Messages

51

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: February 02, 2011, 02:22 PM »

You mean set up autoblogs with content focused on Googles faults? With Google ads of course. I lack enough hate towards Google to be able to pull that off. I don't buy the idea Google is in bed with Warrior forum people, as long as they use Google, but will of course not be so stupid as to believe such a huge market share have not made them lazy and too focused on how much money a certain activity bring home. They probably have people hired to work out algorithms for that as well. If they are stupid it is same stupidity preventing Microsoft to innovate, what some say over and over. Why bother or change what works? But hard to understand that sites in full violation of everything they claim to stand for rank high. They are not even up for a few changes but simply deletion from index. Should be embarrassing for them. Critical minds will not think "Well index is not flooded with them, we can live with that, learn to avoid" but "So what else is messed up?"

52

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: February 02, 2011, 12:16 PM »

I am a tiny person so they politely go BAH! I don't get referenced in matt cutts articles where it make sense to talk specific queries to satisfy who? This is a meeting in the "club" I think. I imagine a group of (qualified) people from a website or a forum doing this. Warrior forum is probably a bad suggestion but there most be several dealing with seo, search engines in a less aggressive way. Some web credentials would be good to have but research could be done by people related to consumer rights as well, these sites are not live to make a mockery of Google ranking but to earn money. Generic presentation of result cannot be ignored but must be above and beyond the typical Google vs. Bing war would be great. I think Google latest findings of Bing copying them is answer to the "scholar" claiming Google promoted own services in results. You check us, we check you - lets rock! They and their fanboys should not get a chance to divert problem in to muddy chitchat. That will happen unless research is almost generic.

If you have not read comments to his post then check them out. There seem to be quite a few who were (are?) tired of seeing their content here and there. Autoblogs are mentioned too.

53

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: February 02, 2011, 11:16 AM »

Well Google does not recognize there is a problem so they should receive help, from outsiders not anyone paid by MS or other interests. Regardless you think they instead of fighting autoblogs are making money with them content is still directly against any advise from Google them self. Content is king etc. So how to wiggle out of that one?


   

54

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: February 02, 2011, 09:26 AM »

If Google fail to deal with autoblogs a group of people should start to research and make papers explaining problem. How much does content fill up in a top 100 result page for chosen keyword. Do 1000 searches. How many of the sites use Google ads and so on. Google ask for help so why wait for Bing or some click hungry high profile dude to do it? There is almost guarantee for headlines.

No, sites with no foundation or intentions other than desire to monetize via effective handling of popular topics, affiliate links, ads seems to be totally accepted in webdev circles. Not spammy at all, not if they are done right. My crap category do not care, noise is noise Autoblogs are not really a standard to go by when evaluating what is spam or not since even the most marketing crazy sites will seem pretty good in comparison.

55

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: February 02, 2011, 06:15 AM »

There are many sites with no heart and soul but I don't think Google regard content based on lousy copywriting, SEO-tools (as a min. their own services) as spam. Apparently autoblogs are not even picked up as spam so your feeling of stats probably differ from Googles.

I don't run in to that many obvious spam blogs or websites. Am more hunted by crappy sites with a bit of original content but that overall are copycats, typically also big fans of ads and affiliate links. They might have read about copywriting but do not have the skills. 10 best ways of.., 5 most popular.., Apple/iphone, gossip sites and so on. Whatever topic is popular, whatever niche is dug up will get loads of useless sites circling around it. But not really what Google is fighting or regard as spam? As not to get lost in definitions I just use crap as a category. Also includes idiotic placement of ads and definitely any type of masking affiliate links. If I see that admin is not ranked much higher than the dude coming with new and improved autoblog setup next month. Intentions are related. This type of noise have increased dramatically, also via easy to use tools and ready to go super themes etc., any idiot can do it, but also a personal preference. Technically category is probably not spam by Googles definition.

