Calendar
Network
Feeds
rhcerff
In a word... "NO"
It was pathetic to say the least. A pity really as it would be nice to have a good bit of competition for Google.
Cuil claimed to have the biggest database however it's results were badly outdated. I guess this is a perfect example of size doesn't matter?
I'm all for trying the cobra heart, but then again at least I don't have to have it.
Many people have gmail accounts so anyone that thinks this would be restricted to a few in the know are sadly mistaken. More importantly as anyone can leave a comment how do you moderate these comments? Surely this leads to more than just SERP manipulation? This is a possible concern now! Are there laws in place to protect you? Sure... in some countries I guess.
Have you ever read the Google suggestions when it comes to setting up a PPC campaign? Use only a few keywords. This is true if you wish to run a single ad!
Unfortunately by only certifying a select few they pretty much kick every other smaller company. But hey, that's Google for you. And in South Africa where Google search sends about 90% of all search traffic we have little choice.
Good rant. But the problem remains that we basically have to feed the machine that feeds us.
What ever your reason for creating that content (black hat or white hat) it's to feed that machine. Until we find a way that we don't require the machine to feed us we'll just have to keep on feeding it.
I don't know which worries me more... the fact that it ranks or that you were searching!!
Hahahahahahaha... the dumb bastid!
If nobody offers them anything then it dies. If I were Microsoft I'd offer $10 and tell them to take it or leave it.
We can hope. But I'm very sure that Google won't do away with it. It's the one thing that has had webmasters obsess over Google for ages. Or could it be that with BrowseRank on the way Google are simply trying to say, "That's so last year" ?
In any event I'd love to see the end of PR! Yeah, those green pixels (though my toolbars show it as a diget) have to go. Will it end those pesky "link to my site from a PR2/PR3/high PR page..."? We can only hope!
@ Mike: Ah, but you just prove the point when you say: "you wrote a piece that says too much, and assummes too much." That was the point, when someone says or does something then people will assume things... often too much.
@NickWilsdon: While I don't think this statement by said CEO will have any effect on the Google product I do believe that when you have that much power you should always be seen to be neutral. Agreed that by making any kind of statement he may have hurt the Google brand.
Freedom of speech also means you have the right to remain silent.
makes one think. Was this:
a) perfect linkbait
b) calling someone on a cheaper service than their "Linkscape" tool and they couldn't handle it?
@ Sugarrae: I've agreed with you all along. Loved the SPAM saying! Ethics is a term that far too many people use. Someone really needs to define that as I believe many people have taken a moral ground on many issues throughout history believing that they were very much in the right... only to be very wrong.
In any case I'm calling Rand on this one. I think that while you often have very good points and some great case studies this was nothing more than a cheap shot in my view. It's almost as bad as a couple of todlers crying foul because someone managed to get an extra sweet. Oh and just because you consider it a useless/spammy directory, doesn't mean that it is (however I conceed you are most likely right).
@ seobro: Ah... but to get them there for the "intelligent men and women" to explain your products. Lets face it, those who can do both are few and far between (I'm certainly no George Clooney myself).
As the old saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar."
Hahahahahaha... sad but true. At least I know how to categorize all my "friends" now!
At a time when every cent counts online marketing is simply easier to measure. That in itself makes it more attractive.
Concrete?
Well...
Number one is just wrong. "common internet standards ignored" as far as stats point out, IE is the internet standard! Like it or lump it, that's the way it is.
Not accepting extensions and add ons... well again I would argue that this makes it more secure? But then again when was the last time you saw a Ferrari towing a caravan? It's their product let them do what they want with it. Use it or don't use it.
Linux incompatibility... again, why bother making sure that your product works on another platform? End of the day it's poor marketing/support, but not a concrete reason to not use it.
"Matt, want peeps to 'stop obsessing' about it dude? Stop talking about it and ToolBar PR updates on the ol blog - you know how much excitement it whips up "
I wonder if the PR tool was Google's greatest invention. It serves no real point, but is something tangible. Give people something they can see and they believe it. I agree with theGypsy, stop mentioning it. Infact, if Google really wanted people to stop selling links for PR, disable PR!! Simply give everyone a PR10 or PR0.
Then people would only buy or sell links for their real traffic value?
While Google has been able to quite easily index dynamic URL's, those with the question marks, for quite some time I would still recommend rewriting the URL to something that makes sense to a human. Why, because you should design with people in mind and not a spider...
Or do I have it very wrong?
Yet another article that some folk are going to take as gospel.
I will continue to develop websites with REAL HUMAN visitors in mind. A simple static URL is so much easier to remember, type and link to. Could it be that Google are still trying to avoid link spam as static URL's are often written with keywords (which will be in the links) in mind? How knows... but a terrible article.
I can't sphinn this just on that fact.
I've run a check on the same site twice in the same day and gotten two different results. Okay, so the differences were small, but across the entire world that's a lot of change constantly going on. Rankings are not useless, but an easy way to guage if your directed efforts showing results. Those that say they are useless are really saying that it's results and not rankings that one should consider, if nobody searches for that phrase it is pretty useless. But then again, we all knew that?
I think it's all about user experiance on this one. We usualy have simple navigation in the footer of sites that we build but for our largest website we decided to change it. As national franchise website it has a multitude listings in a variety of cities and suburbs. This makes it a little difficult to have a standard footer all the way through. We decided to change it up a little and include related refined search links in the footer. Now if someone searches for a city the suburbs with the highest number of listings make up the footer. While not perfect this has helped visitors to no end and has certainly increased the speed with which the listings themselves are indexed. As each listing is optimised for the long tail this has proven to be quite successful. I wouldn't recomend doing this with a small site with just a few pages though.
Story: Ethics on Twitter
Ethics... mmm... I guess this falls into the same category as to why the paparazzi are still in business. If nobody bought their photos then they would stop it (well for business reasons of course).
TV has long covered state funerals and similar events. It was only a matter of time before this spilled over.
Real question here is - who was following this? Or more importantly why? It just seems a little creepy to me.
I would only say that this has become a trend for a few reasons.
1. social media is easily accessible by those under 18 and without the use of a credit card
2. social media is acceptable during work/school hours
I think if they were on a level pegging on those points then porn would still be king. I bet it's still making more money though. A much better ROI? :)
I am quite surprised at these failings. They seem to be simple errors that a company of this size should have avoided with a decent design/marketing team.
Searching through all of our sites... not a single mention of Chrome yet. I guess South Africans just couldn't be bothered with change. Firefox is round about the 10% mark (just under) on average. IE is about 85%
Story: Are People Really Using Cuil?