sullivandanny

10 ms·

31.
by sullivandanny 14y ago
There is no fix for this. In the article, see the related stories at the bottom, in particular "Google Puts A Price On Privacy." Google deliberately prevents referrer data from passing regardless of the state of SSL. It only allows it to pa
32.
by sullivandanny 14y ago
The article says that Google will be penalizing sites now if they have to many DMCA takedown requests that Google has acted upon -- but only web search takedowns. Since YouTube has a separate takedown system, it doesn't get counted against
33.
by sullivandanny 14y ago
The article, which I wrote, backs up every fact with a source or explanation.
34.
by sullivandanny 14y ago
It's because AdWords links don't pass along credit that helps with search rankings. Google actually doesn't ban for paid links. It bans (potentially) for selling or buying links with the intention of improving your search rankings. There ar
35.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
Thanks. Yes, exactly.
36.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
The reality is that Google+ is both a standalone social network as well as a layer being added into both Google properties and sites across the web. It's not illogical that when Google gives out numbers talking about Google+ "users" that it
37.
How I Lost My Hacker News Name(daggle.com)
8 points by sullivandanny 15y ago|3 comments
38.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
Why yes. If it's a site that writes about SEO, it must therefore be spam. I mean, that's why Google briefed us about the research. Why they let us interview them on it. You know, question them about it, and why we quote them. The "actual so
39.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
I'd just like Hacker News to have a password-looker-upper. Would that be so very hard to provide. Please, PG?
40.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
I'm not saying Fox is being greedy. I didn't argue that they shouldn't charge me anything. I didn't argue that I should get anything for free. I argued that I'm already paying them at least once with cold hard cash for that content, twice i
41.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
$125 per month for DirecTV. $7 per month for Hulu Plus. $7 per month for Netflix. Where do you see me saying I wanted it for free? The fact is, I can have it on demand and for free if I want to watch it through my computer. Or hook my compu
42.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
I've corrected the story with a new headline and lead. OpenSocial is continuing. Two hours is an incredibly long time for Google to respond to something like that, where there's story out in error. It's a long time to respond period. I know
43.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
It's possible. I did try to make it clear that the Social Graph API isn't the same as OpenSocial. But since OpenSocial is all about an open API for sharing social data.... Google gave me a statement saying they are separate things, which I
44.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
Yes, when JC Penney was discovered to have purchased links through the actions of a third-party, and said hey, it was the contractors fault, Google immediately say "Oh, that's OK, no reason to penalize you." Oh, wait. They didn't. They slap
45.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
This very common, very simple mistake was done by the company with the biggest video ad network in the world, which advises others on how to do video advertising. This very common, very simple mistake was also don by the company which over
46.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
The Deletion Review process is for pages in the process of being deleted; not for those that have already been deleted. Perhaps you're dropping like a stone because I explained this in my post. I don't have a sense of entitlement over Wikip
47.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
To compile the information I posted for Wikipedia, to help it in the goal of determining notability, I probably spent about 1/2 hour in total. I had to pull up some old article and links, since me just saying why the person they were arguin
48.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
I understand why Wikipedia has barriers. But what I was saying is that they're out of control. Wikipedia does not manage to be respectable when ill-informed people debate whether to delete an article that Wikipedia itself started and reach
49.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
I spent a half-hour just trying to find the right form to merely request that the page be reviewed for restoration. That form, as I explained in detail, doesn't actually work. There is no form for pages that have been deleted. There is a pa
50.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
Sitemaps was the last big thing they united on. It's been very helpful to have. Years before that, they agreed on meta description tags and robots.txt blocking. The latter helped keep many web sites from being overwhelmed by requests, yet e
51.
by sullivandanny 15y ago
SnagIt Editor. Not the best choice, but it's what I had :)
52.
by sullivandanny 16y ago
I don't believe it is fair use to make an entire copy of someone else's material, if you've made no transformative change to it. I understand there is an opt-out. My post on daggle.com goes into great depth about that. However, I don't thin
53.
by sullivandanny 16y ago
That's completely wrong. Google's had social search since 2009. It never put it out there for a week and yanked it. The opposite is happening here. Google rolled it out, then just kind of let it sit -- no big huge improvements, and it was h
54.
by sullivandanny 16y ago
I put it further in the article because I thought it made sense for people to actually read the article rather than immediately click out -- and to have the link where I first started quoting John on a first reference. I did indeed debate w
55.
by sullivandanny 16y ago
Like I said, if MSNBC likes them, and they're working for MSNBC, it's hard for outsiders to be damning them. Still, I'd agree they probably should shorten the title to be focused around two or three key terms they want to be found more. I t
56.
by sullivandanny 16y ago
Here's a piece of good advice. Before declaring that someone hasn't linked out, double-check. Because, I did: "In John Gruber’s article today, Title Junk, he gets upset about title tags that produce a bad display or readability situation."
57.
by sullivandanny 16y ago
Hard drives definitely don't work. Google confirmed that with me when I talked with them after the review. The promise this will come. Extensions will work if they don't use some API thingee (that's the technical term) that Google doesn't f
58.
by sullivandanny 16y ago
Well, so Google says. That seems a convenient way to get people off their backs for having both. Google TV runs on Android, not Chrome. Google TV isn't a touchscreen. The reality is, Google has two different product teams and had no intenti
59.
by sullivandanny 16y ago
That's it exactly! After I finished the review, I talked with Google and said so what's up -- the screenshot feature doesn't seem to work. Yes, it does. You just have no idea that one was made. There's no showing you of what you shot. A fil
60.
by sullivandanny 16y ago
I agree. I think few people would be upset if they couldn't open up two separate browser windows. That's hardly a product killer, in and of itself.

More ›