| 8:29 pm on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|My sample size now exceeds 1000 pages |
So you have 1000 PFI pages and experienced an 85% drop from Ink - so 850 of your PFI pages are gone?
Gone from the same site, various sites?
| 8:31 pm on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My sites are doing just fine.
| 8:32 pm on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes, 850 pages on 50 different sites (20 pages submitted per site) gone from the top.
MSN has been hit harder than HotBot.
| 8:44 pm on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Did this happen suddenly - could it be a hosting problem? i.e. bot comes along, sees nothing, pages drop?
| 8:53 pm on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
mipapage- good question.
Sites are hosted at a number of locations; including my own servers, host providers, and client owned sites. None have had identifiable down times. Checked the Ink refresh dates and all have been successfully refreshed in last 72 hours.
Searches for specific PFI pages at MSN + HB pull up the correct page w/ content, and Inktomi redirect is in the link. Searches for all past successful keyword phrases are gone, vitrually overnight.
| 9:00 pm on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I would imagine that you used a similar optimizaion strategy for these sites?
Perhaps an algo tweak occurred? Do you watch any other serps? How do they look? Oh, and are you in a 'bad neighborhood'?
Would it be fair to say that you had your pages optimized for a certain Ink algo, they've switched, and now you're on the outside?
If so, lucky you that "you are PFI" and can get back in '48 hrs'. Also, lucky you that you can experiment with different optimization strategies 'cause you've got lots of sites - unlucky you cause you'll have to adjust a lot of sites if this is true (sorry).
For anyone else whp may have seen a shift, what "overnight" are you referring to? (yesterday, last week etc.)
| 9:20 pm on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
“virtually overnight” meaning beginning Nov 25 through the present.
Neighborhood is squeaky clean, and techniques are on the level as well. But it would be very fair to say the content is all fashioned along the same outline (NOT a template though, it is all unique content). Nothing groundbreaking, just keyword in title, heading, page name, and a very reasonable kwd body density (5-7%).
I strongly suspect an algo tweak as well, and I am looking for indication that it hit someone else also.
Yes, lucky for the 48 hour update, let the testing begin. Adjustments not a problem, that’s the fun with Ink, instant gratification. :)
| 9:33 pm on Dec 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm curious about what's happening too. As I type this I am working on a proposal that includes Ink PFI as a recommendation. It will be my first time with PFI and I am looking forward to the almost-instant gratification.
Can't wait to see what Yahktomi! will be like.
| 4:16 pm on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Not being funny mipapage, but you are about to experience not gratification - but a kick in the teeth.
| 7:00 pm on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
PFI pages seem to be getting hit hard while organically crawled pages seem to get preferential treatment with the new algo change. Especially in cases where INK sees "duplicate content" (and the definition of duplicate content seems to have been extended horribly).
I would stongly recommend that you NOT PFI until Ink gets this figured out. Right now, all the evidence I have says that if a PFI page and a naturally crawled page in INK have duplicate content, then the PFI page will get dropped like a rock.
This is particularly dangerous because now, a competitor (if they know that you have PFI pages) can create duplicate copies of your pages... get them indexed and your site could get dropped and theirs will show up it's place. And yes, I do have evidence of this.
Anyway... the issues I have seen are based on dup content, but I'm guessing there are other filters in place as well.
| 9:19 am on Dec 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Inktomi is a mess. YahooInk will still be INK... and thus... a mess. They've got some serious problems with indexing dynamic links and with some of their filters.
You can get your competitors dropped from the SERPS with just a few small techniques. I've been dropped because of something that a competitor did (theirs was actually an accident, but it got me dropped nonetheless).
So I am SOL because I PFI and because Slurp can't read dynamic links correctly.
| 1:38 pm on Dec 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I had very good listings in Msn, now most of them are disappeared. They were all PFI. Is there any chance that this mess will cease in short time?
Or the present situation is going to be the norm?
When is Yahoo going to be ink-powered? What about Msn?
| 8:08 pm on Dec 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Oh... my goodness! I finally got rid of one of the dynamic links in Inktomi and now there is another one in it's place! Aghhhhhhhhh. I could just rip my hair out right now.
Ink is indexing dynamic links to my website as if they were duplicate copies of my website. It is seriously driving me absolutely crazy. Then, when ink sees the "duplicate content" they are penalizing my PFI page and the organically crawled copy (really just a dynamic link) shows up all over in the serps. I finally got rid of one (had to pay to do it) and now that it's gone, there is another in it's place.
Ink has some serious issues right now. They have got to figure out how to ready dynamic links. PFI is so unstable right now, it's unbelievable.
| 3:53 am on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My pages are not dynamic, but it appears my whole domain was removed because I pfi one page that many trivial sites like to steal to use as search engine bot crawl food.
| 4:38 pm on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
steveb - have you checked with your PFI reseller to see if perhaps there was an editorial action taken on your site? The dupe filter I'm seeing is specific to certain pages... of course, there could be perceived dupe content for a lot of your pages.
