homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.133.166
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 327 message thread spans 11 pages: < < 327 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 > >     
Update Brandy Part 3
GoogleGuy




msg:70899
 7:41 pm on Feb 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Continued From: [webmasterworld.com...]

"Any clue as to the possible role greater reliance on semantics is playing in your never ending quest for more relevant results?"

I'd say that's inevitable over time. The goal of a good search engine should be both to understand what a document is really about, and to understand (from a very short query) what a user really wants. And then match those things as well as possible. :) Better semantic understanding helps with both those prerequisites and makes the matching easier.

So a good example is stemming. Stemming is basically SEO-neutral, because spammers can create doorway pages with word variants almost as easily as they can to optimize for a single phrase (maybe it's a bit harder to fake realistic doorways now, come to think of it). But webmasters who never think about search engines don't bother to include word variants--they just write whatever natural text they would normally write. Stemming allows us to pull in more good documents that are near-matches. The example I like is [cert advisory]. We can give more weight to www.cert.org/advisories/ because the page has both "advisory" and "advisories" on the page, and "advisories" in the url. Standard stemming isn't necessarily a win for quality, so we took a while and found a way to do it better.

So yes, I think semantics and document/query understanding will be more important in the future. pavlin, I hope that partly answers the second of the two questions that you posted way up near the start of this thread. If not, please ask it again in case I didn't understand it correctly the first time. :)

 

longen




msg:71049
 8:22 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Back in Feb 2002 my web site was down for six weeks while transferring to a new ISP. Didn't get dropped by Google. It is a content site, currently PR5, online since 2000.

Chicken Juggler




msg:71050
 8:29 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

I guess I will chime in. I have seen some sites that were hit by florida come back. I have fallen on a singuler word but the plural is the same. My area is not real full of spam. Of course some people might call my site spam because I am beating them with info pages that have no outgoing links or ads. I was just doing the SEO before I started the look and feel and monitizing part of the job. I get sites ranking before I waste any time developing. When they rank I then put in the work to make money off of them.

makemetop




msg:71051
 8:29 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Not wishing to sound out-of-order, but this is meant to be a discussion of an update. I don't believe that this is or should be a private chat-line to GG, nor a chat room about who has seen the 64, 216, 999, 911 or 666 update showing on www, ww2, ww3 or wwwwww search portals - less again an "I've seen a spammer.." thread.

If 64. is the update, can we discuss that - or are people disputing that this data centre is (or will be) the update. If you are - then it is not an update. Could I suggest you discuss elsewhere (in the nicest possible way).

I will reintroduce something I wanted to discuss a couple of threads ago.

Brandy appears to have reduced the criteria needed to qualify as an "authority" site - however, authority sites still rule the roost for a pre-ponderance of commercial search terms - but the level of "status" needed to be considered for authority status varies on the type of search made - and in some areas, does not exist.

Seriously, most long-term members ignore these threads, they slither off track so fast they aren't worth having a discussion in.

Exceptions are the "Google is always great and never makes mistakes" sycophants and the "Google always sucks" fanatics - but these are limited to only a couple of dedicated posters who are also long-term members.

It would be nice to see serious discussion again.

[edited by: makemetop at 8:32 pm (utc) on Feb. 16, 2004]

Laxters




msg:71052
 8:31 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'll chime in for our main search term "keyword1 keyword2":

Pre-Brandy: 3
64.x.x.x: 1
216.x.x.x: 1
Current www: 5

I'm in Southern California too, and our www hasn't updated to the 216 nor the 64 yet - we've actually dropped two spots to number 5.

As a user and a webmaster, I'd hope the google maintained the high quality of pages indexed. Honestly, when we know what we're looking for, it's not that hard to find on google.

Normal users will eventually learn about search flags and modifiers, broad vs. exact, etc. I feel out of all the major SEs, Goggle currently does the best job.

makemetop




msg:71053
 8:37 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hmm - oh well, back to the supporters' forum!

jtoddv




msg:71054
 8:38 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

The goal of a good search engine should be both to understand what a document is really about, and to understand (from a very short query) what a user really wants. And then match those things as well as possible.

Until you can read searchers minds, good luck. Give categorization a try.

europeforvisitors




msg:71055
 8:58 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

makemetop wrote:

Exceptions are the "Google is always great and never makes mistakes" sycophants and the "Google always sucks" fanatics - but these are limited to only a couple of dedicated posters who are also long-term members.

It would be nice to see serious discussion again.

Since when does flaming members who don't agree with you qualify as "serious discussion"?

Saman




msg:71056
 9:11 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you type in the search for a two word phrase, with the second word having two possible suffixes, if version-1 is what's on the page and version-2 is what you searched for it'll come up with the page with the version-1 phrase (what's on the page) highlighted just as though it were version-2.

i can see a lot of search results for "some thing" where none of the word "things" is highlited despite of presence. This happens with both cases - very competitive keywords and not.

More over, some SERPS show results without any stemmed words at all! It surprises me greatly because some authority guys say that today stemming plays a great role in Google search results.

