| 12:55 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
we dont in the uk yet.
| 1:18 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
In NL nothing yet either,
At least not for me yet, I'll keep my fingers crost..
Would be nice to be back.
|Denis at eVR|
| 1:38 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have the -dc results firmly on www here in florida this morning
| 2:20 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Do you see any changes in serps? |
Great improvements for many of my sites / keywords.
| 2:37 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Nope. It's ellipsoid ;)
| 3:08 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> They dont' show up for their own name!
...o.t., but i just have to comment on that case example. It's not the full story, but i will not add those specifics, as these only relate to the top of the serps. Anyhow, imho this does not indicate a "commercial filter", just competition for keywords (which is something else). Currently, on -ex the "right page" show up at #98, but imho, this is entirely caused by heavy competition for the last three words of that four-word query. The 97 pages in front are much more relevant for the last three words than for the first word - further, there are specific reasons why that site would not rank well for the query; #98 is in fact a good match
[edited by: claus at 3:20 pm (utc) on Dec. 7, 2003]
| 3:16 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sure wish I saw evidence of the rollback others see. On my city specific travel terms, there has been and continues to be virtually complete agreement among the data centers with no big - or even small - shift of sites suddenly moving back in the index.
Hopefully one day I will say "I see it now." But for now - I'll sit on the sidelines here until I see some movement.
| 3:34 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Wow, one of my sites finally hit a PR8 :)
| 4:06 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I got hopeful when I saw myself on www2 at 409 (from nowhere) but today down to 506.
I'm not looking anymore!
| 4:56 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
In fact it is an oblate spheroid. There's nothing worse than a pedantic statement which is, in itself, incorrect.
| 5:03 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You better hope your grammar in that last post was perfect! :)
| 5:09 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
one need to apply something called "brain" to interpret that sentence!
I simply mean we have come to the point from where we started -> the position again is wait and watch.
Start reading useful posts instead of rubbish like mine ;-)
| 7:20 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I disagree claus. Look at the sites just before the frost site when using 10 results per page. Look at all the .edu sites who only mention frost, and none of the other words. Take a deeper look at the results.
This is from one of the snippets ahead of their listing. Notice what google has highlighted.
"Depending on conditions, copper rods and connectors can deteriorate
over the years when cur- rent flows through them and to ground"
There are many many of these pdf's all with a single classified in the back for a single vacation unit and in most cases from pre 2002 publication.
[added]claus, your sticky box is full[/added]
| 8:50 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|There is always algo tweaking going on, but this is not the root of the issue. |
Both sides of this filter/no filter argument could be right.
The one thing the guys at Google don't want us to do is figure out what they have done otherwise they will have wasted their time.
Steveb is right there has been a change in the algo but I think he's wrong to rule out a filter as well as a shift in the algo, on the basis of the evidence that he has stated in this thread. I've suggested elsewhere that perhaps pages flagged for filtering have some filter factor applied if there is an exact match with a term in a "filter list". I'm suggesting that this filter factor may be BadRank calculated off-line in the same way as PageRank is calculated but in this case it is not published. I guess that this extra factor does not have to be stored as an on/off switch but could be on a 1-10 scale like PageRank.
This would explain all of the anomolies that have been reported here and would explain the extra factor that appears to be applied to some pages for certain terms and not to other pages as an extra hidden factor. Whether you call that a filter is a matter of semantics. No pun intended ;-)
Google was and is in danger of having the quality of its results drowned in a sea of spam. The big idea of its founders "PageRank", based on the "Unique democracy of the Web", was being destroyed by rigged elections.
In my delusional state I think that they may have found what they think is the perfect solution to this problem. A kind of scales of justice where the good, PageRank plus positive in document factors etc. are weighed against the bad dodgy backlinks and overoptimisation applied only to search terms that themselves are weighed by some mechanism that decides if they are or are likely to be the subjects of abuse. By applying this principal Google can be returned to its utopian vision.
I've been badly affected by Florida and I still think that if this is what they are doing it is a good idea for the long term. In the short term I'm buisily trying to pile stuff on the positive side of the scales whilst reducing the weight on the negative side. I recon that even if I'm wrong it can't do me any harm long term.
PS My understanding of the mechanism of "search term -nonesensestring" is that we are searching for, in this case the words search and term excluding any document which includes a string which would never occur in any document. Therefore it forces Google to search for the search term but fools it into thinking that it is not searching for one of the terms in its filter list. This proves that some extra factor is applied to certain search terms. That sounds like a filter to me but perhaps its just part of one big algo. One things for sure if they don't swithch it off we are going to have to learn how to live with it.
| 12:25 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> My understanding of the mechanism of "search term -nonesensestring"
It's actually two things: First, do an exact search and second, omit "nonsensestring" - sorry for being OT again.
Uhm... is this minor update or data inclusion/whatever over now, or?
| 5:37 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
hope so claus, we are back to the top 5 again - needed to make a few changes though
| 5:41 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Has anybody else noticed any major changes in the backlink reports from the Google toolbar? In the last day or so some of our sites went from reporting 70 backlinks to only 1 and in a few cases none.
| 5:55 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Has anybody else noticed any major changes in the backlink reports from the Google toolbar?
Yes - Similar results here. Lost virtually all links.
| 9:48 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am reverse on backlinks. I had 78 now I have almost 290. We used to show about 290 last May, but it has been dropping every month even though our total is almost 1200 on ATW.
| 9:53 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Backlinks are up for some of my sites and down for some of my sites. it is like this every month. Zero consistency.
| 10:00 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
more movement on main data center google.com
| 11:03 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The prior post made me check some backlinks and I just discovered something interesting. I had a relatively new page (about 2 months old) for a slightly competitive phrase, which has been working it's way up from about 20-ish as backlinks were slowly getting added from offsite last week it was up to a PR4-PR5 with about 10 very good quality links. Just before Florida, the page on my site which was LINKING to it, jumped to about 10 and the page itself was around 18. right after Florida, the page linking to it jumped to 4 and the new page dropped to about 21. This morning the page linking it suddenly dropped back to 9 ad the page itself stayed at 21. I discovered via backlinks, that some syndicated news service just written a short news article with a link about my new page and it was duplicated on about 20 of their subsidiary clients domains! All of them PR5+! Normally I would have been overjoyed at the attention and new unsolicited backlinks, but concurrent with the sudden drop, I'm not so sure? Does this mean we can now be penalized for being duplicate LINKED by unrelated sites?
| 11:45 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"more movement on main data center google.com"
First time I've seen -mc serving up results on www.
Looks like the tool guy has to reformat his page again....
| 1:46 am on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Looks like the tool guy has to reformat his page again....
He got -lm in there pretty quick...it almost makes you wonder if he's checking the boards here ;-)
| 1:50 am on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
On a site that came back to its main keyword after previously suffering from florida blackout google is showing the pre florida backlinks. Maybe they're doing some kind of a rollback on certain sites? This site is only showing up on www and mc for me right now...
| 2:10 am on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>First time I've seen -mc serving up results on www.
Looks to me like -mc is something worth keeping your eye on. Seems to be the latest refinement.
| 2:39 am on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
-mc has interesting results. One of two missing pre-florida pages that cameback is now gone again on -mc. Mine is still there among nothing but directories/authorities. I'm not complaining, but I dont know why, unless it's just anchor text bonus I'm getting.
| This 147 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 147 ( 1 2 3 4  ) |