| 9:01 am on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Is PR now Site gu-Estimated?
I have a site with a front door (widgets-wadgets.com/index.html), that then directs to different main language index pages (e.g. widgets-wadgets.com/english/index.html, widgets-wadgets.com/french/index.html etc.).
The top index door is a PR4, (with 17 links coming in shown in Google) the inner language pages are PR3.
But, now here's the odd thing: I also have about 30 into the *English* page directly showing. I got these to boost that English page but they don't seem to have any effect.
I think those thirty on their own would be enough to give that English index page a PR4 even without any other links. yet its a PR3 just like the other language index pages.
It looks like PR is now estimated for a site based on its connectivity to the root index. Anyone else noticed this?
[added] I don't think these are real PRs, I think they're starting points in a continuous PR calculation [/added]
[edited by: tiappon at 11:15 am (utc) on June 17, 2003]
| 12:02 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|You bet, mrguy. I'll try to work through the backlog over the next week or so. |
So, if you stickied people and they replied to you, but you haven't gotten back to them there's a chance you may do so in the near future?
More than days less than weeks? ;)
| 12:23 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing same results on -fi, www2 and www3 but diff on dc and sj. Is that what everyone is seeing or is it diff by region. I am in US.
| 1:13 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Updated the update history page [webmasterworld.com].
...side topic stuff should go in a new thread. ;)
| 1:16 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sure hope Google doesn't screw up at the next index, since we're at 'F'. :P
| 1:41 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"GG, even with permission, google has no way of determining which is the original and which is the copy..."
I found that out hard this update. A one year old site that has had top ranks disappeared and when adding the filter to the search, it reappeared. A little digging found that a competitor had made FOUR doorway duplicates of my site. Apparently, MY one year old site was penalized and his new doorway page was ranking top 12 for the terms.
It would be kind of funny if it wasn't costing me money ;).
Anyway, this leads me to ask if some kind of stricter guideline is being used in the new algo to determine duplicate content... comments GG?
| 1:49 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
On the SJ server my site is coming in at #1 then dropping right down nearly every other search. I noticed that when my site is at #1 slot the total number of pages served up is approx 1,340,000 and when it has dropped the total number of pages served is 1,590,000.
Does anybody know if this means anything at all. Is there any significance in a higher number of pages being served for a search.
| 1:57 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
-sj is reported as re-directing to other datacentres at present - hence it may hit one of the updated servers - fi or dc or one of the old.
Might explain the differences you are seeing.
| 2:04 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
thanks for that but my main question is if a higher number of search results are returned irrespective of which datacentre does that indicate that is the way the new update is heading.
For example : A search for "blue widgets" returns 1,000,000 results on one datacentre and it returns 1,500,000 on another is the second results more indicative of how the update will end up simply because more results are returned.
| 2:11 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
sj appears to be the older results.
| 2:37 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Are the result found in www-fi.google permanent as I found my backlinks for 1 site have fallen from 103 to 19. |
I know everyone should wait until the update is over, but this has been a trend for my site the past 3 updates and still going. I have over 170 original content pages, add at least 5 more each month, and each update another 30% is dropped from google on average. I'm adding good clean content but google is dropping my content faster than I can add it. Very frustrating to say the least.
I was also ranking #5,#8,#9 for "blue widget", "green widget" and "red widget"...where's now I'm at #64, #128, #142. This happened before Dominic, and I waited as everyone claimed I should do....it's continuing to drop now with this update.
I'm baffled, as I don't feel I'm breaking any rules or even close, but I can't help but wonder how much worse this is going to get before it gets better.
| 2:45 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> Are the result found in www-fi.google permanent
I've been carefully monitoring one of my websites on 3 key terms on all 9 data centers. In the last two days, ranking on all data centers, including -fi have been fluctuating.
I think it's fairly safe to say that nothing is yet "permanent".
|More Traffic Please|
| 2:48 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This is what I really don't understand. When it comes to backlinks, I see many instances where a competitor and I both have inbound links from the same page of a third party site. Consistently, my competitor will get credit for them and I will not when I check inbound links for both our sites on www-fi. My index page is PR5 and all my inner pages are PR4. This is the first time that only two of my inner pages show up as back links as compared to all my inner pages (about 30) in the past. My inbound links are all related useful sites and not a single guestbook, blog, etc. After Dominic, they were cut down to 73 from 148. Now they have been cut down to 21 on www-fi.
