Latest from Google ................... not lies from me Joe
_________________________________________________
You photos are indexed by Google. They are blocking very specific paths in order to HELP your search ranking, not to keep you out of Google. Andy even pointed out how high in Google search many of your photos turn up.
The URL's blocked are basically redundant URL's that should not be indexed (and could conceivably hurt your search results if they were - Google is not a big fan of duplicates)
In my Google webmaster tools, I have 100,000 items restricted by robots.txt (that's not a typo: 100,000)
Here are a sample of some of the URL's that are blocked (you can view these for your own site as well):
http://www.ruama.com/hack/feed.mg?Type=userkeyword&NickName=ruama&Data=francisco&format=atom10
That's the part to an RSS feed of photos that are tagged with "francisco"
Why is that blocked? Go ahead and go to that URL. It's just a big wall of text. I don't want Google sending people to that page. Only RSS readers programs know what to do with that, to a regular person it's just garbage.
There are thousands of similar RSS feed URL's to other keywords that are blocked. Thank you smugmug for sending people to my actual gallery instead of to a wall of garbage text!
Another bunch that are blocked are links to individual photos of different sizes that you would not normally get to unless you navigated to a specific date of the photo timeline. I don't want people landing directly on that page either. I would much rather them land on the actual gallery page for those photos - which is exactly what happens now since Smugmug helpfully blocks the path to the undesired landing page. There thousands of similar date based single photo links blocked. Keep in mind that the photos themselves, as they appear in their home gallery (where I want people to see them), are NOT blocked by robots.txt
Again - by blocking all those URL's in robots.txt, it ensures that people who find the photo in Google are taken to the gallery where the photo resides.
Opps sorry bout that , my mistake , Unreachable by Google now reached today 4.988 pages , yes 4.988 pages that Google cannot crawl , dont worry , i will not be paying Smug Mug any more of my hard earned cash , you obviously have no idea at all about websites and robots.txt , instead i will be making it clear to other people in my new website http://www.niphotos.co.uk about Smug Mug and the disgraceful way i have been treated by your company
Smugmug has its foibles.
Treating its customers disgracefully is not one of them.
You realise when you think one thing, and _EVERYONE_ else thinks something else, you're the wrong one?
Andy has the patience of a saint in dealing with legitimate and your queries alike, it seems all you want is to use Smugmug as a link farm and you're upset that your numbers are lower than they could be, despite good REAL WORLD Google results.
Please take Andys offer of a refund and leave them to concentrate on more important things.
Fact , i do not interfere in your buisness , whatever that may be , and i did not ask for your help in this problem , also fact is that none of my images appear in Google , beacuase the address http://www.niphotos.com/sitemap-images.xml.gz has no urls according to Google , i do not use Smug Mug as a link farm as you accuse me of , anyone else who posted that allegation would have had the post removed , but as you are supporting Smug Mugs position then i suppose that is ok !!! unlless you are part of the Smug Mug team who run this operation , please do not give me advice on what to do , i do not need it from you ..................
Treating its customers disgracefully is not one of them.
You realise when you think one thing, and _EVERYONE_ else thinks something else, you're the wrong one?
Andy has the patience of a saint in dealing with legitimate and your queries alike, it seems all you want is to use Smugmug as a link farm and you're upset that your numbers are lower than they could be, despite good REAL WORLD Google results.
Please take Andys offer of a refund and leave them to concentrate on more important things.
That will list all the entries in the Google index that are just to your website.
I get over 7000 results - all pointing directly to your various galleries of photos.
Ignore the sitemap file and go by ACTUAL Google search results.
As has been explained the low number (or even 0) "indexed pages" value is a problem with Webmaster Tools. The number of indexed pages displayed in Webmaster Tools does NOT match your number of actual indexed pages. It is an artifact of the early version of the sitemaps protocol (which most companies still use) and it is not accurate for you - or anyone else. You can verify for yourself by comparing the number that Webmaster Tools displays to you and the number of pages when you search for site:niphotos.com. Continuing to use this number as the foundation for ANY problem you are having is pointless because that figure is a datapoint that anyone trying to help you must categorically ignore because it is patently misleading. If you can speak with someone high enough up at Google who knows about this I am sure they will confirm it for you, as they have for us. You are not helping yourself at all by continuing to bring this up as the reason for anything. It means absolutely nothing. Its like saying the reason a car will not move is because the radio is broken - it is that unrelated.