BTW, what are the basic rules of the Google stemming? What words from the following list are counted like the same one's?

1. form (verb)
2. form (noun)
3. forms (verb)
4. froms (noun)
5. formed
6. forming
7. former
8. reform (verb)
9. reform (noun)
10. formation

..

etc

thevoodoo




msg:71057
 9:12 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well in answer to MakeMeTOp It seems like Google wants to rank only the commercial sites that actually carry non-commercial contents also. This way searchers can get valuable reviews and research material and also the ability to purchase gods and services on the same website.

Just my take on the whole thing.

Marcia




msg:71058
 9:19 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

OK, let's settle ourselves on this. It's been several days, and we know for certain that 64. will be moving onto all the data centers and will be going live.

We also know that it will be rolling out gradually so we will all be seeing different things at different times until it fully propogates. There is no longer any need for blow-by-blows, which will avail us nothing. It's a done deal and it's time to move on.

So let's have some throughtful discussion on what it is we're seeing - not numbers, but some serious evaluation, which is what a lot of our people are hopefully here for.

yvt360




msg:71059
 9:21 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

To me an example of a good commercial website that offers great product information might be something like amazon.
It appears that sites built with these concepts in mind might do well in the Brandy update. yes/no?

thevoodoo




msg:71060
 9:32 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Sites like Amazon and BN are internet giants that I believe should have no room in search engines. The reasoning behind it, is that people who search for "foo" on Google in most cases already know about Amazon or BN and the reason why they are searching on Google is that they want to find a more specifically dedicated site. There coudl be many other reasons such as locality, language, specialty, discounts and more.

Now if the sites offered localized content, specific languages or specializing in specific fields or offering discounted merchandise start thinking a bit more about visitors than their own profit, They will provide more informational and educational contents in their secific fields.

After all, the most honest business practice is to educate your prospective client on the pros and cons of your goods and services and then sell to them.

DigiSEO




msg:71061
 9:32 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

The only problem with commercial sites like Amazon is that they show up for everything. If I am looking for a product, I get results from Amazon, Epinions, etc. The only problem is that they don't sell what I am looking for.

[edited by: DigiSEO at 9:33 pm (utc) on Feb. 16, 2004]

flobaby




msg:71062
 9:33 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

OK. What I see as far as results is alright to great (depending on 64 or 216), but my main question (and forgive me if this is elementary and I'm far out of the loop), is why do the results resemble the Ark? There are two neighboring results for almost each domain...at least in the keyword combos I'm tracking.

It's always been this way I guess, but it seems extraneous. I know that when I see two results from the same site, I'll click one and ignore the other. I drool to think how far up a couple of my pages would be if some of the double results would consolidate.

yvt360




msg:71063
 9:42 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

When I mention Amazon it is as an example of the types of features on a website that google might be looking for. We are in the process of adding content to our website that is helpful to users, though not on the scale of Amazon, I think it is a great place to get ideas on what internet users are looking for. If you have all the information, and consumers can purchase from you, the way it appears G is ranking sites, I like the odds of having a successful site.

I just wanted to also point out we do not sell anything on our website, these are just my thoughts.

thevoodoo




msg:71064
 10:08 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yvt,

It is really good practice to add informational and education contents on your site. Because in the end, smaller sites with specialized authority on the subject should rank better than megasites with no a broad range of material offered on the site.

It all comes back to the spammy-old keyword density. But it will start to pose as "Authority Density". If you are an authority site on bicycles, dogs and buying vacation homes in Greece, then you should rank lower than an authority site on bicycles only. And for a search on kids bicycles, maybe another site with specific authority only in the fields of bicycles for children should rank better.

I hope GG reads this, and comments if he agrees or not.

kentog




msg:71065
 10:09 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Why does everybody take it as a given that the 64 results will be the actual www SERP's? I have never seen those results show up for me on the real google. I'm in So. Cal if that makes a difference.

idoc




msg:71066
 10:11 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

makemetop,

"level of "status" needed to be considered for authority status varies on the type of search made - and in some areas, does not exist"

Agreed, also it applies to directory category pages as well as the mega shopping portals and even the auction site. What I would like to see discussed also... do we need to emulate an "authority site" by G's newest definition to survive in this new era? If so how best to do that without crossing the quickly disappearing line?

jchance




msg:71067
 10:12 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Why does everybody take it as a given that the 64 results will be the actual www SERP's?

Because GoogleGuy has said so about 10 times in this thread...

thevoodoo




msg:71068
 10:26 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

I am not a Moderator obviosuly! DUH!

However I think it would be great if we kept our prayers to ourselves and not disclose them in the forum. That is for the 64.* to go live. Not that I really like the results. It just adds so many pointless messages to flip through.

