tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24482115758114847452024-03-12T21:18:35.432-07:00Google, I suggest...Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-47883407018764996492008-05-02T11:31:00.000-07:002008-05-02T11:37:07.221-07:00Be Consistent With Your Case Insensitivity<p><a href="http://www.google.com/support/bin/static.py?page=searchguides.html&ctx=basics&hl=en">In the Google Web Search Help Center</a>, you state that:<br /><br /><blockquote>Google searches are NOT case sensitive. All letters, regardless of how you type them, will be understood as lower case. For example, searches for george washington, George Washington, and gEoRgE wAsHiNgToN will all return the same results.</blockquote><br /><br />Yet, as my Netconcepts colleague Chris Smith <a href="http://www.naturalsearchblog.com/archives/2008/04/15/travel-searches-local-more-searches-turning-case-sensitive-in-google-serps/">recently noted</a>, this is not currently the case. We get different results in the 8th position for “george washington” vs. “George Washington” vs. “gEoRgE wAsHiNgToN”, when expanding out the number of listings per page in the Google preferences.<br /><br />Here's another example: "fossil watches" and "Fossil Watches" return different results, as you can see from the screenshot below. This is not a consistent user experience for searchers.<br /><br /><p align="center"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/silvery/2415880119/" title="Google SERPs Case Sensitive - Fossil Watches by Si1very, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2052/2415880119_b1fbbb0187_m.jpg" alt="Google SERPs Case Sensitive - Fossil Watches" height="168" width="240" /><br /><br />(click to enlarge)</a></p><br /><br />It gets worse. Some shortcut queries may not even work, depending on the case used. For example, a "whois" query is supposed to return a domain lookup from domaintools.com as a shortcut, yet it doesn't work if the domain name is entered in upper case. Check this screenshot:<br /><br /><p align="center"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_wjwKQIi-rcU/SBtddhRE-WI/AAAAAAAAABI/NSEDTpyv1-o/s1600-h/whois-query.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_wjwKQIi-rcU/SBtddhRE-WI/AAAAAAAAABI/NSEDTpyv1-o/s400/whois-query.png" border="0" alt="Google SERPs Case Sensitive - whois" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5195849356829587810" /><br /><br />(click to enlarge)</a></p>Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com61tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-63634016292326921612008-02-27T22:26:00.000-08:002008-02-27T10:30:39.007-08:00Increase the limit on the number of URLs allowed in the CSEThe Google <a href="http://www.google.com/coop/cse/">Custom Search Engine</a> (CSE) is very cool. I have been playing with CSE in the hopes I can use it as a replacement to the open source search engine that we're using on <a href="http://www.innfinder.com">Innfinder</a>. The current engine is a resource hog at spidering the list of over 9000 websites (even though most of the 9000 are very small sites of individual bed and breakfasts). I would love to switch to CSE. Heck I'd even consider paying for your <a href="http://www.google.com/coop/cse/compare">CSE Business Edition</a>. However, your 5000 URL limit is stymying me because I have 9000 URLs. I even checked with your sales folks selling the Business Edition and that has the 5000 limit too. Argh! My suggestion is that you have a mechanism for people to request an increase to the limit.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-85155333108495950112008-01-16T14:30:00.000-08:002008-01-19T11:41:51.425-08:00Minimize Google Talk and Gmail interruptions with Google Calendar<p>I and many others use Google Calendar to book our appointments, organize and join meetings, and otherwise block out our time. I really like Google calendar for all of those reasons and more.</p><br /><p>And I, like many others, also suffer from "urgency addiction" -- constantly checking email for fires to put out -- as well letting interruptions like IM conversations break us out of the "flow." Interruptions like incessant new mail notifications and IM chat requests are productivity killers.</p><br /><p>What we need is the ability to block out quiet times within Google Calendar to work on project uninterrupted -- in "Do Not Disturb" mode -- and for Gmail and Google Talk to automatically sense this status and then stop notifying you of incoming mail and put you in "Do Not Disturb" status in Google Talk for the blocked-out time. This would save us the step of always having to remember to sign out of Gmail and changing our Google Talk status to DND.</p>Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-35711419772697786232008-01-04T15:42:00.000-08:002008-01-04T15:48:36.808-08:00Improve the Webmaster Tools Authorization Process<p>Google's Webmaster Tools is an increasingly valuable resource for information about Google's perception of one's website, and we've been quite pleased to encourage our clients to make use of it.