| 8:26 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
GG made good point - we keep talking about updates like in the past (when new data/sites added) when these most recent updates have been changes to the way Google ranks sites (algorithm changes).
| 8:29 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yep, seems a slight change in the Algo - nothing major.
Some sites up, some sites down.
Slight relaxation on the OOP perhaps.
Googlebot had a good crawl a couple of days back so hopefully this data will be added soon(ish).
| 8:29 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yah. I usually say change instead of update; it's a little more generic but more accurate, if that's possible.
P.S. Powdork, not positive if I remember your site correctly, but if I do then you should be happier. We really do listen to the feedback that people give us, I promise. :)
| 8:37 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Nice to hear from you GG.:)
| 8:39 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Good to be back. Although I am wondering a little about what I'm doing at 12:37 a.m talking to my WebmasterWorld friends from my desk at work. :)
Ah, that's right. I'm waiting for this here program compile to finish.
<GoogleGuy pokes his compiler some.>
| 8:41 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Puttin' in a lil' "OT" at the "Plex" are ya.
| 8:48 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes, don't want to jinx anything at this early stage.:)
| 8:56 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy, Do you eat work and sleep at google? Also i see the new serps are live on AOL. Are you looking for any feed back? I'm not seeing any spam!
| 9:01 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Are you looking for any feed back? I'm not seeing any spam!"
That's the kind of feedback I like to hear. :) But if you do see some, feel free to drop me a spam report. You can use "austinupdate" until Brett and the mods decide if this change is worth a name. :)
Come to think of it, I am getting a little sleepy.
| 9:03 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wonder if a pr update is coming as well.Haven't noticed any yet.
| 9:06 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
cabbie, I believe that for the time being the visible PR and backlinks changes happen at a slightly different frequency.
| 9:11 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Definitely a significant increase in anchor text value this time. Too bad. I'm seeing the return of a few heavily seo'ed, low content, piffle domains that pretend to be on the topic, rely heavily on off-topic links, and have zilch authority.
Not a huge change though. Mostly just adding two lame results per ten good results.
| 9:12 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
hey did you see the thread in the supporetrs forum about "google for dummies"
And click on the "enlarge photo"
| 9:21 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That doesn't seem quite right, cabbie. :) I'll alert them that someone switched the Big image and the little image.
markus007, we removed the need to do that -asdfasdq stuff, so I'd just leave it off altogether. site:domain.com will give you a pretty fair estimate. I think adding the -sadfasdfq stuff makes the server go partway through the index before it says "Wait a minute. That's a nonsense word!" So it's basically nondeterministic depending on which nonsense word you add. I'd just use site: and not worry about it. :)
| 9:22 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
seeing again alot of pages with hidden text in the serps, seems they are getting a good Pagerank
| 9:39 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
GG, thanks for keeping in touch, your input I am sure is always welcomed, as is your insight to ongoing developments.
I do have a question though, while sites go up and down there have been a plethora of posts re removing commercial sites and it is true that many disappeared but in many cases only to be replaced by others, do you feel that Google believe that commercial sites don't offer the results that people are actually looking for?.
I would argue that in many cases people are in fact looking for commercial sites and not reference sites, Google recognises that the internet carries a high proportion of commercially orientated sites and naturally has introduced Adwords etc to offer enhanced ways to bring these to the fore but surely these same sites offer value to the visitor and not just from a commercial perspective.
I, like many people using this forum have been affected by the change in Algo's and are constantly scratching heads to understand what can be done to lift our listings but it is disheartening when principally competitive commercial sites offering similar products and services to the same market place maintain or significantly improve their listings when your own disappear.
Please dont get me wrong, while our site is hard to find after Nov03,(after maintaining page 1 listings for months), I just want to understand Googles perspective on the listing of commercial sites against reference sites when they both offer visitor value.
Thanks and Regards
| 9:46 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>That doesn't seem quite right, cabbie.
Don't want to keep you up GG but i think it works well like that.Plays off the "google for dummies" and creates a laugh.
| 9:57 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hey Think, welcome to WebmasterWorld. I can try to give you my personal take. I absolutely agree that both commercial sites and info sites provide value to the user. At different times, a user may want either commercial results because they want to buy something, or they might just be looking for info. We want to return what we think the user is looking for, whether it be commercial or info. Historically, Google often started more as a research tool/informational resource. If you did a search for something like "sex," for example, Google was much more likely to give G-rated informational pages than other search engines.