The only thing I can think may have happened was my host was hit with a DOS attack about 10-14 days ago. Given the fact that the dance started yesterday, does it sound like two weeks ago could have been a critical time when Google would have been calculating backlinks for the upcoming dance? By the way, doing a allinurl: for my site shows all inner pages indexed, so I dont know why at least they would not be showing. Thanks
| 3:09 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
weird...on -fi and -2, My site does not show up under my main search phrase at all, but i do have backlinks. and all are pertinent to the search phrase. Deep breath, i guess i'll be patient and hoe for the best.
On a side note, we have moved up 34 notches in the Yahoo search (which uses google right?)
| 3:42 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> This is what I really don't understand.
Read the thread from dominic - read the update faq - it is all perfectly clear. We don't know what the final results are going to be, if they are going to be static, if they are going to be fluxing for another month. Honestly, we don't think Google themselves evne know because the secret sauce is still simmering and being seasoned to taste.
| 4:29 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have awoken to find the fresh tags gone. My index page is still in the penalty box. One thing I am noticing is that while my www.mydomain.com still has a pr5, mydomain.com is white bar. Also, index.html is pr 4.
Is Google counting www.mydomain.com, mydomain.com, and mydomain.com/index.html as duplicate content?
Should I change all my links to absolute?
| 4:41 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
A hidden text site I'm monitoring has vanished from the SERPs, shows a grey bar w/ the toolbar pointed to -fi, but still has PR when no host file/toolbar pointing is used.
Can anyone confirm I'm not seeing a human edit?
| 4:49 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
""I have awoken to find the fresh tags gone""
I have been following your posts, please explain what you are talking about fresh tags gone.
I checked, mydomain.com has a zero pagerank and www.mydomain.com has pr(6), google sometimes bans the one domain, so preference is given to your main www.mydomain.com in the rankings.
How can you find if your index.html has vanished from the index?
I did a search for "mydomain.com" and found my site listed, and checked the page was cached, but could it be out ofthe index?
| 4:52 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing the new index in search results on www.
| 5:02 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I am seeing the new index in search results on www. |
Yes > but it has been bouncing in and out. I suspect the update "is" far from being over.
| 5:15 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Previously, during dominic, mydomain.com disappeared for three days from the serps (still indexed) for its main phrase. This corresponded with the first time it ever received fresh tags and when they disappeared it moved back to #1 for the keyphrases. It received fresh tags again on June 15th and again dropped below 100 for all major keyphrases on all datacenters. I was hoping when the freshtags disappeared, it would reappear. The June 15 tags are now gone and the index page is not back up.
I have checked through most of the top sites for these searches and most have the same pr for mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com. A few have whitebars for mydomain.com but I don't think that is unusual. I wonder why www.mydomain.com/index.html has different pr than www.mydomain.com. If its treated as a different page, why doesn't it show up with allinurl?
I am a tad confused.
Also, my related sites are not very related at all anymore, according to google.
| 5:42 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google isn't done yet. I think it'll take ANOTHER dance to get things worked out. Right now their results are fairly poor.
Used to be a site acheived top ranking by combining two factors
1. Content Relivance (Optimizing for a phrase or two, not trying to capture LOTS of phrases and balanced density (so you didn't look like a worthless spam page) was combined with..
2. Page Rank. Inbound links from sites from (preferably other High PR sites with similar content/theme.
Now all bets are off.. Its all wacky because of the following:
Title tag has been devalued. This hurts google because when you do searches you get results with spammy titles (lots of text like full sentences and , junk, junk, junk (someone trying to capture lots of phases) and it makes you not want to look at the results. The old way of having priority on the TITLE made it so the sites with CLEAN titles about the topic came up first, especially those with high PR. This isn't the case anymore.
This is how I used to be able to explain the system to people: (to clients who wanted to put all kinds of words in their title, meta and body - be spammy)
I would say "GOOGOLE DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT"
It's like when you were a kid and tried to start a fire with a magnifying glass..
The sun represents PAGERANK (people pointing at you)
The magnifying glass is your page (optmization).
You need both to be on the first page.
Remember when you had the magnifying glass and it was a large circle.. It would get warm (this is someone trying to capture lots of words/phrases) but not hot enought to start a fire (appear on the first page) So you might get on page 10 for lots of things but not on page 1 for anything.
So you need to focus on a phrase or two. Then your page is in 'FOCUS'
Of course if you have no links pointing at you, (Sun) its like an overcast day and no matter how focused you are you aren't going to start a fire.
Both of these things are WHACKED now (Google isn't finding lots of links.. Almost as if they threw out their old records and need to find things again (I hope) fresh and weren't able to in this update..)
They also don't seem to care about optimization anymore in that you can optimize for tons of stuff (spammy) and they will put you over someone optimized for only a few things.
