albert
msg:70027 | 9:33 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Well said, Napoleon :)
|
mrbrad
msg:70028 | 9:34 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Napoleon ... very well said ... nice summarization. Worst case scenario we are out of serps for a month or two ... but that is what saving for a rainy day is all about.
|
Stefan
msg:70029 | 9:34 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Good summary, Napoleon. I have the feeling though that this could take until the next real update, weeks away, until things get sorted out.
|
djgreg
msg:70030 | 9:35 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
GG:
Another observation:
No sites with huge amounts of backlinks on top positions, but there is a site on Nr.1 position for keyword which returns 3,000,000 sites, which has only 17 backlinks from some forum sites. I can't see why this site should come up on Nr.1 . It is no Spam on the site or smth. like this so it is okay for me, but 17 backlinks? My site has 180 and is Nr.2 .
A little bit strange ... greg
|
GoogleGuy
msg:70031 | 9:36 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Well put, Napoleon. Very good Cliff's Notes post. :)
|
Chief
msg:70032 | 9:46 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Yes, thanks Napoleon :) I feel better at least for now ;) If my dropped sites get back in then I'll be one happy camper (as I still got some nice results so far for other sites).
|
djgreg
msg:70033 | 9:48 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Öh.
For a special keyword, which is definitly an english word, the sj algo returns only japanese websites?
curious...
|
nutsandbolts
msg:70034 | 9:49 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Nice round-up Napoleon. Google dropped the Dmoz category link for one of my sites during the past 2 updates but on SJ it's back again, so the old data with a sprinkling of fresh sounds correct.
|
JudgeJeffries
msg:70035 | 9:52 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Is there any evidence that the other centres are starting to replicate SJ yet
|
albert
msg:70036 | 9:54 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I would like to see tomorrow something like "update is underway" :) - because it's late over here. Feeling quite save with GoogleGuy's responses to Napoleon's and other posts, right now.
|
darkroom
msg:70037 | 9:59 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
i know sites that were penalised a couple months are back in the results at sj...i hope google will take care of that.
|
coconutz
msg:70038 | 10:00 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Has anyone else checked [directory-sj.google.com...] We moved up significantly. :)
|
Jane_Doe
msg:70039 | 10:01 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Nice post, Napoleon. Thanks for the recap.
|
djgreg
msg:70040 | 10:01 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
coconutz how can you move up in a directory?
|
coconutz
msg:70041 | 10:07 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>>coconutz how can you move up in a directory? Web Pages Ordered by PageRank [google.com] "Unlike other directories that can only list web pages alphabetically regardless of how good they are, the web pages in the Google directory are ordered according to Google's patented PageRank™ technology." [edited by: coconutz at 10:08 pm (utc) on May 5, 2003]
|
beachlover
msg:70042 | 10:08 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Coconutz, that directory is an old DMOZ-dump. As the whole DB that was uses on www-sj to tweak some new filters is an old one.
|
Asandir
msg:70043 | 10:08 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Thank you Napoleon, that summary made me feel a whole heap better. I wasn't quite sure about the sj results, as I couldn't really see any comments about it definitely being an older index. I was quite worried as four of my sites dropped from that sj index completly, and I've been working damn hard to make good reliable SE sites, and build links. About two months they've been in the index, and I got a little concerned when they weren't there. Time to go do some real work... rather than reading 600 posts on this... :)
|
carlr
msg:70044 | 10:10 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Just a though for the people here who see their penalized site reappearing in SJ... i have one like this - I asked for a reinclusion request a couple of weeks ago... i just hope it won't go away... again! - Being penalized "twice" would be very hard to justify to clients 8-)
|
coconutz
msg:70045 | 10:11 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>>that directory is an old DMOZ-dump Does not appear to be an old dump, prior to last month we weren't listed in the current category, and we've moved up from there. maybe someone else can confirm either way?
|
djgreg
msg:70046 | 10:11 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
coconutz
that means that your PR has risen or what?
|
korkus2000
msg:70047 | 10:13 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Yes it is an old DMOZ dump.
|
coconutz
msg:70048 | 10:15 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
now I am depressed :(
|
tgeye
msg:70049 | 10:15 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Rookie here. I looked in the Glossary but did not find it. What is SJ?
|
Jane_Doe
msg:70050 | 10:20 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
It looks like an old dump to me. A site of mine that had a domain name change last year and had been updated in the DMOZ and the Google directory is back to the old domain in those directories in the sj index.
|
GoogleGuy
msg:70051 | 10:23 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I think it is an older DMOZ dump.
|
jever
msg:70052 | 10:24 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
tgeye:
as Bradley posted in the first part of this thread: "its one of Google's datacenters located in San Jose"
|
coconutz
msg:70053 | 10:27 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>>I think it is an older DMOZ dump. thanks.
|
twilight47
msg:70054 | 10:32 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
515 +
349 +
27 =
891 very anxious posts. Maybe this should be more of a drinking game. Anytime someone says "my site dropped out" Take a drink
Anytime someone says "All the SERPS are spammers" Take a drink. Anytime someone says "I was ranked #347 and now I'm #1"
Take a drink. And whenever Googleguy says "Relax and and have a drink" Take 2 drinks. ...wow... 10 posts and I'm already wasted.
|
rfgdxm1
msg:70055 | 10:32 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0) |
As an ODP editor, knowing specific changes I have made over the last few months, -sj indeed is an outdated version of the ODP directory.
|
| This 189 message thread spans 7 pages: 189 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 ) > > |
|
|
