Webmaster Help Feed

As far as sites being interlinked, that is the way it was from the
day one and nothing changed in the main index page that lists
all the sites and mirrors to different collection.

The sites are related. They are basically sub-sites of the parent collection,
which contains the information on various languages.
Secondly, MFC/VC and C++ sites are both related to C++ language,
only slightly different environment. Furthermore, quite a few programmers
use all of these languages and they are related, all derived from the same
parent language. These are just basically different flavours of the same thing,
even though some may argue that they are very different.

The articles are unique. In some cases, some articles are included in more
than one chapter because they contain the information on several different
issues. So they need to be accessible from a different chapter index.
But each chapter contains different articles (guaranteed) on a specific
chapter topic, just like any other book.

Btw, there is a correction for the following statement in original post:

"Before the index drop, the server log contained about 5k
page views from all sites"

That was meant to be 5000 page views per day.

Surprise Number One

But what is most intriguing is a sudden increase on the
http://mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com site up to 59,600 articles
indexed and, as sudden, fall to even lower number than before the increase, all within a single day.

Why would THIS kind of thing happen and how is it technically possible?
I happen to be a software developer with lots of experience and can not come up with a single
explanation for such a behaviour in ANY kind of system I know of,
especially if you consider google allegedly uses AI (Artificial Intelligence) to do its indexing,
and I happen to have plenty of experience in AI and Expert Systems.

From the behaviour of google index, and I watch it constantly,
I can only make a single conclusion:
Google is manipulating the index artificially to keep the page view count low, so these
sites never have a chance to be widely known and get too much prominence.
I just can not imagine any other reason for such a behaviour of index.

It was interesting to see that while google index dropped about 30 times,
the page view dropped only by 3 times, and even now,
while these sites are indexed to only about 3% of what the correct index ought to be,
the page view count is still relatively steady,
which I could conceivably see as google's main indicator to keep
the site index at particular value to cause the daily page view count
to never increase to "dangerous" values.

The correlation of daily page view count and total index count on google is just way too perfect to be ignored,
especially in the context of that sudden jump in the index by 50 times,
and its drop to even lower value, all within a single day.

So, google DID index these entire sites and it does have all the pages from these sites.
If you do a particular search using search_string site:mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com, you will see a totally
different index count than the same search only without specifying
a search string for the same chapter articles.
The whole behavior of index is way too fishy and way too unexplainable.

Also, I know of no way for the index to drop by factor of 30,
especially considering that information on the sites did not change.

What does it have to do with issues?

Phil Payne, why is this idea of "stolen from the Library of Congress"
is the first thing that entered your mind?

Are you a thief?

Or are you obsessed with guilt manipulation techniques?

What does this have to do with the issues at hand?

These sites are probably the best sites on the net related to these particular languages
and that is precisely why the collections are named Goldmine,
and that is precisely why these sites are visited by the cream of the crop,
the leading world software related corporations, banking industry, governments, educational institutions,
leading manufacturers, such as Sony, Panasonic, Seiko, GE and you name it.

According to correlation between the Google index drop and actual page view drop,
this simply indicates that these sites are already bookmarked by plenty of people,
and I know for fact that these sites are recommended research material at several universities
and some of the leading research centers throughout the world.

Even Navy is interested?

Just within the last 24 hours, there was a sudden hit on the
http://jsgoldmine.uuuq.com chapters from several Navy Network Information Centers (NNIC)
in Norfolk, Virginia; Virginia Beach, Virginia; Chesapeake, Virginia; Waldorf, Maryland; and Greenbelt, Maryland.

Over a dozen of page hits, all within 1 minute interval.
Why would THAT happen, especially considering the fact that this particular site
was put up within the last 24 hours. But that is entirely different matter indeed.

There IS a reason of not making them just subfolders of the same site.
Apparently, there is plenty of hateful feelings between different
languages, just like with any other different opinions.
Putting them in the same place is like putting cats and dogs in one
cage. Secondly, I do not see what does it change from ANY point of
view? C++ guys, being purists, have their own sandbox to play in.
Java guys, who consider themselves pure blooded, have their own
pure, unpolluted environment. They don't even need to know that
C++ still exists. MFC/Visual C, which is associated with the most
hated name in the world, Microsoft, have their own site and do not
have to mix with those arrogant Java and holier than thou C++ guys.

The way the world works is strange and does not always makes much
sense, but that IS the way it works.

Ashley, as far as "Google is not a person, it is an algorithm and has no incentive
to try and keep your page count low....", I can only tell you this:

Algorithms do not behave this way

Algorithms do not behave this way. If google index jumps by a factor
of 30 back and forth within a single day, it is not an algorithm.
Even if that algorithm is adoptive, that can not happen like this.

From the behaviour of google index and my own counter stats,
I can tell you this: from what I see, google is using adaptive algorithms
that go over your site within 30 to 60 days period of time. Say, for example,
your server has problems and is not accessible for prolonged periods of time
for all sorts of reasons.

If algorithms are too fast, you could loose your entire site in a single day.
If they are too slow, you could see all sorts of garbage articles that
do not exist any longer on the site.
Secondly, if google starts banging on some very large site, it may
simply choke it to death. So, a special algorithms calculates the
frequency with which your site is visited by google to update its index
often enough on one side, and not to overwhelm the site on the other site.

" so those conspiracy theories cannot possibly be well grounded here"

What "conspiracy theories"?

Can you substantiate your claim with ANY kind of evidence?
Why do you need to concoct this kind of thing to justify something away,
even though you have not presented a single fact on the matter?

"There are MANY reasons for major fluctuations including issues with your sites
being properly accessed (have you checked your server logs recently?:

sites are accessible and they are constantly checked, especially after major updates.

Accusation number 2: you are not receptive

Ashley, well, you brought up some very interesting points
and I hope you don't mind me getting into it to polish some interesting issues.
It could be better to start a different thread, but just to keep the context,
I think it would be more beneficial to see all related posts together.

As far as "reasons for doing things" go, yes, everybody has his reasons.

As far as "I bet you'd be into it if you put down the arms and started
learning", well, let us see here.

First of all, I did so much learning as far as information goes, I am not sure there are many
that could comrehend that.
But, from the very start, you make certain assumptions:

Google is always right and you are always wrong

Google is "right", and you are "wrong".
Well, how do you know that?

Sure, I am not here to teach Google how to do things.
They are welcome to do anything they please with their sandbox, called google,
except for one fine point, and that is:

Google is the Sole Global Information Monopoly

Google is The Sole Global Information Monopoly
and its impact on every single thing that is going on in the world, is such that by
simply pushing a single red button, they can literally annihilate you for all practical purposes.

Every single aspect of the way the world works depends on google
in today's information driven world. There isn't a single thing we do
without making a google search, more or less, even if you sell candies.

