homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.7.136
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 263 message thread spans 9 pages: 263 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >     
SERIOUS Google update algo analysis thread (Dominic)
NO whining or cheering about how your site is doing in this one.
rfgdxm1




msg:56126
 6:21 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

This is a continuation of an idea for a thread that I started a few updates back. The topicality is listed below, and the expectation is that this thread will be restricted to just that. In the case of this Dominic update, GG has stated that other aspects of the update will be rolled out as the update develops. Thus, for this update it is possible that the observations made early on will not hold true by the end of the update. This is OK, because if patterns like this hold true for later updates, members here can use the search feature to find this thread and see how past updates developed.

----

I'm starting this thread because another member suggested such would be a good idea because the main Google update thread is cluttered with posts like "OMG, I've been dropped in the new index!" and "Yippee, I'm now #1 on a key SERP". This thread is ONLY for serious, generic discussion of changes that you are observing with the new algo in this update. As in things like "Looks to me like PR is less important this month, and anchor text of inbound links counts more.", etc. How your site is doing has no relevance here unless you can explain why you think so in terms of a general algo update.

 

eraldemukian




msg:56127
 6:32 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

to me it looks as if links from your own site are not valued anymore.
I deduct that from the fact that the link:site counter does only value links from other sites. (for the very limited sampling that I do)
I think (and said so before) that this is a good thing. Bloated sites just for the sake of having more links pointing to you are spamish. And they undermine the 'one link, one vote' concept that contributed to the fact that google returns good search results.

mrguy




msg:56128
 6:36 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

This is a good thread, but I think it may be a little premature.

While it looks like anchor text and links still play a role,
based on what I'm seeing, how does one go about getting links with anchor text that will stick?

I would almost accept the theory that your own links don't count, except I'm seeing some of them.

Many links, not just mine have been depleted worse than a depleted uranium shell casing!

I think this is going to be a tough algo to figure out and that actually is a good thing!

shaadi




msg:56129
 6:39 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

agree with eraldemukian,

don't see any of my inbound links as backlinks :( also my DMOZ and Yahoo directory listings are missing in the backlinks..anyone?

rfgdxm1




msg:56130
 6:43 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Anchor text definitely is still very important. One thing I am wondering is if PR has been fully factored in yet? If not, this explains some SERPs I watch. Also, it would explain the "spamminess" many are whining about. Spam sites tend to lower PR than established sites. Without PR being fully factored in, spam sites will rise to the top.

AthlonInside




msg:56131
 6:44 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I don't think this is what crawled by the deepbot last month! Did they ignore last crawl and used an old database instead?

Many old banned site has been appearing. They might have release their penalty or they are using the old index. Dead fish came alive, they must be very happy with google.

Or should I say, pages in the index are NEW, but new links in these NEW pages is not used to count the PRs. Those site apearing in the backlinks are site that have link to you 2 months ago. All my new links added last 2 month is not appearing in the backlinks, but they do appear in the cache page of my partner site.

[edited by: AthlonInside at 6:48 am (utc) on May 6, 2003]

McMohan




msg:56132
 6:46 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

"This is a good thread, but I think it may be a little premature"

Guess you are right mrguy.

My opinion is that the worry over discounted importance to back links is unfounded. It may be just that the sj server doesn't have as many sites in its index that naturally the no. of back links shown are less. To substantiate this, a site of mine listed in Google over last 4 months isn't there in sj server. There might many more such sites not there in sj server that we see less no. of back links.
Hey this opinion is purely subjective!

Mc

[edited by: McMohan at 6:49 am (utc) on May 6, 2003]

Nick_W




msg:56133
 6:48 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>I don't think this is what crawled by the deepbot last month!

That's the first thing that might actually make sense to me ;)

Does anyone else share this view? - Personally I have several hundred pages crawled that are just 'not there' across 2 sites crawled in the last 'deep'.

Are they still 'factoring in' or are we seeing something else?

Nick

mrguy




msg:56134
 6:48 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I have my system set to show the PR of the update.

I found that thread in here a while ago and changed it and never changed it back.

For my site, and other sites in my area I'm not seeing any PR change.

So, it either hasn't been factored in yet, or the sites I'm looking at just haven't changed in PR which I find hard to believe since some of them dropped to less than 10 links.

I bet it has not been factored in yet and probably won't until we see the update move across the other datacenters. Right now, it seems to bouncing between www, www2, www3, and SJ.

The way this one rolled out is really different and I think we may see some more changes as it goes on.

rfgdxm1




msg:56135
 6:51 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

>don't see any of my inbound links as backlinks :( also my DMOZ and Yahoo directory listings are missing in the backlinks..anyone?

I see my internal backlinks, along with my DMOZ and Google directory listing. My Yahoo listing is gone as expected, as they redid the cats and it is now in a <PR4 cat.

mil2k




msg:56136
 6:55 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think the quality of this thread is in serious jeopardy , not because members are doing something but because as we all know the update is not complete. Maybe we need to start this thread when the update is complete. Right now there is confusion everywhere.

