    Last edited by l3vi; Jun 2nd, 2005 at 11:06 PM.
    wazza wazza.. boom boom... something something... SEO!

    Before you build your next website read this bog!
  24. #13
  25. No Profile Picture
    SEO Apprentice
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hattiesburg, MS
    Posts
    267
    Rep Power
    15
    I would have loved for him to clear up linked sites on the same ip. There's many other questions I have, but that one wouldn't help spammers that much, but it save some paranoid people money that are buying IP's like crazy for each and every site.
  26. #14
  27. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    I live on the internet
    Posts
    575
    Rep Power
    15
    Unless youíre expecting to get all your links from linking your own domains I would not even put a dime down on new ips. Even then itís a brain dead idea. Besides its not logical as IPs are being double used all the time for many domains and other services, especially in virtual/shared hosting.

    If your looking to pass on some spider power for a new site, just do what I have done. Build a corp site and hub all your domains with link to it via the TOS, or something. Then link to what domains you want to pass that sites power to and your good to go!
    Last edited by l3vi; Jun 2nd, 2005 at 11:12 PM.
  28. #15
  29. Wine Geek
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cave Creek, AZ
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Power
    19
    Now all they need to do is actually get around to fixing the 302 redirect issue -- since it finally slammed them, what do you think the odds are that the next algo update includes such a fix? I'm hopeful for July.
Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  • Jump to page:

Similar Threads

  1. Good with Google = Good Enough?
    By Robert Paulson in forum Search Engine Optimization
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Apr 9th, 2005, 02:03 PM
  2. Anatomy of a Good Keyword
    By Robert Paulson in forum Keyword Research
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Mar 22nd, 2005, 09:13 PM
  3. Subdomains Good or bad, I say good???
    By cozza in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Mar 16th, 2005, 03:47 PM
  4. When's a good keyword not a good keyword?
    By maddz in forum Keyword Research
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Mar 7th, 2005, 04:45 PM
  5. Looking for a good expired domain tool... help!
    By callenb in forum Web Design, Coding and Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Feb 27th, 2004, 11:39 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo