Maximum Google

Well, since those would be my choices, I am in good company.

0 Replies

dekramkoob

0 Replies

Fascinating, Phoenix. The article is on my To Do list for tomorrow. Thank you.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

Hello Phoenix,
Thank you for posting that link! It seems to be quite a comprehensive article, although after a quick scan of it I didn't see a specific mention of one of my favorite "googling" tricks. I may have skimmed over it and missed it, so please forgive me if I'm being redundant here Smile

Have you ever tried to locate a specific page ( or even a sentence or a word) within a massive site that has many, many pages? Perhaps the site has it's own Search function built in but it just doesn't seem to be able to locate the item you know or suspect is hiding in there somewhere?

You can use Google's "Advanced Search" screen for this.

http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en

After you've entered your keyword (s) and any other preferences in the top pane, go down to the line labeled "Domain". Here, you are allowed to restrict the scope of your search to only the Internet domain that you specify. For example, for many years Microsoft's Knowledge Base was a pain to work with because it's built-in search engine was just terrible (it's gotten quite a bit better lately) . You could search for common things and oftentimes come up empty handed. However, if you use Google and restrict your search to microsoft.com there can quite often be a world of difference in the quality of results that you receive.

You can use the technique on any domain. It's worth trying if the built-in search functions of a site aren't doing the job for you.

0 Replies

All of this is just like having a new hammer in my toolbox.

Thanks, Phoe and Stoat.

0 Replies

Stoat- Thanks for the tip. I have a way of finding things that I just figured out for myself. I once tried to figure out "Boolean searches" and just gave up. I just seem to have a facility for honing in on a subject, but don't let me try and explain it. It works 99% of the time for me!

0 Replies

Glad to see this link, Phoenix and thanks. I am not using google these days for many reasons. On rare occasions I will use some of the lesser-known features such as the image search. The most important reason is that I am attracted to the visual mapping style of search results, as is in Kartoo.com. I rarely find commercial sites there and enjoy this visual conceptualization with the mapping of linked sites with the "planets" in orbits. One hovers over the larger planets and instantly to the left of your screen you see a paragraph from the primary webpage that your search found, plus additional topics and terms you might add to your search. And if that were not enough, there is a ranking of relavancy included and "page down" will lead you on and on.

Recently I met with editors of Lockergnome (Lockergnomeand planned for attending the Gnomedex convention in Des Moines this July. Since the sponsors include such folks as Microsoft, Apple, and Google, it will be especially worthwhile to me. The Google folks tried to "pay" for their sponsorship by "selling keywords"! This type of income is just some of the reason why there are more and more paid sites listed there in the first returns on searches. There's even a plan for Google to exclude blogs from searches by segregation into search by blogs only.

So, I'd still suggest that Google be seen as a tool, only one of many. There are so many portals and search engines "out there" that will be of assistance to folks. Reading the newsletter from Search Engine Watch (Search Day) is very fascinating reading. You can get there online by going to Search Engine Watch and clicking the link to the current newsletter.

Hope this information will be of interest!

0 Replies

BTW, the thing about Google doing a blog search is related to the fact that Google just bought blogger.com's parent company.

PPS, Google's SERPs segregate the sponsored links more clearly than their competition, they don't sneak paid listings into the standard search results.

0 Replies

Sorry, I do not find that to be the case regarding paid sponsors and those who wait out the 3 to 6 months commercial submissions process designed for applicants to Google or purchase keywords. I use multiple search engines so I see the difference and get frustrated with the rankings and linear searches including paid listings.

I know some folks are staunch users and defenders of Google, and it appears there is no discussion with the Google choir. I still believe Google has a place in the search engine world and again, I consider it only a "tool" not a trend-setter or standard-setter. Just to share additional information for Google enthusiasts, take a look at today Week in Review by Chris Sherman of Search Engine Watch (link supplied in previous post). "The World of Google" is a link to a French firm that provides more assistance to the uncharted and unfamiliar features of Google that enthusiasts may enjoy:

http://google.indicateur.com/

I merely have a difference of opinion in such matters and have differing experiences to back me up. Glad to share helpful information to those who are interested. I'm not a tech or geek but one interested primarily in the connections between questions and results, resources, and linkages in information communication.

0 Replies

re: "those who wait out the 3 to 6 months commercial submissions process designed for applicants to Google or purchase keywords"

What are you talking about Cobalt? I ask because I use Google's advertising for my company and know of nothing like that.

I pay Google for keywords and know that they are listed within 5 minutes and that they are not mixed in with regular results. In my experience with advertising with Google and getting my pages listed for free I have not seen what you mention (unless I misunderstand you).

