homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.242.200.172
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Website
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 581 message thread spans 20 pages: < < 581 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20 > >     
Update Cassandra! Google Montly Update
Part ONE
qball0213




msg:98362
 3:23 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Check it out, I'm seeing 661,000 links for yahoo.

 

bunltd




msg:98482
 5:15 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

jdMorgan,

You're right, of course, that's a sample file, but it seems to work either way - that's Windows for you. :)

EliteWeb




msg:98483
 5:17 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

You mentioned in your post to email webmaster@google.com for reinclusion requests. It seems that a handful of some of our sites could be based on IP got the short end of the stick last month with many PR0's

There were many sites on our network which had a links page that linked to other sites. These pages I did not know they were online still, but after the last update i saw the downfall of the ranking of many of these sites so i immediately found what i believed was the issue and deleted all the links pages! neat :)This wasn't for all our sites just a handful, but a big handful :) How do I go about doing reinclusion request for a block of IPs or just give a huge list of domains ;)

When I emailed google they said it was not blacklisted or penalized, could it just have been algarythm change?

Marcia




msg:98484
 5:20 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Has anyone else seen a drastic reduction in the number of back-links showing for a site, without actually losing any sites linking to it?

Chicago




msg:98485
 5:24 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

reneewood-

sorry about the jubulation. it happens during this period.

what you see on -ex is in all likelihood what you will end up seeing this month as the results for google. so congradulations, it looks like you did good work. Google has at least 8 different databases, only 1 of which is the one we actually view on google.com. during the dance, you will most often see google test its new index (database) on one of its databases. What you are seeing on -ex is a SEO's snapshot into what is going to happen to the "live" google database in 2-3 days. these results will remain until we gather again in a month to do it again:)

Anon27




msg:98486
 5:24 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yes Marcia: All my site are cut in half in back link count.

Pebbles




msg:98487
 5:26 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Chicago: My cached page on -ex is much older than the cached page on regular google results.

alpine




msg:98488
 5:26 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Marcia,

SJ shows the same number of links as our site had last month.

EX shows 15% fewer links (down about 650)

born2drv




msg:98489
 5:26 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

I've seen reduction in backlinks as well, but I blame it on the general reduction of PR across the board. If you had a lot of PR4 backlinks before that are now PR3, chances are that is why.

Luckily my sites still managed to hold on or gain PR though ;)

mack




msg:98490
 5:27 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

totaly agree. on www I have 1040 on ex-www I have 820.

It seams that the value of a link has increased but it also apears that more than one link from a domain is being ignored.

<added>

Im noticing that back link checks are showing a lot of sites with less than pr4? anyone else.

[edited by: mack at 5:28 am (utc) on April 11, 2003]

rfgdxm1




msg:98491
 5:27 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Not drastic Marcia, but amongst sites I have checked I am seeing lower backlinks just about everywhere.

kevinpate




msg:98492
 5:29 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just because I am not the brightest flare in the rescue kit, could someone explain to me, in lil' bitty words preferably, why the number of pages in the site appear to have increased, but as an offset, the index.htm page in the root directory, and ONLY the index.htm page in the root directory seems to be gone from the -ex index.

It's still everywhere else, but if the new version begins with -ex, it ate my index.htm page

Chicago




msg:98493
 5:29 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

friends, i truly believe that backlinks and pr are not accurate during this time (specifically backlinks/ as i believe PR will fluctuate from accuracy to non-accuracy with nearly each refresh). i have pretty strong evidence to support this. position is the only true variable that one can see during this period (next couple of days).

[edited by: Chicago at 5:31 am (utc) on April 11, 2003]

Rhadamanthus




msg:98494
 5:31 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

It seams that the value of a link has increased but it also apears that more than one link from a domain is being ignored.

That makes perfect sense. Mathematically, if you decrease the total number of links (by ignoring multiple links from the same site), then any single link that is counted has more influence than it would have otherwise. Look at it this way: 1 link out of 100 would have a 1% influence, but 1 link out of 10 would have a 10% influence (very crude example).

Good insight, mack.

Crow187




msg:98495
 5:32 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Woah!
Spam fest in the adult biz!

Powdork




msg:98496
 5:32 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Has anyone else seen a drastic reduction in the number of back-links showing for a site, without actually losing any sites linking to it?

I have noticed this as well. It could mean that there was an across the board lowering of PR, meaning many sites that used to show up no longer do when doing a Google backlink check. Or it could mean they raised the bar for showing up as a backlink. Here is what I find strange. Typically, when you search for backlinks Google will say it found 100 results. As you check through the backlinks and 'include omitted results' you will find exactly half as many as Google said it returned. Now I am finding less than half. Also Google says it has 32 pages from one of my domains. It shows a link to the fourth page of results until I get to the third page, then the link is gone. I can only find 29 results. This wouldn't matter except that there are three pages which were crawled and are not listed and don't show up with searches. It seems there may be some issues with this index, at least at this point, from my point. Please, please make no attempts to fix it. I'm very happy.:)

dkoller




msg:98497
 5:32 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

rfgdxm1 - actually I can find at least 1 site that has more backlinks on ex...

webmasterworld - 9,060 to 11,300 =p

qball0213




msg:98498
 5:32 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well I've lost backlinks for the last four months now and this is the first update I've seen a big increase, from a couple good swaps.

coconutz




msg:98499
 5:33 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>Im noticing that back link checks are showing a lot of sites with less than pr4?

I've noticed this also over the last few updates. Usually the pages end up with at least a PR4 once the update has settled.

mack




msg:98500
 5:34 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

I am seeing harly any clustering within back link checking.

Has to be a good thing. Gone are the days of heavy cross linking.

annej




msg:98501
 5:35 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

I can't get 'ex-www' to work. I've tired all sorts of things and get nowhere.

Meanwhile nothing seems to be changed from here (the west coast). Yahoo backlinks are the usual, no pr or backlink changes on my sites on www. www2 or www3. I feel like I'm in a different universe.

kevinpate




msg:98502
 5:36 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

try [www-ex.google.com...] instead

ircgeeks




msg:98503
 5:37 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

annej
[216.239.33.100...]
OR
[www-ex.google.com...]

i think you had the ex before the www :)

Chicago




msg:98504
 5:37 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

anne,

[www-ex.google.com...]

- wow we are setting a posting record tonight.

dkoller




msg:98505
 5:38 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

dave - allinurl:www.domain.com

kevinpate




msg:98506
 5:38 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

davewray,

I'm no expert, lawdy, I apparently fed my index page to the fishies, but you want to use allinurl:mydomain.com just the same

davewray




msg:98507
 5:40 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Thanks dkoller and kevinpate :) Holy mother of pearl! I have a brand new site and all but 10 pages are indexed...woohoo!

grifter




msg:98508
 5:44 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

I know that things might be in fluctuation, but I'm also seeing some pages got indexed in a subdirectory that I blocked in robots.txt a couple of months ago.

mack




msg:98509
 5:46 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

grifter is is possible for google to index pages within such directories because it knows the page is there from the link that points to it. The bot wont however actualy crawl the page, just index it with anchor text as title.

Alphawolf




msg:98510
 5:48 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Seeing 661 on www-ex.google.com

grifter




msg:98511
 5:50 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

thanks mack! this is definitely more fun than bidding on iraqui dinars over at ebay.

doc




msg:98512
 5:51 am on Apr 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

Also seeing 661 on www-ex.google.com and additional links to my site, including a new link from ODP directory.

This 581 message thread spans 20 pages: < < 581 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved