Google results

[Widman]

Can anyone give me an idea on how this works. I publish a monthly newsletter
(spanish) that is on my main site as html, with a download link to a
maintenance association site where I have the pdf file for downloading. I send
it to about 900 people, one of whom is www.mantenimientomundial.com. They also
post it to their site as part of the panamerican maintenance program.

When I put the title of my Jan 1 bulletin in google, the mantenimientomundial
site shows up, but either of mine. When I put in the title of the Dec 1
bulletin, my two show up, but not theirs.

Anyone got a good guess as to why? or how to help it along?

Richard Widman
www.widman.biz
Bolivia

[Nancy O]

It takes a month or so for Google to pick up new stuff. Maybe your friends
are using a Google-friendly search engine on their site so theirs is getting
spidered sooner. Just a guess. But nobody really understands Google's
"thinking." They operate in a class all their own. Personally, I like
them. And I support their decision to stand up against the United States
Dept. of Justice who requested search engine queeries and IP identities of
its users from all the major search engine companies. Google was the only
one to say "no." Way to go Google!

--Nancy


<Widman> wrote in message news:1_84_2183@gfwebforum.com...
> Can anyone give me an idea on how this works. I publish a monthly
newsletter
> (spanish) that is on my main site as html, with a download link to a
> maintenance association site where I have the pdf file for downloading. I
send
> it to about 900 people, one of whom is www.mantenimientomundial.com. They
also
> post it to their site as part of the panamerican maintenance program.
>
> When I put the title of my Jan 1 bulletin in google, the
mantenimientomundial
> site shows up, but either of mine. When I put in the title of the Dec 1
> bulletin, my two show up, but not theirs.
>
> Anyone got a good guess as to why? or how to help it along?
>
> Richard Widman
> www.widman.biz
> Bolivia
>

[Paul C. Vollmar]

Sorry, Nancy, but the USDJ was NOT asking for personal information, they
were just assessing the volume of requests for child pornography, and
the amount of it available via the Internet.

And they certainly lost the high ground by acceding to China's request
to censor Google searches for words like "freedom" and "religion" from
their country.

So they stand up for child pornographers, but against those who seek
freedom from tyranny. "Way to go Google" is definitely NOT my sentiment.
Of course, your mileage may vary.

Paul

Nancy O wrote:
And I support their decision to stand up against the United States
> Dept. of Justice who requested search engine queeries and IP identities of
> its users from all the major search engine companies. Google was the only
> one to say "no." Way to go Google!
>
> --Nancy
>

[Nancy O]

Yes, Paul, my mileage varies...

So Google goes into China to do business and goes along with the Chinese
program of censorship already accepted by Yahoo!, MSN, and others. If a
company wants to do business in China, such acceptance is part of the ground
rules.

.... Meanwhile, people are demanding a boycott of Google. To use what
instead? The other search engine companies have already caved in to Chinese
demands for censorship. So what's the point? Besides, Google is the only
company protecting Americans' privacy by refusing to turn over search
records to the Bush administration. The company apparently gets only one
begrudged point for that act of bravery.

Incidentally, the Child Online Protection Act, or COPA does not go after
child pornographers. It is the daring attempt by former Atty General
Ashcroft to penalize any and all web sites who allow kids to view porn.
That's a huge difference and with far reaching consequences that could
impact you and me and this newsgroup.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Google Inc. has been subpoenaed by the U.S.
Justice Department to turn over a database of search terms as part of a
government probe of online pornography but Google rejected the demand as
overreaching by the government.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060119/...pornography_dc

Way to go, Google!
--Nancy



"Paul C. Vollmar" <pvollma-NOSPAM@pcvsoftware.net> wrote in message
news:drmphh$a341@news01.netobjects.com...
> Sorry, Nancy, but the USDJ was NOT asking for personal information, they
> were just assessing the volume of requests for child pornography, and
> the amount of it available via the Internet.
>
> And they certainly lost the high ground by acceding to China's request
> to censor Google searches for words like "freedom" and "religion" from
> their country.
>
> So they stand up for child pornographers, but against those who seek
> freedom from tyranny. "Way to go Google" is definitely NOT my sentiment.
> Of course, your mileage may vary.
>
> Paul
>
> Nancy O wrote:
> And I support their decision to stand up against the United States
> > Dept. of Justice who requested search engine queeries and IP identities
of
> > its users from all the major search engine companies. Google was the
only
> > one to say "no." Way to go Google!
> >
> > --Nancy
> >

[Paul C. Vollmar]

OK, let's try this one more time ...

Nancy O wrote:
> Yes, Paul, my mileage varies...
>
> So Google goes into China to do business and goes along with the Chinese
> program of censorship already accepted by Yahoo!, MSN, and others. If a
> company wants to do business in China, such acceptance is part of the ground
> rules.