As for your suggestion idoc, Emulating might not be a good word, it implies that you want to find a way to trick GoogleBot into believeing that you are an Authority site. It is better if you try being an Authority Site. The whole deal abotu this versus contextual matching is that it makes it harder to emulate the situation. No hard feelings ;)

TheVoodoo

Dumb_guy




msg:71069
 10:33 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Moderator friendly contribution:

64. seems to be a dead ringer of pre-Florida index. Our positioning in two kw phrases are identical on 64. to pre-florida. If it were only one of the two kw's, I'd think there were something new about it. But both look the same.

We were heavy kw anchor text prior to Austin. That changed as a reactionary move to all the post-austin scuttle-butt. We dropped ALL kw anchor text as a result of austin. Did that have a play in 64.? No. Our competitor still has a rediculous and illogical use of kw anchor text, yet still ranks on 64. the same as they did pre-florida.

Does that help?

drewls




msg:71070
 10:34 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)


Because GoogleGuy has said so about 10 times in this thread...

He also told us at the beginning of Austin that what is now known as 'the 216 index' would be rolling out to the other dc's.

The weekend and now Monday have passed with ZERO progress in the way of this 64. index rolling anywhere.

It seems the removal of the datacenter dns has allowed them to pretty much successfully hoodwink everyone here.

Robert123




msg:71071
 10:36 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google Guy had posted earlier in this thread that people that "SEO" tend to stay away from dynamic URL's". However, the content managment system that I work with has dynamic URL'S and when this new update goes live, our company will dominate in our area--

any thoughts?

thevoodoo




msg:71072
 10:38 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Robert,

I have to agree that Dynamic urls seem to work as good as if not better than static ones. I changed one of our sites from dynamic to static urls, and it seems like we will be out of the SERPs in this new update, that is if 64.* is the new update.

TheVoodoo

digitsix




msg:71073
 10:40 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

^-------- actually 64 is showing up on www in some places, like my house for instance, its just not showing up at my work. Give it time, it will be rolling out, just not as quickly as we all hoped.

Also, I have some info for you WebPosition users out there... If you are not seeing the 64 update on your www google and want to run webposition to check your current rankings in the new update, you can trick your computer into thinking that www.google.com points to the 64 data center. Just do this on windows,

go to: c:\<WINDOWS DIR>\system32\drivers\etc and open the file called "hosts" with a text editor and add the line:

64.****.xx.xx www.google.com
Make sure you put the real ip though.

Once you do that, when you go to www.google.com you will actually be sing the 64 data set, and so will your webposition...

drewls




msg:71074
 10:42 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)


actually 64 is showing up on www in some places

Never said it wasn't. That doesn't mean anything's moving anywhere though. We've seen absolutely zero movement at all with this. It hasn't 'rolled' even a bit. It's simply being cycled into the regular dns as normal. So's the 216 index, as well as the Austin stuff.

I'm sorry, but if I'm tricked once, shame on you. Tricked twice, shame on me.

I'll gladly put salt on my words and eat them if this starts rolling, but it didn't happen last time and it doesn't appear to be happening now.

[edited by: drewls at 10:44 pm (utc) on Feb. 16, 2004]

digitsix




msg:71075
 10:43 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

well obviously if some places are seeing 64 on www then it hasnt moved zero, it has moved some, just not in your area............

idoc




msg:71076
 10:45 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"It is better if you try being an Authority Site"

I would agree... with the caveat that what I would consider an "authority" and what G considers an "authority" don't seem to match right now. What I mean really is do we need to emulate the current definition of "authority" and what is it besides large sites and massive internal link structure that define this now?

jchance




msg:71077
 10:45 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

64 is just one of a bunch of different datacenters out there.

When you go to www you get redirected to one of these datacenters (possibly 64) So, yes 64 is live, but just on one datacenter and not all of them.

And for people that freak out and say its live, I keep hitting refresh and keep seeing it, thats because google has load balancers that redirect your request to the same datacenter over a period of time. That way you don't get different results each time you hit refresh.

What everyone is waiting for is for the results to move to all the datacenters...

valeyard




msg:71078
 10:45 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you are an authority site on bicycles, dogs and buying vacation homes in Greece, then you should rank lower than an authority site on bicycles only. And for a search on kids bicycles, maybe another site with specific authority only in the fields of bicycles for children should rank better.

I disagree.

This brings up the old issue of "site" vs "page". Historically Google has ignored the concept of site and used PageRank.

Is Google now embracing the concept of "site" directly as opposed to indirectly via linking structures & PR? Do we have any solid evidence either way?

If there is a large site about bicycles that (for whatever reason) also contains a handful of really, really good pages about dogs - should not those pages rank highly in the appropriate SERPS? As a user I think they should; this is a problem with applying the concept of "authority" to sites as opposed to pages.

Google SERPS return links to pages not sites. So long as that remains the case Google should evaluate pages not sites.

drewls




msg:71079
 10:46 pm on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)


well obviously if some places are seeing 64 on www then it hasnt moved zero, it has moved some, just not in your area............

Sorry, but that's not how it works at all. They've taken the datacenter dns away to lend credence to arguments like the one you just made, which any senior member of this forum will tell you hold no water.

This 327 message thread spans 11 pages: < < 327 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 > >
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