This brings a slightly different twist on the whole issue.
You see, being in the position google is, it seems like it is long due
google would open up its principles, "rules" and variables to public
scrutiny by the international committee. Because google is no longer
just some innocent business, trying to make a buck. It is something
that affects the very life on the planet Earth in nearly all its manifestations.

So, principles of: hey, this is my business and I do what I want, and
if you don't like it, "switch to a different channel" do not quite apply.
Why do you think Microsoft was forced in the courts to open its
Windows source code to public scrutiny? Well, the same exact
reason.

Why do you have to waste months on guessing games as to how google works,
when you can eliminate most of your pitfalls if you knew some of its principles, rules, etc.?

Why Google does not implement some kind of expert system?

Why doesn't Google implement some kind of Expert System to answer questions
of some webmaster as to the best way to built his own lil toybox in
the global ocean of internet?

What is your estimates on what does it take to implement such a system
in terms of time and resources versus benefits to everyone?
Well, in MY estimates, and I happen to know what I am talking about,
building an expert system for this purpose is a relatively small project.
Considering the size of Google operation, it would take somewhere between
3 to 6 months to implement, at the MOST.
The initial version could be up within a couple of weeks LITERALLY. The benefit?

Can you even BEGIN to comprehend the benefit, at least to those poor webmasters,
that waste months if not years, trying to guess how Google works?
What is this whole INDUSTRY of SEO?

Do you understand?
The INDUSTRY, not just a few guys, trying to make a buck.

The industry, trying to cheat Google bot and get you higher in the search result list.
Is this some kind of a joke?

And very few of them even know what they are talking about,
primarily because Google keeps its "rules" hidden under 12 foot armor,
probably worse than the CIA keeps ITS secrets.

What is this whole giant trip of futility is all about?
Ever thought about this?

When you have to go hire some pardon for expression,
...., (I don't even want to write it), just for you to exist in the global scheme of things,
even if you have the most brilliant piece of information that could benefit the whole would?

What is this trip again? Is it some kind of a bad joke?

Secondly, why do you assume that I have to start learning how google works?
Do you know how much time I have already wasted on Google,
reading all your guessing messages of someone, who is with a blindfold?

How many hours did I have to waste, yes, waste, more or less, reading all the
"official" abstract nothings, or watching those slow torture movies about
nothing specifically, or of lil value, more or less?

I could probably write a pretty powerful program in that time.

Is it all just guessing game?

Sure, it would be englightening to see some of your views. But you know what?
I already know most of what you are going to tell me,
and even if you have a fair clue of what you are talking about,
all what you are saying is just your opinion and your own guessing game.

Unless I see the "official" "rules" and principles,
which in no uncertain terms outline how Google indexing works, and
what are the specific criteria that may go as far as getting your whole
site dumped, or index to drop like a rock, and what are those things,
that would make your site shine, all it is is just a fairy tale, or rather
hairy tale, singnifying nothing at the end. And I say this after working
with Google search engine for quite some time, and wasting countless days, waiting
for the next Google webmaster page update.

Google artificially delays the information release to webmasters

And, the ugliest thing of all, you can not even do much, because
Google artificially delays certain events, such as web crawler chart updates.
Just recently, you only had to wait a week to see what your last
change did to Google bot. Now it is TWO weeks. Why?
What are the TECHNICAL reasons for it?
And I tell you: NONE whatsoever.
Zero, zip, zilch.

How come Google sometimes crawls your site at about 1000 pages/day, and then,
out of the blue, it does 2-3 pages a day?
Do you realize what it means for a site with about 50,000 pages?
How many lightyears is it going to take to index your site?

And how come some of your sites are not even crawled during the last month,
while mirrors, with the same exact information do?

Google magic start

What kind of Google magic makes your index jump 1000 times up and down
in a single day? What kind of algorithm is this?
What kind of AI can POSSIBLY do such a thing?

Do you have answers to ANY of these questions?

Yes, I AM going to read what you are going to say.
But chances are, 99% of what you are going to say I already know.
And most of it is just a guess. I bet none of you can state anything with certainty,
with very few exceptions of the most trivial things,
which I ought to be able to learn by reading a single well written
page representing the "official" position of google.

Ashley, have a nice dinner with your nice husband.
:--}

And I DO appreciate your willingness to "share", whatever that means.
:--}

And I already know: google is ALWAYS "right".

And I know, poor Google is "providing these great services for free".
Wonder how they made that $80 billion bux though, doing all this
"free" great service for humanity. Nothing new to that one.

And yes, tell me about Yahoo and Pahoo. I REALLY need that valuable information.

Ashley, are you cheating again?
You said you only got to the 2nd paragraph and gave up,
probably implying the whole thing is so... you know what, right?

But...

That 99% number comes at the very end of my post.
Zo...
:--}

Did I see you somewhere in the Silicon Valley?

Ashley, you betcha :--}

And I know more about google than...

Guess!

:--}

Ashley, are you cheating again?
Have you even seen the site before you start making things up?

And you happen to be in SEO business?

Sorry, I did not know that initially, and, luckily, did not type that word. Lucky me. :--}

Would be curious to know that high powered SEO people have to say
about this google magic, which I am having a hard time to classify as anything else.

Also, kinda interesting to see the SEO people on this forum to begin with.
Are you also providing some "free service to humanity", just like Google does?

maybe we should short bio tech and google tommoro if it doesn't happen ashley.

Ashley, well, I'll take your word for it. Would be curious to see that Google magic,
checking the http://cppgoldmine.by.ru that is not even indexed by super AI google bot during last 2 months.

Guess how far its index has fallen? Lemme see here at this very moment...

Oh, great improvement, I tellya:
Results 1 - 10 of about 329 from cppgoldmine.by.ru. (0.10 seconds)

That is 7 more pages indexed out of well over 100,000 pages on that site!
Yupies. Just a couple of lightyears, and we're going to get that site indexed
to about 1% of its actual size.

Never mind that some of these sites are on "top 10 outgoing sites"
on Microsoft list.

Now, we are not even talking about Google ranking.
ALL LOW, as low as it gets. Next to none existent.
Now, do you want me to give you are snapshot showing what kind of people
and from what kind of places view these pages by the truckloads?
And I don't mean to give you snapshots when His Royal Highness, Da Google visited these sites.

Anyway, The last report was:

June 29 2009 23:25
------------------
1,060 from mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com
1,570 from mfcgoldmine.by.ru

2,890 from cppgoldmine.uuuq.com
322 from cppgoldmine.by.ru

3,190 from javagoldmine.uuuq.com
14,300 from tarkus01.by.ru

Do you know how many pages are there on those sites? Guess!

Well, over half a million. Just don't tell anybody.
Cause I will be ashamed of my dismal "Google performance"
despite the fact that some of these sites are there for more than a year.

Now, the knockout is this one:
http://javagoldmine.by.ru

Do you know what kind of Google magic happened to THAT one?

