| 11:57 pm on May 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I dont think that this was a "new algo" or an update, but they are just testing some new spam filters.
The real update is likely to occur soon though perhaps between the 10th and 15th. Think about it the crawl was about that time last month, and sj or w2 are not displaying results from this date but slightly older. However not as old as the current index, hence seeing new sites indexed, but has anyone noticed that these new sites have no backward links.
| 12:02 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
But how do you explain the sites are not yet listed at all on sj? ( I mean some site that have been listed on www for over 3 months now) Could it mean that this site just does not pass the "new spam" algo? If this is true, then I have to say this new filter thingy still contain bugs... cause my site which is missing does not spam at all.
| 12:06 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I dont know, maybe it has something to do with the dramatic loss in backward links, which was perhaps a result of the new spam filters, reducing reciprocal links.
| 12:10 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Where this really does not make sense anymore...
Cause isn't it more fundermental that goole at the least should list all legit websites first then worry about back links? And what does back links have to do with whether a site is listed at all?
For example, when I search for mysite.com on sj, there are over 50 results, and every single one of them are back links to my site. But guess what? MY SITE IS NOT IN THE RESULT?! It sure smells like my site is filtered by some new algo for whatever reason...
| 12:14 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just noticed that freshie seems non existant today - 7 visits rather than the normal 1000 or so - is this just me?
| 12:15 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Reminds me of the time one of my computer science professors found a 20 dollar note in an exam paper. He wandered down the corridor chortling "not nearly enough! not nearly enough!".
| 12:17 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
One of my sites has been hit on sj. It was on page 1/2 for the main keyword in my field. Now it's at the bottom of page six. While most of the competetive sites are still up there - completely untouched.
So what's the difference between me and them? Not links. But keyword density - aka spam. I'm very new to this game and I've never looked at keyword density recomendations before. Now I have and I can see I had too many keywords on the page. Not ridiculously so, but definitely too high. I'm slowly getting rid of keywords now.
I don't know how typical this is. But maybe it will help someone somewhere.....
| 12:18 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
One possibility dididudu is that your site was down or unreachable at the moment Googlebot came around. This would be a natural reason why you could get dropped for a month. It is also possible that Google just lost your site in the shuffle. My inbound anchor text for my main site still is missing in action, pushing me down in the SERPs. In may be in your case Google lost your site entirely in the database. Google definitely has bugs. And, as computer programmers say, there is always one more bug.
| 12:21 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
hey rfgdxm1, they're not bugs - they are just undocumented features!
| 12:25 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>So what's the difference between me and them? Not links. But keyword density - aka spam. I'm very new to this game and I've never looked at keyword density recomendations before. Now I have and I can see I had too many keywords on the page. Not ridiculously so, but definitely too high. I'm slowly getting rid of keywords now.
My guess is it was something else. How high was your keyword density, and how many words are on the page? Doesn't look to me like too high of keyword density is a problem with Google. Unless perhaps you try something ludicrous. Like 30% density on a 1,000 word page. Except in impossible cases, rather than penalize it would make sense for Google to just not give any benefit beyond a certain keyword density. The reason being to avoid false hits. I've seen non-SEOed pages that had high keyword density because of the unusual nature of the page.
| 12:27 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't think it is a case of not showing up in -sj being due to being lost in the crawl...there are way too many sites disappearing for that to be the case. I also was completely gone from the -sj index but came back when they did something, but other pages of mine still haven't recovered. I think as things are added, done, whatever they are doing, those lost sites will reappear.
Also, I do not think we should be editing our pages yet based on these results. For the person who is now removing keywords, you may find you love where you're positioned once this update happens, and then you'll be scurrying to put back in your page all those keywords. Just something to think about.
| 12:30 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
First of all, thanks for the response rfgdxm1. Your comments does make sense to me. However, my site was sucessfully deep crawled and fresh crawled in April. The server did went down once but it more recently, like last week something, and only for a few hours.
The funny thing about my case is that I have two sites (same ip address) and both of them are lost in sj... does this mean google does some kinda sorting according to ip? And when one lost, others (among same IP, different URL) too?
| 12:34 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
When I look for my site on sj using one of my main search terms it does OK, held its position. I look at the size of the cached page - 35K.
When I look for the same site on fi using the same search terms I am buried. However, when I look at the size of the cached page - 39K.
Google has clearly indexed 2 different versions of the same page - I was doing updates around the time of the crawl.
I know what the differences are between the 35K and 39K - I keep my old submitted versions so all I needed to do was find what version my 35K page was.