I'm just trying to pin down some correlation. My front page won't show up in the SERPs at all, and my best guess is that it is because of perceived dupe content. I'm testing extensively right now.
What's really weird in my case is that the "dupe content" are really just dynamic links from other websites that somehow SLUP is indexing as if they are exact 100% replicates of my home page. I got rid of one, but there is another showing up now.
So, as far as I can tell, INK follows the dynamic link and then indexes the page that the link is pointed to and pairs the content of the page that it finds with the dynamic link.
Unfortunately, this is a flawed proceedure if you use dynamic links to link to outside websites (for tracking purposes etc.).
Steveb, are any of your dropped pages due to Ink indexing dynamic links wrong? Or anyone else here?
| 10:57 pm on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There are no dynamic links anywhere on my site, so that has nothing to do with it.
As I said in the other thread, Position Tech claimed Inktomi removed it because other sites had copied some content. That is idiotic policy of course, so I don't know if it is true, but the fact is that my site continues to no longer be in Ink while anybody who ever copied some of it is.
[edited by: tedster at 12:24 am (utc) on Dec. 17, 2003]
| 11:38 pm on Dec 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If your site is in Free - let it roll - if you go PFI with one page or one hundred, if you have other pages on your site, that are listed for free - do you honestly believe that they should stay there?
| 6:09 pm on Dec 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
FYI - I have been researching this around the web and getting in contact with some various SEO gurus and webmasters that PFI. The problem is indeed more widespread than one might think by just looking at this thread.
All signals point at some filters put on at Ink that seem to only be affecting PFI pages (most pages affected are also index pages).
I think that perhaps this was an accident by Ink. It honestly just doesn't make any sense for them to penalize only PFI pages. It's poor for their bottom line, and Yahoo's all about the bottom line (not that I blame them, so am I).
So I guess the million dollar question is: Do we wait until Ink fixes the bug and starts to include all of the PFI pages that were dropped to the dredges, or do we start trying to figure it out on our own and testing solutions.
I've started down the second road... because...well, I can't just sit back and not do anything about it. Ink's organic index is as slow as a turtle, so it may take a while to find a fix. And I'm still hopefull that Ink will do the fix before I can find a workaround.
| 6:29 pm on Dec 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am definitely taking the path of looking for solutions while hoping Ink rolls back these changes. If it turns out this was no accident, but rather a way for Ink to tighten up the PFI results (they do tend to get a little "over-commercialized" IMHO) then waiting would be truly in vain.
I am simutaneuosly working on "weaning" myself from PFI by bolstering linking from my Inktomi organically listed sites in order to get more reliable natural spidering.
I am very interested in learning if this is a filter/algo measuring some on-page/off-page factors applied only to PFI pages, or if the filter/algo is based solely on a scoring "demerit" assigned to PFI. Not sure if I am being clear here, but if the latter is true, then no amount of modifications to PFI pages will help because it is penalized based only on the fact it is PFI. If the former is true, then PFI pages could be salvaged by making the correct changes to them.
| 6:56 pm on Dec 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
P2P, your post made perfect sense.
My opinion starting here:
I don't think that Ink would systematically put a "demerit" on PFI pages on purpose. But... who knows, I could definately be totally wrong on that.
I've taken a very aggressive approach and I too am dropping PFI pages systematically and pshing for organic crawl to index pages.
I don't think Ink will stick with the current results if they want to really be considered a "major player" in the search industry. I monitor over 100 search terms for 6 sites and I've never seen the results so poor. I only PFI for 2 of those sites and those two have been hit really hard. All the talk on other forums leads me to believe that PFI pages are the only ones getting hit... or at least getting hit the hardest.
I have several examples where you can search for the name of a site and the site doesn't come up, or you can search for the exact title of some sites (6 words long) and the page with that exact title won't come up until the 15th result. I've checked with Ink and they claim that the sites are fine and in good standing but that it's a result of an algorithmic change. Yikes.
| 8:07 pm on Dec 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This is good news. Inktomi was kind enough to remove one of the duplicate sites from their Index (really just a problem indexing a dynamic link). I'm happy to report that (apparently as a result) one of my PFI pages is back in the mix.
Showing up below where it used to, but at least it's showing up now, and that's a good thing.
One more indication that some strange algorthmic filter on pages that have "perceived" dupe content.
| 11:42 pm on Dec 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My one pfi page returned today, also ranking a jillion miles below where it did, but that probably will change next real update or two.
However, all the other pages from my domain that were removed are still gone. This is not an issue with pfi pages. It's an issue of pfi pages that were penalized ending up penalizing an entire domain that had been in Ink for free for years.
| 12:00 am on Dec 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Steve B. Have you asked your reseller to verify with Ink whether or not your domain has been hit with an editorial penalization?
Depending on how cool your reseller is, they may contact Ink to find out if you've been hit with an editorial penalization.
| 12:07 am on Dec 19, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Both Ink and the reseller are looking into it.