As for the actual search results, you are confusing two separate things. As Andy (and others) have already explained in Google Search you are doing phenomenally well. In Google Image Search, you are not, but it has absolutely, positively, no-way, no-how, nothing what-so-ever to do with robots.txt. If I have not explained this clearly enough, you might-as-well stop reading now until it has sunk in. I cannot continue to re-hash this same debate with you over-and-over. It is as-if you post these messages and then do not take the time to read mine or anyone else's replies. Please take a minute and accept that what you think is going on is wrong, because it is. Once you've done that, read on, and I will try again to help you.
In your case, the reason your images are not showing up in Google Image Search is because you have right-click protection enabled on your galleries. You can disable right-click protection or wait until we change how it works (which is in-progress). The reason right-click protection works this way today is because if we allowed Google to index your images, then a user could right-click and save them from Google Image Search. This is just how it works today.
You would have gotten a faster response from me, but I tend to skip past your posts because most of the work I do on these forums is on my private time and your posts are generally very unpleasant to read. You do not seem to have much appreciation for the people who bend over backwards to help you. You may want to reconsider this approach, if having an engineer reading your posts is something you might be interested in. Here is an example of someone who's post is a pleasure to read: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1445655#post1445655
In your case, the reason your images are not showing up in Google Image Search is because you have right-click protection enabled on your galleries. You can disable right-click protection or wait until we change how it works (which is in-progress). The reason right-click protection works this way today is because if we allowed Google to index your images, then a user could right-click and save them from Google Image Search. This is just how it works today.
You realise when you think one thing, and _EVERYONE_ else thinks something else, you're the wrong one?
Not necessarily true. There were only two of us that made enough noise to fix the rotate images tool. We weren't the only users with the issue, just the only ones that cared enough to say something.
Not necessarily true. There were only two of us that made enough noise to fix the rotate images tool. We weren't the only users with the issue, just the only ones that cared enough to say something.
Hi Samir, no other customers were doubting you in that case. We couldn't replicate, and a new Sorcerer on board caught wind of the issue and found a new avenue to fixing it. Different story.
Hi Samir, no other customers were doubting you in that case. We couldn't replicate, and a new Sorcerer on board caught wind of the issue and found a new avenue to fixing it. Different story.
.. it... ....was... .....irresistible...
- Greg
P.S. I had to post something, my post count was at 99.....
Quote from yourself "In your case, the reason your images are not showing up in Google Image Search is because you have right-click protection enabled on your galleries. You can disable right-click protection or wait until we change how it works (which is in-progress). The reason right-click protection works this way today is because if we allowed Google to index your images, then a user could right-click and save them from Google Image Search. This is just how it works today " ........... this was not explained or made clear to me when i purchased the right to publish my photos on Smug Mug and by your own admission i seem to have been misold this product , my Full money back please plus compensation for being misold this product , any more communication from Smug Mug reps via my own personal e-mail address please .................
As has been explained the low number (or even 0) "indexed pages" value is a problem with Webmaster Tools. The number of indexed pages displayed in Webmaster Tools does NOT match your number of actual indexed pages. It is an artifact of the early version of the sitemaps protocol (which most companies still use) and it is not accurate for you - or anyone else. You can verify for yourself by comparing the number that Webmaster Tools displays to you and the number of pages when you search for site:niphotos.com. Continuing to use this number as the foundation for ANY problem you are having is pointless because that figure is a datapoint that anyone trying to help you must categorically ignore because it is patently misleading. If you can speak with someone high enough up at Google who knows about this I am sure they will confirm it for you, as they have for us. You are not helping yourself at all by continuing to bring this up as the reason for anything. It means absolutely nothing. Its like saying the reason a car will not move is because the radio is broken - it is that unrelated.
As for the actual search results, you are confusing two separate things. As Andy (and others) have already explained in Google Search you are doing phenomenally well. In Google Image Search, you are not, but it has absolutely, positively, no-way, no-how, nothing what-so-ever to do with robots.txt. If I have not explained this clearly enough, you might-as-well stop reading now until it has sunk in. I cannot continue to re-hash this same debate with you over-and-over. It is as-if you post these messages and then do not take the time to read mine or anyone else's replies. Please take a minute and accept that what you think is going on is wrong, because it is. Once you've done that, read on, and I will try again to help you.
In your case, the reason your images are not showing up in Google Image Search is because you have right-click protection enabled on your galleries. You can disable right-click protection or wait until we change how it works (which is in-progress). The reason right-click protection works this way today is because if we allowed Google to index your images, then a user could right-click and save them from Google Image Search. This is just how it works today.
You would have gotten a faster response from me, but I tend to skip past your posts because most of the work I do on these forums is on my private time and your posts are generally very unpleasant to read. You do not seem to have much appreciation for the people who bend over backwards to help you. You may want to reconsider this approach, if having an engineer reading your posts is something you might be interested in. Here is an example of someone who's post is a pleasure to read: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1445655#post1445655
...my Full money back please plus compensation for being misold this product, any more communication from Smug Mug reps via my own personal e-mail address please .................
........... this was not explained or made clear to me when i purchased the right to publish my photos on Smug Mug and by your own admission i seem to have been misold this product , my Full money back please plus compensation for being misold this product, any more communication from Smug Mug reps via my own personal e-mail address please .................
I have personally explained this to you at least 15 times and many, many others have tried to as well. You keep complaining about robots.txt and we keep telling you "thats not the problem" - to which your reply is usually to double-down and disrespect whoever was trying to help you. I am a bit envious that the others are in a position where they could simply stop replying to you. Unfortunately though, you have spread quite a bit of misinformation about the public forums on this issue. The facts must be corrected, else a future reader might become confused. The distractions you caused by continuing to insist that something was wrong that wasn't, despite what everyone was saying to you, is the reason for this. Not you being miss sold anything. Believe me, I wish that I could have made this connection sooner.
It is perfectly valid, reasonable, and sane for that feature to work the way it does. But, even more then that, there is a button in your gallery settings specifically for changing this behavior to what you want.
Anyways, as Andy has said, this needs to be handled in the help-desk system. The ticket where Andy is standing-by waiting for your reply is: http://help.smugmug.com/tickets/227913. Perhaps at this point leaving SmugMug is easier for you then simply changing the setting in your galleries. If you are going to do this you probably should to do it soon because every day we spend server resources and bandwidth serving up your site and at some point (and I think we're talking days, not weeks or months here) logic would dictate that a refund would be impractical. Its like going out to eat, consuming all the food, appetizers, and drinks then declaring the feast inedible and asking for a refund. There is absolutely no way I am going to email you - much less email all of our Heroes and ask them to, which is the only way they'd ever know. Request received: REJECTED.
- Greg
P.S. I hope the irony of you complaining about people responding to a public thread that you started is not lost on you. As I understand it, it is not SmugMug's policy to censor or ban communication. Perhaps in this case, if you would like us to, an exception could be made and delete this and move on? If that is what you would like, change your gallery settings. If you do not see the results you want after some reasonable time and you post something polite, I will help you. This whole thing really had no business being here in the first place and I do not want you to feel ostracized from the dgrin community because of a few unfortunate remarks.
If you can't be polite, thats fine too, I will just mindlessly paste this reply into any post that you make about this issue.
Hey Niphotoguy, i want my time back...now!
I'm throwing in $5 for his refund but I want my time back. I was satisfied with the answers that were politely given on the first page but couldn't resist reading it thru to the end. Your unnecessary rants and general rudeness were handled with first class professionalism by smugmug. I will sign up again for another year! Thanks smugmug!
I'm throwing in $5 for his refund but I want my time back. I was satisfied with the answers that were politely given on the first page but couldn't resist reading it thru to the end. Your unnecessary rants and general rudeness were handled with first class professionalism by smugmug. I will sign up again for another year! Thanks smugmug!
I am in for the donation too!
Wow!
R. Leonardo www.RobArtPhoto.com Whether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the simple reason that the eye traffics in feelings, not in thoughts. -Walker Evans
Or about about stay on topic or don't post? I never did understand why people had to be trolls and post irrelevant things. OP posted he wanted his funds, and the professional thing would have been to lock the thread or remove it vs. the people here (ie., andy) allowing it to go on. (shaking head)
Or about about stay on topic or don't post? I never did understand why people had to be trolls and post irrelevant things. OP posted he wanted his funds, and the professional thing would have been to lock the thread or remove it vs. the people here (ie., andy) allowing it to go on. (shaking head)
You are awesome! Thanks for reminding us about what can and cannot be posted.
