| 9:06 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
LGN1 - Do you hear me complaing? I lost my index page, but it won't make a blip in my earnings. I just want my users to find my home page when they type it in!
[edited by: johnnydequino at 9:06 pm (utc) on Nov. 15, 2003]
| 9:06 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What about the rest of your pages Kaled? - SUrely your index page is the least important right?
As it happens, my main index page is totally unimportant from a search engine/business point of view, so I'm not worried. I've also seen plenty of weird Google transients over the last 10 months or so and I figure they'll probably sort themselves out.
My main index page has returned for a site: -asdf search but the index page still doesn't appear in results when I search for my company name (a unique made-up word that should result in no more than half a dozen results at most - all related to me).
| 9:08 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This update is horrible.
1. Added 10,000 pages to the index,
2. Droped from position 3 on SERPs for my mainkeyword to off the top 1000
3. Allinanchor and allintext for my main keyword shows me in the top 10
GoogleGuy said my site has no penalties and to wait a few days.
Before today i used to show up #1 for thousands of queries, today my site is basically in the index but not showing up for any search other then my domain name. When sites like mine start ranking again there will be major upheaval in the SERPS.
| 9:08 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
its looks simple to say "Diversification"
But what will you do to a fact that "90% people serach on google only" and that "innumerable small traders are earning their living out of it ONLY".
there could be few industries where we can not be much dependent upon::
1) Traffic coming in from related sites/directories.
2) CPC (assuming small traders)
3) Other Search Engines/regional SE as they contribute neglible % of seraches!
| 9:13 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Looks like a fairly standard update to me. No major movement, but alot mediocure quality sites dropped deep in the index.
Had 4 shell domains nuked, but I expected that.
There are always going to be some whinners. What would a good ol update be without input from Napoleon lol.
lol Napoleon - you just described the last 48 updates from Google.
| 9:20 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Actually direct free listings only account for 20% of my traffic. It took me six years to get there, and when I
first started out most of my listings were from free search listings, but that changes with time.
If you provide quality content, other sites will start linking to you, and over time that will mount into the thousands and ten of thousands. Use PPC programs, advertise in magazines, join top 100 ladders. Make sure
that your web address is on all your trade literture and advertising. Provide quality customer service, and word about your company will spread on bullitin boards.
Develop brand loyalty and customers will come to your site directly without searching.
Do you think <A Big River in Brazil>.com care where they rank in Google.
| 9:22 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hey, I put out a call for people to contact us with specific searches if they think they are worse.. :)
| 9:24 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GG what was the address again, it was posted a long way back?
| 9:26 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
webmaster [at] google.com or the spam report form. Either way, use the keyword "floridaupdate" so we can pick out reports.
| 9:27 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
btw, I'm doing errands today, so I'll be in and out of the house. I'll be checking in from time to time though.
| 9:28 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ign1, can you edit serps as well as GG's posts?
<edit>Ignore this... the event it referred to has been corrected... perhaps a mod could remove this post from the thread</edit>
[edited by: Stefan at 10:26 pm (utc) on Nov. 15, 2003]
| 9:29 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>We are changing our business model,
>so we make our desired ROI on PPC listings.
That's just changing your model, that is just changing how much you pay for the results of your model.
>outta the business
I try to get out, they pull me back in" - welcome to the hotel seo - you can check any time you want...
All SEO work is based upon the Chicago Mob model where I do a favor for you - then you own me one someday. I've had alot of favors called in lately.
| 9:30 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I reiterate, your ideas much common with any literature on Marketing.
I said the Small Traders who are dependent on Web based Biz only do suffer when smth unfair happens.
These days nobody links to another for free;-)
Remember those Junk mails in your inbox to SWAP links.
<A BIG COMPNY'S SITE>.com dont need any google ranking cuz it has plenty of resources to be spent on Advertising and branding.
Sorry, but its a fact!
| 9:32 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You used to have this theory about "the twighlight sites" and were monitoring a good number of these. I am curious now: are you seeing many of these same sites affected again this time, or is it more random than that?
(What is happening to my site now is EXACTLY the same as what happened during Esmeralda.)
| 9:38 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Hey, I put out a call for people to contact us with specific searches if they think they are worse.. :) |
I imagine that you would have several...maybe hundreds of examples IF the 'plex would send out some sort of guarantee that the information provided would not be used against them. In any way, shape or form.
Suppose I say, in a report, "Check out 'pop-widgets trials' ", I am exposing that I am concerned about that phrase. That exposure reveals volumes about my website.
When you say "...contact us...", there is no disclaimer. None. Nada. We, as semi-pros, are savvy enough to realize we may cut our own throats by reporting anomalies we see.
Bottom line, GG:
What's in it for us?
| 9:47 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> lol Napoleon - you just described the last 48 updates from Google <<
I think I actually described the 2 or 3 updates in which Google got it horribly wrong... and ultimately had to apply surgery.
>> Napoleon: You used to have this theory about "the twighlight sites" and were monitoring a good number of these. I am curious now: are you seeing many of these same sites affected again this time. <<
Not exactly the same, but quite a bit of commonality nonetheless. This isn't date related at all, which was part of the Twilight Zone' theory. However, it certainly hits index pages, and it certainly looks like it is link/anchor-text related, both of which were factors in the update you refer to.
Both of these were of course ultimately fixed once Google actually accepted the problem. Sadly, that was a lengthy process.
The frustration, of course, is that we are here again, a number of us again citing specific examples to GG which illustrate real and clear degradation of SERP quality.
| 9:49 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|These days nobody links to another for free;-) |
I have thousands of links to my site (non-search engines) and I never solicited any of them.
Maybe your industry is differnt, but in my industy, people
link on quality content.
| 9:56 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>> Do you think <A Big River in Brazil>.com care where they rank in Google
Yes they care , thats why they use adwords and design bot friendly pages (atleast they try :) )
| 10:08 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Crap I just noticed that my google directory PR has gone from number one with a PR6 to close to bottom with PR1. My toolbar is still PR6. |
I noticed something similar to this the other day in the directory, only reversed. My site shows PR6 in the toolbar, but PR7 in the directory. Funny, I've never had a had a PR of 7 before.
I wanted to extend a thanks to GG for at least maintaining contact with all of us throughout this crazy time. It's pretty cool when a rep of the largest SE in the world stays in touch to give us an idea of what is going on.
Best of luck to the fellow whitehats who have lost rankings. Hopefully it will turn out to be a good Christmas retail season for all of us when this is over.
| 10:15 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|h) Some in the outside world also start to notice something isn't right |
A competitor-friend who pays for SEO and recently got his site ranking well just called and asked why my site & his had "disappeared". I told him looks like we'll both be serving ham instead of turkey this holiday season.
| 10:20 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just wanted to add that my index page has also dropped somewhat stone like from top 10 for many 1 & 2 word searches, to somewhere in the 400's. I don't consider that my site does anything against the Google Guidelines, In fact I've gone out if my way to follow them to the letter as well as making it HTML 4.01 compliant and also comply with basic accessibility guidelines. I know many of us have been here before so I guess all we can hope for is that things will start to shake out in a few days. A special note to uk_web_guy, you’re not the only one hurting here in Blighty, hang in there!
| 10:22 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, here's one for you. I see a top 10 result for a plural single keyword that is in fact a CNN Story dated 3/12/03.
| 10:31 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
A couple comments. First, this all is based on relatively old data again. Three sites put online in October show no backlinks yet.
At first look I see some significant positives but also a lack of filtering on obvious spam. One spammer can still get dozens of duplicate sites in the top 100 for a 443,000 search term; and lock up the top three or five spots for even more competitive terms. This is a huge issue still unresolved and not addressed at all by this update.
Second, at least in my area, very clearly localrank is not being applied at all. The #1 search result for a hyper-cometitive 2,000,000 results two word term is a "site" that simply frames a parent site with its affiliate link... plus seven (or so) pages of links. That's right, the site itself is 100% link pages, and ALL those link pages are to off topic sites. Also, the piddly little 13 backlinks showing for this site are all from off-topic blogs or guestbooks.
In other words, this site has zero links to it from on topic sites, and zero links from it to on-topic sites (besides framing the page it is an affiliate of).
Which leads me to an early observation that I'm seeing a lot of quality sites holding solid ranks, a lot of mediocre (and new) sites losing rank, and a lot of super-poor sites holding rank. I don't want to draw this conclusion yet, but a way to explain this would be minimal and moderate spammers have dropped some, while both whitehats and super-duper-evil spammers are doing good.
| 10:40 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The update is trash and the end is near.;)
Okay, so the end isn't really near. For my main search the former #1 and #2 are both gone and the top ten is riddled with trash. The former #1 was high quality and is the widgets.org for the corresponding search wtih a large member base. My site (#2) has more content and is far superior to the rest of the listings but both are gone, along with many others. Most likely the type of thing where the reappear after a day or two. My site has disappeared on many occasions before so that doesn't concern me too much yet. What's different this time is that other sites for the same search are missing and the overall quality is in my opinion lousy but at a minimum is very different from yesterday.
| 10:40 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just thought I would add to the satisfied customer list.
Today on -in, I went from #8 to #3 for my primary "keyword-keyword" search phrase.
This is great! I sure hope it sticks!
I constantly strive to make my hat as white as possible.
If you play games, you are eventually going to get burned.
Why bother? It just isn't worth it, in the long run, IMHO.
Not to mention all the wasted time, which could have been spent on adding and improving real content.
| 10:43 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> If you play games, you are eventually going to get burned. Why bother? <<
And you think that totally innocent/white-hat web sites haven't been hit by this? You're a million miles off the mark if you do... that's where the majority of the carnage lies.
| 10:45 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've refrained from complaining about this new update for a few hours, but I just did some research on my competitors who are now ranking in the top 10. I found 2 spammers with hidden text (same color as background) in the top 10. I was in the top 15 for about 5 of my key phrases, but just dropped to about 50th position for all of these phrases.
I also found that about 10 of the top 20 sites were not very relevant to the key phrase. I sell a specific type of insurance on my site, but now a lot of sites that have just basic insurance information are ranking very high even they do not have anything to do with my specific type of insurance....this is not a service for the consumers.
This is just an example, but if you search for life insurance, you should not get 5 auto insurance sites in the top 10!
I heard that the new algorythm was supposed to penalize sites that were 'too relevant' or trying too hard to add the key words to their pages....if this was the intent, it appears that some of the most relevant sites got knocked out, and the more general and non-specific sites have moved up the ladder. Looks like a backfire for my niche market.
I hope Google is still dancing
| 11:01 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have to say that i see a definate decrease in the quality of sites this update so far. In a search for a particular financial service for widgets, i found a sites about widgets (not related to any financial service), and a completely non-widget related site.
I can only hope that more changes are to follow - is google trying to convince people to buy and use adwords by giving poor quality results in the serps?
| 11:02 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
willardnesss, Almost the same situation here...
|I heard that the new algorythm was supposed to penalize sites that were 'too relevant' |
I don't think Google will ever penalize relevent websites! How come?!
| 11:02 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This has been a long thread to read :-)
Generally, many of my websites stayed the same, but a few dropped out - it is curious that none that dropped out had any bad things on them....
One popular site was hard hit. Hmmmm, very puzzling.
Well, that's it for my first post.
| 11:05 pm on Nov 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
LOL - the adwords thing crossed my mind as well