Sponsored links are either at the top or to the right and they have pastel background colors.

They are also marked as sponsored links.

I'm interested in knowing what you are talking about because I suspect we aren't even talking about the same thing.

This isn't about defending Google, if itheir advertising were not done the way it is I would not be paying them money.

0 Replies

CDK
Can you tell accurate is this:

Translation of my site??

Google Languages

If it works well I have some ideas to communicate with my friends in the Baja Laughing

and I don't mean the huskerh site either Embarrassed

0 Replies

Craven, it is hard to answer your questions because you do not seem to be widely-read (if that is the right term when talking of Net-ese experiences) in the area of search engine research. I apologize if you are more experience in such and I've misread it. You are a good tech sort with wide interests and talents. This is a suggestion you may find useful. To continue within this thread, it would help alot if I knew you were a reader of ResearchBuzz, Search Engine Watch, Search Day or other sites devoted exclusively to analyzing performance and applications of search engines. To take this back to the forum so others reading will pick up something of interest, here is a bit more explanation.

What I am refering to has a great deal to say about the adoption of Google as more than a tool, and only a tool. Research authority - search authority - information authority is my concern. I believe you are misled that Google only segregates and clearly labels commercial and paid links and keywords but does not include them in a myraid of ways, results to page ranks and more. It does do some of that, as you mention, but there is much you are not seeing. Maybe you will find study of such information to be helpful to your company that you buy for. Here is a comment from Jay Dougherty in the current Blue Ear Forum:

Quote:

It seems to me that the major issue for librarians and the Internet is establishing information authority. What I mean is filtering the good information from the crap on the Internet. This is especially important for academic librarians, as one of the major undergraduate research tools is google. One of my professors commented in class that the papers of her undergraduates on certain topics were all starting to sound the same because they utilized google as their main research tool.
Obviously, the "hegemony of google" is something that has to be alleviated. Librarians, at least in an academic setting, are trying to alleviate it through "information literacy" classes in which students learn about on-line journal databases and how to establish "authority" within websites (ex. ".gov" usually offers better information than ".com" websites).

Following are links to some fascinating detailed information on this topic from a variety of sources and disciplines
http://blueear.com The Blue Ear Forum, online
http://lisnews.com Issues affecting Libraries
(Librarian & Information Science News)
http://www.researchbuzz.com ResearchBuzz
("ResearchBuzz -- Obsessed with search engines, databases, and various info-piles since 1998")
http://www.searchengineguide.com Search Engine Guide
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
See also, a new O'Reilly book:
http://www.zorbapress.com/epweekly/f_epw/googhack.htm
Google Hacks
100 Industrial-Strength Tips and Tricks
Tara Calishain and Rael Dornfest
First Edition February 2003

http://www.viterbo.edu/library/library_and_internet.htm for
"How To Evaluate Information on Websites (page by Galadriel Chilton)" - recommended by Tara Calishain

0 Replies

I'd very much like to see how they pull that one off!!!

Quote:

establishing information authority. What I mean is filtering the good information from the crap on the Internet.

censorship???

0 Replies

Cobalt,

What I read is certainly not going to change the way Google operates. But yes, I am well read in Search Engine Optimizing (this is my forté and people pay me to do this) and am aware of the many Google conspiracy theories.

Quote:

I believe you are misled that Google only segregates and clearly labels commercial and paid links and keywords but does not include them in a myraid of ways, results to page ranks and more. It does do some of that, as you mention, but there is much you are not seeing.

I know for a fact that I am not misled. There is not much more that I am not seeing. Google does not allow you to pay your way into the non paid results at all. I speak to a representative froom Google on a regular basis and I am paid to try to use Google to the advantage of my customers for many many sites.

I guess if you simply want to believe that they alter their non paid results for money there is no convincing you. But it's simply not true.

If you have evidence to the contrary please share it. I would love to pay for those reults. I know they don't exist.

I happen to agree that the "hegemony of google" is not good, but that has nothing to do with your claim that they allow paid inclusion in the non paid results and lie about it. I wish they would, it would be the end of Google and we who pay for advertising would love to be able to buy links like that.

0 Replies

Well Craven, I also am in contact with Google Labs and beta-test, and I also know from sales at Google as I stated earlier. I've never said anything to confer a belief in "conspiracy theory" regarding my thoughts on Google - that is something you confered as a description of me since I happen to disagree with you. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable if there were no other opinions expressed within this forum regarding such experiences if they differ from your wisdom? Look through the links I provided for all in a previous post - it took me about 1/2 hour to look the most pertinent ones up for you. I try to make suggestions that will allow others to enjoy their own search for what information they seek, in their own way. It would be a great disservice for many people to only use one search engine as a search tool or as an advertiser. That's nice you extensively use and recommend Google - there are different strokes, as the saying goes.

