| 8:35 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I had a site drop from PR6 to PR5, with a massive slump in recorded back links from around 850 to 350. Of course there wasn't actually a loss of linking pages at all.
This has coincided with a large drop in traffic. I was hoping that the recalibration wouln't make any difference.
| 8:53 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Bobby, same thing with some of my sites. Very many backlinks do not show up in index but in fact they haven't been deleted. SO my sites do not rank as well as the last month, but we had this phenomenon once again. I think in the Novemeber or December update Google also found only half of the backlinks to some sites. But this was solved with the next update, so no panic!
| 9:07 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|It has been widely reported that backlinks have dropped. The main "wisdom" on this is that many PR 4 & 5 sites have dropped to PR 3 and so are no longer being counted as backlinks. |
can it be that many backlinks are missing due to an incomprehensive crawl? One way to check backlinks, is via Alexa.com which uses Google, but shows all links irrespective of PR; however, it is limited to 1 per site (which is a qood way to see how many unique sites link to you)
| 9:29 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have seen my backlinks drop slightly this month, even though there should have been a further 38 that were in time for the last deepcrawl.
Having said that though I have moved up the SERPS for all major keywords due to a site redesign and a kind deepcrawl last month.
| 9:52 am on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
One thing i have noted is sites with mutiple internal links utilising multiple domains www.widget-widgeta.biz and www.widget-widgetb.biz all linking to the same basic site have jumped in the table for my category. Google still doesn't seem to check for hidden text in my opinion, or it appears not to on sites it lists in top 20.
On the category i work in DMOZ does have a major affect on the listing. I am sure of this because the category i am in dmoz doesn't have an editor and hasn't for 18 months. Only the sites that were listed prior to this with DMOZ are ranking consistenly in the top 10. even if there are better sites out there, on the same subject.DMOZ is a must in my opinion to site performance. -i'm signing up now to edit- ETHICALLY of course
I am a little frustrated that tactics that google bans are boosting unethical sites at the expense of those that have good content. But i am not moaning, one must just try harder and remain above such dishonerable methods.
I suspect it may be a cold day in hell before spamming is dead... Google needs to hire the people of China and get them to check every page individually :-) maybe then...
| 1:52 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My PR dropped from 6 to 5 and my backlinks went way down - Google isn't counting any internal links from my site. I looked at some competitors sites and found that their internal pages were still reported as backlinks. Any one else experience this? Can someone check my profile URL and see if they see why this might have happened? Thanks!
| 2:01 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Our backlinks went up to where they were around last December. Pagerank dropped from 6 to 5 (ouch).
Weird though. Some of the backlinks which are listed haven't existed for 2 months. Google must be getting sloppy.
| 2:49 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Weird though. Some of the backlinks which are listed haven't existed for 2 months. Google must be getting sloppy |
I thought I was getting de-ja-vu, because I was seeing a lot of things like old page titles, old back-links, etc. And I thought it was just my imagination; it couldn't be that old versions of my site were showing up again. I thought it was just that these pages had not been updated and were always listed the same on Google.
but now, I'm seeing posts like these all over this board, and I think Google did something wierd...not only are many new pages, links, titles, etc. not showing, but those from the Feb update or earlier are showing again. In other words, Google is displaying old versions of it's index in some places.
There appears to be something wrong with this update, which is slowly coming out.
| 3:00 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
this would also explain the drop in PR, reduced backlinks, jaded data, etc.
| 3:53 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Brina, something very weird is happening. The first time I checked I found two interior pages with the link: command. I then continued to the end and clicked on 'include omitted results'. No internal links were included in this set. I then tried to go back and find the pages with the two internal links and could not find it. I went back to your homepage and rechecked the backlinks with the toolbar. This time I found twelve internal pages in the results. When I got to the ninth page I used Google's previous button (not the browser back button) to go back through the pages and the internal linking pages were gone. Also, when you check the backlinks for your interior pages, all your internal pages show up. At first I thought maybe the toolbar was fluctuating back and forth from www to www2 but the interior pages have the other interior pages as backlinks regardless of whether it was on www or www2. And I sent you a sticky.
| 3:54 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree with you. Things are weird. Backlinks are still fluctuating, and, am I the only one to find it weird that all eight of the datacenters (I haven't checked the -?2's) aren't the same?