56

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: February 01, 2011, 01:40 PM »

Yes I am sure Google know all this, some also mention auto blogs in comments on Matt Cutts announcement of new change, but I would like to hear official opinion. Most sites will have Google Ads so perhaps there is an opening for filtering that way. How come sites begging to get demoted are approved for Google Ads? Is that not an effective weapon Google has not used? 3rd party affiliate links they cannot control I guess. But since tool brags about being "Built for Google 2011" they must have an opinion about it. I would expect most of these accessories to web development to have Google references in some way. "Optimized for Google" "Guaranteed to work on Google" etc. Even if they can't do much about it there could be an effect in just showing how concerned and disgusted they are. Avoid some getting the idea that when Google say there is less spam than years ago it is because they have lowered standards, not because amount has decreased. They could avoid conspiracy logic by being more specific in what they approve of.

May be they are overpaid virgins of reality. I read all Google employees got a 10% raise per. January this year. They should be able to fix problems when algorithm fails.

57

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: February 01, 2011, 08:34 AM »

Google better start hiring more people if this guy has found ways to auto blog worse/better than existing tools. Would be interesting to hear their opinion about such advertisement. I guess they don't like tools but accept output.



 

58

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: February 01, 2011, 03:20 AM »

Autoblogging made easy http://premium.wpmud...org/project/autoblog I like how they add a warning about misuse at end of video   They are not in to that but develop based on legitimate requests from Premium members.

So, this plugin (plus our blog and user creation ones) essentially allows you to create a WordPress Multisite network, with thousands of blogs that are automatically published to by RSS feeds, within a few hours.... with no code knowledge required!

Free autoblog plugin at Wordpress.org http://wordpress.org...d/plugins/wpematico/

Add WP Auto Affiliate Links http://wordpress.org...uto-affiliate-links/ and we have a nice setup for monetizing the web with little to no effort.

59

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: February 01, 2011, 02:06 AM »

Should be easy to react to complaints though. mahesh2k the doubtful could be right about Google ignoring reports. There have been no reaction worth mentioning to that bird cage site. Seems like Google expect admins to read and follow advices on their Webmaster pages, if good behavior is ignored and later pointed out by users not much seem to happen.

About their censorship on Blogger they continue to act very fast and firm. Now another of those anti-JTV sites have vanished. Thread closed - ends off with a confused post about all nudity, all LINKS to "nudity, pornography" being in violation with TOS (and of course "God bless" as sign off). Google does not say that at all. Any Blogger admin have the option of marking site as containing sexual content in settings. Only when main purpose of site is porn they might remove it. They specifically say Adult Content is allowed but might require a warning http://www.google.co...=en&answer=76314

First site had been around since 2007/2008 with same old campaign and content so "6-16 year olds" and "porn" in same sentence really does equals instant booom. Those dealing with search index could get inspiration from these scared Blogger priests. I wonder how much of index will be left once they get going

60

General Software Discussion / Re: The Cache?

« on: January 31, 2011, 04:31 PM »

Possible, I only have Ultimate versions of Vista and 7. I checked long time ago because I read that is should never ever be disabled with SuperFetch enabled so went ??? seeing it was already. MS does not mention this connection but hint disabling can give problems with some backup software, may be also cleanup/disk tools like MyDefrag http://www.mydefrag....astAccessUpdate.html

61

General Software Discussion / Re: The Cache?

« on: January 31, 2011, 02:32 PM »

NtfsMemoryUsage debunked? http://www.tweakhound.com/blog/?p=1164

I think Last access is actually disabled per default in Vista/7 majoMO

CleanMem does more than CacheSet from what I can tell. Not so sure about value though. Author seem to be careful not to promise too much, probably wise.

62

LaunchBar Commander / Re: Download link blocked by K9

« on: January 31, 2011, 02:21 PM »

Well they are not forced upon you - unlike Ubuntu buttons. And there are so much online crap it is easy to recognize need, crap can also be found among sources like common advertising schemes. Schools, work place can have other reasons to block stuff - like having incredible bad experiences with no blocking! But they need to think of site admins as well, give them info and chance to correct mistakes. I don't think K9 notify of block but their setup for this is not bad. They seem to act fast and correctly to complaints.

Why they are reluctant to get too chatty with admins probably has to do with the fact much is automated, they rely on scanners not human evaluation. I doubt anyone at K9 have a clue about Launchbar Commander. If all site admins were directly invited to complain they would need to work more, know why and why not they block this or that. Many rogue admins will try to trick them, like removing files/links/whatever - then put it back on after being white listed. Instead of going "impossible, they are excused" I would say any idiot could find out this was a FP so service fails! They must deal with that and figure out ways to dismiss obvious offenders as not to waste resources on them. Probably not that easy but have they even tried?