So you only need to take a principled stand if it doesn't cost you money?

>
> Besides, Google is the only
> company protecting Americans' privacy by refusing to turn over search
> records to the Bush administration. The company apparently gets only one
> begrudged point for that act of bravery.

AHA, now I see where you're coming from (i.e., anything Bush/Republican
is bad). If you had read the article you reference, you would realize
that the law was passed in 1998 - signed by Bill Clinton. And, once
again, as the article states, there was NO request for personal
information about the searches, only the volume for two months, and a
random sample of web site addresses (which, unless the name of the
website is "www.childporn.com" would reveal no actionable information
whatsoever).

>
> Incidentally, the Child Online Protection Act, or COPA does not go after
> child pornographers. It is the daring attempt by former Atty General
> Ashcroft to penalize any and all web sites who allow kids to view porn.

No, Ashcroft was not trying to penalize the web sites, THE LAW ITSELF
HAS THAT PROVISION (please, read your own reference: " ... the Child
Online Protection Act, or COPA, which penalizes Web site operators who
allow children to view pornography, ..."). Ashcroft was just trying to
enforce the law. If you don't want the law enforced, please use the
electoral process to get it changed or repealed.

> That's a huge difference and with far reaching consequences that could
> impact you and me and this newsgroup.

I'm sure we've both reached the end of any real debate on this,
especially for this forum. You go vote for your guys in November, and
I'll go vote for mine, and we'll see what happens.

Paul

[Nancy O]

A 2004 US Supreme Court decision, Ashcroft vs ACLU, upheld an injunction
that blocked the government from enforcing the [COPA] law.

COPA makes adult website operators liable for criminal sanctions -- up to
$50,000 in fines and six months in jail -- if children are able to access
material deemed "indecent," by "contemporary community standards," for those
under 16.
No one has yet been prosecuted under COPA; the ACLU brought suit as soon as
the law was passed in 1998, and a federal judge in Pennsylvania agreed to
block enforcement. The Third Circuit upheld the injunction, ruling that
COPA's reliance on community standards improperly allows the most
conservative communities to dictate what should be considered indecent.

The ACLU represented a number of plaintiffs who publish materials online,
including an art gallery, Salon.com magazine, Powell's Bookstore, and the
producer of a web site providing information on sexuality to disabled
people. Attorney Ann Beeson claims that the law threatens the free speech
rights of her clients and others on the Web who are not pornographers but
whose sites have sexual content that some might feel is inappropriate for
minors. Beeson argued before the court that if COPA goes into effect, her
clients, and others like them, would censor themselves by keeping certain
material off the Web. "What it's effectively going to do is drive a certain
category of speech protected for adults from the marketplace of ideas that
is the Web," Beeson said. Beeson and others opposing the law claim that
using community standards to assess material on the Internet will
necessarily result in the standard of the most restrictive community being
applied everywhere.

I rest my case, Paul.

Cheers!

--Nancy




"Paul C. Vollmar" <pvollma-NOSPAM@pcvsoftware.net> wrote in message
news:drpail$aia3@news01.netobjects.com...
> OK, let's try this one more time ...
>
> Nancy O wrote:
> > Yes, Paul, my mileage varies...
> >
> > So Google goes into China to do business and goes along with the Chinese
> > program of censorship already accepted by Yahoo!, MSN, and others. If a
> > company wants to do business in China, such acceptance is part of the
ground
> > rules.
>
> So you only need to take a principled stand if it doesn't cost you money?
>
> >
> > Besides, Google is the only
> > company protecting Americans' privacy by refusing to turn over search
> > records to the Bush administration. The company apparently gets only one
> > begrudged point for that act of bravery.
>
> AHA, now I see where you're coming from (i.e., anything Bush/Republican
> is bad). If you had read the article you reference, you would realize
> that the law was passed in 1998 - signed by Bill Clinton. And, once
> again, as the article states, there was NO request for personal
> information about the searches, only the volume for two months, and a
> random sample of web site addresses (which, unless the name of the
> website is "www.childporn.com" would reveal no actionable information
> whatsoever).
>
> >
> > Incidentally, the Child Online Protection Act, or COPA does not go after
> > child pornographers. It is the daring attempt by former Atty General
> > Ashcroft to penalize any and all web sites who allow kids to view porn.
>
> No, Ashcroft was not trying to penalize the web sites, THE LAW ITSELF
> HAS THAT PROVISION (please, read your own reference: " ... the Child
> Online Protection Act, or COPA, which penalizes Web site operators who
> allow children to view pornography, ..."). Ashcroft was just trying to
> enforce the law. If you don't want the law enforced, please use the
> electoral process to get it changed or repealed.
>
> > That's a huge difference and with far reaching consequences that could
> > impact you and me and this newsgroup.
>
> I'm sure we've both reached the end of any real debate on this,
> especially for this forum. You go vote for your guys in November, and
> I'll go vote for mine, and we'll see what happens.
>
> Paul

[Paul C. Vollmar]

You keep changing the topic. Your original reply to my challenge of your
"Way to go, Google" statement was 1) AG Ashcroft was making a daring
attempt, with no stated justification, to put people in jail, and 2)
Google was trying to protect people's privacy rights by not turning over
their search records (in fact, your initial reply stated that they were
asked include the IP addresses of searchers). I contend that both of
those assertions were, and continue to be, factually incorrect.