Comments
You photos are indexed by Google. They are blocking very specific paths in order to HELP your search ranking, not to keep you out of Google. Andy even pointed out how high in Google search many of your photos turn up.
The URL's blocked are basically redundant URL's that should not be indexed (and could conceivably hurt your search results if they were - Google is not a big fan of duplicates)
In my Google webmaster tools, I have 100,000 items restricted by robots.txt (that's not a typo: 100,000)
Here are a sample of some of the URL's that are blocked (you can view these for your own site as well):
http://www.ruama.com/hack/feed.mg?Type=userkeyword&NickName=ruama&Data=francisco&format=atom10
That's the part to an RSS feed of photos that are tagged with "francisco"
Why is that blocked? Go ahead and go to that URL. It's just a big wall of text. I don't want Google sending people to that page. Only RSS readers programs know what to do with that, to a regular person it's just garbage.
There are thousands of similar RSS feed URL's to other keywords that are blocked. Thank you smugmug for sending people to my actual gallery instead of to a wall of garbage text!
Another bunch that are blocked are links to individual photos of different sizes that you would not normally get to unless you navigated to a specific date of the photo timeline. I don't want people landing directly on that page either. I would much rather them land on the actual gallery page for those photos - which is exactly what happens now since Smugmug helpfully blocks the path to the undesired landing page. There thousands of similar date based single photo links blocked. Keep in mind that the photos themselves, as they appear in their home gallery (where I want people to see them), are NOT blocked by robots.txt
Again - by blocking all those URL's in robots.txt, it ensures that people who find the photo in Google are taken to the gallery where the photo resides.
Smugmug has its foibles.
Treating its customers disgracefully is not one of them.
You realise when you think one thing, and _EVERYONE_ else thinks something else, you're the wrong one?
Andy has the patience of a saint in dealing with legitimate and your queries alike, it seems all you want is to use Smugmug as a link farm and you're upset that your numbers are lower than they could be, despite good REAL WORLD Google results.
Please take Andys offer of a refund and leave them to concentrate on more important things.
Cheers - N
http://www.nzsnaps.com (talkiet.smugmug.com)
_____________________________________________________
[
QUOTE=TalkieT;1588784]Smugmug has its foibles.
Treating its customers disgracefully is not one of them.
You realise when you think one thing, and _EVERYONE_ else thinks something else, you're the wrong one?
Andy has the patience of a saint in dealing with legitimate and your queries alike, it seems all you want is to use Smugmug as a link farm and you're upset that your numbers are lower than they could be, despite good REAL WORLD Google results.
Please take Andys offer of a refund and leave them to concentrate on more important things.
Cheers - N[/QUOTE]
Go to google.com and search for:
site:www.niphotos.com
That will list all the entries in the Google index that are just to your website.
I get over 7000 results - all pointing directly to your various galleries of photos.
Ignore the sitemap file and go by ACTUAL Google search results.
No, that is not the reason.
As has been explained the low number (or even 0) "indexed pages" value is a problem with Webmaster Tools. The number of indexed pages displayed in Webmaster Tools does NOT match your number of actual indexed pages. It is an artifact of the early version of the sitemaps protocol (which most companies still use) and it is not accurate for you - or anyone else. You can verify for yourself by comparing the number that Webmaster Tools displays to you and the number of pages when you search for site:niphotos.com. Continuing to use this number as the foundation for ANY problem you are having is pointless because that figure is a datapoint that anyone trying to help you must categorically ignore because it is patently misleading. If you can speak with someone high enough up at Google who knows about this I am sure they will confirm it for you, as they have for us. You are not helping yourself at all by continuing to bring this up as the reason for anything. It means absolutely nothing. Its like saying the reason a car will not move is because the radio is broken - it is that unrelated.
As for the actual search results, you are confusing two separate things. As Andy (and others) have already explained in Google Search you are doing phenomenally well. In Google Image Search, you are not, but it has absolutely, positively, no-way, no-how, nothing what-so-ever to do with robots.txt. If I have not explained this clearly enough, you might-as-well stop reading now until it has sunk in. I cannot continue to re-hash this same debate with you over-and-over. It is as-if you post these messages and then do not take the time to read mine or anyone else's replies. Please take a minute and accept that what you think is going on is wrong, because it is. Once you've done that, read on, and I will try again to help you.