Also don't forget that once you enter security scene you run in to genuinely paranoid people. Those who actually get paid are probably even worse than the amateurs you see on for example WOTs forum. Will probably go "Yeah right dummy, welcome to 2011" to suggestion of being friendly to site admins. They are not easy to communicate with

63

LaunchBar Commander / Re: Download link blocked by K9

« on: January 31, 2011, 08:59 AM »

Info is gold. If this and other services would send out notification to a sites contact address many problems could be avoided. Annoying to admin having to prove site have no malicious content but a lot better than getting blocked without knowing. How to check each and every download 24/7 with all avail. scanners is another question. Blocking services must inform of their decisions.

I bet problem here was included files from Nirsoft. Some scanners always freak out when seeing his stuff, others are a bit up and down.

We go back and forth internally on these points as well but in the end, the tools themselves are not malicious so we decide to not detect them. There are quite a lot of riskware tools like this (NirSoft utilities, mIRC, ServU, HideWindow to name a few) but our current rationale is that we allow them through and block the malware that uses them.

Was said by a rep. from PrevX about Nirsoft type of "riskware", keyword is "current" because I know they also block some of them.

64

General Software Discussion / Re: The Cache?

« on: January 30, 2011, 05:35 AM »

No I don't know but that does not stop me from posting Both of those you mentioned, and CleanMem, seems to be more about memory management than disk caching. O&O also have a buffer/cache for file operations though. But to free up memory which Windows holds back from being used is the message. As you can see from picture at O&O site less caching is considered a good thing because then there is more available ram for your programs. I wonder how CleverCache can handle SuperFetch other than simply turning it off?  

O&O Mem-O-Safe seems to be related to FancyCache which is free (for now at least) http://www.romexsoft...ncy-cache/index.html  Read about it on their forum before installing. If you use partition version, activate it for C: and give it a long wait (Defer write/latency) to really use buffer effectively what happens if Windows go BSOD? Do you feel lucky or not? Effect is similar to a normal Ramdisk but potentially worse since FancyCache buffer/hold all types of data, you cannot tell it what to include/exclude. Definitely read about it first but it does work. I have used it for a while but not yet 100% comfortable with the idea. Pretty sure I will return, keep eye on it for now. Judging from their forum most people have positive experiences, especially those with SSD seem to be going crazy. Long thread on this SSD forum http://ssdtechnology...highlight=fancycache Might do wonders on old system with enough ram.

Seems like OCZ approves and is involved to some degree http://www.ocztechno...iewfull=1#post598218

I have not tried this but if you have no ram to spare FancyCache can use external disk for caching. Like using an SSD to cache old slow hds http://www.romexsoft...c.php?f=25&t=694 Should also work with a flashdrive, a bit like Readyboost I guess http://www.romexsoft...mp;hilit=flash#p1385

65

General Software Discussion / Re: The Cache?

« on: January 29, 2011, 08:08 PM »

Let 7 handle that but if you have old and expensive ram to spare you could investigate advantage of a Ramdisk. You can easily throw more at ramdisk with help of tools like Junction Link Magic More so if you believe in everything counts theory In most cases it will probably be better to let Windows handle ram/cache. I use Vista and it stinks with SuperFetch cache but 7 is much better. Pretty sure you need special requirements to warrant tools like that O&O thingy. Ramdisk does work if you have plenty of ram though.

Look at CleanMem http://www.pcwintech.com/cleanmem if you believe in O&Os idea of "and thereby increases available main memory resources" Free...

66

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: January 29, 2011, 07:51 PM »

Yep.

But yesterday I noticed they deleted a blogger site based on very obviously false accusations (on their forum) which was "escalated to Goolge" by a "Top contributor". Once he kicked in site vanished in hours. Young lightly dressed girls were mentioned, actually 6-16 year olds. False but attracts attention.

