The Web As Retail

This is the retail part of web management. I am not above begging for content on a one-to-one basis.

Helaine and are trying to get our new website about celebrity sightings a little traction. Maybe I’m biased, but it looks great, functions well and has gotten rave reviews from nearly everyone whose seen it.

I’m trying anything/everything to get more celebrity stories. I’ve already written unsolicited emails to people whose stories I’ve seen on other sites. Tonight I tweeted a bunch of folks–again unsolicited.

This is the retail part of web management. I am not above begging for content on a one-to-one basis.

At this point each additional story is important. When someone hits the site I want them to see it as being an ongoing concern, not something brand new and still empty. And, I think it does look flush with content.

The coolest part of my simple analysis of our sparse traffic is the average visitor checks out nearly ten pages! I never expected that. That’s a lot. That’s a sign of compelling content.

Google, Yahoo and MSN, which had been restricted while the site was being polished, have now been unleashed. They are not as quick to index pages as I’d wish!

For instance, though Google acknowledges I have a sitemap up and my robots.txt file now allows them to roam freely, I have no pages indexed (other than the homepage) and see the old restrictive robots.txt file is still being followed!

“Googlebot crawls sites by following links from page to page. We had problems crawling the pages listed here, and as a result they won’t be added to our index and will not appear in search results.”

With time it will come, I suppose.

As always, if you have a celeb story I sure would like to see it on the site. Anonymous stories are fine.

In Google’s Doghouse–Again

I’ve already asked for forgiveness. Maybe I can be forgiven before I’m banished? Maybe not?

Oh oh–it’s happened again!

Dear site owner or webmaster of geofffox.com/mt/archives,

While we were indexing your webpages, we detected that some of your pages were using techniques that are outside our quality guidelines, which can be found here: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769&hl=en. This appears to be because your site has been modified by a third party. Typically, the offending party gains access to an insecure directory that has open permissions. Many times, they will upload files or modify existing ones, which then show up as spam in our index.

Thanks to my friend Bob, it’s now all gone. But is it gone soon enough?

In order to preserve the quality of our search engine, pages from geofffox.com/mt/archives are scheduled to be removed temporarily from our search results for at least 30 days.

We would prefer to keep your pages in Google’s index. If you wish to be reconsidered, please correct or remove all pages (may not be limited to the examples provided) that are outside our quality guidelines. One potential remedy is to contact your web host technical support for assistance. For more information about security for webmasters, see http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/04/my-sites-been-hacked-now-what.html. When such changes have been made, please visit https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/reconsideration?hl=en to learn more and submit your site for reconsideration.

Sincerely, Google Search Quality Team

I’ve already asked for forgiveness. Maybe I can be forgiven before I’m banished? Maybe not?

We shall see.

Meanwhile, this stinks.

Tough To Believe

There was a growth spurt today. As I write this, there are 182,273 links to phony pages Google no longer indexes.

Google continues to remove bogus pages attributed to this site from their index&#185. I was astonished when the count went over 70,000.

There was a growth spurt today. As I write this, there are 182,273 links to phony pages Google no longer indexes.

Yesterday, Google wrote me.

While we were indexing your webpages, we detected that some of your pages were using techniques that are outside our quality guidelines, which can be found here:

http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html.

This appears to be because your site has been modified by a third party. Typically, the offending party gains access to an insecure directory that has open permissions. Many times, they will upload files or modify existing ones, which then show up as spam in our index.

Duh. A day late and a dollar short. None of the bad pages exist any more.

Though the problem was fixed a while ago, the effects will be felt for a while longer. Eighty percent of my traffic is currently coming from search results for pages that aren’t here.

&#185 – I’m not going to rehash the entire story. If you’re just joining us, it is chronicled on my “oops” page.

I’m Back

As of a few moments ago, I’m back in Google’s index!

Unfortunately, for the time being, search results for my site still show the 26,000+ spammy pages that had been indexed. I am attempting to have them removed, using a standard robots.txt file. Whether that works or not is anyone’s guess.

My little hike through hell is over… It is over, isn’t it?

What Does Commitment Mean On The Internet?

This morning’s NY Times had an interesting commentary by Tom Zeller, Jr. about Google’s China policy. There’s a lot to chew on, but basically he looks at Google’s actions and asks, how does one decide where to draw the line of propriety?

Earlier, I posted Google’s removal of their policy toward censoring search results. That page is now back, though drastically changed.

Call me naive for saying this but, I expected more from Google.

I’m Not Google… But If I Were

By now you’ve probably heard about Google’s capitulation to the Chinese. The Chinese government asked Google to limit (aka censor) certain search engine requests and Google said, “OK.”

If you’re in China, trying to find information that the government feels is inappropriate, too bad. Google won’t help.

I suppose it’s their prerogative as a commercial outfit. It’s the decision many company’s would make under similar circumstances. I’ve heard of media companies that provide ‘adult’ content here in the states, but tone it down in their Asian distributions.

In fact, Google has recently taken a stronger stand here in the United States, objecting to our government’s request for information on personal search requests. That’s laudable. It doesn’t take Google off the hook.

Companies often adapt their business practices to please the host country. And, there’s no getting around it, China is a huge host country with loads of profit potential.

Here’s why Google’s decision is so vexing to me. It has to do with their own corporate philosophy… their own declaration that they’re different. It’s number six of the “Ten things Google Has Found to be True.”

You can make money without doing evil.

Those are their words. I cut and pasted that right from Google’s corporate site.

Their site also used to ask:

Does Google censor search results?

Google does not censor results for any search term. The order and content of our results are completely automated; we do not manipulate our search results by hand. We believe strongly in allowing the democracy of the web to determine the inclusion and ranking of sites in our search results.

It doesn’t say that anymore. The page that held that info has been removed. I was able to retrieve a copy of what used to be there from Google’s own cache! I’m not sure how long that will be around before being revised, or deleted, which is why it’s a ‘picture’ of the page, rather than a link to what’s there at this moment.

This decision on Google’s part is evil. I can’t think of any other way to parse it. Google is subjugating their principles… my principles… in the pursuit of money. But it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world if Google hadn’t have gone out of their way to claim they would never be ‘that’ kind of company.

There are many things, good and bad, this country can export. Freedom of information – the freedom to explore all ideas, is among our most precious and powerful. It’s so much better than exporting pop culture and fast food.

I have often heard an expression (which I will paraphrase here) that someone can be “F. U. Rich.” That means they’ve got enough money to do what they wish and not worry about the consequences. Isn’t Google in that position now? Don’t the Chinese need Google more than Google need the Chinese?

Where are Google’s principles?

Blogger’s note: Google provides the one source of income for this blog through its AdSense program. In essence, they pay my server costs. Google is also the largest source of traffic to this site.

Addendum – This entry was originally called “I’m Not Google… But If I Was.”