Well, it was COMPLETELY dropped from the Great Google Index.
Why?
Well, with your connections to Dr. Google, I bet it is going to take all the 5 seconds to find it out.

Interestingly enough, I even submitted a "reconsideration" request, praying on my knees:
Would you kindly look at these sites and see what kind of magic made google bot
to stop indexing them, and I even received His Royal Answer:
Your sites WERE considered. If they don't show up in Great Google Index, you know what to do, right?

Nope, do not think of jumping from the Golden Gate bridge.
That is San Francisco, not Mountain View)

KevinKatovic, shorting Google could be notsuch a bad idea if you knew the real scoop.
Just don't tell anybody. Donnow about biotech though, sorry.

Cause you'd be at the very top of it. What a nice 2 year run.

Bears are getting bored with all this old news stuff.

Disassembling da Grand Google Delusion

Well, OK. Let us start disassembling Da Google Phenomenon.

Now, according to my information, Google uses "500,000 rules and variables" to do its indexing magic.

Right from the start, and with full confidence and authority of about as high level, as it gets,
I can tell you this:

There exists no single individual on the face of the whole planet Earth,
or a machine, including the "Big Blue" from IBM,
that can possibly predict the outcome of such a system,
ESPECIALLY considering that some of these rules and variables are hand tweaked.

And I suggest Google Grand Architects look at the above statement REALLY carefully.

To all those, who do have the slightest clue of what we are talking about,
this something equivalent to hand tweaking the Back Propagation model (AI, Artificial Intelligence) by HAND,
and hoping to make the model to eventually converge.
In how many light years?

So, from the very start, there exist not a SINGLE Grand Architect at Google,
and I personally challenge ANYONE from Google,
including the Grand Fathers of the project, started at Stanford,
that can possibly predict the outcome of such horrendously complex model.

Because it is not humanly possible.

Even if you throw a Big Blue at it.

It will simply deadlock within seconds and will start smoking
in all the infinite sets of contradictions.

Seconly, the blip in Google index from 1400 articles indexed to 59,600
(on http://mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com, on June 28 2009 06:48 GMT)
and then its subsequent drop to even lower value of 1,060 articles within a single day,
could possibly happen in the following two cases:

1) The Google search engine and its AI does not work and the indexer is broken,
and in the most profound ways, affecting millions of sites worldwide.

2) Index was artificially manipulated and forced to get reduced to even lower value
than it was before the blip.

And there are reasons to make such a statement.
First of all, it is quite conceivable that that interactions between certain rules in the rule base
would suddenly release a very large number of indexed links once some "quarantine" period expires.
This behaviour was observed and logged on several occasions, where Google index would suddenly jump,
like a step function, to a much higher value in a single day.

But, the subsequent drop from 59,600 to even significantly lower value of 1,060
(as compared to 1410 articles before the blip) can not be easily explained.

If it was a rule in a ruleset, than it would be logical to expect some other rule
might reverse the action, overriding the effect of the 1st rule,
as a result of rule conflicts in a rule set.

But...

Why would that index drop not back to 1410, but to 1060 in a SINGLE day?

Does any expert at Google have any answer for that one?

Yes, it is understood that Google index is not perfect and there are fluctuations on a day to day basis
upto +/- 10% of index value, depending on a size of some site.

Could those errors in number of pages indexed affect millions of sites?

But these kinds of fluctuations simply indicate the system is unstable, or, simply stated, broken.
Meaning, millions of sites worldwide may experience dramatic and unexpected value fluctuations
of their index within any range conceivable, and for any length of time,
and there exist not a single person in the whole world that can prove with certainty
that such fluctuations are NOT possible.

Well, that is good enough for starters.
We'll have a chance to talk about more of this Google Phenomenon dynamics as things unfold.

Enjoy.

Well, let me comment on this one from one of our "high powered" SEO,
who claims to have a direct phone line to Dr. Google himself.

Ashley, I am talking to you personally now, and all those, who
eat this giant thing yammy yam yammy.

"So, you can stomp your feet and say you're brilliant (you probably are,
I'm not debating this),

[Yes, you ARE. Just look at your posts]

but if you want to show up in Google you have to play by Google's rules

[Is Google some kind of mafia?]

(and put forth half an effort to better understand how Google works -

[Can you even BEGIN to comprehend how much effort have I put into "trying to understand how Google works"?

Now, I challenge ANYONE from Google, including the Grand Architect,
to come forward and speak in public on these very forums,
and we will discuss the Grand Google Architecture to any degree of detail and precision.

Sorry, but I do take these kind of statements as a personal insult.
You don't even know who I am and start giving me these kinds of kindergarten level suggestions.]

"its actually pretty neat you know."

[Oh! Yes, it IS pretty "neat", you know...

I bet you'd be into if you put down the arms and started learning).

[What? ME and PUT DOWN THE ARMS?
Sorry, does not fit in the same sentence if you knew me at all. You know?

Nope, instead of putting down the arms, we are going to throw a BOMB on the table.
Not even a bomb, but we will engage nothing less than The Diamond Sword.

Ever heard of The Diamond Sword?

Well, in a few words: It cuts through all the matter in the physical domain like a paper.
And that is all I am willing to tell you about it at this junction.
]

Yes, shorting is not such a bad idea at this junction.
I'll take 10% of profit for a deal of your life and I will take your word for it
and your honesty. :--) Fair enough?
It is a long trade. Not a daytrade, and not an intermediate trade. Nor it is a pattern trade.
There will be no double or triple bottoms on this one.

:--}

And now da credits...

Just to make sure we understand each other really well.

Well, it is time to collect at least a part of that $200 mil. I personally
and single handedly saved for one of the top players in the software industry,
and I mean the very top.

It was me, that made the initial release of their product fly like a bird
instead of the whole grand TV presentation on some major TV networks falling flat on its face,
that would immediately cause their stock decline by at least $200 mills according to my estimates.

And, instead of getting me a brand new pink Rolls Royce Silver Spur, they kicked my butt.
Because my dinky manager got freaked out when I managed to get the director of development fired
by sending a SINGLE email, that was 100% "right on the money", that happened to have gone
to all the top guns from several corporations involved in that initial release and one of the major initial stock offerings.

You don't need to know their names or company names.
But I am willing to substantiate my claims in any court of any land.

And I happened to have studied the Google architecture so well,
not sure there are many top architects at Google itself, that know it to this extent.

And, just to top it off, do you hear that thing, spinning in your box, called a hard drive?
Well, guess what, and how many billions were made because of some things I have done for some companies,
and again, the very cream of the crop, the biggest and the baddest names in the industry.

So...

We are ready to have a friendly chat about the Google Internals.

Phil Payne, I am glad you brought that up:

"The simple fact is - you're all on your own."

I know that. Do you think I can rely on people like YOU?
Why would I do so?

"One in sixty million is fifty times less likely than winning the UK's national lottery."