</p><br /><p>However, Google could easily improve upon the authorization scheme for enabling users to access the interfaces for their sites. There are some issues that we see with some repetition, so here are some suggestions:<br /><ul><li>Why not allow a user that is authorized on the primary domain (like http://www.example.com) to be able to administrate additional Webmaster Tools user accounts for the site? It's inconvenient to have to add more Meta tags or HTML files to enable additional user access accounts over time. It's also sometimes causing serious time-lags to revoke some employee's access to Webmaster Tools when they leave a company. A master administrative account would be very helpful to a great many companies for these reasons.<br /><br /></li><li>Under "set preferred domain", it might be very helpful to enable webmasters to add in additional domains. You currently allow them to request either the www or non-www versions of their domains to be dominant, and I suspect you're using this to some degree to canonicalize the domains which may be mirrors of one another. However, quite a few major companies are using additional domain name variants as their primary domain names, so it could be useful to you and them both to allow them to add in a list of domains which they'd like to have canonicalized all under one main domain. For instance, if you go to www.verizon.com, they redirect the user to http://www22.verizon.com/. And Nordstrom redirects the user over to shop.nordstrom.com. There are many cases where companies have registered many misspelling domains and competitive term domains and are delivering up their main content on them as just more aliases of their primary domain. Ex: www.amzaon.com, www.maazon.com, www.amazno.com, www.amazone.com, etc. While it's best practice to redirect those alternate domains to the primary, many sites don't get that done, and there are cases where people deep-link pages on misspelled domain names. Since you don't want to penalize people for accidentally setting up duplicate content on these alternate domains, it'd be great to provide additional functionality to help get those domains all canonicalized.<br /><br /></li><li>Also, allow a user who has authority for the primary www domain to automatically be able to access Webmaster Tools for any other subdomains (like http://catalog.example.com).</li></ul></p><br /><p>For that last suggestion, you folks at Google might not realize the frequency of cases wherein websites are outsourcing some portion of their site's delivery to other companies to deliver on their behalf. So, a webmaster who has access to their www domain in Webmaster Tools may have to ask a few different other company's IT staff to enable his access to the subdomain sections they deliver in his behalf, and some portal platforms are very "challenged" to customize META tags or install HTML files.</p>Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-70157198905105427792007-12-03T19:03:00.000-08:002007-12-03T17:05:46.915-08:00Allow Revisions to Incorrectly Labeled Sitelinks<p>It's great that you guys now allow removal of bad sitelinks through Webmaster Central. But sometimes the sitelink is incorrectly labeled for no fault of the site owner, and the sitelink just needs to be corrected, not removed. For example, note the typo below in the sitelinks of stevespanglerscience.com:</p><br /><br /><p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_wjwKQIi-rcU/R1Sn0c-bRGI/AAAAAAAAAA4/bgfvutsnoF8/s1600-R/Picture+1.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_wjwKQIi-rcU/R1Sn0c-bRGI/AAAAAAAAAA4/YEeNXyCnQ6Y/s400/Picture+1.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5139917594309641314" /></a></p><br /><br /><p>In the above screenshot, you'll notice one of the sitelinks says "Pangler Science Experiments." The word "Pangler" should actually be "Spangler." I checked, and there is not a single occurrence of "Pangler" anywhere on stevespanglerscience.com or on his blog at stevespangler.com. However, I did find such a typo in the anchor text of a link appearing on <a href="http://imaan.net/makingmemories/?page_id=121">this blog</a>. So it appears Google is trusting the anchor text of a single blogger over the site's own internal linking structure? This should probably be looked into too, since bloggers make typing mistakes, and the site owner has no control over that.</p>Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-57864182653529692102007-09-14T06:27:00.000-07:002007-09-14T06:34:43.265-07:00Allow Opt-out on Foreign Language SearchGoogle's <a href="http://www.google.com/language_tools#domains">foreign-specific search indices</a> allow users to find web pages from the overall internet as well as being able to filter content down to pages specific to their own countries and/or languages.<br /><br />The problem is, there are quite a few overseas (non-US) users who use Google without clicking the button to restrict content to pages specific to their countries, and there are companies who desire to restrict their content from appearing to those users in other countries, either because they are not set up to sell to those users, or because they may be legally restricted from conducting trade with those countries.<br /><br />I suggest that Google might want to allow webmasters to specify whether their content should be presented to users in their various country-specific search engines, for these reasons.