Google Blogoscoped

Forum

Understanding Google's Webmaster Guidelines  (View post)

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

Monday, February 5, 2007
13 years ago4,672 views

My understanding is to be honest.
That is simple. Fight with Google who have many polices with top "Kung Fu", is stupid.

tn [PersonRank 0]

13 years ago #

..is it verified by anyone (e.g. Matt Cutts?) that the webmasterworld redirects aren't sneaky?

JohnMu [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

Well it's not cloaking *rolls eyes* (LOL)

I thought they had fixed it? Are they still auto-redirecting to a sales / signup page when non-registered users come in from Google?

TOMHTML [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

And NYT website do not use cloaking of course...
Google should put all the sites on the same level and not allow this kind of exceptions...

Roger Browne [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

One of the problems with Google's Webmaster Guidelines is that they are contradictory. If you follow Google's advice to create great content for users (not for search engines), you can come into conflict with quite a few of the other guidelines.

For example, if you write for users you often end up with pages containing more than 100 links (such as the front page of this blog).

Google's guidelines are about how you can make things easier for Google.

John Honeck [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

TOMHTML, kind of reminds me of, "'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Ryan [PersonRank 0]

13 years ago #

I think the question at play here is whether or not it adds value to the user.

IN this case, Google is being shown an actual article that the user would find value in (if they were a member).

It's a little different than being shown text that isn't the same as what the user sees.

For example, showing a list of keywords then redirecting me to my an article that doesn't contain that list.

I think, in Google's opinion, signup pages aren't considered sneaky.

In some cases (where the information can't be found elsewhere), it adds value to the user by letting them know it's out there ... but not free.

Do I agree with it? No.. but I'm just trying to put myself in Google's shoes for a minute.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

JohnMu:
> I thought they had fixed it? Are they still auto-redirecting to
> a sales / signup page when non-registered users come in
> from Google?

Same as before: sometimes I get the signup page, sometimes I don't. Dunno what triggers it.

Tn:
> ..is it verified by anyone (e.g. Matt Cutts?) that
> the webmasterworld redirects aren't sneaky?

AFAIK they decided to not give any public statement so far, but that's a kind of statement too.

Matt Cutts [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

Just to be clear, our position on cloaking remains the same (not to do it). I enjoyed feedthebot.com, but as the feedthebot.com itself mentions, it doesn't claim to be affiliated with Google, and doesn't set Google policies on things like what is cloaking or what isn't cloaking.

Philipp, which page on feedthebot.com was talking about WMW or registration pages?

John Honeck [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

Matt, I don't think he's written anything about cloaking yet as Philipp said in the original post, "Not all guidelines are covered yet, though, e.g. “Don’t use cloaking or sneaky redirects.”"

   I think the rest was an editorial comment by Philipp himself.

From what I know about feedthebot, he travels a lot and can be gone from the computer for some time.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

> Philipp, which page on feedthebot.com was talking
> about WMW or registration pages?

No no, that's exactly what I was saying: <<Not all guidelines are covered yet, though, e.g. “Don’t use cloaking or sneaky redirects.”>>

When I visited FeedtheBot the first thing I was hoping to find were elaborations on the "sneaky redirect" issue, but it was (still is) unlinked.
feedthebot.com/guidelines.html

Patrick Sexton [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

Hello all, this is Patrick Sexton from feedthebot.com

Thank you for the post, but you are "sneakily redirecting" your opinions into this post. I have written absolutely nothing thus far about "sneaky re-directs", and when I do it will be in such a way that is useful to a new webmaster and will not include any particular website or my opinions of them. You have an informative site, I was surprized be associatited with a controversy I was no part of, but I appreciate the mention none the less :)

Matt, thanks for the mention, and to answer your above question... nowhere. I do not mention this issue anywhere within my site, the author of this post threw that in there, I do not know why, it has nothing to do with my website.

Johnweb, thanks for mentioning that I am gone from my computer (I have been for a couple weeks) I can not always respond to such things and to thank everyone i need to thank sometimes and I will add that fact to my "about" page. Thank you again. (in fact I am only going to be around for a few days and then I will be gone again).

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

13 years ago #

> I have written absolutely nothing thus far
> about "sneaky re-directs"

Uhm, Patrick: this is exactly what I said in my post. That you have written nothing about that.

Patrick Sexton [PersonRank 1]

13 years ago #

I understood your post, but it seems others did not. Just wanted to throw my two-cents in :)

I have gotten a couple of questions about it. Sorry i couldn't of responded earlier. I like how you covered the newest change in the Guidelines with the side by side comparison, looks good.

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!