10 ms·

What gets me is that Google employees like JohnMu (in the following thread) are actually telling authors to hide large portions of their sites from Google's ind

What gets me is that Google employees like JohnMu (in the following thread) are actually telling authors to hide large portions of their sites from Google's indexer, in order to prevent all their pages from receiving penalties for "low-quality" content: https://productforums.google.com/forum/m/?hl=en#!mydiscussions/webmasters/T-4i0yB7CrQ https://productforums.google.com/forum/m/?hl=en#!mydiscussio... That feels like a step back from Google's stated mission to "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful": http://www.google.com/about/company/ http://www.google.com/about/company/ Apparently, only the information that maximizes search advertising revenue is worth organizing and making accessible. I understand that fighting SEO spam is an important part of keeping search usable, but there must be a way to do it that doesn't lead to completely cutting out large parts of the "indie" web (e.g. posts in discussion forums, and other sites that host user-generated content).

valarauca1 12y ago
Wait you mean a for profit company's goal is to maximize profit? We need to stop pretending Google is a rich Mozilla, They're a poor Microsoft.
- ambler0 12y ago
  By what measure is Google poorer than Microsoft? They have less free cash flow, but a greater market cap. http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT http://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG http://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG
  - joshjdr 12y ago
    I think you nailed it there. Market cap is valuation and subject to change on a whim [edit- specifically, it's a measure of sentiment; it's a prediction of future cash flows] . Free cash flow is probably a more accurate measurement of the "poor" vs. "rich" concept. Let's be honest though- both companies are filthy rich.
  - silverbax88 12y ago
    Market cap isn't real. That's just a valuation based on...well, usually, 'feelings'. Microsoft has real money. Google has real money too, but not Microsoft money. That's why Twitter, which is a tiny company with no profits and probably not much more growth potential, has a higher market cap than some insurance companies an retail chains with good growth, real money and solid long term market potential. "Feelings".
    - cinquemb 12y ago
      I think I generally agree with what you're saying, but a comment made during a CFR discussion[0] makes me want to point out that those "Feelings" can be of value: "What about Facebook? What about Twitter? I have no idea what Twitter is good for. But if it flips out every tyrant in the Middle East, I'm interested." I guess it's just pretty hard to allocate resources in the traditional sense that most people are used to because of leverage that companies like google can provide, but people try anyways. All in all, I think google is just trying to increase confidence from advertisers in it's content network. [0]: http://www.cfr.org/technology-and-foreign-policy/technology-policymaking-future/p33025 http://www.cfr.org/technology-and-foreign-policy/technology-...
    - fennecfoxen 12y ago
      .... That's a valuation based on "There exists a person who has recently put his money where is mouth is and paid someone $MARKET_CAP/N for 1/N of the company." Which is hardly to say that you can unload the entire company at that price, or that it'll last, but it's a step above mere 'feelings'. :b
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- autokad 12y ago
  i had this conversation with a friend on why are tech companies the darlings of public opinion but guilty of such terrible things. look how Monsanto is the Devil Incorporated, while Apple has in US tax evaded cash more money than around 2 times Monsanto's market cap (Monsanato trades at a frothy 24 PE). Walmart is everything evil despite cant do no wrong Amazon does everything they (in a negative sense) do only many times greater. Meanwhile Google has done terrible things including ripping off bandwidth providers, and not to mention they hold a monopoly on search. conspiracy theorists seemed ill concerned on one organization responsible for answering all their web queries. could go on about outsourcing of jobs, h1b visas, causing a recession, etc etc. not that any of these companies are 'evil' or even 'wrong' in my eyes, but why do others treat tech companies with such endearment and throw so much hate at a handful of other companies? we're thinking geography has a lot to do with it. Many influencers on the east and west coasts know a lot of people that work in these companies, and write very positive things about them. not completely altruistic, as they are also heavily invested in them.
haberman 12y ago
> Apparently, only the information that maximizes search advertising revenue is worth organizing and making accessible. I don't even understand the theory of how there is a profit motive here. How does Google make more money by asking webmasters to hide parts of their site from the indexer? Doesn't Occam's Razor say that a more likely explanation is that innocent sites are being caught in the never-ending arms race between spammers and Google? If Google didn't care about the "indie" web, why would Google employees be taking their time to coach indie website operators on how to improve their site's rankings? I know this is a frustrating situation for everyone involved. But the cynicism that says there is some ulterior motive cuts deep, especially coming from someone I respect like you, Matt.
- fleitz 12y ago
  It's not an ulterior motive, profit is their stated objective.
- sunir 12y ago
  Hey Josh, I'm genuinely confused by your statement and now curious. Even though you work at Google, you do not see the profit motive in making better search result pages and why Google is investing heavily in improving the search result pages. I would imagine you actually do see the profit motive for that activity, and yet you rejected the statement above by saying, "I don't even understand the theory of how there is a profit motive here. How does Google make more money by asking webmasters to hide parts of their site from the indexer?" Could you explain how these things connect in your view?
  - skybrian 12y ago
    Google has always said that advertising does not affect search results. This is one way Google distinguished themselves from other search engines back in the day. There are sometimes quite a lot of ads on the search results page these days, but they are still clearly distinguished, and I haven't heard anything about that policy changing.
    - 12y ago
blauwbilgorgel 12y ago
I'm glad you put the link there for context. make sure that all of your indexed pages are of the highest quality possible and that they are fantastic representatives of your website JohnMu then gave some examples of very thin pages. It is about a site with 99% of such pages and problems with spammy UGC. Not about maximizing search advertising revenue. It is about quality like described in: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guid... I'd like if there was a traffic graph (is an algorithmic penalty visible, trends, or are they just down to 10% of 1.5 years ago?). We have to go by word and own research now. Googling "Google Maps Mania" shows a botched domain transfer as a likely culprit for the low rankings/visitors. The redirect is not 301. Old pages do not redirect to content on the new domain ( http://www.mapsmaniac.com/2013/02/beneath-thunderdome.html http://www.mapsmaniac.com/2013/02/beneath-thunderdome.html ). So any links to mapsmaniac before the domain transfer do not contribute to the new blog at googlemapsmania.blogspot.com . Domain authority is zero'd out. Many well-ranking pages now show a "Page not Found" to Google. Then another site pops up on another domain with the same name. How can Google know for sure the two are from the same owner if the redirects are not set up right? Fix the redirect. Restore the old links and redirect them to the new site. But maybe much of that is already too late for them. For anyone else in the process of moving a site, see: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/moving-to-a-new-web-host/ http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/moving-to-a-new-web-host/
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