<br /><br />Google could offer this through an opt-in/opt-out interface in Webmaster Tools, or this could be pushed as another type of restriction which could be added to robots.txt files. Considering how many countries there are, it would probably be most desirable to add this as an interface within Webmaster Tools. Webmasters could go in and click a button for each country-specific version of Google that's out there.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com64tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-45461444885552629012007-08-16T00:59:00.000-07:002007-08-15T23:00:53.452-07:00A better 404 error page and 301 redirects on Google.com<a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_wjwKQIi-rcU/RsPnDwKtUlI/AAAAAAAAAAo/kOqsPW_M3Cg/s1600-h/Picture+6.png"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_wjwKQIi-rcU/RsPnDwKtUlI/AAAAAAAAAAo/kOqsPW_M3Cg/s320/Picture+6.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5099173254768972370" /></a><br />In a recent post that I had published on the CNET Blog Network, I talked about how "<a href="http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13530_1-9736255-28.html">Even Google Could Use Some SEO</a>."<br /><br />After getting an inside view into Webmaster Central's metrics on Google.com, I noticed that the top 404 reporting errors were for:<br /><br /><ul><li>http://www.google.com/%20<br /></li><li>http://www.google.com/%20%20<br /></li><li>http://www.google.com/%20%20%20</li></ul><br /><br />As I'm sure you know, the %20 represents a space after the URL. Those users who link to Google, sometimes copy and paste one, two, or three spaces after the URL. Unfortunately, this creates a 404 error and a bad "end user" experience. <br /><br />That bad user experience is made even worse by the fact that the Google.com 404 error page is a complete dead-end for users. If users were to come across a link like <a href=http://www.google.com/%20>this one</a>, they have no place to go.<br /><br />Implementing 301 redirects would help usability, especially since this appears to be such a common mistake when people link to Google. It would also give the Google.com site more PageRank, which can then be passed down to deeper pages in the site.<br /><br />Also improving the 404 error page to be less of a dead-end would be helpful too.<br /><br />I realize that Google doesn't need any help with their SEO, but in this case, what's good for search engines is also good for users.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-71006263359311555172007-03-22T23:40:00.000-07:002007-03-22T23:45:18.234-07:00Fix and standardize the querying on Google News Archive SearchOn <a href="http://news.google.com">Google News</a> if you do a search for <i>shop.org</i> you get some results, which is what you expect. Curiously enough, if you try doing that same search for <i>shop.org</i> on <a href="http://news.google.com/archivesearch">Google News Archive Search</a> (like <a href="http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=shop.org&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives">so</a>), you get: "Your search - shop.org - did not match any documents." You have to put <i>shop.org</i> within quotes in order to get results (like <a href="http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22shop.org%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives">so</a>). Clearly something is broken since <i>shop.org</i> as a search term works on Google News, Google Images, Google Web Search, etc. but not on the Google News Archive Search. Google, I suggest that you fix this bug.<br /><br />By the way, thanks for adding a link on Google News to Google News Archive Search from the search results. I don't know if that was a result of reading <a href="http://googleisuggest.blogspot.com/2007/01/make-it-easy-to-get-from-google-news-to.html">my suggestion</a> a few weeks back or not, but either way I sure do appreciate it as do a whole lot of other Google News users as well.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-3445957366713286232007-02-11T16:32:00.000-08:002007-02-11T14:32:33.801-08:00Google PSAWordsI really like the way that public service announcements show up in Google Adsense boxes when there isn't an appropriate paying advertiser to display there. <br /><br />I think there is something you can do to really expand on this concept and offer sites that wouldn't be interested in displaying Google ads the ability to display public service announcements. For example, government sites and universities would probably not want to display Google ads but would probably be happy to display contextually relevant web service announcements.<br /><br />So my suggestion is to launch a program specifically for those sorts of sites that don't want to display ads to only display public service announcements. You could call that Google PSAWords and you could give organizations that have public service announcements on them the ability to load in their own public service announcements in addition to the ones you already have.