Nancy O wrote:
> COPA makes adult website operators liable for criminal sanctions -- up to
> $50,000 in fines and six months in jail -- if children are able to access
> material deemed "indecent," by "contemporary community standards," for those
> under 16.

Which was my point - it was not AG Ashcroft trying to put website
operators in jail - it was the law itself. Your original reply did not
make that distinction. And, if you will recall, the original topic for
discussion was not the COPA law, but Google's resistance to the subpoena.

>
> The ACLU represented a number of plaintiffs who publish materials online,

As you can imagine, citing the ACLU's position to me does nothing to
strengthen your case. But then, that's just my opinion ;>)

>
> I rest my case, Paul.

Yes, you rest one side of the case; I propose another viewpoint, not of
the law itself, which sounds like it is fatally flawed by being too
vague, but of your original characterization of Google as somehow taking
a principled stand. If you will simply read what I wrote, I challenged,
not the efficacy of the law, but the facts you presented. You then
turned it into a discussion of the law itself, which was not the topic I
was addressing. Google is not challenging the law, it is trying to avoid
complying with the subpoena.

If you want to keep changing the topic, go ahead. I myself do not feel
threatened by what is merely a request for statistical data to support a
legal position. If it was the ACLU issuing the subpoena to Google to
support their position, I suspect you would take an entirely different
viewpoint.

I respect your passion about privacy rights, and agree the law itself
seems poorly written. However, that's not what I was debating.

Paul

[John M. Jordan]

I'm guessing that all this political discussion didn't solve your problem. I
don't know if I have the solution, but I'll tell you what I've observed
about your site. (I don't know Spanish.)

1. Maybe your <TITLE> could include your site name PLUS a very short phrase
that would include the page's main keyword.

2. Your "Keyword" META tag shouldn't have more than 5 to 10 keywords. You've
got a whole bunch.

3. I didn't see a "Description" META tag. You should have a 25 to 30 word
description that includes your main keyword.

4. In the <HEAD> of your home page you have a script tag <SCRIPT> that
starts at about line nine and lasts till about line 260. I read once that
search engines put great importance on the first 100 lines of HTML and your
first 100 lines are mostly script that is meaningless to the search engines.
Maybe you could the script in a ".js" file and just call it up. For example:
<script language="JavaScript"
src="http://www.widman.biz/yourscript.js"></SCRIPT>

5. I noticed on your home page that you don't have any header tags (H1, H2,
H3). Search engines look for keywords in header tags. You miss an
opportunity to rank by not having headers. You'll also want to have your
main keyword in the first sentence of your first main paragraph. be sure to
use this main keyword about three or four times in the page content.

Hope this helps and best of luck,
John Jordan
1st Beginners Golf Swing Tips - Free golf swing instruction
http://www.1st-beginners-golf-swing-tips.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: <Widman>
Newsgroups: netobjects.fusion9.gen-discussion
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:41 PM
Subject: Google results


> Can anyone give me an idea on how this works. I publish a monthly
> newsletter
> (spanish) that is on my main site as html, with a download link to a
> maintenance association site where I have the pdf file for downloading. I
> send
> it to about 900 people, one of whom is www.mantenimientomundial.com. They
> also
> post it to their site as part of the panamerican maintenance program.
>
> When I put the title of my Jan 1 bulletin in google, the
> mantenimientomundial
> site shows up, but either of mine. When I put in the title of the Dec 1
> bulletin, my two show up, but not theirs.
>
> Anyone got a good guess as to why? or how to help it along?
>
> Richard Widman
> www.widman.biz
> Bolivia
>
<Widman> wrote in message news:1_84_2183@gfwebforum.com...
> Can anyone give me an idea on how this works. I publish a monthly
> newsletter
> (spanish) that is on my main site as html, with a download link to a
> maintenance association site where I have the pdf file for downloading. I
> send
> it to about 900 people, one of whom is www.mantenimientomundial.com. They
> also
> post it to their site as part of the panamerican maintenance program.
>
> When I put the title of my Jan 1 bulletin in google, the
> mantenimientomundial
> site shows up, but either of mine. When I put in the title of the Dec 1
> bulletin, my two show up, but not theirs.
>
> Anyone got a good guess as to why? or how to help it along?
>
> Richard Widman
> www.widman.biz
> Bolivia
>