Supplemental club

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by ranjas75

Why does google try to stay out of the press? I always use to hear that any press could be good press??

Only to a point. I feel rather certain that Bausch & Lomb would think that their recent "press" is not exactly "good" for them. Such is the plague, and pleasure, of a public company. A venture where Google is a mere baby.

Plenty of folks, including myself, have been speculating that things are amiss with Google. That things are not working as they should, despite a recent timeline posted Matt Cutts on his blog that they are.

One such "thing" is how the SI (supplemental index) is supposed to work and how it is actually working. When a querie is made and an insufficient amount of returns are not in the main index to satisfy the querie, the supplemental index is used to finish filling the querie. This has not been happening.

Another "thing" is a page showing up in the main index one day, the SI the next, back to the main index, and then back to the SI once again. Some folks, including me, have a hard time believing that this is the way Google is "supposed" to work.

Whether not Google is "working" the way it's supposed to, is really only known by Google. If it's not, what's the likelyhood they'd say so?

In the mean time, people like me will continue to ask questions, speculate, and not neccessarily take things as granted.

Dave

[greeneagle]

I am extremely impressed how Bausch & Lomb has handled their current crisis in the media!

I can't go there with the Goog though.

Ken

[stretch dog]

I'm back.... just to let you all know that the www.performbettergolf.com site I've been ranting about has now been more stable (since my last post) than it has in months... permanently pooched then i suppose!

Can anyone tell me if the "google employee" thread at the google groups forum is a hoax or are they for real... they have done a couple of follow up posts to supposedly let people know that although they can't address everyones problems individually, they are indeed reading the threads and doing what they can to get to the bottom of the all so common problems we are experiencing... ?

It was started on May 10, fully 6 days before Matt timeline blog post... there is definately some contradiction between the two.

Cranky: "Whether not Google is "working" the way it's supposed to, is really only known by Google. If it's not, what's the likelyhood they'd say so?"

The term "working the way it's supposed to" is i suppose in the eyes of the beholder, and in the eyes of the all-mighty G they may claim at least that it is in fact working the way its supposed to. Unfortunately for us however, what google "thinks" is "working the way its supposed to" may indeed be the way they planned it, but in fact it is not working at all... !!!!!

Their system may not be "broken", but it sure the hell isn't doing a very good job those site owners, webmasters and seo's working on the site affected, nor is it working for google judging by some of the "slimmy crap" i see day in and day out being served up to their "valued" users... and its only a matter of time before these users see the light... then google will make the news all right, i can see it now...

"Google Hits All Time Low in Organic Search Market Share, and Investors Begin Dumping Their Stocks..."

Well, ok... its only a pipe dream maybe... but Gates figures he's about to capitalize on Google problems... for those interested, see Gates: We will crush Google just like we crushed Netscape!.

GreenEagle: "It's a wrap!"

Yes, i agree... but i dumped a long rant at the google groups thread anyway... emailed what google emails I have (with more ranting...), some of which come back as not deliverable... and I left a similarly long plea with Matt himself, in the faint hope that he may actually respond... haha!

What a flipp'n hope eh... lol.

Gratefully most of the sites I tend have escaped the rath of google... so far (ouch!)

Just one last comment (my 0.02 worth)... Our community seems to be somewhat split (or at least has been for some time) as to the value of "reciprocal linking", and of course there are great arguments on both sides of the issue. Of course what constitutes "reciprocal linking" (or at least "appropriate" reciprocal linking) is a matter of opinion... and god only knows that everyone here has their own opinion... lol.

Point being, is that I for one stopped doing what "I refer to" as "reciprocal linking" some time ago (unless it is insisted upon by my client after i've made my case against it)... and have for a time been expecting something to happen similar to what many of us have been experiencing.

Now before a bunch of you jump on me case... the argument has already been made on many a thread at many different forums... and I speak only of the tradition, almost mindless form of "reciprocal linking". We all know that there are as many ways to "exchange" links with a relevant site as there are webmasters, seos and site owners to dream them up... and when done appropriate, few could argue against there value in real terms... the key is to know what is "appropriate and what is not"... that is the question that we all have to answer for ourselves, and now just maybe that question has become more critical that ever before.

I'm certainly not suggesting that all the bizarre behavior we've been experiencing with google these past months is due to linking issues... I'm simply suggesting that it may be part of it indeed.

I'm also not putting much value in Matts response during his brief time line of events this past while... in fact I thought the way he addressed the issues was border line arrogant and haphazard to say the least. I have read hundreds of posts right up till today, by webmasters and site owners that are being whacked for what appears to be no apparent reason, and Matt simply took a small handful and quickly came to some basic conclusions that may or may not be representative of the bigger picture.

The site that I've been having problems with and referred to here on this thread and others during this time of crisis, does in fact do reciprocal linking. Reciprocal linking done by a links person that I have no control over.

It also has a portion of its articles published to a site owned by the same person and articles that have been syndicated across a number of related article site.

Its all been an interesting and albeit painful adventure... one that hopefully is soon to be settled so at the very least we all know exactly where we stand in the new google vision of what is valid and what is not worthy on the Internet Hiway.

Just my "late in the afternoon" thoughts to share... now it time for dinner and a beer!

And the saga continues... SD

[cris33]

I really liked your golf site. I'm a big time golfer.

[stretch dog]

Awesome, so why the crap does google hate it so much... lol?

SD