Hey, sounds like pretty good odds to me. :--}
After all, they DO advertise these "outstanding opportunities to win a gazillion bux", don't they?
And peddle it on all the major networks too!

:--}

I thought the odds are even worse...

"There are around sixty million indexable domains on the planet.
If 1% hist such problems we'd have 600,000 aggrieved webmasters
posting here and in every newspaper that's printed".

Not necessarily. First of all, they were all told, and MANY times over,
to the point of being zombified, that Google does NOT guarantee anything,
and their index MAY and DOES fluctuate, no matter what they think is reasonable.

Plus, how many webmasters do you think are willing to rock the boat
and tell the business owner he is loosing millions because of those wild fluctuations?
Why would anyone in his clear mind do that?
You see, it is much profitable just to keep quiet and pretend you did not see any of it,
cause there is nothing you can do anyway,
instead of rocking the boat and possibly loosing your job,
if da boss learns that he lost millions "because of this clueless bozo,
who calls himself an SEO".

Get the picture?

Finally, how many webmasters even participate on these forums?
According to the way you do YOUR statistics, it is less than
0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 % of all the webmasters in that huge ocean, called Da Internet.

So...

That one doesn't quite cut it, doesn't it?

Phil Payne, to top it off:

How many web masters even KNOW they are having these wild fluctuations?

How many of them keep the constant watch of their google index?

How many of them take regular snapshots of their statistics,
at least as to the number of total pages indexed by Google from your sites?

Does Google provide the charts of total number of pages indexed on your site even on Google Analytics?

How many webmasters do you think can produce a running report of their total pages indexed and post it here?

Would you like me to produce one for you and see if YOURS is as good as mine?

:--}

KevinKatovic, it was a good odds bet, and you won.

Ashley:

"Sorry about that...

I just got off the phone with Dr. Google and your sites will be Number 1 tomorrow.
All tied for Number 1. And no, I'm not cheating. It's for REAL!"

"Do you think this answers the question? YesNo"

Not yet, but we are waiting for Grand Entrance here.

KevinKatovic:

"maybe we should short bio tech and google tommoro if it doesn't happen ashley."

Latest statistics update:

(Notice the same blip on http://cppgoldmine.uuuq.com below.
A jump from 2890 to 32,480 in a single day.
Then, after repeated refreshes, going back to 2890, exactly the same number as on the previous sample.

So, these blips are not some kind of "something went wrong somewhere" phenomenon,
but quite repeatable, and, considering the statistical sample density,
indicate either some definite instability in the system,
or deliberate manual manipulation of the index.

Or does Google have some explanation of this kind of behavior?


July 1 2009 12:05 GMT
------------------
1,170 from http://mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com
1,580 from http://mfcgoldmine.by.ru

32,480 from http://cppgoldmine.uuuq.com
flashed once, but after 3 page refreshes went down to:
2,890 from http://cppgoldmine.uuuq.com
329 from http://cppgoldmine.by.ru

That is 15 times difference

10,200 from http://javagoldmine.uuuq.com
after doing a page refresh went down to this:
3,190 from http://javagoldmine.uuuq.com
14,400 from tarkus01.by.ru

Your search - site:http://javagoldmine.by.ru - did not match any documents.

Now, that site was submitted for His Royal Reconsideration how long ago by now?
And what was the exact wording from The Google Commissioner on Site Affairs? Does anyone know?

Btw, Google lost about $60 mils by now,
and that is CONSERVATIVE estimate.
No need to watch the tape.

One more time, for those with short memory: "Some heads are going to roll at Google".

And there are at least two, and one of them is directly responsible for the above number.

who cares. any domain with "goldmine" in it should be avoided anyway. That's one of the many secret keywords for spam/affiliate/never-gonna-find-anything-on-this-site for a domain.

Official position of Google - Totally off the wall

Well, looks like Google made its move. What are the bets on the table?

Lysis, actually a good point. I did not even think of that one.
So, anyone selling jewelry is penalized?
:--}

How about Coca Cola? Is THAT still "good for you"?

Hi JohnMu,

"For better estimates I'd recommend using the indexed URL count for
Sitemap files that contain the URLs that you find relevant for your sites."

Well, I am aware of that. Unfortunately, I can not agree with you on that one.
But I have no evidence to substantiate which way is "better" to look at.

What I found it that index as shown on a sitemap is often a number of times
lower than the actual index, returned by site:yoursite.domain, I have reasons
to believe that the site:... is more correct than index on your sitemap.

As far as fighting with anyone for anything, or demanding anything from anyone,
sorry I am not interested in any of this stuff. All I know is whatever is on my
sites is cream of the crop of what is out there and for more than one reason.

1918,

Why am I asking?
Does it bother YOU?

Again: "everyone has his reasons to do what he is doing".
Does that sit fine with you?

Lysis, I just want to understand what we are talking about here.

Is Google doing a content censorship?

Are we talking about the content censorship for whatever reasons?

Or, are we trying to define which version of the same content is"better"?
Or more "valid", like a paperback is always worse than a hard cover?
Or 19xxx edition is better than 20xx one?

In my view, the Internet is a giant virtual distributed system,
that contains just about any and all the information you can possibly need.
There is not much point of regenerating a slightly different twist on the same information.

The main issue, as I see it, is being able to find something that fits your needs and desires
AT THE MOMENT,
and corresponds to your competence level on a certain subject, area, or you name it.

This IS the key to the whole game. Not those "rankings".
Because just the mere fact that lots of people talk about George Bush,
does not mean George Bush is "quality material".

As I said before: "Majority opinion does not define quality.
EVER"!

Simple as that.
Think what it means. Who knows?...
revelation may come down upon thee.

Just another insult by the level 4 pervert

I can tell that http://cppgoldmine.uuuq.com is an awesome resource by the whopping 21 links pointing to it - I have more links pointing at my twitter profile!

I've rarely seen such a pompous display of arrogance in this forum, especially from someone so utterly inept at search.

I'm sure this will cause you to go on another long rant that no one in here will bother reading, well except possibly John Mu who has the patience of a saint, but I'm done. My time is to valuable trying to talk sense to someone who is not willing to listen - I have a 14 year old who fits that bill already.

1918,

"I can tell that http://cppgoldmine.uuuq.com is an awesome resource
by the whopping 21 links pointing to it - I have more links pointing at
my twitter profile!"

Impressive.
And I don't even have a twitter profile.
You know why?
Well, for one thing, why would anyone in his clear mind want to be followed by people like you, for example?

"I've rarely seen such a pompous display of arrogance in this forum,
especially from someone so utterly inept at search."

:--}

Well, when google can produce a more precise search than I can,
then you might have some point. How about orders of magnitude more precise?

And, gluing it together with your first sentence...

Why would I want to be on twitter?
Just to see 'such a pompous display of arrogance'?

"especially from someone so utterly inept at search"?

"I'm sure this will cause you to go on another long rant"

Yep, I know. Anything else is new under the sun?

