homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.249.184
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 274 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 274 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >     
More eBay, Amazon, Dealtime, Epinions, etc. in Results
Side Effects of Improved Dynamic Spidering?
Slud




msg:73168
 3:21 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

For a lot of the words I track, I've noticed a marked increase in the number of meta shopping sites: eBay, Amazon, Dealtime, Epinions, CNET Shopper, Buy.com and even Google Answers in the results.

Is this a side-effect of improved dynamic spidering, or have the web developers for the sites wised-up (en masse)?

Random forum posts and PDF's sometimes show up in the top 10 for words that are pricey at overture ($5+).

My hope is that this is just a temporary situation before the full update occurs.

 

Slud




msg:73198
 4:55 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I hate to sound like an isolationist, but with all the *.co.uk showing up, it'd be nice to have a regional Google for the U.S.

[google.us...] perhaps?

JoeHouse




msg:73199
 5:15 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

That would explain a whole lot about whats been happening lately in regards to google traffic. My site use to live and breathe google traffic but now in just the last few weeks its so different!

It's sad to say this boys and girls but it does appears seo may be dead and cpc is our future.

Which once again means the big businesses with the almighty dollar Wins Again!

edit_g




msg:73200
 6:01 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

SEO isn't dead. We've discussed this in another thread: [webmasterworld.com...]

Which once again means the big businesses with the almighty dollar Wins Again!

What makes you think they don't win in PPC as well?

The bottom line is that smaller operators have to work twice as hard as they did before to get the same listings - it is possible - it is just harder than it was before. But harder than it was before isn't too bad - because it used to be pretty easy (still is, in some cases). ;) We have to drill down, target different phrases than the obvious ones and many more of them. The top SEO's have been doing this since day one.

Moaning about more competition on WebmasterWorld isn't going to help matters any... :)

[edit]quote fixed[/edit]

Tropical Island




msg:73201
 6:07 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Which once again means the big businesses with the almighty dollar Wins Again!<

And that's a surprise?

Net_Wizard




msg:73202
 6:07 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

This is actually good news for me :D with Google screwing-up showing amazon et al at the top. I'm experiencing a traffic surge mostly from type-in(bookmarks?) and repeat visitors.

At first I thought that my ranking improved but checking my log file shows an increase of 'no referrals'. Not only a surge of traffic but pageviews and searches have increase significantly as well.

Can't figure out what was going on...until I read this thread. It only means that searchers are unhappy with their search engines and found my little resource as very helpful.

So I say...good work Google and I hope you remain to be like that for a long time ;)

JoeHouse




msg:73203
 6:17 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is just the amazon listing showing up or are all the paid shopping engines?

Napoleon




msg:73204
 6:40 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> 1) kelkoo.co.uk
2) widget developer (PR9)
3) amazon.fr
4) amazon.co.uk
5) epinions.com
6) amazon.com
7) kelkoo.nl
8) amazon.de <<

Hehe... nice one Canuck.... but I reckon I can trump it with:

1) Doc
2) PDF
3) PDF
4) amazon.com
5) PDF
6) amazon.co.uk
7) Widget site (err.. mine, actually!)
8) ebay something or other

What a bunch of tosh.... I think I can safely say the worst Google index I have ever seen. They're on the slide alright.

Net_Wizard




msg:73205
 7:08 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Okay...

Not to worry folks, I guess ;)

PDF, DOCS - very few people click on them anyway.

ebay - everybody heard of ebay and everybody(mostly anyway) try to stay away from ebay except those die hard auctioneers(sp).

epinion - worst site ever(IMHO)and most often would come up 404, a nice way to irritate searchers.

amazon - maybe the only one worth it to be on the top because of content and product reviews. But, if it's true that the reason they've come-up high in the serp is because of affiliates link then this is actually detrimental to Amazon on the long run. It may enjoy the extra traffic right now but at the expense of its affiliate network which in turn would be disgruntled with Amazon. If this continue, there would be a lot of affiliate sites looking somewhere else for revenues(adsense?). Without affiliates, Amazon would fold, Google can't deliver sales to Amazon the way affiliates can.

So, relax and dig-in, searchers just have to drill down, no choice on their part, to get to your site.

:)

Dave_Hawley




msg:73206
 10:13 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Er... Hang on. What are these sites providing? Isn't it that they have a lot of content?

Advertizing and links to even more advertizing. I get enough of this junk in my letter box at home I don't need to start getting in search results.

