Jan 1, 2013

2012, Looking back

2012 was an abysmal year for the Gregable blog.  Only 4 posts!  They were decent, but not great.  Google Plus has taken some of my steam for short form postings, but really the blame lies on my shoulders.

Anyway, 2013 should be better.  With this post, I'll already be caught up to March of 2012's volume.  Dear Gregable readers, what would you like to know more about?  Help me break out of my writer's block.

And... Happy New Year to you and yours!

7 comments:

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

I have a pet hypothesis as to why a few Googlers sites have been quiet. I speak about shellen.com mattcutts and your site. I believe there is a secret Google code which has been going around for the last year and it penalizes sites which frequently update. One may say what a bizarre conclusion, but let’s take x Googler Nelson Minar, he writes many good posts and he frequently updates his blog, for most of 2012 he had PR 5 today in 2013 he has a PR2! Perhaps the theory is unrelated but such thoughts cross the minds of bloggers when the Googlers blogs suddenly do not work :)

I conclude that Googlers are obeying a secret code is on the loose known to Googlers only. I know your work is confidential but would it be too much to ask if my theory that a secret Google code is locking you down is real, or complete madness :)

Greg said...

Madness.

Mark said...

I drew this conclusion from reading somebits.com, this man is as straight as a lamppost yet he lost PR but obviously not for writing frequent blog post. I guess there is a ton of reasons why you can lose pr.

Brett Goldberg said...

Given your knowledge and involvement with Canonical links I would love to hear more about it from you.

When reading some of Matt Cutts work / perspective he warned for people to not take advantage of it. It seemed like he was more or less warning people to not use it unless it was for duplicate content purposes.

There's a ton of content that is questionably duplicated.

For example, let's say I sell baseball hats online. For each sports team I have a page with different options. So for the San Jose Sharks hats page, I have 10 different hat styles that I link to. Each of those 10 San Jose Sharks hats may have something unique about them, but there majority of the content is duplicate. Should all of the unique hats have Canonical links to the main San Jose Sharks hat page?

This is just a silly example but you get the point.

Not sure if a full blog is necessary, but I haven't found anyone that discusses this at length.

Greg Grothaus said...

Brett, I assume that you are OK if our search results only have one URL for all of those hat pages. I think your use case makes sense.

Matt's point is largely that rel=canonical isn't something everyone needs to go adding to every page on the web. You can if you want to, but be careful to use it correctly. If you don't add it, we're still going to do our best to canonicalize pages in our index correctly anyway.