| 10:13 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
textex, it is a very important question - the loss of this many backlinks is something that needs a good look at, it could reveal an important part of this update. Is something trapping out non-related links? Is something trapping out too many of the same anchor text links, or too many of the same link over a single site (link a link to a graphic designer on every page of a 1000 page site, example, not that it applies here or not).
Those are important questions that may indicate how things have changed. I asked about the 41k links to try to find out how they were obtained. 41k is ALOT of return links, and that number alone might be something that sets off flags somewhere.
All just thoughts, ya know?
| 10:14 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>2. The Google directory is out of date -- doesn't include sites that were included in the April update.
When I checked the directory on -sj yesterday, it was indeed a recent copy.
| 10:17 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|And, how is Google supposed to figure out if the link is from a related page or not? With billions of pages, adding that in the algo would be non-trivial. Also, such a filter would lead to a lot of false positives. For example, I link from my page about vodka to your page about Scotch whiskey. Both are obviously related. However, since your page is laden with the keywords "Scotch whisky", and mine "vodka", to an algo it wouldn't look like it. |
There is a trivial way to do it. Google could just look in dmoz or yahoo directory and see if you have links coming from other sites in the same category. If you aren't listed in those directories then your sites not important anyways.
| 10:19 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
jonrichd, RIGHT ON! That's exactly what I'm seeing! And that is what we should all be acknowledging and using to set our minds at ease..this is clearly not even close to over...the deepcrawl isn't even in...and we are viewing old stuff for whatever reason for now, but I have complete faith in google! All this attention to where we're at in -sj is a huge waste of time, but your observations are intelligent!
| 10:21 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
nope, the -sj directory is old. I'm not even in there...I think I got in there in March or April. But I'm not there now.
| 10:22 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Here is my thought on the update:
Google rolled out a new algo and did not include the latest deep crawl data.
The new update will take effect slowly across the datacenters and the latest crawl data will be added in at which point I think will see some big changes.
This is in reverse to what they normally do and maybe they did it just to change things, their working on something even bigger, etc. who knows.
In any event, it has been one thrill ride of an a event of which I bet we see many more of in the future as Google grows, gets better, tests things out, etc.
With MSN gunning for them now in earnest, It is in their best interest to stay on top of the game which is what I think their trying to do.
Will the average user notice that the latest deepcrawl data is not present for a while, I doubt it.
They are looking for input as to the amount of spam the latest algo got rid of and I think they have gotten quite a bit up to this point.
This has been one of the more interesting dances that I've followed.
Thanks to GoogleGuy for posting on this board trying to relieve the concerns of Webmasters. He doens' have to but I think Google really want our input since we are the ones designing the sites that will feed the relevant
| 10:23 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I even went back and checked raw logs and backed up copies of data for some pages that I knew had changed and which had had limited freshbot visits over the month.
Which brings up another interesting observation: several of the sites I monitor get freshbot visits, but never seem to appear in the "Fresh" results. Others, it's just like clockwork -- get the visit, and see the results the next day. Maybe these types of fresh visits where you don't see immediate results are starting to show their purpose.
| 10:27 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
www is showing the index page of one my sites as what was updated on 25-April (indicated by cache and updated title) and I'm at page-1 #8 that is where I have been after April update. Number of backlinks on www is also unchanged.
www-sj is showing my site at page-2 #4 (overall #14). No. backlinks is down to 0. The title and cache of my site is what it was till 17-April (did one change in title on 17-April by removing a '-'.
My page-1 #8 position on www-sj has been taken by a geocities.com hosted page that has 36 links and all of them coming from guestbooks without a single exception. So much for the new google algo and quality of SERPs. Even altavista has better algo. than this current google algo.
So, www-sj is an older version of index. Pages crawled after 17-April are not included in this index. So this appears to be a google downgrade rather than an update.
| 10:30 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
WebMistress, I stand corrected. -sj has even an older version of the directory that www.google.com.
| 10:37 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
1) it seems that any links I have received in the last 2 months are lost for the time being
2) the PR of my sites are about what they were 2 months ago ... could be related to number 1 above
anyone else notice something similar?
| 10:38 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
iThink, the update isn't done..as always, google's algo will shine! Just give it time.
| 10:39 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
hey roundabout, how do you check the PR on -sj?
| 10:41 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
roundabout, I'm with you. One site I work with had been PR0 due to lack of links up until April, when it received a link from a PR7 page. It shot up to a PR4.
The linked from page is in the sj index, and the link appears in the cache, but the receiving site is back to a PR0 for the moment.