I also find it funny that the serps haven't changed (for me anyway) significantly at all - most people seem to agree that "the algo hasn't changed".
I think that the dance happened, but something went weird. I noticed that GG left around the time that -sj and -in went sour, and hasn't been back much since...
Am I out to lunch with these observations?
| 4:07 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Many people have mentioned that their SERPs remain the same. I've had a very different experience... One of our keywords has jumped dramatically in ranking, but SERPs for other keywords have seriously plunged.
To put things in perspective, many -- but not all -- of old established websites in my industry have also taken serious falls in their SERPs. I can't figure out why.
| 4:26 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Actually, my backlinks were UP on the last update.
Plus one of my sites has now recovered a PR5 from a PR4 now the dance has settled down. My PR6 site is still a PR5, but the SERPs are slightly better.
| 5:00 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
An increace in old back-links, even dead ones would explain why my 1996 site gained about 140 backlinks. After losing about 100 last month I'm convinced they are trying to do something about old sites. It's curious that they put all the backlinks back and more this time. I wonder if they did something that didn't work out and there will be another big adjustment on old site's backlinks again next update.
| 5:02 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I wonder if people are being credited for less backlinks due to the new expired domain filter? Maybe it's not counting some links for domains that haven't expired. I guess we'll have to wait until this filter is entirely rolled out (2 - 3 months according to googleguy).
| 5:52 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Regarding old sites ranking better than new sites:
I hope this is not the case, or else we are in store for a very boring WWW. This would make it even more difficult than it already is for new sites to break out. What would make more sense is for Google to give newer sites a temporary boost, just long enough so the new site gets some exposure, then remove the boost. Yahoo used to temporarily put new listings at the top of the category (do they still do this?), which was a major help.
It gets harder and harder each year for new people to jump into this game. Personally, I've got enough traffic and PR to redirect some to any new project I work on (all hobby type stuff so far, not commercial), but I can imagine people starting from scratch are having a hell of a time.
| 6:40 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I see a MAJOR drop for my bi-lingual portal. First, it dropped from PR5 to PR4. I could attribute it to the fact that it's a pretty new site (6 months old)...but it was upgraded from PR4 to PR5 last month due to DMOZ link. Second, there's a major screwup in Google regarding foreign languages. Foreign language pages of my portal (and it's about half of the site) that used to be cached just fine, now show garbage in Google's cache. Which explains previous commens about why foreign traffic stayed the same (they don't go through "upgraded" Google), and US traffic dropped.
I successfully lost 20% of my traffic in this "upgrade". :(
| 6:51 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've found that one of the sites went from 6 to 5 and the links on that page which goto other sites arn't showing up in those sites backlinks. Most all of the sites have no PR now. Some of the sites had crosslinking but not all of them.
So now all of these sites are showing up as PRNothing although they have links from DMOZ and other sites. However one site which had 3 links in a dmoz category (heh dont know why or how) but it shows up with PR.
Should I take this as the link from the main site was decredited as when I do backlink check it doesnt show links from any of the other sites on our servers which link to it. And if I get enough other sites to link to these other webpages then it will have PR again?
| 9:04 pm on Apr 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Holy schnikies I took a hit across the board, especially my new sites! I have a new themed site with tons of content and about 60 pages that got a PR0 with no spammy stuff in it. I emailed google and they said they'd investigate, the first time I've ever gotten a real person to respond to me. Here's hoping...
| 7:23 am on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
rrl, how often you been emailing google?
| 7:27 am on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This has been the best 2 months I have ever seen google have. Im not being sardonic about this either, progress is definatly being made.
| 8:49 am on Apr 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google has screwed the pooch on this danceathon
| 8:53 pm on Apr 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
have any of you observed that the rankings are shifting considerably since the dance?
I have been consistently climbing on a certain search and moving down on others.
Check: .com, Netscape, .co.uk, .jp
.com is showing the most recent and .jp the oldest
| This 113 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 113 ( 1 2 3  ) |