valarauca1 12y ago

Wait you mean a for profit company's goal is to maximize profit? We need to stop pretending Google is a rich Mozilla, They're a poor Microsoft.

ambler0 12y ago
By what measure is Google poorer than Microsoft? They have less free cash flow, but a greater market cap. http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT http://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT http://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG http://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG
- joshjdr 12y ago
  I think you nailed it there. Market cap is valuation and subject to change on a whim [edit- specifically, it's a measure of sentiment; it's a prediction of future cash flows] . Free cash flow is probably a more accurate measurement of the "poor" vs. "rich" concept. Let's be honest though- both companies are filthy rich.
- silverbax88 12y ago
  Market cap isn't real. That's just a valuation based on...well, usually, 'feelings'. Microsoft has real money. Google has real money too, but not Microsoft money. That's why Twitter, which is a tiny company with no profits and probably not much more growth potential, has a higher market cap than some insurance companies an retail chains with good growth, real money and solid long term market potential. "Feelings".
  - cinquemb 12y ago
    I think I generally agree with what you're saying, but a comment made during a CFR discussion[0] makes me want to point out that those "Feelings" can be of value: "What about Facebook? What about Twitter? I have no idea what Twitter is good for. But if it flips out every tyrant in the Middle East, I'm interested." I guess it's just pretty hard to allocate resources in the traditional sense that most people are used to because of leverage that companies like google can provide, but people try anyways. All in all, I think google is just trying to increase confidence from advertisers in it's content network. [0]: http://www.cfr.org/technology-and-foreign-policy/technology-policymaking-future/p33025 http://www.cfr.org/technology-and-foreign-policy/technology-...
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    .... That's a valuation based on "There exists a person who has recently put his money where is mouth is and paid someone $MARKET_CAP/N for 1/N of the company." Which is hardly to say that you can unload the entire company at that price, or that it'll last, but it's a step above mere 'feelings'. :b
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
autokad 12y ago
i had this conversation with a friend on why are tech companies the darlings of public opinion but guilty of such terrible things. look how Monsanto is the Devil Incorporated, while Apple has in US tax evaded cash more money than around 2 times Monsanto's market cap (Monsanato trades at a frothy 24 PE). Walmart is everything evil despite cant do no wrong Amazon does everything they (in a negative sense) do only many times greater. Meanwhile Google has done terrible things including ripping off bandwidth providers, and not to mention they hold a monopoly on search. conspiracy theorists seemed ill concerned on one organization responsible for answering all their web queries. could go on about outsourcing of jobs, h1b visas, causing a recession, etc etc. not that any of these companies are 'evil' or even 'wrong' in my eyes, but why do others treat tech companies with such endearment and throw so much hate at a handful of other companies? we're thinking geography has a lot to do with it. Many influencers on the east and west coasts know a lot of people that work in these companies, and write very positive things about them. not completely altruistic, as they are also heavily invested in them.

haberman 12y ago

> Apparently, only the information that maximizes search advertising revenue is worth organizing and making accessible. I don't even understand the theory of how there is a profit motive here. How does Google make more money by asking webmasters to hide parts of their site from the indexer? Doesn't Occam's Razor say that a more likely explanation is that innocent sites are being caught in the never-ending arms race between spammers and Google? If Google didn't care about the "indie" web, why would Google employees be taking their time to coach indie website operators on how to improve their site's rankings? I know this is a frustrating situation for everyone involved. But the cynicism that says there is some ulterior motive cuts deep, especially coming from someone I respect like you, Matt.

fleitz 12y ago
It's not an ulterior motive, profit is their stated objective.
sunir 12y ago
Hey Josh, I'm genuinely confused by your statement and now curious. Even though you work at Google, you do not see the profit motive in making better search result pages and why Google is investing heavily in improving the search result pages. I would imagine you actually do see the profit motive for that activity, and yet you rejected the statement above by saying, "I don't even understand the theory of how there is a profit motive here. How does Google make more money by asking webmasters to hide parts of their site from the indexer?" Could you explain how these things connect in your view?
- skybrian 12y ago
  Google has always said that advertising does not affect search results. This is one way Google distinguished themselves from other search engines back in the day. There are sometimes quite a lot of ads on the search results page these days, but they are still clearly distinguished, and I haven't heard anything about that policy changing.
  - 12y ago

blauwbilgorgel 12y ago

I'm glad you put the link there for context. make sure that all of your indexed pages are of the highest quality possible and that they are fantastic representatives of your website JohnMu then gave some examples of very thin pages. It is about a site with 99% of such pages and problems with spammy UGC. Not about maximizing search advertising revenue. It is about quality like described in: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guid... I'd like if there was a traffic graph (is an algorithmic penalty visible, trends, or are they just down to 10% of 1.5 years ago?). We have to go by word and own research now. Googling "Google Maps Mania" shows a botched domain transfer as a likely culprit for the low rankings/visitors. The redirect is not 301. Old pages do not redirect to content on the new domain ( http://www.mapsmaniac.com/2013/02/beneath-thunderdome.html http://www.mapsmaniac.com/2013/02/beneath-thunderdome.html ). So any links to mapsmaniac before the domain transfer do not contribute to the new blog at googlemapsmania.blogspot.com . Domain authority is zero'd out. Many well-ranking pages now show a "Page not Found" to Google. Then another site pops up on another domain with the same name. How can Google know for sure the two are from the same owner if the redirects are not set up right? Fix the redirect. Restore the old links and redirect them to the new site. But maybe much of that is already too late for them. For anyone else in the process of moving a site, see: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/moving-to-a-new-web-host/ http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/moving-to-a-new-web-host/

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]