I will tread lightly herein, as to offering differing opinions on the Internet, computers, web development and design, and blogs, even. Perhaps you are like a Republican and I a Democrat - difference of experience and conclusions but involved in the future. And the arguments between are not necessarily here or there.

0 Replies

I did not say it was a conspiracy throry because you disagree with me, I said it was a conspiracy theory because it is untrue.

cobalt wrote:

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable if there were no other opinions expressed within this forum regarding such experiences if they differ from your wisdom?

No, I just prefer to contest unsubstantiated allegations that I consider false.

cobalt wrote:

Look through the links I provided for all in a previous post - it took me about 1/2 hour to look the most pertinent ones up for you.

You and I differ greatly in what we consider pertinent, none of your links substantiated the allegation that Google accepts money to alter their non-paid results.

cobalt wrote:

It would be a great disservice for many people to only use one search engine as a search tool or as an advertiser.

We already agree on this, it is not related to your allegation that Google lies about the results they serve.

cobalt wrote:

I will tread lightly herein, as to offering differing opinions on the Internet, computers, web development and design, and blogs, even. Perhaps you are like a Republican and I a Democrat - difference of experience and conclusions but involved in the future. And the arguments between are not necessarily here or there.

This is complete nonsense. Look, what you allege is simply false, it is not a subjective judgement call.

I am not recommending Google herin.

I am saying that your allegation that Google accepts money for their non-paid results is false.

google wrote:

No one can guarantee a #1 ranking on Google.
Beware of SEO's that claim to guarantee rankings, or that claim a "special relationship" with Google, or that claim to have a "priority submit" to Google. There is no priority submit for Google. In fact, the only way to submit a site to Google directly is by using the page at http://www.google.com/addurl.html. You can do this yourself at no cost whatsoever.

That is from Google: http://www.google.com/intl/mr/webmasters/seo.html

google wrote:

Be sure to understand where the money goes.
While Google never sells better ranking in our search results themselves, several other search engines combine pay-per-click or pay-for-inclusion results with their regular web search results. Some SEO's will promise to rank you highly in search engines, but place you in the advertising section of the engine rather than in search results. A few SEO's will even change their bid prices in real time to create the illusion that they "control" other search engines and can place themselves in the slot of their choice. This scam does not work with Google because our advertising is clearly labeled and separated from our search results, but be sure to ask any SEO you're considering which fees go toward permanent inclusion and which apply toward temporary advertising.

You are claiming that it is false, please prove it the links you gave are not related. If you can prove that it is possible to pay (Google, there are other quacks who charge for this non-existent service) your way into the Google non-paid results I will pay you any amount you stipulate and will apologize profusely.

You are accusing Google of lying to their users and to their customers, proove it. Don't complain that I don't agree with you. If you can show that your allegation is true we can take Google to court. If not, it is just another unsubstantiated conspiracy theory about Google.

0 Replies

To prove me wrong it will be simple:

A) show me a site that has paid for their inclusion in the non-paid results

B) show me a site that has improved their page rank by paying google (we can later check this against goggle's algo)

B) show me how one can pay to obtain these results, I'd be very interested.

Other sites that say they can circumvent google's algo just take your money and improve your rank the normal way. That is what I mean by SEO, I am paid to do this for several sites. It is very labor intensive and if my clients could just pay their way in they would without skipping a beat.

And Cobalt, there is no need to "tread lightly". Just substantiate your claims. You have alledged wrongdoing on Google's part (what you allege would put them in breach of contract with the companies that use their results as well as all the advertisers, of which I am one) and instead of substantiating it you try to compare it to a subjective political difference in opinion.

Again, if you are right, let's do it. I will pay any amount of money to obtain the results I desire in Google's non-paid results. Several of the sites I do SEO for would pay thousands for favorable listings if Google would sell them and display them in non-paid results.

And if manipulating page rank can be bought I'd love to buy a PR 10. But alas, all the sites with high PR value can be easily checked. They really do have the PR value and you can check this on Google's semi secret algo.

0 Replies

Cobalt - I am sorry - but I do not understand your tone here.

All I see is you and Craven disagreeing on something - but you seem to be becoming extremely distressed and therefore being rather defensve and patronizing and feeling that you are being attacked.

As I said, this seems to be just a factual disagreement - not a matter for such emotion.

Forgive me for commenting in this way - but the whole interaction is becoming quite hard for me to read because of this, and I do not see where your reactions are coming from.

0 Replies

Maximum Google

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know