>I haven't checked, but I'm not aware of anything too large launching in the last day or so. People should expect to see daily or near-daily updates this coming year as we continually update our index data, but I'm not aware of any large algorithm updates that would merit calling this an update.
Which is why I so wisely refrained from using the U word in this thread. ;) The way I use the word "update" is analogous to an earthquake. Big shock, and things change a lot. What's going on here is more just a tremor, and not a full blown Earthquake. A little jolt, but nothing major.
I've seen quite a few sites drop and gain up to 40 positions in the SERPs. Is it normal to expect to see such changes outside of an official update?
[edited by: needinfo at 7:26 pm (utc) on Mar. 7, 2004]
>>Which is why I so wisely refrained from using the U word in this thread
Yes RFGDXM1. Very wise of you.
|More Traffic Please|
|Which is why I so wisely refrained from using the U word in this thread |
Exactly what is the definition of an update these days? It used to be easy a year and a half to two years ago. When backlinks changed to sites, that was the official mark of an update (although SERP'S would ofton change radically prior to that).
How do we define the "U" word now with the way Google has changed it's ways?
"People should expect to see daily or near-daily updates this coming year"
Googleguy - this is a pretty bold statement. Perhaps you are using the word "update" loosely?
I would imagine that each full blown update requires a large amount of human and computing power... are you sure you don't mean that we will see daily changes due to an even more aggressive FreshBot schedule?
Freshbot does cause "changes" to the index... so in a sense, it could be viewed as causing a constant "update".
Please clarify... and thanks in advance!
This is just not right. I watch a SERP where there is very little change to the sites in the top ten. All of the sites have been exactly the same for a long time. But now they change in order every day. Why does google want to have SERPS that are different every day. That is too often. I understand if there was competition but not in a SERP where the sites are very static. Swithcing algos so often makes Google look unstable like they can not make up thier mind.
authority and being linked to from high quality on-topic sites is more important with this algo tweak.
looks like internal linking structure and large diverse websites are deemphasized.
for some keywords I got shoved back five or ten spaces; for other searches I remained the same.
|I was hoping things would change possibly Google would see the light and stop filtering rich content sites. |
It certainly isn't filtering all of them. The "content site" players for the keyphrases that I track are ranked within a few places of where they were last month, the previous month, and the month before that.
"GG" you said..."People should expect to see daily or near-daily updates this coming year"
does this include "PR" updates and link updates "daily" as well?
Did we not used to call this "everflux"?
I see minor changes in the SERPS I track. But I see minor changes frequently. So, go back to adding content and improving your websites for bots and users.
Just one mans opinion of course.
no...this over and above everflux....there are significant swings across the board......
Last year sometime, GG mentioned that they were looking to move to a much more rapid update (adjustment - is that a better word?) cycle, with several smaller adjustments, and then potentially a bigger one every so often.
If this is the case, then will the update threads stop? After all its going to be "the boy who cried wolf" pretty soon:
"Its an update!" - 150k post thread
"Ok, just an adjustment" - 12 post thread
"Now its an update! Really, I can tell, becuase I checked my super secret SERPs, and dammit, they are different!" - 300k post thread
"Ok, its just an adjustment" - 15 post thread
"update, update, update! It has to be an update, my sites have dropped off Google. Or maybe its just because last Tuesday, I dreamt that I exclaimed that Yahoo had a better search engine. And Google must have found out. damn them." - WebmasterWorld explodes.
The old definition for a traditional update start is when there is significant changes in SERPs between www2 (or www3) with www.
I bet Brett is hoping the updates never end. The traffic on WebmasterWorld gets pretty slow in between.
>> The traffic on WebmasterWorld gets pretty slow in between. <<
Yeah, you get back to a point where it takes less than a day to read everything posted in the last 24-hours.