When you do searches and you see the wacky (often long) titles remember this post.
Honestly though, I expect things to get more like they were after a few months.
-Wayne's 2 cents
| 5:50 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
At 9:33 pm on June 15, 2003 Google Guy says (emphasis added):
|mauijaws, that sounds like we weren't able to fetch pages from your site--often that's the case if only the url shows. It could be that we just ran out of space or time. I wouldn't worry too much, esp. since we were able to crawl some pages. I would think we'd be able to find most of your pages over time. |
At 11:55 pm on June 16, 2003 Google Guy says (emphasis added):
|One cautionary word of advice: take everything with a grain of salt, and make choices that are common sense to you and work well for your users. For example, there was recently a thread that suggested Google was running out of "address space" to label our documents. I was talking to another engineer here and he said he almost fell out of his chair laughing when he read that. |
The Words to Remember. At 11:55 pm on June 16, 2003 Google Guy says:
|One cautionary word of advice: take everything with a grain of salt. |
| 6:14 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Observations: Aprils crawl is definitely in > I have tons of new stuff that support this which, probably should have been in the last update, but didn't make it.
Also notice that much of March's "new" stuff (now old) seems missing, and PageRank flucuating wildly.
Have a few domains that lost a few hundred backlinks and a few more that gain a few hundred.
The only common thread between all of these is the time the bulk of the project was crawled.
It's flux nonetheless, shouldn't read anything into early highs or lows!:)
| 7:16 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Can anyone help me with this answer. If all your backlinks get in and indexed this update in Google, does that mean your products get listed in Froogle.com as well? Or is Froogle separate from Google? I know Google powers Froogle but I wonder if it works in conjunction with the monthly updates. Please Advise. Thanks!
| 7:19 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This could be just for my site but if I search for the exact text of the title of my index page in quotations, I get a competitor in position number one, and then about five sites linking to me using my title as anchor text. No mention of my site at all. The competitor has not got the exact text in the quotation marks anywhere on their page.
My site has been around for about 7 weeks and is only showing 30 links with a domainname.com -w search (PR2). Prior to the start of the update only my site appeared when I searched for the title text in quotations.
| 7:57 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think this update is a good improvement to the dominic and I dont see that many spammers or other tricks to cheat Google, I think they have done a good job there.
The only thing that is a little wierd is still the cut in back links, but mostly from internal sites.
| 8:10 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Is the results I get from www.google.com right now going to keep changing over the next couple days or is that going to stay pretty much the same? |
There are no guarantees here, but in all likelihood the index will continue to change... there is data; a section of the total archive missing or at least part of the algorythm which helps defined ranked positions.
Ranks and listings change as new (fresh) and older pages are mixed together but rarely would this be so dramatic (unless you are one of the unfortunate few to get penalized). The chances that nearly all past top pages now weigh less, and a new totally new group of pages weigh more, tends to reflect... it's far from over.
| 8:10 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
From what I been hearing. Even though you do not see the backlinks, they are being counted and weighed by Google. They know they are there. The end results will be in your Page Rank. Good PR better results, which equals more traffic.
| 8:24 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<there is data; a section of the total archive missing or at least part of the algorythm which helps defined ranked positions. >>
I tend to agree with you, Fathom. Although with the way Google has been behaving lately who knows! Also, GG's willingness to comment on the new index rather than the usual "wait till the dust settles" mantra is perplexing.
Something just seems off. If the PR that is showing for the new index has settled it is MUCH different than anything I have witnessed. I have a page that is always PR 7 that is now PR 3 - still showing all the backlinks (real clean site). Also, some of the rankings just aren't quite right yet - Google ranking #23 for search engine?
| 9:01 pm on Jun 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Google ranking #23 for search engine?"
While that is funny and all, it pretty clearly means a couple things: what we see on -fi now is poor, and objectively poor search engine-ing. But then if pagerank has not been included in the equation, that could explain a lot. Google is showing 251,000 backlinks on -fi. Altavista (for example) shows 21,600 backlinks. This a case where we are all able to know that Altavista's backlinks are not magically far superior to Google's.
These results need a major influx of 1) the display of new pagerank and 2) the addition of this new pagerank to the calculation of the ranking algorerhythm. Quite a lot of the obviously ludicrous errors in the rankings can be explained, at least partly, by lack of pagerank in the calculation.
So, I'm optimistic GoogleGuy, but... if Google doesn't sit in the top two for "search engine", no quotes, a week from today, that would be evidence that this straightjacket should be put on some of the engineers. (And no hand ranking to put Google first, that would be cheating.:)
| This 249 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 249 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 8 9 ) > > |