homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.66.204
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 237 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 237 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 > >     
Well there ever be another monthly update?
Seattle_SEM




msg:206579
 6:45 pm on Jun 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is it going to be days, weeks, or months, before the next update? At this point, I'm completely exasperated. I've had to explain the current situation ten different times, to my clients, and I don't even have enough information to explain the situation with a modicum of confidence.

Regardless of what everyone else says, I know that this is affecting the quality of the results which Google is providing to it's users - how could it not, the last deepcrawl results are from months ago. And what percentage of the results are from the deep crawler? 80%? 90%?

Try searching for Today is April 6th 2003 [google.com], this stuff hasn't been updated in months. How could this not affect the quality of user results?

All the work that I've done in the past two months is worthless, right now, and it hurts. I'm just asking for information, so I don't continue to look like a fool.

 

Patrick Taylor




msg:206699
 10:38 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors: "Claiming that Google isn't working is like complaining that the air-traffic control system isn't working because planes are backed up at JFK. That complaint may be valid for people who are stuck at JFK..."

I've been stuck at JFK for at least 2 months and it's not working.

digitalghost




msg:206700
 10:49 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>But this is a *Google* forum that exists to discuss *Google News*.

Exactly, and you don't have any news. What exactly is newsworthy that you feel like sharing? Google is broken? Some webmasters are upset? Some people feel that there is more spam in the index? Sorry, already been covered. What exactly do you feel everyone needs to know?

Expatiate, expound, exclaim. I'm waiting with bated breath for that revelation that will turn this discussion into anything but a bitch session.

Kirby




msg:206701
 11:03 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

digitalhost,

The first post sought an answer to give his clients. That spawned a debate where some felt there was no need for an answer for Seattle_SEM because in their opinion, no problem exists.

The fact that there is no news is the point!

steveb




msg:206702
 11:22 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Maybe the news of this thread is that some folks want to bitch about people discussing what is going on with Google.

Perhaps instead of hijacking threads, some folks could read and learn the *news* that Google has had a data failure of huge proportions... and it occurred twice. "Broken" is the simple term people use to describe this. While this may not be news to anyone paying attention, it seems it *is* news to thread hijackers who simply make what can only be described as clueless posts saying nothing is broken because their spam is doing fine.

So what can people do since it is broken? That is a major question, despite the trivial sidetracking that takes place. In the case of this thread, the original poster is in the black hole of the "broken" phenomenon where new sites can't even get the fresh rankings that older sites can *easily* get.

There are many issues relating to Google's data failure that are neither bitching nor unimportant. Should people sign guestbooks and join freeforall link sites because they are valued so highly? Will Google ever be able to filter such spam again? What *can* sites built in 2003 do to appear consistently in Fresh results? What can older sites do to benefit from their fresh pages being more highly valued than their older pages? Etc...

But to have discussion on any of these requires the nattering nabobs to spend five seconds looking at something besides their own sites and understanding that "broken" is undeniable, objective reality. Or of course they could just be quiet when they have nothing positive to contribute.

mrose




msg:206703
 11:28 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

digitalghost,

Some food for thought:

My pages have been dropped from #1/#2 positions to #4/#6 postions in the regulat SERPs.

At the same time, the CTR for my AdWords campaign has risen from avearage 3,2% to 5,1%.

Same targeted keywords - less free traffic from regular SERPs - more paid traffic from AdWords - Overall traffic from Google is unchanged.

My guess? Google is effectively converting free traffic into paid traffic - at least for me!

mfishy




msg:206704
 11:36 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

digitalghost,

And your post is meaningful because...Seriously, I'm trying to find all the great news you have posted.

Geesh, that was one of the weakest posts I have ever seen here. I believe Brett Tabke posted a thread called "ego surfing". Is that News, or is he breaking Your rules?

You need to relax a bit and gain some perspective. More than the bithching is the pompous "senior" memebers ruining this forum.

Kirby




msg:206705
 11:42 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

OK, back to the topic...

What are you people telling their clients when asked?

nell




msg:206706
 11:44 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

>pompous "senior" memebers ruining this forum.

Become a supporter and visit the other side of the fence. You'll need some thick hide over there. That's where the real junkyard dogs live.

[webmasterworld.com...]

Chris_R




msg:206707
 11:45 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

that "broken" is undeniable, objective reality.

Ok - I am back up from a deep sleep :)

1) I wasn't trying to hijack this thread - it was about google results being out of date.