It's not a no-brainer to find the right balance. I think if you asked a sample of WebmasterWorld folks, they might lean toward returning more commercial results. My hunch is that if you asked regular users, they would want fewer commercial results in their search results than a typical SEO would prefer. As for me personally, as long as the user is happy, then I'm happy. I think that to find the right balance, we get valuable feedback from both regular users and from site owners. We'll keep doing our best to find the balance that makes users the happiest, but we're open to suggestions from both sides of the spectrum about how to make searching better.
| 10:08 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I would say I'm seeing a relevance improvement for the area I work in (assuming I'm looking at the right serps).
I've noticed a couple of the large search-based directory sites that have been dominating this area are sliding down, which can only be a good thing for serp quality imo.
| 10:22 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just checked my keyword on 188.8.131.52 that as if I understood right is the new.
I am still on first side, but was surprised that an site that has sort of being "banned" since Florida is on first position, that site repeats the name of the city 4 times in title, isnīt that spamming?
Thanks for all your interesting information in this post.
| 10:24 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
GG, thankyou for taking the time out to respond.
Quite honestly, while I am a website owner the most important thing I would of thought from Goolges point of view is that of their customer (aka users) and the information that they receive from their searches.
Web owners will always bleat about their sites going down and praise Google when they go up, and for us we just bleat in silence :).
Anyway the visitor is king, if they don't get the results they are looking for they devalue the methodology and service in delivering those results. Its almost impossible 'to teach the world to search' as most users don't know '+' etc search terms, therefore with one search box to use they typically type a couple of words that could lead to almost any results.
One suggestion would be to review the way that Google presents their search box, perhaps by offering the user several additional selections to choose from, these maybe in the form of tick boxes 'commercial, reference, adult, etc' almost allowing them to self filter their results. Alternatively giving them additional options once the primary search has been made, an extension of the 'spelling error' system that is currently in place.
These are only ideas of how the visitors experience can be improved, Google can only do so much in tuning the se results, perhaps Google should also be looking at how to achieve better results by obtaining more defined search terms in the first place.
Anyway I'm off to scratch my head even more as the 64 and 216 results are not helping me.
Thanks ad Regards
| 10:30 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Good talking to you, Think. I think any way that we can help the user tell us what they want or help them clarify their information-need can only be for the good.
Okay, that sentence doesn't scan very well. And my music has wrapped around from Bruce Springsteen to Phil Collins (bleah), so I think I'm heading to bed. I'll be around tomorra and over the weekend some to answer whatever questions I can.
| 10:51 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"to answer whatever questions I can."
Who were Crazy Janie and the Chicken Man?
| 11:10 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That is a good example of a question that I cannot answer. I have a hunch there's a good story in there somewhere though?
Catch you tomorrow..
| 11:11 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Looks and sounds like Google have a winner with this update. Shouldn't it have a name by now?
I'm not seeing dramatic improvements, but the results do look better. What I find amazing, having quickly skimmed this thread, is that no one seems to think the sky is falling yet - it won't be long now.
| 11:22 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The sky has already fallen - it can't fall any more! This tweak has raised the horizon a bit. It retains the Florida/Austin theme (so not a lot of help to many of us) but has started to remove some of the results that were total piffle and IMO annoying users. At least the informational and directory sites now showing seem to have something to do with the subject searched for.
| 11:29 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I had a doorway page that should not have been in the SERPS and Google got it this time, fair play google. This one looks balanced and has got rid of the crap.
| 11:30 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Funny update really. Our newer sites have rocketed to glory, but I feel really sorry for one guy in our organization.
He runs a really nice site which he puts a lot of work into and following the Florida update he removed any duplicate phrases from his home page which might have led to the so called Over Optimization Penalty. I really can't see any keyword stuffing anywhere on his site, or in fact anything I would call spam whatsoever.
He's just started returning to the SERPs the last 30 days, but he has been whacked by the big hammer for his most important keywords again.
Who said the meek would inherit the earth?
| 11:32 am on Feb 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing great results on AOL today do you think that these will transfer to Google.com/co.uk today or over the next few days?
And many thanks to everyone for the informative posts this morning.
| This 343 message thread spans 12 pages: 343 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12 ) > > |