Google algorithm change launched • Hacker News Board

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#101

Post by tlrobinson » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 7:09 PM UTC

optimusclimb wrote: post #90

nikothefinn wrote: post #84

Since Matt is responding here, I figured this is worth a shot, no harm in asking. Matt, would love a response from you if you get a chance, since the Webmaster Tools appeals process gives no insight whatsoever to our situation. Following on from one of the comments here, namely the idea that "value is in the eye of the beholder", I'd like to raise our own plight. I run a number of aggregator sites - the largest and o…

Respectfully - Sites like yours ruin the internet. You admit it yourself: you produce no content of your own. I do NOT want to see results from pages of that ilk when I google for things. Google made the right choice to de-index it.

I'm curious, what is your opinion of TechMeme?

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#102

Post by jjcm » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 7:13 PM UTC

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #49

sjs382 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the accompanying link: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/algorithm-change-launched/

Yup, I actually posted over here at HN a little bit before I did a post on my personal blog.

I'd like to mention that this is really an impressive way of working with the community Matt. Companies say all the time that they value their customer's opinions, but rarely do you see a grievance that's posted on a social news site being a.) initially responded to by the guy who's responsible for it, and b.) amended by that person and his team with a request for review. It's heightened my faith that maybe Google can actually keep that small-company-feel no matter how large they get. I really hope you guys continue in this fashion, and thanks for the search fix.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#103

Post by kunjaan » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 7:15 PM UTC

I googled for my own name "Kunjan Kshetri" and I still see sites like

1. www.peekyou.com/_kshetri

2. www.yasni.com/kunjan+kshetri/check+people

3. mobile.aa.com/mt/net35.ccs.neu.edu/home/kunjan/?un_jtt

in the front page. These sites reused my homepage or just have my name listed. They too add no original content. Please remove these sites.

Please note that searching in Bing produces more original content results.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#104

Post by PaulJDrago » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 7:16 PM UTC

SkyMarshal wrote: post #36

miah_ wrote: post #31

This is awesome! Now if only I could completely remove certain sites from my search results ala the Google Wiki stuff. I'd love to drop swik, and expertsexchange and a few other annoying sites. Its possible this algorithm change will make these sites less annoying to me though.

Second that. WTB ability to customize my search results by blacklisting certain sites. Big change I know, but would be a hugely useful service Google could provide.

why not just use the - function?

Create something like:

http://www.google.com/search?q=google+-google.com&ie=utf...

I suspect you could hack together a quick greasemonkey script to automatically inject your negative site list when the URL is generated

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#105

Post by avstraliitski » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 7:17 PM UTC

Very happy to see the end of copied Wikipedia sites.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#106

Post by redgirlsays » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 7:19 PM UTC

optimusclimb wrote: post #90

nikothefinn wrote: post #84

Since Matt is responding here, I figured this is worth a shot, no harm in asking. Matt, would love a response from you if you get a chance, since the Webmaster Tools appeals process gives no insight whatsoever to our situation. Following on from one of the comments here, namely the idea that "value is in the eye of the beholder", I'd like to raise our own plight. I run a number of aggregator sites - the largest and o…

Respectfully - Sites like yours ruin the internet. You admit it yourself: you produce no content of your own. I do NOT want to see results from pages of that ilk when I google for things. Google made the right choice to de-index it.

I disagree. Sites that aggregate information make it easier to peruse what you are specifically interested in without poring through an RSS feed or visiting site after site. And if only a portion of the text is presented, with a link to the original post, you can always visit the originating site to get the full article.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#107

Post by blader » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 7:19 PM UTC

nikothefinn wrote: post #84

Since Matt is responding here, I figured this is worth a shot, no harm in asking. Matt, would love a response from you if you get a chance, since the Webmaster Tools appeals process gives no insight whatsoever to our situation. Following on from one of the comments here, namely the idea that "value is in the eye of the beholder", I'd like to raise our own plight. I run a number of aggregator sites - the largest and o…

It's pretty clear to me that if I were to Google for something, I'd want to see the original source of the content over a link to a page on an aggregator site.

On the other hand, if I wanted to see an aggregator site like Huffingtonpost or Digg, then I could Google for a site like that, or even Google for a keyword about a discussion that happens on the aggregator site. That seems legitimate to me, but showing up when I'm googling for something related to the original source is obviously not.

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#108

Post by klbarry » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 7:23 PM UTC

Hi Matt, I'm sure your busy and don't want to answer all SEO related questions anyway. I wanted to ask, though, what Google things about the importance of exact anchor text in rankings as remarked upon in http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-organized-crime-is-taking-con...?

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#109

Post by tlrobinson » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 7:24 PM UTC

wmyers wrote: post #96

nikothefinn wrote: post #84

Since Matt is responding here, I figured this is worth a shot, no harm in asking. Matt, would love a response from you if you get a chance, since the Webmaster Tools appeals process gives no insight whatsoever to our situation. Following on from one of the comments here, namely the idea that "value is in the eye of the beholder", I'd like to raise our own plight. I run a number of aggregator sites - the largest and o…

I have to second Niko's position here. Our main business model is "adding value through aggregation". We provide users in many markets aggregated content from a variety of publicly available sources on specific topics. While much of the content on our sites is technically "duplicate", so is much of the content on the NY Times. They syndicate content from the AP, as do many news sites. We do the same, and always take…

So, which SEO forum was a link to this thread posted to?

Re: Google algorithm change launched

#110

Post by ovidiu » Fri, Jan 28, 2011, 7:25 PM UTC

nikothefinn wrote: post #84

Since Matt is responding here, I figured this is worth a shot, no harm in asking. Matt, would love a response from you if you get a chance, since the Webmaster Tools appeals process gives no insight whatsoever to our situation. Following on from one of the comments here, namely the idea that "value is in the eye of the beholder", I'd like to raise our own plight. I run a number of aggregator sites - the largest and o…

It's because when I'm searching for something I want a link to the original source. I don't want a link to your page, really. The results page would become polluted if it contained links to all agregators such as yours.

It's unfair to be in the results page with somebody else's content when the people searching for that content are actually targeting the original source, not yours.