2) The poster gave an example - my counter example showed
205 results for a new date of june 2nd versus the 37 results of april 6th.

3) Since we have been posting this thread - google has updated once again and now gives 333 results for june 6th, 2003.

4) This is the only OBJECTIVE result posted so far - and beats the example by 9 to 1. How more objective can some be?

5) WEBMASTERS saying google is broken doesn't make it so.

But to have discussion on any of these requires the nattering nabobs to spend five seconds looking at something besides their own sites

I have posted five specific examples to show google is not broken. None of these are sites I compete with. I left out the queries for two of them, but they are phrases I use to test google over time. They are "exit" and "click here". I use these to test anchor text. Neither one shows a significant difference from late last year.

There are 7550 web pages on [sammy sosa corked bat]

[google.com...]

What else can I do to provide object evidence that SEARCHERS can find what they want - even with new pages?

The sky is not falling. Google is not much different than it was this time last year. They were 3-7 weeks old then with no fresh data and people didn't complain.

They still find fresh sites - in the neighborhood of 7550 for the newest big news story that can easily be searched for.

Sammy Sosa Corked Bat Results:

Google: 7550
AllTheWeb: 47
MSN: 68
Teoma: 7
AltaVista: 47

The google is "obviously broken", "stale", "broken".... from a users perspective does not hold up to any objective analysis. A webmasters specific pages being absent does not make it any more than 2 weeks out of date from what we would have seen last year. Is this great - no. Can the user tell? I haven't seen anything to suggest this.

nell




msg:206708
 11:55 pm on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

I tried verifying your "Sammy Sosa Cork Bat" search and came up with nothing but XXX porno site results.

Did I misspell something?

(edited)Yes, it was the word "cork" I misspelled.

[edited by: nell at 12:05 am (utc) on June 8, 2003]

Chris_R




msg:206709
 12:02 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hmmm, maybe google is broken :)

I tried all nine data centers that I know of and got the same/similar results:

[google.com...]

None of the top ten were as you described - all appeared to be on topic.

<edit> Oh you used cork instead of corked I still get relevant results 17,200 with no adult in the top 10 that I can see </edit>

[google.com...]

[edited by: Chris_R at 12:04 am (utc) on June 8, 2003]

JasonHamilton




msg:206710
 12:03 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Results 1 - 10 of about 7,530. Search took 0.14 seconds

^- I visited the first 5 pages, all on topic, no xxx porn. You sure you did the search in google? :)

digitalghost




msg:206711
 12:04 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Fishy, what I'm trying to get across here is that people can be reactive or proactive. There is nothing that can be done with Google right now. Unless of course you work for Google.

There is a definite undercurrent of uncertainty because right now no one knows what to expect next. If Google is broken and never recovers there is nothing anyone outside Google can do about that but move on.

I track results for many different sites. Some of the new sites are waiting to be represented in the new index. Most of the established sites seem to be doing just fine with the exception of a couple that lost position for the title phrase on their index page. The only common thread tying sites together that lost position on the index phrase is that they have large numbers of inbounds that use anchor text that is an exact match for the title and header tags.

Some site owners have noticed that price changes made after February hasn't been reflected in the latest index. I've already mentioned an informal observation regarding a few people that navigate using the searchbox noticing that some of the sites they frequent no longer show up on page one. Upon examining those sites I noticed that those pages had lots of inbound anchors with anchor text that exactly matched the index page.

There is no public outcry about Google being broken in the workaday world because for most people Google seems to be working just fine. People are still finding Viagra and pictures of Britney Spears. Joe Surfer doesn't examine Google with a microscope. Joe Surfer doesn't perform hundred of queries and compare them to past queries.

The news seems to be that Google has done something different. No one here can do anything but speculate as to the cause. For the SEOs that track hundreds of sites and have been doing this for years this is nothing but a blip on the scope. Unless it turns into an iceberg big enough to sink the Titanic Google I think people would be better served to note the blip and adjust their course. No drastic changes, no knee-jerk reactions.

And to answer your question, yes, I thought the post about ego-surfing was totally pointless and it certainly wasn't news. It should have been in Foo.

I don't expect every post every one makes to be a gem, I certainly can't maintain that standard. What I do expect is a bit more than, "Google is broken". "No it isn't". "I have proof that it is". "I have proof that it isn't" arguments.