I would say, based on all the comments, to give it time.
| 10:41 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Even more good news, Google's webmaster guidelines has not changed a bit:
| 10:43 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
WebMistress, put this line in your hosts file:
The Hosts file is located in winnt\system32\drivers\etc
on Win2K or windows\system32\drivers\etc in WinXP
| 10:43 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>>>iThink, the update isn't done..as always, google's algo will shine! Just give it time.
I hope so webmistress or else I would have to agree that the results displayed in -sj are definitley a downgrade, not an updrade in quailty listings (note - I am fine but the new links around me are, to say the least, pretty poor)
| 10:45 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>>2) the PR of my sites are about what they were 2 months >>>ago ... could be related to number 1 above
>>>anyone else notice something similar?
I have the same situation at more than one site/domain. No. of backlinks on www-sj is showing as what it was in February and I have been keeping a very close eye on my backlinks (like most of us here do) since last 3-4 months.
Its not only about backlinks. Title and description as they are appearing on www-sj are also old.
| 10:46 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
jonrichd, if I sticky you, will you check my URL in -sj for PR...I tried to add the line to my host file once before, and I couldn't find it where it was supposed to be
| 10:50 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I dont know about you lot but I just searched the www server and al my rankings have changed.
I wondered what was going on as I had more hits today than all of last week. It would seem the index has indeed been updated.
| 10:55 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I finally found the key to my piece of mind around update time....
Develop a product (in my case-software), develop a good network of affiliates, treat them well (so they stay loyal), and let THEM worry about the Google update ;-)
| 10:58 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've been noticing changes in www the past 2 days, I stayed #1 for my main kw phrase, but I've jumped between #2 and #5 for my second targeted kw phrase, and between #5 and #15 for my third targeted kw phrase...it's definitely not stable, and it beats the heck out of -sj
| 10:58 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>jonrichd, if I sticky you, will you check my URL in -sj for PR...I tried to add the line to my host file once before, and I couldn't find it where it was supposed to be
Sure. (Sorry, I had to run out for a minute)
| 10:59 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
RIGHT ON, WebFusion....I like your style!
| 11:02 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>"Develop a product (in my case-software), develop a good >>network of affiliates, treat them well (so they stay >>loyal), and let THEM worry about the Google update ;-) "
Or have a long term business plan that can survive with the expenses on PPC. I would like to add that.
| 11:10 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My SERPs are all over the board.
I'm WAY down in -sj for both of my most coveted terms. Looking fantastic in -fi for both (from #12 to #5 and #38 to #12). In regular www, I'm high for one kw, and way down for the other. None of my newer backlinks are showing in either db.
Can't wait to see how all of this plays out in the next couple weeks. Just want to say how great it is to have all of you here contributing comments and ideas.
| 11:19 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Anyone remember long ago (around 8 months ago and longer), when the results would be different and would fluxuate throughout the "dance" period? Lately, as the dance has started, we all could go to www2 and see our rankings, and that was pretty much the way it would turn out...we all got used to that.
I think the old saying may be true again, and that old saying went something like "try not to analyze the dance too much, it will ultimately change when it goes live, and may flux during the dance...if you try to analyze it while it's going on you'll only be running in circles".
Perhaps this is true again.
| 11:25 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have one site that has fallen 4 pages back on sj, and another one is doing awesome! #1 to #5 on a bunch of new keyword phrases... I don't know if I should bash this update or cheer it on! :)
| 11:26 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>"...but the sooner you diversify your traffic sources the >better off you'll be."
>yeah, it's a pretty smug answer and attitude not based in
>reality. Google and it's subsidiaries are 85% of almost >everybodies traffic.
I just did an excercise for one of the lists I am on and found that although Google and partners accounted for about 85% of search traffic, only about 9% of our total traffic was from search engines.
| 11:33 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
i putted this line my hosts file. And i check my sites. So i see just grey bar on all of my sites.. What does it mean?
im sure all of my sites are clean...
| 11:38 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
poorgod, when did your site go online?
| 11:41 pm on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"although Google and partners accounted for about 85% of search traffic, only about 9% of our total traffic was from search engines"
I agree - Search engines for most are about 'new client acquisition'
Most web sites are about serving both existing clients AND new client acquisition.
Around 6% of total site traffic from SE's is the 'corporate norm' for the sites I've analysed - and I'd agree on 85% of the SE traffic being 'Google index source data' (Google & partners).
It just depends on how your site is built, marketed, and what it does. If you think about it - on some sites, total site traffic should heavily reflect existing customers buying stuff. rather than new client activity & tyre kicking. Eg If I want to buy a book - I'd probably go to Amazon - rather than google; if I want to send flowers - I'll go to the online florist I've used several times before. Many people are creatures of habit - become their habit!
Bookmark, come back again and again etc.