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-72918363321144301962007-01-29T20:41:00.000-08:002007-01-29T20:58:27.306-08:00Make it easy to get from Google News to Google News ArchiveI really love the <a href="http://news.google.com/archivesearch">Google News Archive Search</a>. It is a pity that it is hard to get to from Google News. If I am doing a Google News search and I want to go back in time into the archive, I'd like to be able to do that with one click. Particularly if I'm already in the search results. For example, if I <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=netconcepts">search for my company name</a> (Netconcepts), there is a link to search blogs and a link to create an email alert, but no link to <a href="http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=netconcepts">search Google News archive for "netconcepts"</a>. Please add that.<br /><br />While you're at it, can you add the Google News Archive Search to my search history? :-)Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-77072414379212386012007-01-24T17:23:00.000-08:002007-01-24T18:52:54.375-08:00Oops, you need to redirect google.com/adsenseNothing scares web visitors like a security warning message when visiting a web site, particularly if that web site holds your financial records. Imagine my surprise when I went to <a href="http://google.com/adsense">google.com/adsense</a> and after getting redirected to <a href="https://google.com/adsense">https://google.com/adsense</a> I get a security warning that the Security Certificate is not valid! Here's what visitors see when using Safari:<br /><br /><a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_wjwKQIi-rcU/RbgakMp0IgI/AAAAAAAAAAM/GqscjVecWVA/s1600-h/warning1.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_wjwKQIi-rcU/RbgakMp0IgI/AAAAAAAAAAM/GqscjVecWVA/s400/warning1.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5023794593506009602" /></a><br /><br />and when using Firefox for the Mac:<br /><br /><a href="http://bp0.blogger.com/_wjwKQIi-rcU/Rbgawsp0IhI/AAAAAAAAAAU/97FK1delJeE/s1600-h/warning2.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://bp0.blogger.com/_wjwKQIi-rcU/Rbgawsp0IhI/AAAAAAAAAAU/97FK1delJeE/s400/warning2.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5023794808254374418" /></a><br /><br />Google, I suggest you guys fix your redirect to point to https://www.google.com/adsense instead. And it probably wouldn't hurt to spring the few hundred bucks for a security certificate for google.com too! ;-)<br /><br />This issue probably isn't isolated to just the AdSense site, so it would be worthwhile to check all your sites for this issue.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-60602961122104212212006-09-26T18:43:00.000-07:002006-09-25T14:02:34.180-07:00Help AdSense publishers avoid committing inadvertent clickfraudRecently your CEO <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/index.php?p=403">admitted</a> clicking on AdWords ads "all the time" to test that everything is working (yes, I know ads clicked on from Google.com IP addresses are not counted) but, of course, AdSense publishers are not afforded those same rights. Granted, you provide an <a href="https://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/topic.py?topic=160">AdSense Preview Tool</a> (but I'm on a Mac so I can't use it), and instructions on how to find the URL, but they are both too hard. As an AdSense publisher, I want the ability to EASILY follow an ad that I see on my site: e.g. it's something I'm interested in, or it looks dodgy and I want to investigate it further. The way I imagine many publishers do it now is to make sure they are logged out of the AdSense system, clear their cookies, and then use a proxy to click and hope for the best. If they had to fire up the AdSense Preview Tool, there's no guarantee they'd see that same ad again within the Tool.<br /><br />I think you can guess what's coming... my suggestion is that you provide an easy way for AdSense publishers to click on ads on their site without risk of being thrown out of the AdSense program.<br /><br />How about having a setting in the AdSense admin where you can specify your own IP address and not counting clicks from that IP address? Or not count the clicks when the publisher is logged in to their Google account? Or having a unique identifier on each Google Toolbar installaion and then allow an AdSense publisher to associate their installed Google Toolbar with their AdSense account so it identifies them and ignores their clicks?<br /><br />On top of that, it would be fantastic if you would provide a one-click way of adding a competing ad to my competitive filter. Since you would know that I'm the publisher and not to count my clicks.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-54176815216711225562006-09-25T03:27:00.000-07:002006-08-25T15:22:03.956-07:00Google Co-op and creating your own vertical search for your siteI'd like to be able to put a Google Co-op search on my site or my blog like I can with the Rollyo Search. With Rollyo I can specify which sites I want my visitor to be able to search and then I can stick a search box on my site. I would like to see similar functionality from Google Co-op. That is the sort of thing that would really kick-start adoption of Google Co-op. It looks like you can put a Google search box on a page -- like the one on <a href="http://www.google.com/coop/docs/guide_topics.html#Step5">here</a> -- but you'll find that on this page a search for "rover" returns a car company web site as the #1 result, which is clearly not relevant. I'd suggest that the search results on this first search be better refined.