Why Google is broken

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Big Bill, Oct 13, 2004.

  1. Big Bill

    Big Bill Guest

    Big Bill, Oct 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Big Bill

    brucie Guest

    brucie, Oct 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Big Bill

    Philip Ronan Guest

    On 14/10/04 9:24 am, brucie wrote:

    > In alt.html Big Bill said:
    >
    >> http://www.e-marketing-news.co.uk/Oct04/RichLinking.html
    >> I found it again.

    >
    > how about a quick paragraph summarizing the 10 pages?


    blah blah blah ... DOOM! ... blah blah blah ... GLOOM! ... blah blah blah
    .... BUY MY BOOK! ... blah blah blah

    (Something like that anyway)

    --
    Philip Ronan

    (Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)
     
    Philip Ronan, Oct 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Big Bill

    Big Bill Guest

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:24:20 +1000, brucie <>
    wrote:

    >In alt.html Big Bill said:
    >
    >> http://www.e-marketing-news.co.uk/Oct04/RichLinking.html
    >> I found it again.

    >
    >how about a quick paragraph summarizing the 10 pages?


    Google relies heavily in its algo on inbound links. New sites don't
    get heard of as they don't have, not surprisingly, the same amount of
    inbound links as old existing and well-established sites. If you do a
    link campaign, adding a few links a week, the existing sites, given
    the prominence they already have, will easily match that. So they
    always stay up, and you always stay down.

    BB


    >> SEO you could cuddle.

    >
    >i tried and you rejected me:(


    www.kruse.co.uk
    SEO you could cuddle. Probably..
     
    Big Bill, Oct 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Big Bill

    Big Bill Guest

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:54:07 +0100, Philip Ronan
    <> wrote:

    >On 14/10/04 9:24 am, brucie wrote:
    >
    >> In alt.html Big Bill said:
    >>
    >>> http://www.e-marketing-news.co.uk/Oct04/RichLinking.html
    >>> I found it again.

    >>
    >> how about a quick paragraph summarizing the 10 pages?

    >
    >blah blah blah ... DOOM! ... blah blah blah ... GLOOM! ... blah blah blah
    >... BUY MY BOOK! ... blah blah blah
    >
    >(Something like that anyway)


    I didn't realise anyone here had read it.

    BB
    www.kruse.co.uk
    SEO you could cuddle. Probably..
     
    Big Bill, Oct 14, 2004
    #5
  6. Big Bill

    brucie Guest

    In alt.html Philip Ronan said:

    >>> http://www.e-marketing-news.co.uk/Oct04/RichLinking.html
    >>> I found it again.


    >> how about a quick paragraph summarizing the 10 pages?

    >
    > blah blah blah ... DOOM! ... blah blah blah ... GLOOM! ... blah blah blah
    > ... BUY MY BOOK! ... blah blah blah


    what, no fire and brimstone?


    --


    v o i c e s
     
    brucie, Oct 14, 2004
    #6
  7. Big Bill

    Philip Ronan Guest

    On 14/10/04 10:24 am, Big Bill wrote:

    > Google relies heavily in its algo on inbound links. New sites don't
    > get heard of as they don't have, not surprisingly, the same amount of
    > inbound links as old existing and well-established sites. If you do a
    > link campaign, adding a few links a week, the existing sites, given
    > the prominence they already have, will easily match that. So they
    > always stay up, and you always stay down.


    I have to say that is an overly pessimistic view of things.

    Sure, as the web grows it's going to become harder to get noticed. That's
    just the way things are. If I decided to go into the fast food industry, I'd
    have to overcome stiff competition from the likes of McDonalds. If I wanted
    to set up an online gambling website then I'd face equally stiff
    competition. But there are too many gambling sites out there already. Who
    cares if another one pops up?

    In the majority of cases it's still perfectly possible to get a decent rank
    in Google's results. It's hardly rocket science. All you have to do is:

    1. Follow Google's guidelines:
    <http://www.google.co.uk/webmasters/guidelines.html>

    2. Produce something that people might actually find interesting or useful.

    I don't know what your approach is, Bill, but it seems to me that most "SEO
    experts" put all their effort into trying to run rings around Google, and
    spend no time whatsoever trying to make websites more interesting or useful.

    Phil

    --
    Philip Ronan

    (Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)
     
    Philip Ronan, Oct 14, 2004
    #7
  8. Big Bill

    Philip Ronan Guest

    On 14/10/04 10:53 am, brucie wrote:

    > what, no fire and brimstone?


