ThomasB
msg:100795 | 8:47 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0) |
nice find.
Why didn't he tell what the changes were? :)
|
landmark
msg:100796 | 8:59 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0) |
How many of those 5 were reversals of previous changes? :)
|
creative craig
msg:100797 | 9:01 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| "Having all those extra pages in the index really isn't going to make much difference for average users, but it cements in their minds that Google has the best search engine out there and the company isn't just resting on its laurels," Winfield said. |
|
Depends on what people are looking for, over the last month I have had to search else where to find the results that I am looking for. Lets hope that its not just an influx of spam. | Why didn't he tell what the changes were? |
|
I think that they added more pigeons to the already large pigeons farm they have :) Craig
|
martinibuster
msg:100798 | 10:03 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| Google's Web sites handled 35 percent of all Web searches in December, compared with 27 percent at Yahoo sites and 15 percent for Microsoft sites, according to the latest data compiled by comScore Media Metrix... |
|
Uhm, does anybody agree with Yahoo owning 27 percent of your traffic? Five algorithmic improvements:
Roughly 40 percent of the Web pages scanned by Google weren't fully indexed until the latest improvements, Brin said. Now all but about 20 percent of the Web pages that Google covers are fully indexed.
|
|
That sounds like one of the algo improvements. What are the others? Excluding repetitive results
Ever do a search for your company name and instead of 8 of the top ten you have just one listing? Stemming
Keywords and variants. Anchors
There's been a lot of talk about that. Interesting that it's Sergey talking about this because he's the one usually quoted about people manipulating his index. Keeping a Low Profile
Anybody else have a guess about the other improvements? If I were Sergey and I found out that H1's were considered a tool for cracking a hard nut I'd devalue that sucker in a heartbeat.
|
creative craig
msg:100799 | 10:09 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0) |
Excluding repetitive results
Ever do a search for your company name and instead of 8 of the top ten you have just one listing? |
|
I still find two results for our company name and a few others off the top of my head. True though that last month we had 4 :)
|
mipapage
msg:100800 | 10:13 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| If I were Sergey and I found out that H1's were considered a tool for cracking a hard nut I'd devalue that sucker in a heartbeat. |
|
lol!
|
zgb999
msg:100801 | 10:56 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0) |
They changed the semantic part of the algo. They added additional pages (I guess more dynamically generated pages). In order to do that they had to implement additional features for detecting duplicate content (might be a cause for excluding repetitive results).
|
borisbaloney
msg:100802 | 11:25 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0) |
OT | I think that they added more pigeons to the already large pigeons farm they have |
|
No offense, but can we seriously drop this "joke". It was done almost two years ago. I love following Google's every move, but I've come to dread reading some threads because of these meaningless un-related pigeon references. I seem to read one or two per day. I think I need a coffee. Once again, nothing personal to the poster this time.
|
afterburner
msg:100803 | 11:36 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0) |
as of late January we had multiple listings for several keywords in different fields in the top 10, that isn`t the case anymore. Now if we have one listing in the top 10 we are lucky.
|
creative craig
msg:100804 | 11:40 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| I seem to read one or two per day |
|
Probably geo/IP/member targeting in the active list :)
|
wanna_learn
msg:100805 | 11:42 am on Feb 18, 2004 (gmt 0) |
after so much flickering around these days, I wonder Google should not end up defining a Search Engine as "You search a Keyword on Google, and then amongst those hoars of sites on SERP you search manually some better sites".
|
Jakpot
msg:100806 | 4:08 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
[Google has made five significant changes to its algorithmic formulas in the last two weeks, Brin said.] Yep. Should be really proud of Google's progress.
|
Hissingsid
msg:100807 | 4:23 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
So if they made five SIGNIFICANT changes in the last two weeks, how many did they make in November and January? Perhaps he meant months and got misquoted. Best wishes Sid
|
Jim_at_SFE
msg:100808 | 4:28 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
>> Uhm, does anybody agree with Yahoo owning 27 percent of your traffic? << I remembered getting a boost in Yahoo traffic when it switched from Inktomi to Yahoo so I looked up the percentages after reading the article about it switching back. In February 2002, 26.7% of searches reaching my site were from Yahoo. This year and last it was down to 20.7%. That's not a huge change, but the growth in Google's dominance is impressive, from 44.6% in February 2002 to 72.5% this year.
|
digitalghost
msg:100809 | 4:30 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
>>five significant changes He didn't say improvements. ;) I think Google's infatuation with new technology is biting them. Like an overworked piece of prose or a painting, one change too many was made. | In its latest makeover, Google also tweaked the closely guarded formula that determines which Web sites are most relevant to a search request. |
|
Again, it was tweaked. Not sure it was tweaked in the right direction.
|
IITian
msg:100810 | 4:52 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| Anybody else have a guess about the other improvements? If I were Sergey and I found out that H1's were considered a tool for cracking a hard nut I'd devalue that sucker in a heartbeat. |
|
My guess is that since webmasters have learnt how to crack its algorithms, Google has devalued: 1. Anchor text of incoming links
2. Page Title
3. H1 tag
4. Keyword density
5. PageRank It is now going to rank pages based on the 19th, 29th and 37th word on that page combined with a random number generator. :-)
|
kazonik
msg:100811 | 5:19 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
>> Uhm, does anybody agree with Yahoo owning 27 percent of your traffic? << Perhaps its a global number. In Japan at least, Yahoo still remains the number 1 (direct) source of search engine traffic. peace,
Kaz
|
MedCenter
msg:100812 | 5:29 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
I got 23% of searches from Yahoo, and I'm sure that is just from Google inclusion. What is the news on Anchors? I've implemented some semantics in my site and have benefited greatly, is there new materal on anchors though? Thanks
|
Chicken Juggler
msg:100813 | 5:30 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
It's funny that people keep making a big deal out of the number on the front page of google. Nothing happened recently. Google did not put a bunch of pages in last week. They just randomly check their database and up that number.
|
hanan_cohen
msg:100814 | 5:34 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
"boo hoo - Yahoo! dumped us. Let's create some PR noise without saying much." Although Brin is the boss, GooleGuy is OUR man.
|
MedCenter
msg:100815 | 5:36 pm on Feb 19, 2004 (gmt 0) |
I tend to agree with Chicken Juggler... I mean, they didn't overnight crawl 1 billion web pages. Everyone has noticed they've been crawling more recently, but it still didn't happen right away.
|
g1smd
msg:100816 | 5:19 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0) |
The number is updated a couple of times per year.
|
europeforvisitors
msg:100817 | 5:47 pm on Feb 22, 2004 (gmt 0) |
| "Having all those extra pages in the index really isn't going to make much difference for average users, but it cements in their minds that Google has the best search engine out there and the company isn't just resting on its laurels..." |
|
It also could make it easier for Google to identify duplicate content.
|
|
