That must be why so many films suck these days.
SEO Class in Chicago, IL
Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Sand Box Theory And Pagerank Updates
Posted 30 September 2004 - 10:17 AM
That must be why so many films suck these days.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 11:50 AM
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!
, more than a bit off topic, but I couldn't resist.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 12:16 PM
Posted 30 September 2004 - 01:25 PM
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.
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.
Quick comment on SEO as spam, before Jill hits me with something.
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.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 02:18 PM
Amabaie you speak a lot of sense. Very funny too
Posted 30 September 2004 - 02:39 PM
Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:05 PM
Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:33 PM
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.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:38 PM
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.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:45 PM
I'm in the Randy and Redbird camp...
...it's warm and toasty.
It's a very nice house too!
Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:56 PM
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.
Posted 30 September 2004 - 03:59 PM
I believe you mean, albeit.*
*Sorry, just trying to poke fun at your pointing out my poor "netiquette."
Posted 30 September 2004 - 04:00 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users