From a strange mix of internet chitchat I knew that site quite well and it was clean "enough" and had the initial "You are about to enter..." warning. There were a certain amount of nudity. Site was mainly about "calling out" "pedos" hunting young/underage girls on webcam sites - here totally focused on Justin.tv. In every article hatred towards the leadership and handling of the site was very clear. Strange hobby perhaps, but somewhat worthy of support. I at least approved. Loads of screen shots (with clear focus on tracked user names, not nudity), involving Admins of the site asking girls to Skype conversations even. Hardly surprising to anyone knowing Justin.tv. Whatever, point is Goolge has the balls to wipe out content very fast, also without knowing what they are deleting. Matter of policy and in Google Search world perhaps the accept that their high tech setup fails in certain areas.

67

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: January 29, 2011, 07:14 PM »

Bots and automated ranking must have difficulties in judging content with quotes/attributions and those without - can we not assume that is a parameter in 2011? The Daily Reviewer does mention they are using other sites content though, more than can be said about many other sites. Why they rank so high is another question. If they can scrape content they can also make it clear where it come from - is separated on purpose which is a major violation of common behavior when quoting/making content based on 3rd party material. Not up for debate in any way. Such a broad announcement they have on top of page is no good for individual articles which users run into via search results. Google bot should figure that out.

If Google started to punish not mentioning where content come from seo/marking people behind crappy sites will start to experiment with how to fool bot into believing they have lived up to request while necessary info is practically invisible to user. Much like TOS including use of Google Analytics etc. They will probably succeed. So manual cleaning is necessary. Only punishment that works without getting into excluding/censoring debate is to put violating sites back at the bus - lowering parameter no. 248 a notch as part of a mile long algorithm thought out by the brightest brains is not enough, back at the bus must be literally way way back. They are still present at Google but not easy to find If they make examples of this message will be heard, minor change in ranking is not really solution to real problems. Will just make idiotic site admins work tirelessly to accommodate "new rules" and continue coming up with new ones of their own.

68

Living Room / Re: Any Good & Safe Free Movie Sites Beside StageVu?

« on: January 29, 2011, 12:17 PM »

And YouTube Movies http://www.youtube.com/movies/

Old stuff, Classic Cinema Online http://www.classicci...line.com/1/index.php

69

LaunchBar Commander / Download link blocked by K9

« on: January 29, 2011, 11:34 AM »

Those who have given up on web blocking services have another nail for the coffin. K9 blocks download link of Launchbar Commander. Category is not the temporary "Suspicious" but the confirmed "Spyware/Malware source". Page for Launchbar is allowed, direct link to exe file not.

I have filled out the form, asking to exchange Spyware/Malware Sources with Software/Downloads. Page can be reached here http://www1.k9webpro...rt/check-site-rating Link to dispute is https://www.donation...arCommanderSetup.exe

70

Living Room / Re: Google? Spam? Ads? No... No Conflict of Interest Here...

« on: January 28, 2011, 03:25 PM »

I have complained I noticed site is no longer no. 27 here but 36 and went hmm. Coincidence with their latest anti-scraping/spam move of today?

71

Living Room / Re: Is SEO worth the trouble?

« on: January 27, 2011, 08:39 AM »

More personal pages was actually my point of linking to ThemeFrame. If you look at forum of his main theme Atahualpa and the long threads about "See my site" then some obviously use it to full extend but most are not that interesting. Same goes for most themes which does allow heavy modification. When Thesis debate was on I checked many sites of those who used it (via comments) and went zzzzzzzz. Just not easy to do so there seems to be a market for easier ways of modifying appearance. I have read posts in ThemeFrame forum and it is clear many see it as a way out so to speak. Like other tools much output is decided by interface, does not matter everything is possible if only few can figure it out. Area will develop and for personal pages I think future is bright with "mod-tools".

May be you get more competition for cheap solutions to smaller businesses but should not be difficult to argue why it is worth paying up to those with money to spend. What you use is established and well supported.  Compare with Themeforest http://themeforest.n...t/category/wordpress Not that many can do such pretty designs. Some themes might be bargains compared to hiring you as they are perfect out of the box, tons of features - more than you will ever need!, but what happens when it breaks with WP 3.1? or they want some weird mod/plugin? or they simply screw up in massive control panel? Many of these webdevs only have an email address as support. As you say if you get run over by Drupal it will be easy to find someone who can pick up Genesis. Low risk will appeal to serious businesses - more so if they become aware of danger They will not just go oh well, we better find another 40$ then. I don't see much point for private users to use frameworks but understand your motives, think I would do the same. There is always a risk of things breaking and if business are actively using site, like 24/7 problems are not accepted for long. 