Or the same ole guilt manipulation tricks in your worn out bag of tricks?

Jeez, poor tweeterers. They MUST be masochists!

:--}

Reiterating the issue

JohnMu, sorry to bother.

But can you tell me the possible reason for such a rapid blips in index
(from 1410 to 59,600 and back to 1060, all in one day?

What does that mean do you think?

Google could care less

So, about the only response that is worth anything in my view,
the response from Google employee, JohnMu, not responding to my last question, IS "the bottom line".

That simply means one of three things to me:

1) Google could care less of what anybody thinks about anything.

2) Even Google employees do not know the reason for such a blip.

3) They do know, but to open it up in public could mean some quite unpleasant consequences,
not necessarily "in Google's interests or benefit".

And where did all those omnipotent SEO experts go?
Is this thing not significant enough to even bother about?
Not quite "typical case"? Some unexplainable aberration?
Has little or no impact on overall Google operation or performance?

On your knees, mortals, Dr. Mengele speaks

I'd give this guy a link on my site if he'd keep his drivel to less than 243 lines.

Yai! Lets get to it! Da Orgy starts...

You are insulting people!

webado,

Would you kindly introduce yourself as far as your relationship with Google goes
and what is the purpose of what you are doing here on these forums?

Hold your breath! Google reiterates its position

Hi JohnMu,

I AM aware about discrepancies between different data centers, especially during the transitionary stages.

What I am seeing here is totally different and it can not possibly be explained by variations in state of particular data centers.
I could give you my estimates on what "normal" or expected variations ought to be in the context of how google does indexing,
and data center updates.

There is sufficient hard data to correlate different things
Unfortunately, this is way too technical for a general purpose forum discussions.
Plus there are other considerations...

I do appreciate your input.

You are harassing us again!

Dear Mr. Phil Payne,

I am sorry, but I am only interested in talking to authorised Google representatives.

Actually, the "true state of affairs" is LARGER numbers as published, including this one:

(after doing a google search on mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com without specifying site:)

Results 21 - 30 of about 1,030,000 for mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com

Thank you for your input.

Just keep denying it, like you have not seen those screen shots

Latest stats:

July 2 2009 12:03 GMT
------------------
1,160 from mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com
37,900 from mfcgoldmine.by.ru

3,190 from cppgoldmine.uuuq.com
315 from cppgoldmine.by.ru

3,100 from javagoldmine.uuuq.com
15,400 from tarkus01.by.ru

Note: numbers may differ as it appears datacenter update is in progress
(as verified by repeated page refreshing and seeing drastically changing stats).

Numbers should settle down within a several hours from the moment of this publication.

One more time: Stop harassing top contributors here

Dear Mr. Phil Payne,

This discrepancy is EXACTLY what we are talking about.

Thank you for your interest and concern.

Denial ad nauseum

I have reasons to believe that following stats correspond to true state of affairs.
Numerous links were verified to be valid and pages did exist and they did refer to a particular site.

Note: the following stats were produced by performing a google search on a site by entering domain name without specifying site:...
This stat sample was produced within the last 24 hrs.

Results 21 - 30 of about 1,030,000 for mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com

Results 1 - 10 of about 826,000 for mfcgoldmine.by.ru

Results 1 - 10 of about 459,000 for javagoldmine.uuuq.com

Results 1 - 10 of about 471,000 for javagoldmine.by.ru

Results 1 - 10 of about 680,000 for tarkus01.by.ru

Results 1 - 10 of about 543,000 for cppgoldmine.uuuq.com

One more time: ALL of the pages with larger number on stats were indexed and they do correspond to rough estimate on the
number of pages on the sites, including some older versions for which the sitemap was removed from webmaster pages and sitemap
files were physically removed from the server.

These are not mistakes or some phantom, unpredictable results.

Time for Google validation site yet?

In my view, it is long due Google produces a validation site where users could enter the URI of the page,
hit the "validate" button, and get a detailed description of the Google's view
of that particular page in clear and no uncertain terms,
including how this particular version of the page may or may not impact Google indexing,
or, in extreme cases, may even result in a site being completely de-listed.

Such services are available for HTML/CSS and other types of validations.

Non authorized opinions and unverifiable recommendations?

Instead, what we are seeing is some non-authorised individuals, making all sorts of
unverifiable recommendations including running some page via 3rd party services, trying
to guess what Google would do, if they dealt with this page, which is UTTERLY inappropriate
and could never be viewed as having been authorised by Google and to comply with Google's Internal Regulations and Procedures.

Publish the exact guidelines?

Furthermore, it is long due, Google puts an end to all this rumor mill and publishes
the exact and specific guidelines, describing the appropirate use or misuse of certain
practices, procedures, layouts, use of Frames, Tables or what have you.

This has to be done in EXACT, CLEAR and DEFINITE terms, so there is no possibility of multiple
interpretations of the same thing. After all, Google does use some algorithms to do indexing
and datacenter updates.

One more time: Since Google, at this junction, is THE sole information monopoly affecting
the very life on the planet Earth, in any conceivable manifestation, a totally different
set of rules, procedures an principles of international supervision ought to apply.

And those rules are to benefit the mankind as such, and not just some limited group, business
or individuals, who can muscle their way into top ranks with the power of the dollar bill.

Just like the case with Microsoft shows in no uncertain terms.

Snapshot of http://mfcgoldmine.by.ru at this very moment.
Note: this site's google index appears to stay stable for several hours now.

Results 1 - 10 of about 37,900 from mfcgoldmine.by.ru. (0.10 seconds)

The same site on July 2 2009 09:44 GMT:

1,580 from mfcgoldmine.by.ru

How is this kind of thing possible?

This has been the question from the very first post on this and other threads.

I am still waiting for AUTHORISED opinion of competent Google representatives.

So far, not a single explanation that corresponds to reality has been provided.

And I have enough reasons to believe that this is not just some isolated case.

Expert system? Who are you talking to? There is no one home

And it is in my view, it is LONG time due Google implements an Expert System or equivalent thereof,
that queries various parameters from users, possibly including a sample of one of his pages,
or root URL of his site, to be test crawled, and then produces a detailed report of what Google
considers to be appropriate or inappropriate practices, and, during the expert system query,
asks the specific questions in current context.

Such systems are widely available for at least a generation, and again, my own estimates
on the amount of resources and a time frame for implementation of such a system, that
will put an end to this horrible rumour mill, is negligible in the scheme of things.

Time frame for such project is within 3 to 6 months. Initial beta version could be easily
implemented within a two week period, considering the level of competence of Google technical personnel.

As to the benefits, especially to those poor webmasters, who end up wasting months, if not years,
trying to guess what would google do, and often meeting some new twist on the matter,
they can not be underestimated.

BraveTide,

You don't have to bother with this thread if you don't like what you see.
Nobody forces you to read it, and, especially, follow up on it.

