Sorry,but when I click the link,Google tells me;
"
| These search terms have been highlighted: | photography |
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page:
bloody "
So,"bloody" obviously didn't occur on the page when it was cached by Google.
Laurenz
my new website project: http://www.travel-photographer.eu/
my new website project: http://www.travel-photographer.eu/
2007/3/9, Andrew Paul Brooks <a_p_brooks@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
On 25 Feb 2007 at 09:16:11 GMT Google took a look at the site, (check this
to see
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:SqUqtqFO-hAJ:georgiadis.googlepages.com/+bloody+photography&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=safari
) at that time it had the word bloody and photography in it, and I guess
not many other sites do, so you figure high, wonder who did the original
search and what odd'ness they were looking for?
A
>From: Laurenz Bobke < laurenzb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
>< photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Why does Google hate my photography page?
>Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:28:15 +0100
>
>It's actually quite simple. Google looks at the content of the page, but
>even more so at the text found in links to it and on the pages linking to
>yours.
>That's the principle of the famous "Google bombs".
>Now, I guess you don't have many "bloody" links coming in, but there are
>at
>least some post by yourself on pages mentioning blood.
>
>See for yourself:
>Type in
>*georgiadis googlepages com bloody*
>look for your page and click on the cached version of your page
>In the lower part of the white box you see then you'll find that the
>following terms were only found in links to your site: "georgiadis
>googlepages com bloody"
>
>You'll also find that the following pages are presumably responsible for
>the
>strange result:
>http://www.shanghaiexpat.com/community/index.php?blog=5&title=new_carrefour_opens_finally&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060909070929AAtuHmB
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060821203603AAA3qPM
>http://de.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060909070929AAtuHmB
>http://answers.yahoo.com.au/question/index?qid=20060909070929AAtuHmB
>and a few more from sites that Google respects as quality sites, mainly
>Yahoo.
>
>Laurenz
>http://www.travelphoto.net/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>2007/3/9, Alexander Georgiadis < georgiadis@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>*
>>*
>>------------------------------
>>OK, get ready to hear the strangest thing. Ready? Here goes:
>>
>>Like many of you that have websites, I subscribe to a site monitoring
>>service (statcounter in my case) which I check occasionally to see how
>>many
>>visitors I am getting, what link they came from, which part of the world
>>etc. One of the reports statcounter supplies is called "recent keyword
>>activity". This tells me what words people typed into search engines like
>>Google or Yahoo to find my website. As I am a Canadian photographer
>>working
>>in Shanghai, so I typically see "shanghai photographer" or "shanghai
>>portrait photographer" etc. as the search terms. No surprises. Until
>>today.
>>
>>This is so strange; someone had typed in the words "bloody photography"
>>into Google search. A little weird right? It gets weirder! So naturally, I
>>replicated the search myself. Surprise! MY SITE IS AT THE TOP of the
>>search
>>page if the quotation marks are included and no 5 of 1,360,000 pages if
>>they are excluded.
>>
>>OK now I'll wait while you try the search
>>yourself...............................finished? Cool right? It all might
>>make sense if I the word "bloody" actually appeared on my page. But it
>>does
>>not. It never has. ------- Tres bizarre!
>>
>>Everyone wants their page to appear high in google searches, but I never
>>expected my innocent child photography page to capture the number one slot
>>for "bloody photography". I don't know if I should be flattered or
>>insulted.
>>Why does Google hate my photography? The only reason I can come up with is
>>that Google has actually attained sentience or self awareness and is just
>>expressing its personal disdain for sentimental photography. Boy, I always
>>suspected that my photography might suck. But to be insulted by a
>>logarithm.... I feel utterly humiliated.
>>
>>Can any of you venture an explanation for Google's behavior? *
>>*
>>__________________
>>*Proving that ugly people can take beautiful
>>photographs!*< http://georgiadis.googlepages.com/>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Alex Georgiadis