JonB




msg:56137
 6:56 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

i think yahoo hasnt got so much weight anymore.i checked for one popular term and my site is still there but yahoo category whcih was first in www is now nowhere to be found in www2.

extreme




msg:56138
 6:57 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

This is not a recent crawl.

It seems they are much more selective in what links they count, the changes in allinanchor: are huge.

Unfortunately the way they did it seems totally insane. They have more or less given away the top results to those using several one page domains which are crosslinked.

Wander through the top results for allinanchor:somelargekeywod and check the links of a few top sites, it's basically all one page sites.

Someone suggested that they no longer counted links from subpages, that might be it. But i think its more likely that they no longer count similar links. Or only count them once.
So if you have a template you use for all subpages which links to something those pages will only be counted once, or perhaps not at all.

I think its a mistake to believe all pages in link: as giving PR to the things they link to, I believe GG actually confirmed this is not the case in some Guestbook discussion.

I still get links from my own site in link: it seems they might have raised the PR requirement for a site to show up in link: though.

cindysunc




msg:56139
 7:00 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

You should pause this thread until the new database has settled into the main. You can't have a "SERIOUS Google update algo analysis thread (Dominic)" until its finished updating.

rfgdxm1




msg:56140
 7:00 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

>I found that thread in here a while ago and changed it and never changed it back.

If you did it through your hosts file, you are pointing to the IP of -sj, 216.239.35.100, right?

rfgdxm1




msg:56141
 7:04 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

>I still get links from my own site in link: it seems they might have raised the PR requirement for a site to show up in link: though.

This would tend to explain, at least partly, why people are seeing lower backlinks in general. How else do you explain the huge Yahoo backlink drop otherwise? Either that, or Google is also now not showing backlinks for reasons other than <PR4.

why2kit




msg:56142
 7:16 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Maybe as Yahoo has bought Inktomi and will soon drop google the boys at google don't give a toss about Yahoo?

coconutz




msg:56143
 7:20 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>it seems they might have raised the PR requirement for a site to show up in link: though.

I'm still seeing a PR2 and a PR3 backlink. Both of these links were listed last month as well. What I'm not seeing are the new links.

tigger




msg:56144
 7:21 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

>PR2 and a PR3 backlink

I've not seen those for ages

mat_bastian




msg:56145
 7:28 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm seeing alot of low PR backlinks popping up, but seemed to have lost a few higher PR links according to google. The links are still there on the sites though.

annej




msg:56146
 7:32 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Internal backlinks are showing on sj for me. Yet I've lost over half my former backlinks. It seems like about the same proportion of internal to external as before, just a lot less.

The cache & title are definately at least 2 weeks old. It can't be showing the last crawl.

I think it will be a while before we can tell much.

AthlonInside




msg:56147
 7:42 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Oberservation:

If you have a long DMOZ description that didn't fit in Google, now it might fit because they include a few more words in the DMOZ description.

Powdork




msg:56148
 7:42 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

This would tend to explain, at least partly, why people are seeing lower backlinks in general. How else do you explain the huge Yahoo backlink drop otherwise? Either that, or Google is also now not showing backlinks for reasons other than <PR4.

[webmasterworld.com...]
message #110
Yahoo has actually gained backlinks (2 X 384,000=768,000)

albert




msg:56149
 7:42 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I see less internal backlinks, but still some of them. No idea why some of them are still there, and others disappeared. - Anybody?

And I see less external backlinks. This might be due to some old index. - Those external backlinks are no guestbook stuff. They're all 'good' backlinks, from sites with nameable PR.

Powdork




msg:56150
 7:44 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'll say it again
ALL 3 BILLION PLUS PAGES INDEXED BY GOOGLE HAVE LOST HALF THEIR BACKLINKS WITHOUT ACTUALLY LOSING EVEN ONE.
This is apart from the links which are actually missing, which is still alot.

jon80




msg:56151
 7:46 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Surely any talk of loss/gain/PR of backlinks is premature as GoogleGuy has said that links are yet to be factored in.
I see none of the backlinks I acquired in the last couple of months showing but I'm not too worried about it.

The same goes for spam filters - yet to be factored in.

I imagine this could take a week or more.

rfgdxm1




msg:56152
 7:47 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

You have a point Powdork. Google may just be more exact than "about" now.

steveb




msg:56153
 7:49 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Crazy thread of the year.

Analysis of something that hasn't happened yet!

LOL.

mat_bastian




msg:56154
 7:54 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

real time analysis. A veritable play by play of the new algo.

Fans of pro american football often have a mock draft prior to the actual draft. It gives the prognostacators a chance to flex their muscles and the casual fan to learn from the self proclaimed experts. While they rarely hold up to the reality of a real draft, the education for the casual fan is invaluable for gaining a real insite into the hows and whys of the draft.

why2kit




msg:56155
 7:54 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

steveb, I have to disagree - "stuff" is happening, and the folks that impart their ideas even with a small amount of info coming thru from the changes is of value to all of us

This 263 message thread spans 9 pages: 263 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >
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.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved