| 6:22 pm on Jan 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Your guess is as good as anyone's. You could always try giving Google a ring to find out - let us know what they say! ;)
| 6:58 pm on Jan 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
trouble is not all sites are fluctauting....seems to me a constant tweaking of inbound link filters...sites with good solid natural links are remaining stable...high flyers on the back of recips are up and down more times than britneys marriage vows!
| 7:07 pm on Jan 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have good solid natural links, and I am all over the place.
| 7:16 pm on Jan 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I have good solid natural links, and I am all over the place.<
is there any pattern that you can see? When you fluctuate do the sites that link to you also go through the mill?
| 9:57 pm on Jan 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Im steady for top ranked terms, lower ranked terms are all over the place. Weird.
| 10:17 pm on Jan 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yeah. I'm surprised no one has done this yet. :) It's been far too long.
The one and only potential downfall I can see I actually ran into this morning: my mother did a search on google yesterday, and found something she wanted to show me. She emailed me this morning with the link to the Google SERP (instead of the site she wanted me to see). It wasn't there.
I know some users will bookmark SERPs instead of sites to go back to, but I'd be willing to bet that behavior isn't generally popular.
Other than that, I see no reason they haven't randomized the listings yet, at least in a controlled fashion.
| 11:08 pm on Jan 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not seeing any sort of randomization in the SERPs I watch. Few minor shifts here and there, but nothing out of the norm.
Yup, this keyword was turned upside down like all the rest after the Florida update.
I doubt Google would randomize their results.. that's like saying they come up with a random algo every day with no direction or reason.
Hey just my opinion though :)
| 11:35 pm on Jan 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Other than that, I see no reason they haven't randomized the listings yet, at least in a controlled fashion."
Randomization runs counter to the very basis of a search engine. As a searcher I want the best results an engine can create, not freaking randomized ones. I'd never use a search engine that wasn't deliberately showing the best results it could every time.
| 3:18 pm on Jan 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I'd never use a search engine that wasn't deliberately showing the best results it could every time. |
If that was true, then google would revert to pre-florida.
I think that google is adjusting the spam filter every few days (without much success), and this is causing the variable results.
I think that google needs industry specific spam filters. By using a highly selected filter on a highly competitive industry, they are turning our
low competitive industry SERP results into mush.
| 3:40 pm on Jan 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In answer to the question, for me it's certainly dead.
Post Florida my site slowly came back in the listings (not to where it was previously but still on page 1 for searches). Made no changes what-so-ever and over Christmas it vanished again. Back again about 4 days later (same position for major keywords) then 2 days ago vanished again for my major keywords to about #200+.
I've given up on looking so closely now. It's just too depressing.
| 4:00 pm on Jan 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I see different stages of my pages in the SERPs like "old description, new page content," so I suppose SERPs now are glimpses of ongoing processes.
All in all, what I watch is pretty stable though, and some of what I watch is in competitive areas.
I find google news now on keywords, that were not newsworthy before.
| 4:04 pm on Jan 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>If that was true, then google would revert to pre-florida.
What proof do you have the average searcher thinks post-Florida results are worse? I personally don't see this as being the case.
| 10:02 pm on Jan 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What does pre-florida have to do with the price of widgets?
Stability hasn't changed between pre and post florida. Sites move around, fresh ones get boosts, then settle down, etc etc. Nothing has changed in that way. As usual, if people get their heads out of their own sites they would see a bigger picture.
| 10:24 pm on Jan 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google does show different results from day to day.
It just depends which datacentre that you are accessing at the time. Each datacentre has different results on it, and accessing the main www URL does cause the results to vary from day to day.
Search using each individual datacentre in turn to see the variance in results that different searchers might be seeing.
| 12:56 am on Jan 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I do believe that results are fluctuating more now that when I started following SERPs (about 4 years ago).
While there are many theories about why, I'm starting to think that the dampening factor might have more to do with it than we think.
For instance, since Florida, the consensus seems to be that obvious SEO tricks are more like to harm than help, and that paying more attention to content and user friendliness is more important than ever (for SEO objectives).
What better way for Google to gauge which sites users find relevant and useful for their search terms than the dampening factor? And if this factor is so important to them, they will need to serve differing results in order to get dampening factors on the many sites that rank comparably -- and then equilibrate them.
I have, in one manufacturing area I follow, seen results that support this theory. Results were wildly variable during Florida and until about last week. The SERPs are now somewhat stable, and I must say, good (even though the site I optimize isn't up there :)). Google finally is serving the "best" brands in this space.
| 2:54 am on Jan 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing the results change almost daily for my 2 word key phrase... with the exception of the top 2 results. I'm unwilling to wait for Google to stabilize, with all of the instability I've commited my Q1 ad dollars elsewhere.
| 3:19 am on Jan 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What is remarkable to me in my area, is there are so many sites that are totally irellevant on all searches, few of the biggest pr ones are still in the top 100, many of the other irrelavant sites are also pretty high pr. So darn suprising though that ADWORDS is almost exact. So much more money being generated there now and it is a fact that impressions and click through rates went way up. Totally my belief still that google is totally enjoying and going after the Bucks terms and deliberately serving sub-par organic search results.