Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



SEO Class in Chicago, IL

Learn How To Optimize Your Website on July 26, 2013


Looking for personalized in-depth SEO training among your peers?



High Rankings is offering a 1-day customized SEO training class in Chicago. Class size is limited so please sign-up now if you want in!



 


Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Sand Box Theory And Pagerank Updates


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
285 replies to this topic

#256 Kev

Kev

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts

Posted 30 September 2004 - 10:17 AM

QUOTE(amabaie @ Sep 30 2004, 04:08 PM)
Buying text links is more like paying the director to supply all the actors with a T-shirt of your product, not because you hope the actors will buy more product, but because you hope that Entertainment Tonight will catch a snapshot of the t-shirt on the actor and spike your sales. This strategy *could* make your product a smash success. But in the absense of a "real" marketing strategy, the success will be just a flash-in-the-pan.

That must be why so many films suck these days.

#257 OldWelshGuy

OldWelshGuy

    Work is Fun

  • Moderator
  • 4,713 posts
  • Location:Neath, South Wales, UK

Posted 30 September 2004 - 11:06 AM

I hate product placement.

#258 BobetteKyle

BobetteKyle

    HR 6

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 889 posts
  • Location:Near St. Louis, Missouri

Posted 30 September 2004 - 11:50 AM

QUOTE(OldWelshGuy @ Sep 30 2004, 11:06 AM)
I hate product placement.

he he. I think it's kind of fun (but then, when I watch TV a lot of times I'll multi-task through the show and stop to watch the commercials).

It's a blast to try and figure out all the cereal brands on Seinfeld's shelf!

poster_oops.gif , more than a bit off topic, poster_stupid.gif but I couldn't resist.

#259 ghergich

ghergich

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Location:kansas city, Kansas USA

Posted 30 September 2004 - 12:16 PM

Does anyone have anything to say about the comments I made on page 15, back when we were still on topic? I think those are excellent points to be discussed and I did not hear a peap out of anyone to rebutt them.

#260 redbird

redbird

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 30 September 2004 - 01:25 PM

Meaning the quotes from Webmaster World? (My pages don't equal your pages.)

I skimmed thru the thread, and others like it elsewhere. "BakedJake" also explained how we need to completely understand the sandbox in order to beat it. Perhaps it's only me, but that sounds more manipulative than anything else.

But I will reluctantly agree with the idea that the sandbox may be related to Google's recent corporate evolution. I certainly don't like the idea, but I've seen similar. Can't count the number of times a former workplace would put the skids on updates and the like, simply to level the financials during a buyout/buyin discussion or some such.

I don't miss it. smile.gif

So in that regard ghergich, I'll say that it may be commercially motivated. Not in regards to ad space, but in regards to the IPO and all that. The idea has more credibility now, I think, as Google's been crawling to beat all.

But really, I wouldn't be too disgruntled about the lack of intense sandbox discussion going on with this thread. I think most of us realize that, considering we don't own Google, work for Google, or have an inside with Google, there's really little we can do other than discuss product placement in film. tongue.gif

Quick comment on SEO as spam, before Jill hits me with something. smile.gif

I've never looked at SEO as spam. I see what can be perceived as spam by the SEs, what is spam, etc, but the idea that proper SEO is simply manipulation of search engine results isn't accurate or justified, imo.

What does a search engine want to do? It wants to learn what your site is about, so that it can determine if it's relevant for a SERP page against someone's search criteria.

Why isn't it reasonable to expect someone to want to make it easier for a search engine to do this?

It's like inviting company over.

I clean house, obviously, before company arrives. (The wife would shoot me otherwise.) I make sure my tags are in order, HTML is cleaned up, everything is organized as it should be, etc.

I do my best to show them around when they arrive. A tour of the house, as it were. I make sure we're not tripping over the furniture to do so, that walkways are clear, etc.

And, in Google's case, since my visiting company won't take my word as to directions in reaching my home, I have friends and family tell them instead.

I do what I can so that, when company arrives, everything is good to go.

If I've done my job well enough, they'll leave with favorable thoughts as to the visit. If not, my ratings will suffer.

If my ratings aren't what they should be, I shampoo the carpets, I knock out a few walls to make things easier to navigate, I add a few rooms with additional content. I do what I can do to ensure the next time I have company over, they'll be impressed a bit more.

SEO is about being the good host.

The bad host, in the meantime, berates the company into visiting by having everyone and their grandmother give directions, by using tricks and mirrors to make the home look larger than it really is, by sweeping the dust under the carpet, by slapping a "Kick Me" sign on the company's back on the way out, etc.

In keeping with the sandbox theory, wouldn't it get a little tiring to be slammed with 3rd party invites whenever you walked around town? Wouldn't you think it odd? You'd likely put off the visit for quite a while.

IMO.

Jeff Bogumil

#261 Diniz

Diniz

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Location:All over the shop

Posted 30 September 2004 - 02:18 PM

QUOTE
Of course, I agree with you that it is totally unethical to provide free T-shirts to actors, just to try to manipulate the content of Entertainment Tonight. The proper way to do this is to send out a news release, and let the actors worry about finding their own clothes...like from your client's competition.