BraveTide,

Without getting into some nasty details of what you are talking about, it is called:

DEMOCRACY

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

(among other things)

Stats update on http://mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com

July 2 2009 14:52 GMT
61,800 from mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com

This particular is totally inconsistent with average or mean sample distribution, such as:

July 2 2009 14:22 GMT
1,160 from mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com

Would be interesting to see the opinion of competent representative from Google.

And YES, I DID read ALL of the Google guidelines, at least those, that seemed to have
lead to something that is relevant and makes sense in particular context.

And no, I did not find much useful, specific and to the point information in vast majority of cases.
It is all mostly moral judgements of "be nice", "make it valuable to your clients", etc. etc., etc.

Very little of that information is useful.

We only want to see all the three words of your feedback

Furthermore, the 30 character "feedback" field appears to be like some kind of a bad joke,
if not an outright insult.

What kind of feedback you can POSSIBLY provide in a single 30 character text field?

BraveTide,

You seem to be so upset about all this. I Wonder why?

I am not "pissed". But YOU seem to be.

What is the point of you hanging on a thread that obviously looks uninteresting to you, just like some "old story"?

Just follow your own advice: move on. (with your life)

Hi Ashley,

"So let's recap:
- You are likely not even using search properly to gauge an actual site index. Try it with the site:url.com."

Incorrect. The search is performed by entering site:mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com
I am fully aware of the difference between entering site:..., or just domain without site:

"- You aren't checking logs and other areas to make sure that your site is of proper format to crawl and index."

Incorrect. Site pages are validated under HTML 4.01 Strict.
Chapter pages under HTML 4.01 transitional.

Sites ARE crawlable, and ARE FULLY indexed by Google,
as those large numbers show. Furthermore, the large numbers
to correctly represent the estimate of a particular site.

There IS a very clear way to index the site, despite the fact
that the 2nd level index page does have an option to be used
with Frames version. But the 2nd option is frameless.

XML sitemaps were submitted without even warnings.

Google does have every single page on these sites indexed.

Sites are up for more than 6 months.

There are millions of references to various pages on these sites
on the Internet. Just verified within the last 24 hrs., and if there
were errors you are talking about, there would not be such a
large number of external links to articles.

"- You aren't taking advantage of the intelligence that Google is offering."

Whatever THAT means.

"- And, Google is a private business and isn't putting its secret-sauce recipe on this forum just for you. "

Are you dully authorised to make such a statement on behalf of Google?

Dear Ashley,

Just one more point:

Not a SINGLE point you have brought up actually corresponds
to specific facts of the matter.

Sorry

And a sick witch is also a top gun at Google?

It is just spam, just like Google does all over the net!

Talking to the deaf...

1918,

"let's hope that doesn't happen"

BUT

"if 6 or 7 people all filed reports about a spammy site"

wink, wink

"That would be catastrophic"

You forgot to CAPITALIZE that one.

:--}

Lying and fabricating again, as usual?

There is no "spammy" site in site.
And the content is probably one of the best collections on the net,
as evidenced by the traffic, REGARDLESS of Google indexing,
just as correlation between the google index drop and page view drop. Sorry, too late.
A substantial part of traffic by now comes from bookmarks and other search engines worldwide.

Finally, mirror sites are used to increase reliability of information delivery.
That is its single purpose. It only adds more work to maintain the sites and there is no other
benefit from all that work.

Hope this makes you happier.

:--}

Btw, what seems to be the problem here to begin with?
All of a sudden, all of the "high power SEO" and assorted consultants just jumped
into this thread like Google life depends on it.

Seems strange.

Are you OK, people?

Just relax. This isn't the end of the world.
Everything is nice and kosher.

I am enjoying this thing. Who knows, someone who really knows what he is talking about
may even pop-up any moment. That would be cool.

Sure, I understand, that customer support personnel is not as qualified
to understand the internal issues of indexing, and it is a long shot to hope to see anything
that actually makes sense eventually.

But you never know, you never know.
I am optimistic in that regard.

In fact, I already have a pretty good idea of what is going on.
But it would be interesting to see the view of some competent individual,
who is talking about things that are beyond simple screwups by the newbies,
who do not quite know what they are doing.

Well, enjoy the trip meanwhile.
:--}

Having fun yet?

Just one more lil point to all of you, trying to harass someone,
who just wants to see the competent opinion regarding a very
specific issue:

Just relax, it doesn't stick.
Why do you have to torture yourselves with all this self-destructive
energy of hate?

You see, it may hurt YOU more than anything else.
Believe it or not.

Btw, I challenge anyone of you to find a better collection of information
on the subjects covered by collections, ANYWHERE on the net, in the
context of chapter topics, depth of coverage and competence of writers.

Comprehende?

And by now I have seen plenty of things on the net.

But...

That is ENTIRELY different matter, and is not a subject of discussion.
Are we discussing QUALITY of information on the sites?
APPROPRIATENESS of a given article to corresponding chapter?
BREATH of coverage?
The amount of GARBAGE, that does not exactly correspond to the
issues, covered by some chapter?

The EXPERTISE of the authors you wish to challenge?

The ease of viewing articles and clarity with which you can separate
different writers within the same article?

The navigation aspects?

The amount of CODE examples and practical tips?

The ability to extract the code examples from the raw information
streams?

Ask Google if THEY can do that.

:--}

You guys are funny, I tell ya.

"Oh, that thing bounces?!?!?"

Ashley,

Is THAT the kind of "friendly and positive environment" you provide on these forums?

I could not understand, what would make people like you work without pay to benefit something as big as Google?

Are you guys paid to do this?
Just curious.

1918,

Are you a sado-masochist, by ANY chance?

Ashley,

You guys are totally off-topic, haven't you noticed?

Why are you spamming the important user support discussions?

Are you trying to hijack the thread, by ANY chance?

Ashley, is THAT the reason you demanded I stay on a single tread?

Don't you realize it produces NOTHING of value as far as YOU
are concerned, including your reputation and your place on user
support forums?

Just to remind you what this thread is about:
"Question: Google index drops like a rock"

Have you noticed?

Btw, ALL the detailed information was provided.
So far, not a single competent anything, related to the specific
information regarding this specific situation, has been provided,
by you, oh great "volunteers".

So, again, what is that you are doing here on these forums?
Cause the way you talk does not quite look like ANY kind of
"positive environment for EVERYONE".

Or I am missing some subtle points here?

:--}

These are the results of study of sites in question:

http://mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com

Search on site:mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com

61,800 from mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com - correct result
1,160 from mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com - incorrect result

Search on mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com domain, without site:...

Results 21 - 30 of about 1,030,000 for mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com  - correct result
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,360 for mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com - incorrect result

Site http://mfcgoldmine.by.ru

Search on site:mfcgoldmine.by.ru

37,900 from mfcgoldmine.by.ru - correct result
1,490 from mfcgoldmine.by.ru - incorrect result

Search on mfcgoldmine.by.ru domain, without site:...