I would have thought one of the main reasons Google got so popular is because these sort of sites were not able to buy there way to the top like on other search engines.

Dave

edit_g




msg:73207
 10:18 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I would have thought one of the main reason Google got so popular is because these sort of site were not able to buy there way to the top like on other search engines.

No disrespect intended, but you're missing the point, they haven't bought their way to the top. They have a lot of products=a lot of content=good rankings. This is one of the ways to get good rankings, having a lot of well linked content. There playing the game still, they just have more to play with.

The only way you buy your way to the top of google is if you buy a sponsored link or adwords - and the top paid result isn't worth as much as the top natural result.

Dave_Hawley




msg:73208
 10:51 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Sorry my fault. I wasn't really implying that they had bought their way to the top I was trying to point out that these sort of site would not normally be at the top of Googles search results.

I still would not say that they have 'content' in the true sense of the word, mostly advertizing. As they have not been top results before and there is no real change in their advertizing, come content, I cannot see why they have suddenly made it up the ladder. If they truely had good content they would have always been top.

The only way to get content from most of these sites is to buy a book from them!

Dave

GoogleGuy




msg:73209
 11:04 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

"What a bunch of tosh.... I think I can safely say the worst Google index I have ever seen. They're on the slide alright."

Napoleon, are you ever happy? ;) I haven't seen an increase in pdf/doc files in the index, and I've got a pretty good spectrum of stats to draw on. :) If people want to do a report, definitely feel free though--make sure you mention WebmasterWorld and your nickname with your query, and the word pdf or doc in the spam report field for extra text. I'd be curious to hear the queries that people are talking about. But Napoleon, the last time I asked for an example involving your site, you weren't willing to tell me any specifics. ;)

plumsauce




msg:73210
 11:14 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)


It seems that WW brooks no critism of itself.

At approximately 3:30 Aug 05/2003 UTC, I posted
a message to this thread detailing my experiences
with using some keywords that are important to
me on one of the technical forums here and how
that thread got driven to #1 in the serps.

That post was visible for a number of hours.
I see it has now been removed, not edited,
but completely deleted as if it had not been
made. I checked in my control panel to ensure
that this is the correct thread and indeed it
was.

+++

plumsauce




msg:73211
 11:22 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)


dave_hawley, edit_g,

There is a side effect of adwords that I have observed.
And that is, if for example, a brandname is displayed
in syndicated content ads on amazon as being "related"
to the actual item on amazon, and that page gets
spidered, searching for that brandname will bring
up that page in the serps. Depending on the keywords
selected by the adwords advertiser, the relationship
may be extremely tenous or non-existent.

So, in a way you can buy your way into the serps,
although the adwords advertiser may not have
intended to do so. And it only cost $0.05

+++

steveb




msg:73212
 11:24 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I don't see the pdf or docs, but what I do see may well be an ill-advised "we can do it so we do it" idea behind "getting better at" spidering dynamic pages.

This not a good thing!

And it explains why Amazon, etc., pages show well. Lots more multi-parameter pages are spidered and... SINCE ANCHOR TEXT IS KING QUEEN AND A HUNDRED PRINCES... all those crap/no-value links a site generates for itself now raise that site.

Google Guy, I'm going blind finding these duplicate 2400 page "sites" one guy makes and links internally and to each other in a massive web of anchor text and gibberish text. (Page text is just keywords stuffed in illiterate sentences.) The point is not some no content goofball ranking great, although that is bad, the point is pages and pages and pages no one EVER reads are polluting the searches because Google is now all about anchor text and nothing else (except page title and URL) for one or two word competitive phrases.

There is a daisy chain, or line of dominoes, at work here, and it all goes back to not being able to crawl and not factoring page rank in to any meaningful degree. Anchor text is the easiest thing to exploit unscrupulously, and it is the heart and soul of rankings now.

Google needs to go back toward valuing QUALITY links rather than VOLUME of links.

Right now some fellow can get a few links from guestbooks, and make a 2000 page site (with good internal linking), and would outrank a fifty page site (with good internal linking) with four links from Yahoo, dmoz, a public university and a major newspaper. That is very, very not good.

Aside from new pagerank, backlinks and updating the directory, because we are seeing Gilligan's Island reruns for too long now..., Google needs to shift away from "we can do it so do it" back to a mindset of "we want the best quality results" where quality votes for quality.