If the masses deem that Google is broken, they'll stop using it, Black Monday is proof that people will stop using an engine they find to be inferior.

steveb




msg:206712
 12:10 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Chris_R, please. Don't be blind about it. Google adding more new pages is obviously not what is being talked about here, or frankly anywhere else. Google adds pages all the time. The dual points are:
It has no mechanism to rank them correctly.
It *drastically* favors established sites in the adding of new pages. If I added a Sammy Sosa page, it would stay in the index basically permanently. If one of those 2003 sites added a Sosa page, it would take longer to be crawled, and it would drop out.

Just because you make posts saying the earth is flat doesn't make it so and frankly just wastes everybody's time.

If Google isn't broken then...

1) Why has Google chosen NOT to filter out uk.co domains after months of the TLD not existing? Since they aren't broken, and since Allthe Web and teoma can do it, why has Google CHOSEN not to?

2) Why did Google choose to miss a very large percentage of backlinks in the March deepcrawl? Why did they show these incomplete backlinks for three weeks? Why did they CHOSE to deepcrawl in April but never use that data? Why did they CHOSE to revert back to February data instead of March? Does Chris_R think Google forgot the March data was there?

Now please, stop being silly. It's broken. There are a lot of issues that can be discussed about that, and yes some of those issues are just whining, but ludicrous whining about the earth being flat is no help at all.

[edited by: steveb at 12:20 am (utc) on June 8, 2003]

steveb




msg:206713
 12:19 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

"There is nothing that can be done with Google right now."

Again, this is simply ludicrous. There is a LOT that can be done. For established sites, MAKE NEW PAGES. This is without a doubt a SEO tactic right now. And I don't mean the normal "add good content" new pages. I mean *any* crappy quality page that has the keywords in the title. Link to these from any page that freshbot likes even a little. Then link to your pages that have actual good content on the topic from the garbage page. That's it. Idiotic SEO at its dopiest. That is what Google values now. A couple weeks from now remove all the crap.

For webmasters in the 2003 black hole, also make new pages, but do them serial-ly. If you have a page on Ethiopian pottery called pottery1, turn that page into a glorified link to pottery2 and put the content there. Three days later make pottery3 and do this again. Three days later move it all back to pottery1. if you have no page that freshbot hits every couple days, pay to be on one. (Just one is needed.) Keep rotating that content on the pottery pages (never duplicate). This appears to be a (pure seo crap) way to get pages to stay in the index longer. It won't take you out of the black hole completely, but it will help.

There is a ton to be done about Google right now, both on sites and in a political way to encourage Google to return to focus resources on quality instead of freshness.

mfishy




msg:206714
 12:25 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Chris_R,

What does the fact, which we all know, that fresh pages are being added, have to do with anything?

The problem is that fully indexed pages are being RANKED based on February backlink data. Not to mention that some pages from February aren't even in the index cause fresh doesn't pick them up.

Digital,

I see your point and that was a fair post.

digitalghost




msg:206715
 12:27 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>What are you people telling their clients when asked?

I had two clients call and ask why some pages were showing old prices. I read to them exactly what GoogleGuy had to say about Dominic. They asked if the next index would fix it. I replied that I didn't know.

The best course of action is to be honest with your clients. If they ask for an opinion make sure they know they are getting your opinion and not a prediction or a statement of fact.

I tell many of my clients to read WebmasterWorld so that they can stay current. They don't expect nor do they wish to pay for 24/7 consultancy.

I certainly didn't tell them that Google is broken because I think that at best that is speculation and at worst a prevarication. I didn't recommend any changes to the current strategy and stressed that now is a great time to start working on more content. So far, so good.

mfishy




msg:206716
 12:27 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

<<And I don't mean the normal "add good content" new pages. I mean *any* crappy quality page that has the keywords in the title. Link to these from any page that freshbot likes even a little. Then link to your pages that have actual good content on the topic from the garbage page. That's it. Idiotic SEO at its dopiest. That is what Google values now. A couple weeks from now remove all the crap. >>

Freshbot spam is definitely the flavor of the month since Google will rank just about anything well if you add pages with the right title.

Chris_R




msg:206717
 12:32 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google adding more new pages is obviously not what is being talked about here, or frankly anywhere else.

Dude, did you read the first post - the poster was USING APRIL 6th as an example to prove his theory that google had old and not new pages in it. I showed this was wrong by 9 to 1 - what else can I do?

Why has Google chosen NOT to filter out uk.com domains after months of the TLD not existing? Since they aren't broken, and since Allthe Web and teoma can do it, why has Google CHOSEN not to?

Please provide one query where this provides a problem to a user searching for something. I don't do anything with uk sites and fail to see how this would be a problem for a user searching for information.