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-17828574839876163862006-08-31T01:40:00.000-07:002006-08-25T15:22:54.622-07:00Integrate Google Checkout into Google BaseYou claim that Google Checkout will be a universal checkout for making purchases online. Then it makes sense that you integrate Google Checkout into your Google Base so that shoppers who are looking for product-related content on Google Base can actually purchase the products using Google Checkout from the merchants who are set up with the Google Checkout program. I would also recommend that you somehow make it easy for shoppers to restrict their searches on Google Base to just those merchants who offer Google Checkout.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-30349148507050064192006-08-30T15:13:00.000-07:002006-08-25T15:17:39.844-07:00Google API returns vastly different number of results from Google.comI find it really frustrating that I cannot rely on the Google API to return an estimated number of results that is even remotely similar to the number of results returned by a standard Google web search on Google.com.<br /><br />Thus, I can't rely on the Google API for tracking the number of pages of my site that is indexed over time. Or the number of back links reported.<br /><br />I'm sure plenty of people would rather not scrape Google SERPs to track their indexation or link popularity numbers, but Google, you give them little choice!<br /><br />If you want fewer SEO tools scraping your pages for the results numbers, then I suggest making the API return the same number of results that Google.com does.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-71429046973734386612006-08-27T14:19:00.000-07:002006-08-25T15:20:59.591-07:00Extend the canonicalization feature in Google SitemapsCanonicalization, for those readers who don't know, is a term that refers to which URL is the definitive URL of a site, the one that the site most wants to be known by. For example, your home page address may be linked to on some websites without the www. Inevitably this happens, even though you really would prefer they link to it with the www.<br /><br />It is very nice that Google Sitemaps (now renamed to Google Webmaster Tools) has a feature where you can specify which version of your site you want indexed: the one with the www or without. Then all inbound links to either version should aggregate to the version that you specify through Sitemaps. However, this doesn't go nearly far enough because many sites own multiple domain name, for example typo versions of their brand names to protect them from cybersquatters or to bring visitors in who don't know how to spell. And there are plenty of blogs out there under domains like typepad.com and blogs.com but the blogger has also signed up for TypePad's Pro service and have the blog under their own domain name too. For example, divamarketingblog.com and bloombergmarketing.blogs.com is the same blog, but the blogger (Toby Bloomberg) had to redirect www.divamarketingblog.com to bloombergmarketing.blogs.com to resolve the canonicalization issue, even though the redirect should have gone the other way. Unfortunately, the folks at TypePad (who control blogs.com), do not allow their bloggers to have a 301 or 302 redirect issued from blogs.com or from typepad.com. Therefore the only way to properly solve this canonicalization issue for bloggers on TypePad is for Google to extend the Google Sitemaps canonicalization feature to allow for other URLs too, not just the www or no www switch. So in the case of Diva Marketing Blog, Toby should be allowed to specify that her preferred canonical URL is www.divamarketingblog.com, not bloombergmarketing.blogs.com.<br /><br />Think of all the huge number of Typepad blogs out there where they have signed up for the Pro service and have their own domain name associated with that blog. That adds up to a heck of a lot of duplicate pages in the Google index that could be eliminated with this Sitemaps feature.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2448211575811484745.post-33145605963736369152006-08-25T15:17:00.000-07:002006-08-25T15:18:58.872-07:00Google Checkout needs to deliver the shopper back to the merchantThe current way that you have Google Checkout set up you basically lead the shopper to a dead-end after they complete their purchase. I imagine a lot of merchants would be reticent to put Google Checkout on their site given that, because they would lose the opportunity to further develop the relationship with that shopper after they have completed the purchase through Google Checkout.<br /><br />For example, merchants could suggest the shopper create a wish list, or sign up for their email newsletter, or subscribe to RSS feeds, or read their blog, or continue looking around their catalog.<br /><br />You need to allow merchants to supply a "thank you for your order" URL that, when defined, Google Checkout redirects the shopper to that URL after the purchase.Stephan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05012222528437500240noreply@blogger.com0