However this doesn't appear to be the case with Zencart using XML sitemap feeds :( any ideas why anyone?

MY SECOND PROJECT IS HOSPITAL SYSTEM IN THIS NEW THINGS ARE

1. QUERY SYSTEM

2. KEY SYSTEM

3. ONLINE THETOPHY

ETC...
THIS PROJECT STILL IAM DOING ......
MY MAIL ID: jelumca@gmail.com

Need Help!!!

You can already find tons of spammers gaming Google and the fact of the matter is that they'll always be there. I'm positive Google is taking steps towards stopping people from taking advantage of this, but there will always be those that "get through", just as there are with regular old search.

My company, Realtime Transcription, Inc, provides streaming realtime transcription of live events, as they are happening. We can stream instant text of any speech to any website. Let's say you have a tech conference and we are streaming the presentations to the association's website. As soon as the text starts hitting the site, it starts showing up in the search results. This will drive traffic to the site as the event is still streaming live.

A perfect application for this would be product announcements. Like when Apple announced the iPad, for example, I went to the internet right away looking for a transcript of the event. You know what I found? A "transcript" made up of tweets that were put out by people sitting in the audience. They were summarizing what was being said, as it was being said.

We can stream the verbatim text live, and if someone wants to pick up a section of that stream and tweet it out, isn't that more effective and accurate?

We then take the entire transcript and sync it to the video or the audio of the presentations, and it's all fully searchable, captioned for accessibility or translation, and can be played from any spot.

Check out our website and let me know if you have any questions on how to bring this real-time SEO solution to your business or your clients.

Tanya English, Technology Director
Realtime Transcription, Inc.
"Capturing Business at the Speed of Sound"
tenglish@realtimetranscription.com

All the best, Ted

Also, Google accepts censorship in some countries, they penalize their rivals in searches, etc. This is not a free WWW.

http://managersmagazine.com/index.php/2010/03/los-pecados-capitales-de-google/

Regards,

Thank you for enlightening me. I guess I went off half-cocked. Ever since Eric Schmidt poo-poo'ed privacy I have been very concerned about Google turning "evil." Having watched Microsoft's maneuverings ever since they still had the dash in their name, I am also very sensitive to monopolistic tactics. Oh well, I will still remain ever vigilant. ;^)

This isn't the case. PuSH is feed format-agnostic and supports both RSS and Atom. I go into more detail on my blog:

http://workbench.cadenhead.org/news/3592/google-isnt-trying-screw-rss

Previously you had to wait for spiders to crawl around the web to find changes on your site. Pages are crawled over again and again just to see if anything has changed. It's a pretty inefficient process. Now the spiders are going to be fat and lazy because you are going to deliver your changes directly to them.

I mean if you can create your own hub, which you can, why wouldn't everyone do that, in which case you would end up with what you have today - a lot of places Google has to go to sniff out new content.

Even given a limited number of hubs or assuming that Google/Yahoo/Bing each run their own hubs that you can publish to, won't they still have to sort the wheat from the chaff after crawling their own hubs, just as they do today after crawling the web?

So, and I admit I don't "get" it, at the cost of adding another layer of complexity, not to mention a new protocol no less, what problem does this actually solve and how does it solve it without creating new problems?

Thanks for the info.

With PubSubHubbub, content publishers may declare multiple hubs they would like to use for syndication. Anyone interested in your site's updates can easily discover these hubs and subscribe. The hubs you push to may be run by yourself or run by independent companies like Superfeedr (http://superfeedr.com). For reference, Superfeedr is the most popular way to add a hub via a third-party (they're used by Tumblr, Posterous, Gawker Media, the Huffington Post, etc).

The whole point of PubSubHubbub is decentralization. There's absolutely no requirement for publishers to connect with any specific company's hub to take part in the system. For example, Google Reader will discover any hub declared within a feed and subscribe to it, regardless of who the hub provider is.