Jakpot




msg:73213
 11:39 pm on Aug 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Googleguy:
If you don't see a problem with the SERPs then ********

Net_Wizard




msg:73214
 12:20 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

But Napoleon, the last time I asked for an example involving your site, you weren't willing to tell me any specifics. ;)

Whoa!

First of all if it's only Napoleon complaining about the serps then I suppose there's no merit to his complain.

But on this thread, several people have observed this phenomenom suffice it to say this is not an isolated incidence.

What are we supposed to do then? Post examples and examples of queries that would prove the point? Or, flood your company(google) search quality department with spam report with the special tag...

'This is from senior member {nickname} an honorable member of WW and I herby proclaim that the query {widget} is full of spam. I further proclaim that Google should resolve the situation immediately by the virtue of my membership at WW'

Isn't it that there is supposedly a director assigned specifically for search quality? Maybe if he comes out, once in a while to check the serp then probably you would'nt be asking people here to send a spam report continously.

I resent the condescending tone that you so generously give to members here.

Net_Wizard




msg:73215
 12:42 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

You want example? Try 'web database application'

5 out of 10, page 1 are amazon, another result for an affiliate, another for a oreilly.

You think that's relevant to my search? Bah!

I could probably post several more examples if you want.

[edited by: Net_Wizard at 12:44 am (utc) on Aug. 7, 2003]

steveb




msg:73216
 12:42 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

"What are we supposed to do then? Post examples and examples of queries that would prove the point? Or, flood your company(google) search quality department with spam report with the special tag..."

He told you exactly what to do. Send in spam reports with your webmasterworld names. Show the exact searches with the exact problems. Either do it or don't, but don't whine because he told you what to do and you don't want to.

GoogleGuy




msg:73217
 12:47 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Net_Wizard, if that came across the wrong way then I definitely apologize. When I first saw someone report more pdfs/docs showing up in Google, I went and talked to someone in the crawl team. We went over the stats from crawling and after looking into it in depth we concluded that nothing has changed recently on a global level. Individual searches may vary, but we aren't returning pdfs/docs more often overall. I put out a call for example queries because I still want to dig into it a little more.

Coming at things from a perspective where Google has more data, I have to say that it's pretty weird to see parts of WebmasterWorld come to consensus on things that (as far as I can tell) are incorrect.

Looking back on my previous post, my dander might have gotten higher than I wanted, and I apologize for that. It's just strange for me to read stuff like "All these pdfs/docs wouldn't happen in the olden days. Google is undeniably going downhill" when I can verify that that the fraction of those docs has not changed. Does that make sense?

Net_Wizard




msg:73218
 12:56 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Steve,

It's not about whining, the point is (and I could prove it that there are several terms that could back-up what people have observed), Googleguy posted in denial of what's going on...

I've got a pretty good spectrum of stats to draw on

What kind of stat is he talking about or are we just a bunch of donkeys with Googleguy dangling a carrot in front of us?

Are we just suppose to turn a blind eye on the obvious and take his word that all is well?

I can understand his position of defending his company but if he has nothing concrete to offer to solve the problem then wouldn't it be better for him to research the issue first?

And the remark to Napoleon...that's really low. Why would Napoleon even discuss his site to Googleguy. If he chooses not to divulge his site, he has the right to do so and Googleguy should respect that. But instead he implied that Napoleon is just making up his complain.

That I resent and it's not about whining.

steveb




msg:73219
 1:03 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

" can understand his position of defending his company but if he has nothing concrete to offer to solve the problem then wouldn't it be better for him to research the issue first?"

He ASKED you for some evidence. Jeez.

You have been invited to offer data. You apparently have nothing concrete to offer, so you are just aimlessly complaining. I know when I see problems, I can point directly to what they are. The guy asked for useful feedback and you flame him. Some people would consider that good evidence that you have no good evidence.

[edited by: steveb at 1:06 am (utc) on Aug. 7, 2003]

Net_Wizard




msg:73220
 1:04 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Coming at things from a perspective where Google has more data, I have to say that it's pretty weird to see parts of WebmasterWorld come to consensus on things that (as far as I can tell) are incorrect.

Would it not be logical then to check your data since their is a consensus instead of assuming that the consensus is incorrect?

p.s. sorry if I came in strong in my post to steve didn't expect an answer from you.

[edited by: Net_Wizard at 1:09 am (utc) on Aug. 7, 2003]

Net_Wizard




msg:73221
 1:07 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Steve,

Before you post things like that please check several post above you. Don't mean to embarass you.

Chris_D




msg:73222
 1:55 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Net Wizard,

You've now lost me totally.

You posted that a search for:

'web database application'
5 out of 10, page 1 are amazon, another result for an affiliate, another for a oreilly.

Firstly - I didn't get any Amazon pages on Page 1 of the serps here. No Amazon. My results weren't as you described.

Secondly, as there is a BOOK titled "Web Database Application with PHP and MySQL" published by O'Reilly & Associates, by Hugh E. Williams and David Lane, wouldn't the Amazon and O'reilly results you got actually be reasonable?

I mean - a search for 'Liberation management' will bring up Amazon and barnes & Noble results - and I think Tom Peters sold a few copies in the past decade.....

What results do you get if you don't search for a book title?

Chris_D

Net_Wizard




msg:73223
 2:28 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

What the heck is going on?

Now it looks like I'm lying :( I should have really taken a snapshot of that serp.

But for argument sake, suppose you are right that it's a title of a book(which I dont know...I'm a database developer, if that means anything) which by the way 'web database application' is pretty much a generic query, does it mean that any time a query match a title at Amazon then Amazon should just simply dominate the top 10? Wouldn't it be considered spam?

How about a search on 'php and mysql'? Would you consider that an unreasonable query, because it's showing 4 amazon out of the top 10? (this time I save the page, just in case :))

Cheers

AAnnAArchy




msg:73224
 2:53 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Maybe in general there aren't *more* pdfs or docs or whathaveyou, but maybe there are more in the top ten, where we see them. Perhaps that makes everyone's observations correct without making Google's assertions incorrect. Whatever it is, I'm tired of seeing results for Amazon.co.uk since I can't even buy anything from them.

Net_Wizard




msg:73225
 3:38 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just a minor correction...my mistake

I posted 'web database application' actually the query where there's 5 amazon listing is 'web database applications'.

Granting it is 'part' of a book title but 5 listings?

Actually, 8 is about a book, 1 magazine, 1 is Galaxy search :D

Allergic




msg:73226
 5:17 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

I totally agree with Slud and Net_Wyzard.

When Amazon come out 2 times in the first 10 for terms like "men's underwear", honestly GoogleGuy this should ring you a bell.

I know they sell somes, but after that restrict your search for Amazon site only and look at the first 30 results for thoses keyword inside "".

Compare that for the sites after and before and give me a overall pertinance of all of thoses pages. Reallly discusting!

steveb




msg:73227
 7:26 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

And to repeat...

If you find such questionable results, submit them to the spam form so someone at Google can check them out.

Napoleon




msg:73228
 7:54 am on Aug 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

OK... one by one.

>>I haven't seen an increase in pdf/doc files in the index, and I've got a pretty good spectrum of stats to draw on. <<

Well sorry, but it isn't just me seeing this... certainly not... far too widespread a problem for that. Take a look around the threads. There is a significant increase in these file types in high unwarranted positions, and in some areas it is totally strangling web content.

>> But Napoleon, the last time I asked for an example involving your site, you weren't willing to tell me any specifics. <<

I have nothing to hide... BUT.... I prefer caution.

So I identify my sites. Then I come here and point out problem areas like this. Doesn't that make me a hostage to fortune? A hostage to Google's ethics.... my livelihood on the trust that they won't take punitive action?

No, I'm not crazy or paranoid, I just prefer not to open any risks, however small, where it is not necessary. I'm not suggesting at all that anything like this would happen - but I obviously don't know 100% that it wouldn't.

And SteveB... I'm not the only who feels like this. That's one of the positives of this board. We can discuss matters without undue risk. The complaining isn't unfounded, it is based on fact... fact which Google ought to explore and deal with. You can't close our observations and pretend they don't exist just because we prefer not to file a spam report.

>> When Amazon come out 2 times in the first 10 for terms like "men's underwear", honestly GoogleGuy this should ring you a bell. <<

Absolutely, and that's a very mild example.

If your guy is telling you nothing has changed this week GG, he's wrong.... and I don't care who he is. I believe my own eyes. The change is stark and obvious.... and it looks very very bad in some areas. This is exactly what others are saying.

The answer is simple: Ask him what he has really changed, and tell him to change it back. Then ask him to explore the intermittent index problem!

This 274 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 274 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >
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