homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.67.210
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 409 message thread spans 14 pages: < < 409 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > >     
How may front pages did you lose?
Google kicks clean html front pages
stinkfoot




msg:207428
 1:08 am on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

I lost 2 top ranking front pages
All other pages on the sites still getting a few hits
both still top ranked by msn
urls = keyword1 - keyword2 - keyword3 - keyword4

Anyone else with losses please post like to get an idea of simliarities

 

rfgdxm1




msg:207578
 10:54 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

>However, these results continue to focus on sites that are far and away higher quality than previously. People who look for "products" instead of information (including information on products) might be disappointed, but that is just because they are a bit behind the times.

On a bunch of SERPs I tried at random, whenever I entered "buy widgets", replacing widget with a real product, I got SERPs with people selling them. Searchers shouldn't be disappointed if "widgets" pulls up a lot of sites with just information on widgets. That info sites tend to come up higher on broader searches is actually *expected* with the Google algo. Non-commercial webmasters tend to link to related sites; merchants don't like to link to competitors. Thus, the info sites tend to have more PR and anchor text.

caveman




msg:207579
 10:55 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

aspdesigner,

Sorry maybe I'm not getting your exact point, but I thought that was understood already.

On my killed index page, I can bring it up to page one of the SERP's as follows:

kw1 kw2: index page penalized and not showing
kw3 kw1 kw2: page one of SERP's

Is that what you're saying?

If so, it would still be the case that a new 'cleaned up' version of the index page would need to be spidered (and possibly the whole site if backlinks are an issue), before the filter would let it thru. And that's if G didn't nix the index page for the kw1 kw2 phrase till the next major go round.

Agree? Disagree? Or am I not getting it?

caveman

<edited for clarity>

[edited by: caveman at 11:00 pm (utc) on Nov. 25, 2003]

KevinC




msg:207580
 10:57 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

No, KevinC, linear, I don't think you understand what I'm getting at here. Different keywords searches with trip or not trip the filter for your page. Right now. No spidering required.

yes I know exactly wich keyphrases are affected and wich arn't - the problem isn't finding out with keyphrases are "tripping the filter" - its figuring out what is causing the filter to trip.

Thats the money question - anybody that pays attention to their stats should easily be able to tell wich phrases are taking a hit.

aspdesigner




msg:207581
 11:00 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Cobra, that's the TOS for people USING their site (i.e. - doing searches). They could not hold webmasters they spider to that anyway, as they find and add our sites automatically. You can't be held to the terms of a contract you never agreed to!

caveman




msg:207582
 11:03 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

KevenC, that's where I am, and if these nixed pages are marked as dead, changes that fix the problem might not fix the problem for a month or more.

KevinC




msg:207583
 11:06 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

well at least in my case I know that just changing the title and H1 is not a quick fix - but since this was more of a traditional update, maybe you would need to wait until next month - or next traditional update to see the difference.

Or wich I hope is the case - its simply a bug that will be corrected. SteveB said he is seeing major changes on some of the regional datacenters - but I see exactly the same serps.

It doesn't bother me if they change the algo - thats to be expected, but OUCH right before xmas!

CobraRock




msg:207584
 11:07 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

aspdesigner, do you or have you ever used Google?

If so, you agreed to this Terms of Service according to Google. This does not mean that it can be inforced, but some of the changes inalgo seem to support it.

This is the first paragraph...

"Welcome! By using Google's search engine or other Google services ("Google Services"), you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions (the "Terms of Service")."

which means that Google is for Personal Use only and....

"You may not use the Google Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales."

The fact that Google included you in their database has nothing to do with it.

KevinC




msg:207585
 11:08 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

buy widgets

I'm not sure about your area - but in mine nobody types in "buy widgets" or "shop for widgets" - if they are looking for widgets - they type in widgets.

rfgdxm1




msg:207586
 11:10 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Cobra, that's the TOS for people USING their site (i.e. - doing searches). They could not hold webmasters they spider to that anyway, as they find and add our sites automatically. You can't be held to the terms of a contract you never agreed to!

Right. This allows Google to block IPs of people using WPG and stuff. This would also ban a site from having a search box on their site that claimed it was their own search, when they were really just using modified Google SERPs.

rfgdxm1




msg:207587
 11:16 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

>I'm not sure about your area - but in mine nobody types in "buy widgets" or "shop for widgets" - if they are looking for widgets - they type in widgets.

But the problem is that people searching for information on widgets will also just enter "widgets." If a searcher uses ambiguous search terms and doesn't get what they want, that is their problem, not Google's. Google can't read their minds. As I stated, in cases of such ambiguous searches, the way Google is designed it will give preference to info sites, because they link together more than competitors do. Besides, someone looking to buy will scroll past the info sites that come up on top until they get to the commercial sites. Its not really a big deal if non-commercial sites are ahead of yours. Only if the competition comes up higher.

Powdork




msg:207588
 11:26 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

[quote]Google can't read their minds. As I stated, in cases of such ambiguous searches, the way Google is designed it will give preference to info sites, because they link together more than competitors do.[quote]It's not about info sites versus commercial ones. Its about the search query and exact matches. For commercial queries, exact matches are being penalized. Information pages are dropped just as quickly in filtered searches if they are an exact match. The pages supplied by broad match are just as commercial, and just as seo'd, they're just not as relevant.

aspdesigner




msg:207589
 11:38 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

KevinC, I'm not talking about the search phrases you are already familiar with for your site.

I'm talking about experimenting with various word combinations (even nonsensical ones) using various words that do or do not appear in the body, title, headings, etc., to try to answer the question -

"figuring out what is causing the filter to trip."

My first test on one of my own sites already showed me one example of what could cause this filter to trip/not trip.

Caveman -


If so, it would still be the case that a new 'cleaned up' version of the index page would need to be spidered (and possibly the whole site if backlinks are an issue), before the filter would let it thru.

Not neccesarily. There is two different angles to test this from. Both the specific search, AND the contents/etc. of your site, COMBINE to determine if the filter gets tripped on not for that search.

So yes, you can change the contents of your page, wait for the spider, and see what happens.

But you can also grab the OTHER end of the stick, and experiment with various search words with your existing page, to see what "trips" the filter and what does not. You can do this right now, no waiting.

This is not like keyword density, where you have to wait for the spider to see your changes and them observe the results.

Both the contents AND the specific search control this filter. You can INSTANTLY toggle this filter on or off, depending on what search you type in.

Because both the search words and your page control this, you can experiment with either one and observe the effects in order to get a better idea of what "trips" the filter and what does not.

My suggestion is that while it takes at least a couple of days to change your indexed content, it only takes a couple of seconds to change the search words you type in! :)

My preference, I'ld rather learn what I can now, rather than have to change my site while Google is still in flux, and them have to wait a few days before I learn anything.

KevinC




msg:207590
 11:41 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

If we follow the logic that a user must type in "buy widgets" if they want to buy widgets - then a user must also type in "widget info" if they want info on widgets.

If I type in just "widgets" - whos to say if I want info or I want to buy.

Again I can't speak for your area but in mine - you must go to the 3rd page at least to get quality sites - all the top pages are amazon, shopping.com, Epinheads and generally low quality sites that DO NOT sell quality widgets.

Also with my area all the good quality widget sites have lots of good quality information about widgets. There is only 2 genuine information only websites and neither of these is in the top 100.

rfgdxm1




msg:207591
 11:41 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

>It's not about info sites versus commercial ones. Its about the search query and exact matches. For commercial queries, exact matches are being penalized. Information pages are dropped just as quickly in filtered searches if they are an exact match. The pages supplied by broad match are just as commercial, and just as seo'd, they're just not as relevant.

But that is irrelevant to the point I was making to KevinC. What you are mentioning is what seems like a questionable filter.

rfgdxm1




msg:207592
 11:47 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

>If I type in just "widgets" - whos to say if I want info or I want to buy.

If it is ambiguous, then the nature of the algo is such that it will favor info sites because these link to each other more. Google has always been that way. In fact, years ago even more so before the PR component of the algo was turned down.

>Again I can't speak for your area but in mine - you must go to the 3rd page at least to get quality sites - all the top pages are amazon, shopping.com, Epinheads and generally low quality sites that DO NOT sell quality widgets.

Lots of people seem to think that amazon.com and shopping.com are quality sites. They sure do a lot of business and have many customers. And, if amazon.com sells widgets, then they are a relevant match for a search of "widgets".

KevinC




msg:207593
 11:48 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

My preference, I'ld rather learn what I can now, rather than have to change my site while Google is still in flux, and them have to wait a few days before I learn anything.

I made the changes 2 days ago and I already saw my updated content in the index - with no change on position.

I'm not sure if I follow your logic about using random words from my body to see how I place - of course if I use "kw1 randomword" my site will be right there - what does that prove? I think we all know that some words are are "tripping the filter" and some arn't.

For my site I am concerned with 3 major keywords, thats it - all other keyphrases have stayed the same or improved.

KevinC




msg:207594
 11:50 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

but rfgdxm1 - if you want to buy a widget, do you want a good site sells them directly -- or do you want another site to help you find a site that sells them?

Personaly If I search for a product via a search engine I don't want to find another search engine - I want to find the product.

vbjaeger




msg:207595
 11:51 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

If a searcher uses ambiguous search terms and doesn't get what they want, that is their problem, not Google's

I can see what you are saying, but if a person types in "company's that sell K1 K2 K3" they get the same results as typing in "K1 K2 K3"

That is a pretty specific search term getting bad results. It certainly isnt giving them the results they were seeking...

rrl




msg:207596
 11:58 pm on Nov 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

I've lost several dozen sites from the engines over the weekend. My sites are all heavy in content (resource-style) and often have little competition. My main marketing site had been #1 and #2 for my main phrases for over 3 years and now it's off the radar. However, the PR remains the same. I'm just sitting tight.

asiatic




msg:207597
 12:02 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm fairly new here ... I just need some answers and don't know where else to go. For couple years, my sites were all in first page #1. Surprisingly, last week most of my sites are gone. Not to mention that I lost the first page placements but my sites are non-existing in google at all. My competitor on the other hand all of a sudden made it to the first page and manipulated the first 10 pages with it's sub-directories.

Can anybody help me? I'm trying to understand what seems to be the problem. Please help!

[edited by: asiatic at 12:08 am (utc) on Nov. 26, 2003]

rrl




msg:207598
 12:03 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Asiatic, there are tons of people in this boat with you. Grab a life jacket...

rrl




msg:207599
 12:06 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

To follow up, Google knows what they changed that resulted in this wild fluxuation. Because so many legit sites have been pummeled, my guess is they'll reverse whatever they did. If they're smart about it, they're making changes incrementally so when they goof like this, they can fix it.

jady




msg:207600
 12:11 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

rrl - well said.. I am not into SEO at all - never had to "work" to rank a site, just build it well, good navigation, some links and rich (non-keyword slammed) text! However many sites we manage have been hit hard for no reason.

A "Goof" is the only way I can explain it..

rfgdxm1




msg:207601
 12:15 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

>but rfgdxm1 - if you want to buy a widget, do you want a good site sells them directly -- or do you want another site to help you find a site that sells them?

If it is a good directory, then I wouldn't mind that showing up. IOW, the ODP cat for widget sellers is OK on a search for "buy widgets."

rrl




msg:207602
 12:26 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

As I go through these sites and do searches, I'm seeing really bad search results. Just checked yet another casualty...a site with a PR5 and a lot of good content that ranked #1 across the board for its terms. Now it's gone. The one that replaced it is a PR3 with very little content. More evidence in my mind that this is a glitch in the matrix.

aspdesigner




msg:207603
 12:31 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)


I'm not sure if I follow your logic about using random words from my body to see how I place...

Ah, but that's the trick. You don't want to find out where you rank. Just whether the filter gets tripped or not by that search.

By experimenting, you can find circumstances that trip the filter and those that do not.

For example, I now know that for a particular page, that if I do a 4-word search where all of the words are in the body, and two of them are in the title (at the beginning), that the filter does not trip.

But, if three of those words are in the title, it trips the filter.

By finding those sort of conditions, where a small change causes the filter to flip, and then analyzing them for what they have in common, we can get a pretty good idea of how the filter works and what will set it off.

Need3lives




msg:207604
 1:01 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Ok, did some testing. My site title is currently kw1 kw2 kw3. The search term kw1 kw2 kw3 used to hold a #1 rank for me, and was a key traffic driver for one of my sites. After the update, it is gone from the results.

Following the advice here, I did some tests, adding/removing additional keywords (kw4 and kw5 below from the body of my page) to the search.

Search Term : Result

kw1 kw2 kw3 : no listing in top 100
kw4 kw1 kw2 kw3 : no listing in top 100
kw1 kw4 kw2 kw3 : no listing in top 100
kw4 kw5 kw1 kw2 kw3 : #1 ranking
kw4 kw5 kw1 kw3 : #1 ranking
kw4 kw1 kw2 : #3 ranking
kw5 kw2 kw3 : #5 ranking
kw4 kw5 kw1 : #4 ranking
kw5 kw2 : #45 ranking

Make of it what you will, but for my three title keywords, it appears that if those keywords are searched for, at least two other keywords need to be added to the search to not trip the filter. If the person searches using 2 of my 3 title keywords, and 1 other keyword, I also rank well. If the person used 1 of the three title keywords, plus one or two other keywords, I also did not trip the filter.

It seems like this matches the results that aspdesigner is seeing.

Oddly, as others have mentioned, for the first 3 tests above, I actually saw sites in the top 30-40 that link to my site, with the only use of the title keywords being my anchor text.

I will make some changes to my title to see if that changes anything.

Kratzy




msg:207605
 1:16 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Since the previous update (the one before the one that just happened) my main URL has been buried on page 3 for our company name search term. It used to be at no1 then when the update went through it went directly to page 3.

None of the other pages shifted.

aspdesigner




msg:207606
 1:38 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Great, Need3Lives!

So, what you're saying then is, for your site -

5-word search, 3 of 5 in title - OK

4-word search, 3 of 4 in title - PENALTY
(2 examples of (+ 1 of mine = same result))

4-word search, 2 of 4 in title - OK
(1 example (+ 1 of mine = same result))

3-word search, 2 of 3 in title - OK
(2 examples)

3-word search, 1 of 3 in title - OK

2-word search, 1 of 2 in title -?
(Is that a penalty, or not? try with
-dhsjd and see if ranks higher than 45!)

From what I see from both so far, it appears
prominence and phrases in the title portion
may not be as much a factor as raw count.

I will check out a few ideas. In the mean
time, you may want to hold-off on making any
changes (at least to that page), so we have
a baseline we can try out a few other things
we think of, as it seems you page is perfect
for these test!

survivor




msg:207607
 1:40 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Does anybody notice a change in the frequency his or her site is updated by Google? There seem to be an abnormal number of sites without dates next to them. Am I misinterpreting this?

Stefan




msg:207608
 2:42 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Survivor, not sure about others, but the googlebot has not been as active through the recent algo update. We had about 25 of 150 pages checked yesterday, 2 the day before, 20 the day before that, and through the days last week it was only 2-5. Expect it to pick up soon as they swing back fully into the rolling update. (Our site usually gets about 20-40 per day... it's been slow).

As long as I'm helping to interrupt this thread with off-topic discussions... if anyone is sick of looking for their missing serps and wants to help me work on a database, with over a thousand entries, that needs a .dat file edited for a datum translation program, prior to being posted online, I could use a hand... :-) I'm up to the letter C.

This 409 message thread spans 14 pages: < < 409 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > >
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