To answer your question - I have no idea - nor do I see how it is relevant to any user because they aren't FILTERING certain sites. Maybe I am missing something - I thought most uk domains were co.uk? I see a bunch of uk.com subdomains that have info on various topics - why should they be filtered out?

Why did Google choose to miss a very large percentage of backlinks in the March deepcrawl? Why did they show these incomplete backlinks for three weeks? Why did they CHOSE to deepcrawl in April but never use that data? Why did they CHOSE to revert back to February data instead of March? Does Chris_R think Google forgot the March data was there?

WHAT does this have to do with anything about the user? Users don't care about backlinks - because backlinks from march are missing IN YOUR OPINION how does this matter to the user. Big deal if they are using PR and link text from the past - these don't change much. Again - I would like to see ONE query where this hurts the user.

Also, google has never promised or shown all backlinks - you have no idea if the ones they are showing are what count.

Every single piece of evidence presented by those that think google is broken is stuff like backlinks and deep crawl dates. Just because some webmaster thinks he should get higher PR for his site because he now has more backlinks - doesn't mean google is broken from a users perspective.

I never claimed google was working the way it used to for webmasters. Google HAS NEVER SHOWN BACKLINKS properly. This doesn't mean they are broken for the user.

I AM STILL WAITING FOR ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE FROM A USERS PERSPECTIVE.

The stop being silly comments - when I am the only one here with a couple exceptions providing real examples from a USERS perspective - doesn't make much sense.

kevinpate




msg:206718
 12:39 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

From a Y! news blurb:
The world-famous treasures of Nimrud, unaccounted for since Baghdad fell two months ago, have been located in good condition in the country's Central Bank in a secret vault-inside-a-vault submerged in sewage water, U.S. occupation authorities said Saturday.

And now, the rest of the story ....
The news of the recovery of the Iraqi treasures was tempered however by the more somber report that this vault within the vault down in the sewage did not contain any new evidence of the long sought after WMB ... wascally missing backlinks.

Chris_R




msg:206719
 12:44 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

What does the fact, which we all know, that fresh pages are being added, have to do with anything?

The problem is that fully indexed pages are being RANKED based on February backlink data. Not to mention that some pages from February aren't even in the index cause fresh doesn't pick them up.

Ok - I will say explain this one last time.

The original poster said:

Regardless of what everyone else says, I know that this is affecting the quality of the results which Google is providing to it's users - how could it not, the last deepcrawl results are from months ago. And what percentage of the results are from the deep crawler? 80%? 90%?

Try searching for Today is April 6th 2003, this stuff hasn't been updated in months. How could this not affect the quality of user results?

1) I showed the April 6th thing was innacurate as google has 9 times as many pages with june 6th as april 6th.

2) He was using this as proof that it "affect[ed] the quality of the user results"

3) He reiterated this point from the previous paragraph where he claimed "Regardless of what everyone else says, I know that this is affecting the quality of the results which Google is providing to it's users".

The problem is that fully indexed pages are being RANKED based on February backlink data. Not to mention that some pages from February aren't even in the index cause fresh doesn't pick them up.

This is your problem - not the users. People still find what they are looking for with ranking data that is a couple months old. No one knows how google is ranking this - certainly not those in this thread - as some are claiming february, march, and april as various months that are being used.

People are making assumptions - that even if true don't change the quality of googles results.

steveb




msg:206720
 12:47 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

"Please provide one query where this provides a problem to a user searching for something."

Before "ploinking" you, since it appears you are just trolling, any query that serves up any uk.co query is anti-user. The TLD does not exist, get it?

What kind of nonsense is it for you now to say that 404 pages are okay to be in the results because users can just click off them? Please stop. There are thousands of these uk.co results out there, please stop shouting you want to see one. Your head is in the sand. You can't see anything.

1milehgh80210




msg:206721
 12:47 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

View from a -relative- novice...
If those 'in the know' on this forum can't even agree if google is broken, or offering subpar results, then joe surfer will never notice anything awry.
Google can keep pushing commerical searchers to the right side of the page & laugh all the way to the bank.
thats fine with me :)

Chris_R




msg:206722
 12:56 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Before "ploinking" you, since it appears you are just trolling, any query that serves up any uk.co query is anti-user. The TLD does not exist, get it?

Ok, very funny - now you are changing your posts - your POST SAID uk.com - which is what I quoted in my post. I had no idea you were talking about uk.co.