And here's a list of open source hub implementations people can use:
http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/wiki/Hubs

Whoa, non sequitur whiplash. A Hub is not a search engine. They are not search-engine specific. Even if a website only gets to pick one hub (which is dubious), all search engines can look at the hub and get the updates.

At the same time, I have a small time blog and Google crawls and lists it within minutes. Interesting.

I think that real time indexing will quickly lead to spam:
_ Just find a buzzing subject.
_ Write a shitload of optimized content about it and put your ads everywhere.
_ Get indexed quickly.
_ Profit.

Note that each web site will be able to "declare" only one hub which they want to have index their content using this method. This will force web site owners to choose one search engine over all the others. No web site owner will want to have declared a not so popular search engine and so everyone will rush to jump on the same bandwagon. And since Google built the first bandwagon that is the one everyone will jump on. So, by default, everyone will "declare" Google as their hub of choice, leaving the other search engines to crawl the old fashioned way. This will give Google an advantage over the others.

This is definitely NOT "just like [declaring] where the RSS feeds they publish can be found." A web site's RSS feeds are stored on their own web server (or a server under their control) and any user is able to "subscribe" to that RSS feed simply by copying that RSS URL into their RSS reader (manually or by clicking a link or button). The users have complete choice as to what RSS reader they use and any search engine or other site is free to "subscribe" to that RSS feed simply by downloading the RSS feed any time they want to.

This PuSH system gives the users and all site owners less choice, not more. If a user wants to get the most recently indexed content then they are forced to use one specific search engine. No other search engines or other sites will have access to this PuSH data for any specific site. Plus, the users will be forced to figure out which sites are PuSH indexed by which search engines and search accordingly. Google knows good and well that no one will be willing to do this. Thus they know good and well that they are creating a system whose sole purpose is to cement their standing as the most popular search engine.

Google is basically using the same tactics that Microsoft used at the beginning of the DOS wars. It is what I call the "There can be only one ... bandwagon" phenomenon. You create a situation where people are forced to choose only one "system" of any sort. Throw in compatibility issues if the users choose anything other than the most popular "system" and bingo, you have built an instant monopoly out of "user choice."

Blog systems already publish in this mannner, don't they? So, it seems that blogs won't really benefit from this?

For a business publishing pages to their website, I don't see how it'll move the needle too much in terms of attracting more traffic. Since most companies' PR cycles don't work in hours, I'm not sure I see much benefit to them. On the other hand, if this gets blown out of proportion by unscrupulous SEO "experts" and web designers, I can see them exploiting small businesses by forcing them to pay for new content management system implementations in order to "get indexed faster". Our struggle with SMBs is to convince them that SEO actually isn't that complicated, and that all it takes is a committment to content creation.

Another unrelated questions... I'm wondering whether their experiments with indexing real time sites like Twitter and Facebook are causing them to rethink how they index the web? I'm wondering whether inxexing these sites is giving their index increasing relevance and giving users greater search satisfaction? Maybe they're realizing they want to figure out how to deliver that user search satisfaction w/out relying on Twitter or Facebook?

This could work for Facebook and Twitter as well and it would lead to transparency....

http://www.factoetum.com/factoetum/Ted_Nelson_(Technology_Icon)

On another front.....I think that it is hypocritical and smacks of double standards to condem the past behavior of others tech companies as evil while condoning and applauding the same behavior from Google.....Googles current tactics are nothing short of attempting to become the uber standard of the internet...What if Microsoft would have put this idea and technology out.....Would we be so full of glee ?

This information doesn't seem too new to me.

google should first stop the actual spam (or the sites that tread the line between spam and not spam) we get whenever we search for a high-profile keyword before trying anything new...

it's incredible that stuffing keywords and then getting tons of random links still works for everyone everywhere.

Jimmy
www.anonymous-web.es.tc

Google's going to get a boatload of spam sites being pushed at it in real-time :)