In your case, the reason your images are not showing up in Google Image Search is because you have right-click protection enabled on your galleries. You can disable right-click protection or wait until we change how it works (which is in-progress). The reason right-click protection works this way today is because if we allowed Google to index your images, then a user could right-click and save them from Google Image Search. This is just how it works today.
You would have gotten a faster response from me, but I tend to skip past your posts because most of the work I do on these forums is on my private time and your posts are generally very unpleasant to read. You do not seem to have much appreciation for the people who bend over backwards to help you. You may want to reconsider this approach, if having an engineer reading your posts is something you might be interested in. Here is an example of someone who's post is a pleasure to read: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=1445655#post1445655
- Greg
You are now my favourite Smugger.
Sorry Andy.
Malte
:cry :cry
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Hi Samir, no other customers were doubting you in that case. We couldn't replicate, and a new Sorcerer on board caught wind of the issue and found a new avenue to fixing it. Different story.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
.. it... ....was... .....irresistible...
- Greg
P.S. I had to post something, my post count was at 99.....
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
I have personally explained this to you at least 15 times and many, many others have tried to as well. You keep complaining about robots.txt and we keep telling you "thats not the problem" - to which your reply is usually to double-down and disrespect whoever was trying to help you. I am a bit envious that the others are in a position where they could simply stop replying to you. Unfortunately though, you have spread quite a bit of misinformation about the public forums on this issue. The facts must be corrected, else a future reader might become confused. The distractions you caused by continuing to insist that something was wrong that wasn't, despite what everyone was saying to you, is the reason for this. Not you being miss sold anything. Believe me, I wish that I could have made this connection sooner.
It is perfectly valid, reasonable, and sane for that feature to work the way it does. But, even more then that, there is a button in your gallery settings specifically for changing this behavior to what you want.
Anyways, as Andy has said, this needs to be handled in the help-desk system. The ticket where Andy is standing-by waiting for your reply is: http://help.smugmug.com/tickets/227913. Perhaps at this point leaving SmugMug is easier for you then simply changing the setting in your galleries. If you are going to do this you probably should to do it soon because every day we spend server resources and bandwidth serving up your site and at some point (and I think we're talking days, not weeks or months here) logic would dictate that a refund would be impractical. Its like going out to eat, consuming all the food, appetizers, and drinks then declaring the feast inedible and asking for a refund. There is absolutely no way I am going to email you - much less email all of our Heroes and ask them to, which is the only way they'd ever know. Request received: REJECTED.
- Greg
P.S. I hope the irony of you complaining about people responding to a public thread that you started is not lost on you. As I understand it, it is not SmugMug's policy to censor or ban communication. Perhaps in this case, if you would like us to, an exception could be made and delete this and move on? If that is what you would like, change your gallery settings. If you do not see the results you want after some reasonable time and you post something polite, I will help you. This whole thing really had no business being here in the first place and I do not want you to feel ostracized from the dgrin community because of a few unfortunate remarks.
If you can't be polite, thats fine too, I will just mindlessly paste this reply into any post that you make about this issue.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
You both make a gracious offer though.
- Greg
Every man has his price. We'll take up a collection. X number of d-Grinners @ $1 could add up
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
Malte
I am sure he will never take me up on it. He would have to give up the whine festival he has going on here. I doubt he wants to do that.
What is funny is The Google is indexing this thread with his name on it.
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
I'm throwing in $5 for his refund but I want my time back. I was satisfied with the answers that were politely given on the first page but couldn't resist reading it thru to the end. Your unnecessary rants and general rudeness were handled with first class professionalism by smugmug. I will sign up again for another year! Thanks smugmug!
I am in for the donation too!
Wow!
www.RobArtPhoto.com
Whether he is an artist or not, the photographer is a joyous sensualist, for the simple reason that the eye traffics in feelings, not in thoughts. -Walker Evans
Move on...no more to see here.
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
Too bad, I was just about to launch into a rounsing rendition of "Pay me, oh, pay me..pay me my money down..." complete with dancers...
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
Ha! Trust me, at my age, I sing fully clothed!
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
So....you are saying that DGrin needs a "Oh God Please Don't Go Figure" forum?
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
or, how about a "Go figure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
forum
or, how about "Go, just Go....." forum
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy