| 11:04 am on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> Get in front of the situation
That should have been done a week ago. As it is now, it appears that Florida is giving way to Galen (1).
Nice letter though - keep it on tap, as I'd imagine you are going to need it alot in the coming years.
>(1) Galen: Greek meaning healer.
| 11:25 am on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hi Brett - Galen - I like it. Do you really think we are now entering an entirely new update? - please expand.
| 11:29 am on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You see, that has a special meaning for me too. "Galen Hall" -former coach of the Florida Gators. He took over after Charlie Pell was dismissed and the Gators were given a penalty (gasp) for recruiting violations. He brought the Gator program back to prominence, including their first SEC championship. Hopefully, the symbolicism is not lost on Google;).
I see no sign of this fellow, however.
If anyone mentions the Florida-FSU game today I will link to you without the www.;)
THAT was a travesty of justice.
| 12:04 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
As I recall, the original Galen was also in the habit of conducting experiments on living things...
| 12:58 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Although I think your idea is good,
what really is going to put a dent in the situation
is when the "media" picks up on this issue.
"Google Goes Bad Bannana,
while Yahoo and Altavista are just ripe for the consumer."
"Humpty Dumpty Sat on a Wall... Google Sits on Bad Egg."
| 3:48 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The word is spreading to the mainstream press.
"What's wrong with Google?"
| 3:55 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've seen no evidence of this - please expand.
Ref: original post:
|1. Your not getting as many referrals from me. |
2. Your not getting as many referrals from LTWHA.
3.Your not getting as many referrals from Google, Yahoo, AOL.
'Your' needs changing to 'You're' or 'You are'
| 5:14 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|'Your' needs changing to 'You're' or 'You are' |
Also commercial search queries is repeated in the same sentence before I included the 'url='.
| 5:19 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|That should have been done a week ago. |
In some cases yes, in some cases no.
Yes, if a huge percentage of they're sales are via Google.
No, if a small percentage of they're sales are via Google.
Yes, if you want them to watch results closely.
No, as its not in they're best interest to watch results this closely.
Just like in Financial Management, you want to do everything you can to train your clients to watch they're results no more than once a month. Once a year would be even better.
| 5:31 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Its also much easier now because a week ago, many of my competitors and some of my clients were still present. It seems as though whatever they are doing involves turning the knob a little further.
|That should have been done a week ago. |
Are the sites being removed (the obviously relevant) the same ones that would be used to determine local rank?
| 7:50 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
superscript, you'RE here to talk about Google not the English language.
You mean you haven't seen the
|Every dollar spent on SEO is a dollar not spent on adwords |
The press will be covering the IPO with a lot of interest. Any sub-plot will provide interesting fodder for their readership.
| 8:17 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|As it is now, it appears that Florida is giving way to Galen |
Brett - Where is it appearing? I've been predicting that the current results couldn't stick... not fully... but I'm still not seeing anything that would make me sleep easier.
| 8:41 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
When I say please expand, I'm not doubting, just querying ;)
And no, I haven't seen the article you refer too. What is the publication?
| 11:31 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
From another thread:
|It has been suggested that Google is using a bayesian type filter. IF that is true, it seems likely that your homepage is being penalized (or filtered) for the term for which it is most optimized. |
Upon a quick check, my home page has dropped from page 2 to page 7 for the phrase "ACME widgets". ACME is a highly popular commercial term (but not at all spammy), and one that happens to have many ads. But, for "blue widgets", and "widgets", I'm still up on page 1 or 2.
The strange thing is that a large competitor of mine is in the #1 slot, and in terms of keyword density and PR, that page looks quite similar to mine.
| 11:56 pm on Nov 30, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Doesn't a Bayesian filter require input from the target user so that it can learn what the user classifies as spam -based on what the user classifies as 'not spam'? If that is the case, how can the Google algorithm use such a filter to produe a generic set of results for millions of different users without feedback from those millions of users?
| 12:03 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think the problem is anchor text
Not internal - Google seems to accept that a site must be very descriptive about it self - but external.
For my main site all external anchor texts are the same: “city hotels”, so the site is now dropped:
#500 for the plural (used to be #1 before) but still # 1 for the singular.
I analyzed the new first 20 competitors for the plural: all of them are optimized, but all of them have external anchor text partial or totally different phrase.
I own many other sites, but I want to present you two of them - a very relevant case for me:
These two sites are builded in the same manner: "name1 hotel city" the first and "name2 hotel city" the other.
The same structure, the same old fashion optimization method. Cross-linking, different IP’s, same owner.
Last year the owner of "name1 hotel " changed, so the hotel’s name changed too; let say " new name"
I changed all the elements in the name1 site (title, etc) but not the URL and not the external anchor text.
So from one year the site is named and optimized for "new name hotel city “, but with the old external anchor text "name1 hotel city"
Surprise: after Florida "new name hotel" is still #1, but the “name2” is severe dropped.
I have more proofs, but I do not want to borrow you.
I know I am not a Guru, but may be my observation will help you to conclude.
I made same changes recently; if the effect will be positive, I will let you know.
This is my way to protest against new Google game.
May be is the time for action: just imagine a strong organization – millions of webmasters, SEO’s, site owners.
| 12:19 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Experts are up in the air over whether Google is temporarily broken, or this is an intentional attempt to increase revenue prior to going public.
And who are those?
| 12:25 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
VERY VERY empirical (which is GOOD GOOD GOOD... as others... I got gigs on that stuff). Glad to have you here as a "new" ;-) user.
GOOGLE must go... the head of the snake is dangling and the worD must, MUST GET OUT.
WHY ARE WE SO BALLS IN SLING TO GOOGLE?
LOOK... Google made their name by low impact and feltching off
of DMOZ.. PLAIN and SIMPLE... now we all know... and boy..
I'd like to throw out my favorite 100 or so of corrupt DMOZ editor's
oh... oh... Apeuro... where are you chump!
But now iT's Brass Tacks and investor money on the line...
Google took no responsiblility for the client slash agent relationship
they "STOLE" and built Google on...
REALLY... you are going to sell investors on a database that is
from DMOZ... Look at AOL for that sort of crap...
| 12:29 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Not a helpful post - mods please remove it, plus this one.
| 12:29 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think the problem is anchor text.
I believe that also. I am in the same industry and see the exact same situation.
My problem, if this holds true, is quite simple as I never relied to any great extent on outside links, just enough from other content sites that I have developed.
I have already changed the structure on the current external links.
Now the real question is:
How long will this penalty last.
| 12:33 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>For now, search with Alta Vista and Spread the Word.
I don't think you'll win any friends sending them to Alta Vista...the results on AV are far worse than Google IMHO!
| 12:38 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
those who clamoring G sucks/its-a-goner have no idea of the kind of users G has. Try reading this to understand the G users pscyhe: [google.com...] Not one post ever mentions "I wanted to buy this widget, and i got this one 100$ cheap because of G".
And, w.r.t these idle boast about Adwords revenue conspiracy, I haven't read one post in Adwords forum saying "Since the G update, my clicks/sales increased 50% from Adwords". This indicates users are fairly satisfied with the searches, even for commercial oriented kws, since if the serps are so bad, more people would be clicking Adwords.
Also, i have asked many of my friends, and no one said, G results have gone worse. They are finding either it is better or the same.
Try reading msg#170 of this thread: [webmasterworld.com...] Claus sums it up perfectly :)
[edited by: Chndru at 12:53 am (utc) on Dec. 1, 2003]
| 12:42 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Remember who I'm sending this letter too. None of them were even aware their sites had been dropped from the only keyphrases that bring any real traffic. I have participated in many if not all of these threads and am aware of nearly all the theories roaming ww and www.
1. Intended for the results of their actions to be this severe and are happy with the results.
2. Did not intend for the results of their actions to be this severe.
In the case of #1 why would they do it. Commercial serps are NOT more relevant now.
In the case of #2, Google is broken.
| 12:54 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I think the problem is anchor text. |
Sorry to be so blunt, but WRONG!
Google wouldnt allow outsiders to affect your website. Think about how easy it would be for your competitors to totally screw you. This just isnt possible!
This was/is about targetting "highly competitive" terms to increase adword profits!
| 1:04 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Think about how easy it would be for your competitors to totally screw you. |
I agree. GG has always said external links to your site can NOT harm you. That would include anchor text. I doubt that Google penalizes for anchor text but it may limit the effectiveness under certain conditions.
| 1:08 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|This was/is about targetting "highly competitive" terms to increase adword profits! |
Sorry to be so blunt but i believe you are WRONG!
I have some very consistent results in some very competitive keyword areas. I believe an attempt has been made to achieve something, as yet we are unable to identify what this 'something' is but what I do think is that we have not seen the end of changes coming in the near future.
| 1:12 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>I think the problem is anchor text.
I believe that also
Sorry to be so blunt, but WRONG!
Not to burst any bubbles, but dont you think that GOOGLE knows exactly who links to who and how many occurances.
I mean after all, their whole IVY league mentality is built on the premise that sites linked together is the universal answer to the worlds SE dilema.
After all, if 100 people link to you - you must be important!
In MHO this kind of thinking is kinda of naieve, and to believe that this would not have been exploited, is simply a dream. Look at the pre-florida serps. Case rested.
They have the ip address, administrators name, and IT contact of every site in their index.
It would a small task to match them up and apply a penalty filter to domain specific URLs.
| 1:17 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|GG has always said external links to your site can NOT harm you |
But it's not entirely true, at least not at the moment.
Powdork, it seemed like a good idea to me... hope it helps.
| 1:24 am on Dec 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The 'external links can't harm you' is always professed by Google as a fact.
But it needn't be true.
Do you really think anyone is going to risk setting up extensive links to their competitors in the vague hope it might harm them ;)
| This 81 message thread spans 3 pages: 81 (  2 3 ) > > |