Amabaie you speak a lot of sense. Very funny too smile.gif

#262 johking

johking

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 30 September 2004 - 02:36 PM

I like it Redbird - good analogy

Jo

#263 OldWelshGuy

OldWelshGuy

    Work is Fun

  • Moderator
  • 4,713 posts
  • Location:Neath, South Wales, UK

Posted 30 September 2004 - 02:39 PM

I guess I am not really that concerned in carrying out research as , like iI mentioned before, I really do not think it is a long term strategy from Google, just a short term sticking plaster.

#264 ghergich

ghergich

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Location:kansas city, Kansas USA

Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:05 PM

The fact remains that Google is making the lamest of lame attempts to fight spam. (if your in that camp, which I am not) There idea is just like a teacher failing the whole class because they think one person is cheating. Google has so much money that they would not need to use such a miserable way of fighting spam. Because in the end they just let the websites back in at different times. I hear people saying it took 3 months, 6months, and some saying they are 8 months out and still nothing. All this does is make Google stale. It does not fight spam because it just lets in "old spam". The horrible thing is, not everyones site is spam, and many websites are time sensative (this software industry). Google is making generalizations that are insane. Of course it is their engine and they can do what they want but they will die away if they are showing stale results, this is what happened to almost every major engine. The fact is the news media should be all over this. If this was in the New York Times it would cost Google a ton. IF Google was proud of this new anti spam technique they would have talked about it. The fact is they are not proud of it. No search engine would brag that their information is stale and out of date. Plus the SERPS are riddled with SPAM even with the sandbox. I believe that they are either broken as hell and spidering like crazy on new separate index that is not full....or they put the sandbox up so there results would be stable in the IPO. Now that its over it may change. However, I do think that greed and profit motivated this decision as I stated from the get go.

#265 Randy

Randy

    Convert Me!

  • Moderator
  • 17,540 posts

Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:33 PM

QUOTE(ghergich @ Sep 30 2004, 03:05 PM)
However, I do think that greed and profit motivated this decision as I stated from the get go.

Perhaps, depending upon how each of us defines greed and profit.

But can you or I change that? Not unless our names are Brin or Page. Mine certainly isn't!

If we can't change things, what good does it do to devote any energy at all to the question? Other than to state emphatically that Googles results aren't nearly as relevant as they once were.

Make no mistake, Google is going through a massive transformation and I do not envy them in that task. They will be going through this transformation for some time to come I suspect. Going from an idealistic programmer haven with an almost hippie feel to a multi-million dollar corporation almost overnight is not going to be easy for them.

Before life-altering decisions could be made by a very limited number of people. Now they can't. They have a lot more people (stockholders) that they are now responsible to. And if they get too out of whack in their decision making you can rest assured that the corp and certain principles will end up in court.

Google simply isn't the same old Google that it once was. By any stretch of the imagination. Though eventually they may come to like having less market share but not being the prime target of every spammer in the world.

They're also not the only game in town anymore either. Not by a long shot.

#266 BrianR

BrianR

    Is it just me, or is it getting cooler in the evenings...?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,621 posts
  • Location:Chester, UK

Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:38 PM

QUOTE
The fact is the news media should be all over this.

Maybe so, ghergich. But perhaps we should be asking why the news media don't seem to be at all interested in this state of affairs.

BrianR

#267 Hyperformance

Hyperformance

    HR 6

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 634 posts
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:45 PM

bye1.gif

I'm in the Randy and Redbird camp...

...it's warm and toasty.

It's a very nice house too!

- Scott

#268 evanness

evanness

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:56 PM

QUOTE(OldWelshGuy @ Sep 30 2004, 06:21 AM)
And I have to add that criticising a posters prose or spelling is still classed as bad nettiquette I believe. wink.gif

To me, such informal usage of the English language is worse "netiquette" (a term I dislike) than asking someone to present their ideas more clearly.

It's my opinion that this shows a disregard for the reader -- usually unintentionally, which is why it's often a Pareto superior transaction (or a win-win situation if you will, I often lapse into economics-speak) to tastefully point it out.

Perhaps I should have done so by PM; in fact, that probably would have been a better option.

#269 evanness

evanness

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:59 PM

QUOTE(OldWelshGuy @ Sep 30 2004, 07:43 AM)
This is how it was when the Google Algo was dreamed up. Things have changed, and for the worse I feel. Now it is ok for pig breeders digest to link to The jewish chronicle (actually that was a bad analogy as there is a link all be it tenuous).

I believe you mean, albeit.*





*Sorry, just trying to poke fun at your pointing out my poor "netiquette."

#270 ghergich

ghergich

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Location:kansas city, Kansas USA

Posted 30 September 2004 - 04:00 PM

BrianR - I doubt highly that they know. IF they did they would report it. They report less credible stories all the time....and they would love to make a bad report on such a hot stock...it would be a big buzz.....IF i could write in complete sentences I would make an aritcle and Post it on PR web and send to as many news editors as I could. They may take notice, and research it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users