From looking at the two different versions it is apparent that the search terms appear to be more focussed in the 35K page. Both indexes are showing b-links way down, but the number is equal in both indexes. So it looks like on page factors have had a major effect on the ranking.
I have now resubmitted my 35K page - hope it was in time.
Has anyone else had similar results?
| 12:45 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>The funny thing about my case is that I have two sites (same ip address) and both of them are lost in sj... does this mean google does some kinda sorting according to ip?
Makes me strongly suspect the server was down or unreachable. If so, you'll be out of the index this month.
| 12:53 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
A LOT of people are mentioning that their sites are not showing on -sj. From what googleguy has said in previous threads, I suspect that most of these sites will show up in the final update.
| 12:57 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
hollywood, that article makes so many interesting points and asserts that it is probably worth while for you to start a new thread.
rfgdxm1 and dididudu >>sucessfully deep crawled and fresh crawled in April---and not in -sj
..is not unusual-- it is the norm right now that last months newly indexed sites are not showing in -sj in the majority of the cases. Which is one of the leading sources of anxiety right now. It will correct itself. Dont worry.
| 12:58 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My site is #1 for its keyword on w2 and sj, but when I search for the actual url in sj or w2 it provides the results:
Sorry, no information is available for the URL
| 1:17 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Still reading it, very interesting, added new topic (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/12771.htm) for this, so all those here that are googled out, google boted out and just plain silly, (Smiling) go read the darn thang.
When the google update ends I will be higher towards the heavens, don't you just want to know which web-site is mine?! (hehehe)
| 1:22 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Oh wait this link is better, sorry for all the posts
Forbes Main Story - (with pretty pictures for us techies)http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0526/100.html
| 2:13 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
thanks rfgdxm1, bether2 and chicago for all your responses. I feel much better now. It's really just a phychological thingy...
For all you guys that doing well on sj, I am happy for you all, really. For those of you are lost from sj and worried and confused like me, may we all be saved by the time passes. After all, we are only a small group of people among all people on the net today, the last thing we want to do is to feel more superior by puttings others down.
| 2:30 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
hmm. we just caught a hit on a keyword in our stat manager that would have come from an sj ranking. the referral source in our stat manager gave us the url it came from and sure enough it was a www. search result hit on the keyphrase, with the sj/fi ranking displayed...
so either the dance has begun to www. on what we've seen from sj or fi, or google is just having some fun....
| 2:37 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think we all need relax and calm down until we see the results on www, or the "real" dance start for the month.
| 2:44 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
oh yeah, that is two hits now from www. index with the sj/fi ranking in place- in the last hour....
folks. we are betting the final dance has begun and that sj/fi will become the update for may...
| 2:52 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You are wrong. At this time. Maybe not in an hour or so...
It is either your competitors searching SJ and/or FI for your keywords or an ever-flux pulling your pages into www.
Or maybe it was me :)
| 2:54 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
:::I think we all need relax and calm down until we see the results on www
I've been seeing that occure off and on since Monday, and saw it occure a few times last Thursday, three days before the dance started.
| 2:55 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
don't think it's everflux. and it's not an sj/fi result. our stat manager pulls the exact url from the referral, and it wasn't a www-sj/fi/www2/www3 hostheader in the URL.
so, we'll remain... for the moment.....
we'll bet on the dance beginning, and that sj/fi will become the update.
| 2:57 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>It is either your competitors searching SJ and/or FI for your keywords or an ever-flux pulling your pages into www.
No. God, please noooooooooooooo. ;) Every now and then the load balancing causes a searcher to hit -sj or -fi. This same thing was happening a few days ago. The only datacenters I see the new index on is -fi and -sj. For whatever reason, Google so far hasn't propagated this index.
| 2:59 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
abcdef: may sj be with you and I am happy for you. But just remember, a buggy update with somewhat a fairly large group of web masters unsatisfied does not count, the algo will continue to change, make the profit while you can before you fall down like us. :)
| 2:59 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
interestingly, we've had this (good,new) ranking on this keyphrase in Yahoo since around 1st, but not the www.google index.... if anyone wants to interpret that. haha
| 3:02 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
the information was absolutely not put in to boast about rankings won, or rain on those who may have lost. we didn't say whether or not we come out better. it was neutral as to us. only and observation on a something we caught in our stat manager, and posted for the forum's information.
if you would like to re-read our post to see this true, feel free.
| 3:35 am on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm noticing acitivty on -sj....for the past two days I have been stable at #2 for a kw phrase, and just now I checked and I fell to #3...so it looks like activity is beginning there again to some degree....