72

Living Room / Re: Is SEO worth the trouble?

« on: January 27, 2011, 05:23 AM »

I knew there had to be some connection with you and the frameworks, heh. Can always tell. Why not promote your self and link to your site or company?

In your shoes I might also be so positive towards them. Like Photoshop, learn that and go BAH to the rest, they suck! Solution has been found and I will stick to it. Logic should be appealing to all who have messed up with WP, 30+ plugins and what follows... But I have seen many people using frameworks (with too much money) doing crappy sites with little to no modification - and often also problems using "whatever" plugin they find cool. Frameworks are a bit exclu$ive, to people like you - with customers. There are exceptions and free frameworks but still. High level stuff it is.

ThemeFrame http://forum.bytesfo...howthread.php?t=9163 check video, what does mahesh2k think? Is it a danger to your job? Semi-framework with ease of use. Such plug&play production thingys exist already but future will bring more. WP is not easy to use when you start to tinker. The most simple things can go wrong and solution require knowledge and experience. Worse than Windows and why so many sites have errors. "Don't touch" is also boring, 13000 plugins to chose from is not a bad thing. Pros can troubleshoot, transform and modify provided they get paid!, amateurs often get stuck. Frameworks are supposed to give a more peaceful environment to be productive in. Should be a huge market for ThemeFrame stuff. There is a satisfaction in doing own website, own domain, own whatever. Is for people who won't join blogger, tumblr, weebly and all that. "I have a FB page, and Flickr" is irrelevant. I think it will be huge in not so far future.

A better link to ThemeFrame intro http://wordpress.bytesforall.com/?p=95

ThemeFrame is a very visual WordPress Theme Creation tool that runs on your desktop, in a browser. It creates unlimited standalone, white-label WP themes that you can use on unlimited sites for an unlimited time, you can even distribute/sell/give away the themes you create with ThemeFrame.ThemeFrame is not a WP theme itself, it does not install inside Wordpress and does not require Wordpress to run. Themes created with ThemeFrame don’t need ThemeFrame to run, they are standalone Themes in their own right.

73

Living Room / Re: Is SEO worth the trouble?

« on: January 27, 2011, 04:49 AM »

Yes of course. But these are Wordpress frameworks, like those mahesh2k have mentioned. Example StudioPress http://www.studiopre...s.com/themes/genesis

The transporter plugin, made by framework people, is to migrate SEO data between supported WP plugins/themes. You need a tool to migrate! Which points to the problem I mentioned. mahesh2k find it hard to see there is a problem because as long as you use a framework you can switch to something else just like that. Yeees, but within that framework

74

Living Room / Re: Is SEO worth the trouble?

« on: January 27, 2011, 04:38 AM »

You really like frameworks I think But most blogs/websites are not build on frameworks so whatever is possible and max. ease of use within those tiny worlds is of no importance to the huge majority who do not use them. Framework standards for migration does not apply to every theme or every plugin. There are no universal standards so problem will not go away, Transporter plugin fix this provided what you use is supported and it works flawlessly of course. I would not count on that just because they say so.

With own rules I did not mean breaking policies but that frameworks have no obligation or even interest in seeking compatibility with anything else but them self.

75

Living Room / Re: Is SEO worth the trouble?

« on: January 27, 2011, 03:47 AM »

Because there is so big difference on how to implement? A select few know how, rest do not? I don't think so but recognize the idea of promoting stuff - from this very thread There are many many options in WP world which is good. But these rather expensive frameworks have nothing to do with the typical user or the typical theme you see on WP site claiming to be "SEO Ready" or even the typical payware theme. They can set up own rules as they please. Kind of the idea with a framework. Selecting right stuff for the task is the big trick with WP so useful to be aware of this hidden and potentially very annoying problem.

There are tools for this like SEO Data Transporter (Genesis dude is co-author with StudioPress Framework) but is whatever you use supported?, migration tools always work perfectly? Today?, in 1 year?

Naturally there are some interest (and big egos) at stake, those who sell pricy frameworks might not be so friendly to annoying "3rd party" plugins. Those who make plugins might not love the fact better themes have main features build in already! Problem is still relevant. They seem to get along just fine though, after initial debate since this is also a business... Should Themes or Plugins do your SEO?