    I think you have to buy the book for that :)

    --
    Philip Ronan

    (Please remove the "z"s if replying by email)
     
    Philip Ronan, Oct 14, 2004
    #8
  9. Big Bill

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:54:07 +0100, Philip Ronan
    <> wrote:

    >blah blah blah ... DOOM! ... blah blah blah ... GLOOM! ... blah blah blah
    >... BUY MY BOOK! ... blah blah blah
    >
    >(Something like that anyway)


    You forgot the twee granpappy story
     
    Andy Dingley, Oct 14, 2004
    #9
  10. Big Bill

    Jim Higson Guest

    Big Bill wrote:

    > http://www.e-marketing-news.co.uk/Oct04/RichLinking.html
    >
    > I found it again.
    >
    > BB
    > www.kruse.co.uk
    > SEO you could cuddle. Probably..


    I don't care enough to read the article, but I have noticed the quality of
    google results declining recently, for example if google for information on
    some bit of equipment or other, the results are swamped with price
    comparison sites.

    I suppose a lot of people would find these hits useful. In most cases though
    I want an unbiased review, technical specs or something.

    Same with blogs - why does google bring up blogs so often?
     
    Jim Higson, Oct 14, 2004
    #10
  11. Big Bill

    Big Bill Guest

    On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:40:11 +0100, Jim Higson <> wrote:

    >Big Bill wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.e-marketing-news.co.uk/Oct04/RichLinking.html
    >>
    >> I found it again.
    >>
    >> BB
    >> www.kruse.co.uk
    >> SEO you could cuddle. Probably..

    >
    >I don't care enough to read the article, but I have noticed the quality of
    >google results declining recently, for example if google for information on
    >some bit of equipment or other, the results are swamped with price
    >comparison sites.


    They are pages on sites that lots of people link to. Already.

    >I suppose a lot of people would find these hits useful. In most cases though
    >I want an unbiased review, technical specs or something.
    >
    >Same with blogs - why does google bring up blogs so often?


    See above.

    BB
    www.kruse.co.uk
    SEO you could cuddle. Probably..
     
    Big Bill, Oct 14, 2004
    #11
  12. Big Bill

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Big Bill wrote:

    > Google relies heavily in its algo on inbound links. New sites don't
    > get heard of as they don't have, not surprisingly, the same amount of
    > inbound links as old existing and well-established sites. If you do a
    > link campaign, adding a few links a week, the existing sites, given
    > the prominence they already have, will easily match that. So they
    > always stay up, and you always stay down.


    Though Google does seem to reward the more current and up-to-date sites.

    If they're more established *and* they're keeping up to date, maybe you
    don't have a chance of beating them, but OTOH maybe then they *deserve* to
    stay on top.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Now Playing ~ ./blink_182_-_all_the_small_things.ogg
     
    Toby Inkster, Oct 16, 2004
    #12
  13. Big Bill

    Big Bill Guest

    On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:52:59 +0100, Toby Inkster
    <> wrote:

    >Big Bill wrote:
    >
    >> Google relies heavily in its algo on inbound links. New sites don't
    >> get heard of as they don't have, not surprisingly, the same amount of
    >> inbound links as old existing and well-established sites. If you do a
    >> link campaign, adding a few links a week, the existing sites, given
    >> the prominence they already have, will easily match that. So they
    >> always stay up, and you always stay down.

    >
    >Though Google does seem to reward the more current and up-to-date sites.


    A site which revises its content on a regular basis will get spidered
    more often than those which, once published, stay static.

    >If they're more established *and* they're keeping up to date, maybe you
    >don't have a chance of beating them, but OTOH maybe then they *deserve* to
    >stay on top.


    Makes it impossible to establish a new one.

    BB
    www.kruse.co.uk
    SEO that's fun to read!
     
    Big Bill, Oct 17, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    906
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  2. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,978
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  3. Steven D'Aprano

    Why are "broken iterators" broken?

    Steven D'Aprano, Sep 21, 2008, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    659
  4. Cameron Simpson

    Re: Why are "broken iterators" broken?

    Cameron Simpson, Sep 22, 2008, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    589
    Cameron Simpson
    Sep 22, 2008
  5. Fredrik Lundh

    Re: Why are "broken iterators" broken?

    Fredrik Lundh, Sep 22, 2008, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    608
    Fredrik Lundh
    Sep 22, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page