>>and "advisories" in the url.
looks like 66.x server went back to 216.x data. I am getting same Austin results on both. Not sure what this means.
ooooh glad you point that out i was about to post GoogleGuy.
If none of you have noticed doing a keyword like
Google will pull out words like Rent Rantal Rentals Hire etc
Now this is the best thing Google can now find the web sites that didn't optimize for Hire but its still relevent to Rentals do you follow me...
I for one love it and its the best way forward, the over optimisation filter may or may not exsist but if you optimize for all the keywords then maybe its too much and your site could been as like a doorway page.
I am not going to give any more away other wise i won't make the pennies or cents i need.
if semantic is going to play a bigger role then one can just hope that the new guys in zurich are part of a team that will tackle some of the other languages then english, as i think google lacks document/query understanding in german (compared to english) for example.
[edited by: viggen at 7:55 pm (utc) on Feb. 15, 2004]
"Has Google applied some sort of OOP or filter to the algorithm since the Florida update or was the drastic change in SERPs purely the result of new ranking criteria?"
It's the second one. People post around here about filters, blocking, penalties, etc. etc. A far better explanation is "things which used to work before don't receive the same amount of credit now." It's natural for people who are way out there with their linking strategies or their page-building strategies to think of a drop as an over-optimization penalty, but it's more realistic to conclude that Google is weighting criteria differently so that over-optimized sites just aren't doing as well now.
viggen, we know that non-English languages are at least as important as English. You can assume we want to figure out more about documents and queries in every language. :)
Okay, I'm off to get some exercise. I'll check in again in a few hours..
Speaking about new "weighting criteria", I sent an email to Google the other day stating that a search query "<snip>" pulls up 3(!) URLs of dentists out of the first 100 results.
Today it shows 6 listing out of 100.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 8:42 pm (utc) on Feb. 15, 2004]
[edit reason] no specific searches per the tos - please. [/edit]
Googleguy do you want any feedback on 216? I'm seeing some super spammers on it, using techniques i've never seen before to totally dominate some serps. Spam spammer is on 64 just on page 2.
I *always* want to hear about super spammers. :) sasha, when I check at either old or new data centers, I find dentists, but the new data appears to have even more dentists--certainly more than three?
Okay, now I really am off for a walk--gotta counteract all that time spent in front of a monitor. :)
|it's more realistic to conclude that Google is weighting criteria differently so that over-optimized sites just aren't doing as well now |
Well, that settles that. Thanks GG.
I think your answer here will save a lot of webmasters a lot of time and point everyone in the right direction.
Instead of trying to figure out why our web sites were penalized we can focus on how best to present our web sites now.
If Google is indeed seeking to rank web sites based on LSI (CIRCA Technology and Applied Semantics) and traditional PR value along with themes that can be applied site-wide and not just for 1 particular page, Google will be lightyears ahead of the competition.
The trick is in finding the right mix which will satisfy the public's need for relevant results without having to plow thru tons of spam on the way. Therefore, depending on how Google applies its ALGO and weighs semantics/themes to traditional methods of providing SERPs it seems like individual pages could only be relevant to a search if the total site were in harmony with the individual pages.
How come Google can't filter out 302 redirects? I keep seeing a site rate 1-2 in the SERPS because it has a link from DMOZ, but the domain in question is just a redirect so the company benefit twice because they also rate at 10 for the actual domain.
Am I the only one who is getting IDENTICAL results on both 66. and 216 data centers?
This morning the SERPS were different, but right now it is the same.
I cleared the cache and history a bunch of times too. I am in San Francisco, if that helps.
Some nice juicy details there. Time to find as many "authoritative" high quality links as possible. Difficult in some extremely competitive areas for sure without paying a ton of money.
Am I right in thinking therefore that some peoples natural way of writing will be viewed more favourably than others? I get the feeling that hearts and flowers are becoming the order of the day.
nutsandbolts, you're still thinking/posting like an SEO. That won't necessarily help you. The best advice I'd give is to make a site the sort of attraction that gives people reason to like a site on its own.
Searching for "high-quality" links before the site itself is high-quality is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. That time would be better invested in enriching the site by adding good content and more reasons for people to like it on its own merits. Just trying to keep folks from going down a blind alley when there's lot of ways to spend that time improving a site itself. As always, Brett's guide to making a site is a great thread to go back and read again.
|Better semantic understanding helps with both those prerequisites and makes the matching easier. |
And what better way to make your page easy to understand than strive for sematically rich markup...
Sasha - "Am I the only one who is getting IDENTICAL results on both 66. and 216 data centers?
This morning the SERPS were different, but right now it is the same"
No, same here from the UK - what is disappointing is that the excellent results that were on 64.xx have gone.
The only difference I can see from pre-brandy results is that the total number of results returned for a random selection of search terms has increased so there is a change of something, but it will be a BIG letdown if 64.xx is released as it is currently
I'm not sure on this word 'semantics' and the ideas being mentioned here.
Anybody care to write a quick paragraph explaining it, or point me to a recent thread.
|what is disappointing is that the excellent results that were on 64.xx have gone. |
yes, i too am seeing the good 64.xx results disappearing. i sure hope this isn't really happening. this "feel-good" thread will turn ugly quickly.
I am not seeing the 64 dissapear at all..go direct to the ip address for 64...
google guy already established it would take longer than this weekend and re-affirmed that the 64 results are the new ones..he has done this mulptiple times.
relax..they are coming
yes, i am talking about going direct to 64. searching directly from there is vastly different now than it was yesterday (at least for the things I'm looking at)
|Searching for "high-quality" links before the site itself is high-quality is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. That time would be better invested in enriching the site by adding good content and more reasons for people to like it on its own merits. Just trying to keep folks from going down a blind alley when there's lot of ways to spend that time improving a site itself. |
But that's exactly what is the problem here.
In competitive keywords the one who are on the top are in direct opposite to what you are saying.
The page/s that are being feed to googlebot(cloaked pages) are not even human readable....mixed words nonsense and intermixed by the target keywords and oftentimes the density of those keywords are just so rediculous...paragraphs and paragraphs of nonsense. Talk about OOP and user experience.
On top of that, backlinks are not even coming from similar or related site, such as guestbooks, forums, blogs
So the algo question is...how did a site like this get to the top?
I'm using the Google dance tool and all four 64 datacenters show the good stuff still.
Okay GG, I get the drift :)
Net_Wizard: I see it too in many areas I look at. We are talking about 6,000+ backlinks for some of the top ranking sites - they rule the index because of backlinks they have paid for.
[edited by: nutsandbolts at 9:40 pm (utc) on Feb. 15, 2004]
I believe the 64.* results are different to yesterday -but they still include sites ranked on the first page that were lost in Florida and aren't on 216.*
|they still include sites ranked on the first page that were lost in Florida and aren't on 216 |
i wish that were true for me. mine returned yesterday and are now gone gone gone again.
look out kiddos...yours may be next. :-(
I guess the soup is still cooking or it would be live.
|On top of that, backlinks are not even coming from similar or related site, such as guestbooks, forums, blogs |
Amen, Net_Wizard. In my arena, link popularity comes primarily from newsgroups / discussion groups, specifically, messages posted with signatures that include the poster's website address....?
hmmmm sounds like you have been converted to a webmaster.
I spend more time on the workings of my site these days then SEO, looking for gaps or holes that leak my visitors away.
Building new pages and expanding my services making the site more fresh and up to date.
Its no good being just top the site needs to be attractive, informative and work.
| This 327 message thread spans 11 pages: 327 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11 ) > > |