Come back to the board when you are willing to play like an adult. Even if your post change was accidental - you could clearly see that I was reading your old post.

uk.co domains apparently existed until sometime early this year. I don't see that many - and they should and will eventually be dropped when google crawls them again.

They are from columbia - and no different than any othe columbian domain name. It is well known that google caches dns stuff and if the sites were still up using this cached data - google could and would crawl them.

I have never seen one of these before I looked for them. I am sure they are causing all sorts of problems for users around the world.

Chris_R




msg:206723
 1:01 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Since they aren't broken, and since Allthe Web and teoma can do it, why has Google CHOSEN not to?

One more thing - since you mentioned - I bothered to check and you are wrong:

[s.teoma.com...]

Teoma shows three results in the top 10

[alltheweb.com...]

AllTheWeb shows 7 results out of the top 7

[google.com...]

Google shows two results in the top 10 (one of which it wasn't able to crawl and shows no snippet for).

Please explain again how ATW and Teoma are filtering these and google isn't?

pmac




msg:206724
 1:03 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yawn.

This post has gone so far off topic from the original post and is making me sleepy.

steveb




msg:206725
 1:22 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

teoma still has a lot, I hadn't checked that. All the web shows 26, which is a ton better, if not perfect. The fact remains though that serving up 404 pages that can't possibly exist because they happened to exist February 15th is a systematically anti-user thing. But again this is spinning off into the ether. Can somebody click "lock"...

europeforvisitors




msg:206726
 1:58 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors, I have to ask... what is "shinola"?

It's a brand of shoe polish that's no longer being made.

europeforvisitors




msg:206727
 2:30 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

The problem is that fully indexed pages are being RANKED based on February backlink data. Not to mention that some pages from February aren't even in the index cause fresh doesn't pick them up.

I think it may have been Chris_R who said Webmasters need to keep a "sense of perspective."

In the overall scheme of things, how important is it that backlinks are based on data that's four months old? Probably not very, because:

1) Most sites on the Web (and most pages on the Web) were created before February of 2003; and...

2) PageRank is just one of the 100 or more factors in Google's algorithm, and--just as important--

3) The lack of recent backlink data isn't likely to have much effect on the average site's PageRank or search rankings. (When I say "the average site," I'm excluding new sites and links that were created for the express purpose of manipulating or influencing Google PageRank).

Look up "doughnuts" in Google, and you get Krispy Kreme. Look up "Art Institute of Chicago," and you get the Art Institute of Chicago. Look up "Model T Ford," and you get the Model T Ford Club of America. Look up "Webb Pierce," and you get the Webb Pierce fan site. Look up "NASA," and you get NASA. Look up "John D. Imboden," and you get DEFENDER OF THE VALLEY, a biography of Brigadier General John Daniel Imboden. Look up "Empire State Building," and you get the official Empire State Building site. Look up "Mark Twain," and you get Jim Zwick's highly respected Mark Twain site. Look up "Golden Gophers," and you get the University of Minnesota's athletic site. Look up "Golden Princess," and you get the Princess Cruises page for the GOLDEN PRINCESS cruise ship. Look up "CERN," and you get that European research organization. Look up "Ryanair," and you get that airline. Look up "Iceland tourism," and you get the Iceland Tourist Board. Look up "Brett Tabke," and you get our host's Webmaster World profile. Look up "cancer," and you get the American Cancer Society. Look up "God," and you get phpnuke.org. The latter is certainly an anomaly, but at least Assemblies of God are in the #2 position. :-)

I could go on and on, but I think the point is obvious: For most searches and most users, Google is working just fine.

Marcia




msg:206728
 3:02 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

It makes a difference to Google, because those type of sites don't make them money.

PRNightmare




msg:206729
 3:13 am on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

The name of this forum is "WEBMASTERworld.com". Not "GOOGLEUSER.com".

I don't give a *@%# about users. I care about money and client satisfaction that results in more money.

Seattle_SEM: Tell your clients that Google is backed up a few months and may take a couple more to figure out what went wrong. And that Google doesn't bother to explain ANYTHING EVER.

Tactfully spam your way to better results in the meantime. Don't believe the bone-heads here that stress quality content. You already have that. Now, you know that a fair amount of trickery is needed to weather the next Google-Flop.

It's like they forgot who built all those billions of websites.

It just cracks me up that the only way I can compete against my clients biggest competitor and top 100 commerce site is to make some crappy affiliate program that will muck up the Google index and at the same time convolute my client's brand. But, hey! Great way to build back-links!

This 237 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 237 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 > >
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