Results 1 - 10 of about 826,000 for mfcgoldmine.by.ru - correct result
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,460 for mfcgoldmine.by.ru - incorrect result

Site http://cppgoldmine.uuuq.com

Search on site:cppgoldmine.uuuq.com

32,800 from cppgoldmine.uuuq.com - almost correct result, but lower than it should be
2,880 from cppgoldmine.uuuq.com - incorrect result

Search on cppgoldmine.uuuq.com domain, without specifying site:...

Results 1 - 10 of about 543,000 for cppgoldmine.uuuq.com - correct result
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,320 for cppgoldmine.uuuq.com - incorrect result

Site: http://cppgoldmine.by.ru

Search on site:cppgoldmine.by.ru

25,400 from cppgoldmine.by.ru - almost correct result, but lower than it should be
315 from cppgoldmine.by.ru - incorrect result

Search on cppgoldmine.by.ru domain, without specifying site:...

Results 1 - 10 of about 513,000 for cppgoldmine.by.ru - correct result
3,060 for cppgoldmine.by.ru - incorrect result

Site http://javagoldmine.uuuq.com

Search on site:javagoldmine.uuuq.com

10,400 from javagoldmine.uuuq.com - incorrect, but closer to reality (which should be > 40,000)
3,190 from javagoldmine.uuuq.com - incorrect result

Search on javagoldmine.uuuq.com domain, without specifying site:...

Results 1 - 10 of about 459,000 for javagoldmine.uuuq.com - correct result
Results 1 - 10 of about 6,200 for javagoldmine.uuuq.com - incorrect result

Site http://tarkus01.by.ru

Search one site:tarkus01.by.ru

71,200 from tarkus01.by.ru - correct result
15,400 from tarkus01.by.ru - incorrect result, but better than other incorrect results

Search on tarkus01.by.ru domain, without specifying site:...

Results 1 - 10 of about 471,000 for javagoldmine.by.ru - correct result
Results 1 - 10 of about 13,600 for tarkus01.by.ru - incorrect result

1918,

I told some of you already: I am not interested in your guilt manipulation trips
and finger pointing. There IS a SPECIFIC issue on the table, and that is ALL
I am interested in discussing.

Furthermore, I am only interested in hearing the opinions of those,
who are technically competent in these specific issues.

As to your fabrications and all that time you have wasted,
trying to dig up at least SOME dirt, I can just tell you one thing:
that "independent" opinion is the same kind of opinion as YOURS,
and that is TOTALLY biased. The sites are up at this very moment,
and, instead of looking at the real sites, you wasted how long, trying
to dig up some of the lowest grade crap there is?

Yes, at the moment that particular individual was talking about
"all these sites are broken", it is possible that ONE of the servers
was down, and these things happen. This, by itself signifies nothing.

As to to "lies as to the amount of traffic", here we go:

http://tinyurl.com/nvcowk

Mind you, this is AFTER this tremendous, more than 40 times fall in Google index.
On the top of it, vast majority of traffic does not even show on counters
(about 90% as last server logs study shows) because on old versions of the pages,
that are still on google, despite the fact that old sitemap and sitemap files were removed
MONTHS ago, there are no counters. On the top of it, in those browsers that have 3rd party images
disabled (counter image), those page views do not show on the counters.

But ALL of this has NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread.

ALL your futile efforts trying to discredit something that has gone through test of time and,
by now, a recommended study/research material in several universities and other educational
institutions, are just that, attempts at futility.

So, instead of using your experience and trying to identify the problem, you waste HOURS,
trying to dig up some of the lowest grade crap. And for what?

Is THIS what you call "positive environment for everyone"?

One more time: are you a pervert?
Sadomasochist?

:--}

What are you doing here anyway?

Do you want me to give you a hook so you go away, trying to dig up more garbage?

Do you know what might actually happen to you?

Guess.

One more time: there are several millon references to these sites on the net.
Secondly, it has no relevance on the issue on the table one way or the other.

Now, whatever they are doing to cause this magic, there is a bug in this seemingly working thing that
causes this, and the way it behaves, it is an ugliest hack conceivable, and there are traces of it all over.

But that is a different department...

1918,

I suggest you stop this harassment right now.

If these issues are of no interest to you, go find some other places to harass people. But not hear.

This is a thread for specific issue, to which there is no competent answer to this very moment.

If none of you are interested in either trying to identify such an issue, or at least proposing some hypothesis,
then there is no need for you to waste your time trying to attack someone, who is interested in
finding out the real and exact answer on a real and exact question, and who provided plenty of hard data.

Simple as that.

:--}

The issue of Mirrors.

Web has one major weakness, and that is a single point of failure,
the web server. If web server is down, for whatever reason, be it
a hacker attack, a DOS attack, SQL injection attack or simple
flood, the whole site becomes inaccessible, and sometimes for
prolonged periods of time.

Now, since there is only one copy of information on a single site,
such information collection becomes vulnerable.

There are some other schemes on the Internet that provide MUCH
better "survivability", such as NNTP protocol, where servers are
distributed all over the world, and there are hundreds of thousands
of those carrying the same exact information. Such a system, just
like Internet itself, is virtually indestructible. Even if half of all the
servers on the Internet are taken out, the system will still function
perfectly well, except it is going to have a slower response.

Having mirrors is a common practice on many different distribution
sites.

If Google starts penalizing mirrors, it is going to be a disaster
to the world of information distribution in all of its manifestation.

Sites or systems that are subject to single point of failure
MUST be protected with AT LEAST one mirror, the more mirrors,
the better, except management becomes more complicated.

Secondly, as far as indexing goes, there is no advantage
of having mirrors. It does not provide you more page views.
It MAY be used as some kind of imaginary "advantage",
just to pump up your chest, but in essence, it does not
give you any advantage whatsoever.

Google should be able to easily identify which sites are
some kind of a trick to pump up the ratings or what have
you, and which are the sites that are mirrors. It is one
of the simplest things to do, ESPECIALLY if those mirrors
provide links to other mirrors, and ESPECIALLY if those
mirrors have common elements in domain name.

For example: http://javagoldmine.uuuq.com and
http://javagoldmine.by.ru are EASILY distinguishable as mirrors.

If google decides to penalize such sites, it will only contribute
to weakening of the whole underlying structure of information
and associated security related aspects.

Simple as that.

Related issue is content censorship and identification of the "original"
content in the context of pub domain information.

Ashley,

The way you consistently behave does not indicate mere innocent
curiosity.

Read the log information above, or, better yet, ask Dr. Google, as you
have claimed to talk on the phone with the other day. He can get you
all those references in a wink of an eye. Actually, just tell him not to
use that shadow datacenter, very few know about.

Good enough for now?

And say hello to Dr. Google.

