Comments on: Google indexes trash and “supplementals” above original content http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html Thu, 17 May 2012 07:57:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: peter http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-402 Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:24:10 +0000 http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-402 Yeah, I was happy to see this a week or so ago, and this site is ranking in Google.co.uk pretty well generally now. On Google.com, however, it's screwed.. for "peter cooper" it's down at #27! It was at #1 for a couple of years. Yeah, I was happy to see this a week or so ago, and this site is ranking in Google.co.uk pretty well generally now. On Google.com, however, it’s screwed.. for “peter cooper” it’s down at #27! It was at #1 for a couple of years.

]]> by: ben http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-401 Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:20:33 +0000 http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-401 Peter, You might be glad to know that your blog entry is now back at the top of the search results on Google for “The Markov Manifesto”. The trash / supplementals (including one of my own Rails projects tralwr.com) are now further down. Peter,

You might be glad to know that your blog entry is now back at the top of the search results on Google for “The Markov Manifesto”. The trash / supplementals (including one of my own Rails projects tralwr.com) are now further down.

]]> by: Peter Cooper http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-131 Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:41:31 +0000 http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-131 Might not have to :) <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/23/wikipedia-to-launch-searchengine-exclusive-screenshot/" rel="nofollow">http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/23/wikipedia-to-launch-searchengine-exclusive-screenshot/</a> Might not have to :)

http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/23/wikipedia-to-launch-searchengine-exclusive-screenshot/

]]> by: Ed http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-129 Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:58:19 +0000 http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-129 IMHO, Google as an email service is fantastic; Google as an advertising service is fantastic; Google as a search engine died about a month or two ago, it is utterly useless for searching. Pretty much any search will return a dozen spam sites, half a dozen re-linking sites and two actual links, usually at the bottom. What you're seeing with your content is not unusual, it is very much the norm on Google now. How lame. So, when are you going to build Boogle? IMHO, Google as an email service is fantastic; Google as an advertising service is fantastic; Google as a search engine died about a month or two ago, it is utterly useless for searching. Pretty much any search will return a dozen spam sites, half a dozen re-linking sites and two actual links, usually at the bottom. What you’re seeing with your content is not unusual, it is very much the norm on Google now. How lame.

So, when are you going to build Boogle?

]]> by: peter http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-127 Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:04:55 +0000 http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-127 But I don't see why anyone would (at least, naturally). My original ones tend to get the real links, and I think the links to the MyFeedz pages are just internal ones (as are mine, naturally). Google is meant to be able to detect 'duplicate content' and it's reasonably easy to detect mine is the original, since <a href="http://www.myfeedz.com/article/2903119" rel="nofollow">even MyFeedz link back to it</a> ;-) But I don’t see why anyone would (at least, naturally). My original ones tend to get the real links, and I think the links to the MyFeedz pages are just internal ones (as are mine, naturally). Google is meant to be able to detect ‘duplicate content’ and it’s reasonably easy to detect mine is the original, since even MyFeedz link back to it ;-)

]]> by: Mike Riversdale http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-125 Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:39:07 +0000 http://www.petercooper.co.uk/google-indexes-trash-and-supplementals-above-original-content-28.html#comment-125 Wouldn't it be because people are linking to the myFeedz page and not your own one? Just a thought Wouldn’t it be because people are linking to the myFeedz page and not your own one? Just a thought

]]>