| 5:07 pm on Feb 16, 2000 (gmt 0)|
By my reckoning, this was a nine day indexing cycle. I had hoped that it would be weekly (7 days) as we saw for a few weeks. So, who knows what the future holds?
| 12:54 am on Feb 17, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Can confirm update: one site of ours has just regained some 30+ pages lost during Black Monday and only occasionally cropping up again during those brief spans when AV resorted to an older index version.
Former rankings haven't been reinstituted, though, as far as I can tell.
| 10:37 am on Mar 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I haven't noticed any major movement in two weeks. Have we just been 'stuck' or is AV stuck? I've not submitted much in awhile but we got a few good rankings right off the bat with new domains so I thought I'd take the low key approach this time around and let things build.
| 12:38 pm on Mar 2, 2000 (gmt 0)|
That's been my MO with AV. I don't submit much of anything except new pages or edited pages. Seems to have worked and now I have top 10 on all my targeted KW's.
| 12:24 pm on Mar 8, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I have taken my eye off the A.V ball for a couple of months. Pleasantly suprised with some root domain pages which were optimized a while back which have found there way to the top. How stable is A>V at the moment in relative terms?
| 4:02 pm on Mar 8, 2000 (gmt 0)|
very stable. Has been since mid to late December. If you have the system down, it has been rock solid since then. The only problem has been Alta's banning of sites left and right. Latest theory is that it is either Alta going after bait & switchers and laying waste to anything that looks like cloaking. Or, alta is tossing out dynamically generated sites that meet some criteria. I say the later because just about everyone I've talked to that has been banned, has some form of on-the-fly update to their page. (that includes java banners as well).
...do not attempt this at home. we are trained professionals.
| 10:19 pm on Mar 8, 2000 (gmt 0)|
3 of my domains have been banned -no cloaking, no dynamicaly genrated - but all had template doorways (<30)
| 7:21 am on Mar 9, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Well now, that sounds potentially alarming. What sort of template were you using? WPG type? For some time now, I've been constructing pages that have the look and feel of a "real" web site. My theory has been that the WPG pages and their clones will eventually be discouraged or sumarily dumped by the SEs.
Could you describe the template you've been using? Many thanks.
| 12:36 pm on Mar 9, 2000 (gmt 0)|
I haven't been submitting to AV except for new pages (I have no trouble submitting those I use collective but when it gives me the error message, I click on the link). What's really curious, is that every update I get more and more pages in. (I'm up to 39 pages this AM) Maybe they're tracking submission activity and banning on that basis? Maybe I need more coffee?
| 11:46 pm on Mar 9, 2000 (gmt 0)|
what do you mean when you say you use collective? I read that once before but I don't know what it means. Thanks
| 9:50 am on Mar 10, 2000 (gmt 0)|
alpha 1. (unstable/supported at the moment while I finish up the collective plugin for Traxis- use at own risk).
There have been rumors that AV is tracking IP's, but about a month ago, I submitted close to 3k pages from 25 very unique ips (125 pages each). I know other folks who are doing the same - no problem.
What keeps popping up in conversations with people that I've talked too that are banned, is the mass majority have pages that are updated very frequently. Either from dynamically generated pages, pages that they manually update daily, or servers that return todays date for the file on any head check. Almost all cgi/asp pages return todays date in a head check. (every page on this system returns todays date because of ssi includes).
I am wondering if AV is classifiying those pages as 'unmaintainable' by their system. Every time the spider comes back to do a link check, it is finding the page updated and feeling that it is an unstable or unmaintainable page. The risk to alta being stale pages in the index and/or bait and switch.
I have a problem with that because so many servers return bogus file dates. Northern Light claimed a year ago that 30% of the file dates on the web were out of whack with reality. Some were dated in the 70's and some in the 2010's. There is also all those pages that run dynamic advertising. Almost all the mega sites have some sort of dynamic advertising that changes the page from day to day or hour to hour. Even if Alta is just comparing file sizes, that woud still be a problem for those with on-the-fly promo's or headlines.
Just about everyone I've checked that has been banned has either a frequently updated page, or a file date that always says today on a 'head' check to pull the document info.