My serps are back to normal today. It was changing every 10 minutes yesterday, right now it looks stable. Hopefully just a false alarm :)
|Yeah, you get back to a point where it takes less than a day to read everything posted in the last 24-hours. |
What would be cool is to have a feature where you could set up a list of keywords and be notified if a post is made with one of those keywords. So I could set up "site match -evil" or "apache +mod_rewrite -htaccess"
Brett? Is that a difficult thing? It would help to wade through the mountains of posts.
it really matters not what GG says about these shifts/updates these days. If you see many sites moving + or - 50 positions, and it's clear it's not due to new data, make your own conclusions.
Other than the occasional "mega-thread", the average life of a thread is about 5 to 10 posts (or less than 2 days) in most forums here (and quite a few with only 1 reply too). I would like to see a bright red note on the "new thread" screen asking people to reactivate threads from the past 4 weeks instead of starting a new thread. Sometimes there are 4 or 5 threads on the same topic posted in the same week.
|I would like to see a bright red note on the "new thread" screen asking people to reactivate threads from the past 4 weeks instead of starting a new thread. Sometimes there are 4 or 5 threads on the same topic posted in the same week. |
Very good idea. I second the request.
Very nice knob turn. The piffle peddlers are out registering new domains since their recent batches of fluff now have been outed and depreciated.
Only see three moves that are non-good:
- not very relevant keyword.com moves back up to #1
- two garbage anchor text sites move up some (perhaps this also explains keyword.com moving up)
- one page of gibberish text, on a keyword.site.com subdomain, with a white bar and only eight off-topic backlinks somehow is at about #12 for a super competitive term. Other sites similar to this have fallen as they should, but this one stuck.
This is more like we should have been around the time of the 64 appearance. Generally good results, but a higher dose of niche relevance weighting would improve things by downgrading these stubborn pseudo-sites that manage to hang on.
|but a higher dose of niche relevance weighting would improve things |
I agree. That's what's needed now. It looks like a load of the giant-shopping-portal.com/nothing-to-do-with-shopping.html sites have been booted back to where they belong - but there are still a lot of real "on topic" niche sites that are unfairly placed.
The oddity I noticed this weekend is that Google seems to have reverted to out-of-date caches for some recent-ish pages. I noticed one page of mine now has "This page is currently under development" as its Google excerpt (obviously a snapshot from at least three weeks ago, and last week Google returned an excerpt from the text that has been put up since then). Curious, I tried searching Google for a piece of text that is currently on that page. (Bearing in mind that these pages are on obscure topics with very few sites dedicated to them or searches done for them, so it's much easier for me to experiment with than a popular widget site.) The search did not match any documents. However, searching for "currently under development" plus a word from the title of the page brings it right up. Google seems to have forgotten this page in favor of the way the page looked a month or two ago.
I wonder if some of the oddnesses in search results lately, what with sites shooting up or plummeting down or inexplicably disappearing for one keyword phrase but not another, could be explained by similar glitches with the cache. It would certainly explain why so-called "over-optimized" pages are the ones it keeps happening to--they're the ones that have their SEO tinkered on a weekly basis, and I'm sure if they suddenly switched to a cache from 3 months ago their web promoters would have NO idea what the heck was happening to them.
Just another thought to add to the mix...
Google often reverts to an older cache for a day or two, about once per month or so (often just before PR and backlinks get updated).
I have been aware of that behaviour for at least a year. Sometimes it might revert to a cache copy from a very long time ago (I have heard odd tales of over a year old).
just a quick question, back to the topic. has anyone seen any proof or tell tale signs that www2 and www3 will actually in fact propogate to other dc's or to www?
just wondering...seems alot of people are speculating, and was wondering if anyone had "hard" facts
DMOZ links have been updated, rankings have shifted based on this.
www2 has now shifted for me from [18.104.22.168...] to something else (that looks not very good), while that 216. result has changed a bit.
All these small ups and downs make people people turn to drinking... I'm buying more stock in Budweiser.
wow, i'd go sober if it was budweiser. save ur money and spend it on somethin useful like adwords, you may need em soon
>>>DMOZ links have been updated, rankings have shifted based on this.
...among many other things.
>www2 has now shifted for me from [22.214.171.124...] to something else (that looks not very good), while that 216. result has changed a bit.
One favors directories, et al, while the other is more anchor text weighted.