|Alta: The new Algo - Lets rock.|
| 7:56 am on Feb 7, 2000 (gmt 0)|
url:.net WEB PAGES About 24,653,669 pages found
On friday that was around 45million.
url:.org: WEB PAGES About 20,646,177 pages found.
On friday, that was around 39million.
Are there going to be some po'd people in the morning!!
url:xoom.com WEB PAGES About 7,877 pages found.
That *was* running around 350k (about two weeks ago)
url:geocities.com 942,565 pages found.
(don't know what it was previously).
Appears that they took pitty on the geocities people.
All-in-all, it looks like alta nuked atleast 20% of their database over the weekend.
Clearly the biggest attack was on .Net folks. Try to find some top pages with "~" in the url - I think they may have nuked something from every domain with a "~" tilde in it. I am able to find a few but not like it was.
In other words, in prepration of the IPO promo-hype-fest, Alta is pumping up the .com's and nuking the little sites, to pull in some advertising sales. I'm sure it also ties in with the data Double Click is generating.
The funny part is, there was very little change is the algo.
Start by throwing out the top listed domain, and the domain in the 4th position.
#2 is questionable,
so look at page #3 and pages 6,7,9,10.
Those *are* the algo to the tee (same algo they've used for two weeks). Look at pages 7,8,9 carefully because one of those is usually a random page (usually 8 ).
The big difference in this version of the Algo? The age factor has been tossed.
| 7:32 pm on Feb 8, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Is this the message you posted elsewhere that caused the trouble??
| 8:20 pm on Feb 8, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Determined!, hey thanks for stopping in.
No, the post above is pretty bland actually. The one I posted has been deleted off the net. What I posted was pretty detailed. I may do it again, but there is more to it than just that. There is more going on than I can comment on at this time.
| 8:34 pm on Feb 8, 2000 (gmt 0)|
grrr, I thought so! (I've been busy looking all over for it) Question on the above notes... with throwing out #1 and maybe #2 etc... on the "maybe's" will looking at the actual relevancy score on the european branded AV engines help decide whether or not to throw out the maybes or are those scores faked too?
| 2:04 am on Feb 11, 2000 (gmt 0)|
You'll have to pardon my unfamiliarity with this forum, (first time here) but I can't seem to figure out what search term you're referring to when you mention the AV pages above to check out. I'm kind of a novice at the positioning game but trying to learn as quickly as possibe. Thanks for your indulgence.
| 10:06 am on Feb 16, 2000 (gmt 0)|
bluesriff, I was referring to looking at a results page. Do a search on something like "fender". The numbers I was using was the number of the results. Throw out the #1 listed site, then etc...
It has already changed from the above though. Investigations underway.
| 11:30 am on Feb 16, 2000 (gmt 0)|
Thank God! Not thank God it changed, thank God you posted that it did. I didn't start on search engine stuff last night till very late after a rough day, and I swear man, I sat down with the number 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 site and thought, "Great... I can't see it, what's WRONG with me??" So I moved to the next set of keywords.... same thing... Poured a big glass of scotch and thought, "Hmmmm, maybe it's time I became a farmer...."
In the latest shift though, my doorways dropped and my index page came up out of nowhere to number 21 on a keyword phrase.... I shifted it around to test some thoughts based on what I was seeing and the new "help" file just released and subitted it under a different domain... so we'll see.
Any thoughts on the relevancy scoring from the euopean AV output?