Ashley,

There is a bug in that code.
That is why sometimes you get this:

Results 21 - 30 of about 1,030,000 for mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com  - correct result

Instead of this:

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,360 for mfcgoldmine.uuuq.com - incorrect result

Both are the same exact cut and paste operation. Simple as that.

Or do you, in your clear mind, think I am just making these numbers up?

:--}

No problem.

The real scoop will be provided in due time.

Funny how this thing works.
It is laughable. Not even that. Pathetic.

Ashley, do you want to see a screenshot?
:--}

How much are you going to pay for it?

:--}

A nice one, I tellya.

1918,

Let me chew that one for you, Mr. Smart.

You are kind a fun and I am kinda in a good mood.

Do you remember the original statement?

Well, it was 5000 page views/day from ALL sites.
That was BEFORE the 40 times decrease in the Great Google Index.

Plus, the information provided just above, explains the specifics.

Can you put it all together? Simpliest thing in the wold.
Even a 5 year old can do that.

Considering the "fact" that you are some kind of "consultant" here,
what can you tell me about independent counters and 3rd party
images? Do they affect the counters?

And, after ALL this time you have wasted, trying to sniff something up
again, that is ALL of your "argument"?

Did I come here to solve the problems with my counter numbers?

You are kinda funny, I tellya.

Just one more time: WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU DOING ON THIS THREAD?

Does it look clear enough?

Why are you wasting your valuable time?

Well, do you want me to show you one REALLY impressive counter page?

I bet it'll blow to pieces even experts of YOUR caliber.

Nah, I don't think you deserve to see such a thing.
Too much fun.

1918,

Hey, I've got a nice mental exercise for you.

Do this:

1. Take the page view count (100)
2. Take the numbers of pages indexed on a site count.
3. Calculate the ratio. You know what means ratio?

Then, take the best site you know (besides NY Times, the US government,
Microsoft and Google).

See if THEY can generate that much traffic, even with these "dismal" numbers
as a ration of their Google index.

Or would that be too complicated for you to figure out?

Here is another one, just to keep you busy with something creative
for once in your life time.

Look at that counter page again, and estimate the percentage of
commercial customers, and note what kind of organizations they
are coming from. (And I can give you a MUCH impressive sample,
if I wanted to bother).

What kind of ration do you see in that?
Do you see ANYTHING?

:--}

That'd be sufficient to keep you busy till the rest of today, I hope.

Good luck with your homework.

Btw, do you have ANY clue of what we are talking about?

Otherwise, this place may not be exactly fun for sophisticated
individual like you. Why waste your royal time unnecessarily?

How many times do I have to ask you the same question?

Ashley,

Well, no pay, no pictures. After all, I am not a public servant, at least here.

I already know you are going to come up with something as enlightening
as this. You just keep doing it again and again.

Does it excite you?

I mean perverting things, cheating, lying and fabricating stuff?

Does it somehow make you FEEL better?
(about yourself)

Does it make you feel more "higly placed"?
More "precious"?
Better than others?
Unlike those you try to sting with your poison pin?

:--}

Is it some kind of sexual thing?

You see, it looks to me it has some roots. It is not accidental.
Just look at your writings. What do you see there mostly?

1918,

"Also... > Do you know what might actually happen to you?

No, I don't know what will happen to me."

Well, REVELATION might happen to you!

I bet you NEVER even thought of such a thing,
even being the nice guy you are.

:--}

1918,

Go do your home work and stop bothering people that are trying
to solve the real problem and are dealing with practical down to
earth issues.

This is not a philosophy class.

Da Google's Verdict

1918,

"You said earlier: I am sorry, but I am only interested in talking to authorised Google representatives.

Yet you continue to talk with people who are not authorised Google representatives, why is that?"

Cause you are a pest.
And unless you suck enough blood and energy,
you are not going to be satisfied.
And I know how to handle animals of your kind.

So...

It is better to keep the guys of your kind off the street.
You can play here. No problem. I'll keep you busy.

Btw, what do you think about Enlightenment?

Engaging enough of a topic on a thread named:
"Question: Google index drops like a rock"

Or, what about Truth?

Do you think it is some kind of a bad joke by some loonie?

Dear JohnMu,

Sorry to tell you, but what it looks to me, is just another way around.
As for the "useful actionable advice", than you very much.
I have read plenty of things including google guielines.

RIght now, I have a very specific issue, and that issue is not how
to make my site BETTER indexed, but how come counters jump as bad as they do. Simple as that.

Another thing that is a little suprising, especially to hear for a respectful individual like yourself,
is that you seem to see only one side of a coin.

Why don't you ask these people why are THEY attacking me?

Does it even enter your mind?

I told them repeatedly, I am interested in discussing a very specific issue.
I did not ask anyone "how to improve my site in order to get better ratings", or DID I?

So, I'd appreciate if we stay in the exact context of the thread.
Also, could you please ask these people to stay on a subject of a thread
instead of engaging in insults, ridicule, fabrications, mud slinging and things
like that. I think it would be MUCH more productive.

Plus, it would much more in line with "friendly user experience for everyone".

Otherwise, this looks like some kind of a torture chamber.

People come here with all sorts of not so relevant information,
and I happen to know what they are talking about, even though I do not
claim I know every trick in the google index book. And I keep telling them:
sorry, first of all, I am looking for competent opinion and specific technical
details, and not guesswork.

Is it so hard to comprehend?

What is this feeding frenzy here?

Dear JohnMu,

I specifically ask you to take appropriate action regarding this kind of treatment
of the issues:


1918,

"Programmer's Goldmine Collections is just a collection of crap scraped from other sites and cobbled together.
The author of Programmer's Goldmine Collections is a blowhard who should be ignored.
PreciseInfo presents an alternative approach to search engines because they don't understand the normal approach.
That the guy who runs Programmer's Goldmine Collections is a troll who doesn't actually understand what he writes about."

I do not recall seeing ANY remarks on your part toward this particular individual.

Ashley,

"You have the selective hearing of a 3 year old."

Not nice.

Ashley: "At least we're not the only ones dealing with his rants"

Is THIS called for?

And what is this one:

Ashley: "I just got off the phone with Dr. Google and your sites will be Number 1 tomorrow.
All tied for Number 1. And no, I'm not cheating. It's for REAL!"

What is the purpose of such a statement?

Dear JohnMu,

Please specifically notice this one:

Ashley: "Blowhard? Goodness Phil. I love it!"

Dear JohnMu,

Is it an appropriate kind of conduct, especially for the "volunteers",
trying to create "a positive user experience for everybody"?
-- Ashley

1918: "The author of Programmer's Goldmine Collections is a blowhard who should be ignored."

Ashley: "Blowhard? Goodness Phil. I love it!" :
...
pgelqued: "Is it some kind of sexual thing?"
...

Ashley: Whoa. This is totally inappropriate and uncalled for. Can someone cut this guy off?

See how it works?

Stay away from me, perverts.