| 8:37 pm on Mar 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google has been crawling heavily all day so I guess a real update is very soon, when Google is crawling my pages like this a major update may be within days. I already seen changes within the last (false alarm) update few days ago and it made big changes in my field.
No backlinks or PR was changed during that update thought.
| 9:02 pm on Mar 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you hear big whoooshing sound coming, head for high ground. I won't be going to the beach this Friday. ;-)
| 9:06 pm on Mar 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
all this paranoid talk makes me want to google for "xanax".
| 9:15 pm on Mar 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Around midnight eastern time on Friday or Saturday night. That is the when I am going to be looking.
| 9:49 pm on Mar 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I get the anaolgy caveman but am I to assume most people see a tidal wave as something destructive, are you implying that you think the next update will be very bad (for us and Google) or was the reference just to something big and unstoppable?
| 9:51 pm on Mar 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Around midnight eastern time on Friday or Saturday night. |
I think Google should not be allowed to update during weekends. It affects so many people's social lives. Unless, it offer a free dating service.
| 10:16 pm on Mar 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I noticed googlebot's hitting many of my sites hard in the last few days.
I also noticed some keyword listings change position today.
| 10:22 pm on Mar 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Has anyone had any pages added over the past week |
Yes. But I put them on my site 2/22 (not linked from home page). Took a little longer than usual to get added to the index. However, they're down at the bottom of the SERPs. No PR yet.
Seems like my new pages used to show up closer to the top and then later move down a bit.
| 11:31 pm on Mar 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Has anyone had any pages added over the past week"
Put up 76 pages, two days ago. Six of the pages were in the serps within 20 hours.
| 11:34 pm on Mar 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Mods, I apologize. Didn't mean to start an uprising.
InternetHeavan, I simply have a suspicion that the next update will move back in the direction of Florida/Austin, but that's just one man's guess. In my own feeble mind, those updates did bear some resemblance to tidal waves.
Regarding timing, it would not be too unusual for a new update to occur about a month since the last one. And lately they seem to hitting the shoreline on Fridays.
OTOH, with G, truly, one never knows. :-)
| 11:49 pm on Mar 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|In fact, I think I can feel the water being sucked off the beach right now. ;-) |
A nice reference, by an amusing poster (is this still permitted on WW?)
Extremely low tides precede a tsunami.
I guess many of us are feeling pretty philosophical about this now though. If G wants to present more rubbish serps - go ahead - our customers are already turning away.
Just make them really cr*p and end it for us all.
| 12:18 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm sure this is a stupid question, but what is www2 & 3? I'm new at all this.
| 12:19 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Soory one more thing. Where do you view www2 & 3?
| 12:22 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
google has many datacenters [webmasterworld.com...]
| 12:50 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
'all this paranoid talk makes me want to google for "xanax".'
I haven't tried the search... but doubt amazon and ebay have any xanax. :) ...ROTF
It's too bad this is happening... a lot of serps look eerily like AV's did about 5 years ago... right before the shift. I am beginning to think that the attack on seo just awakened a "sleeping dog".
| 2:02 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I hate to be the bearer of bad news ... but I'm now seeing some altered SERP's again, clearly just a tweak, but also clearly moving in the direction of Florida/Austin. News sites floating up, edu's, gov's, and the other usual suspects associated with the horrid Florida/Austin debacle. As I feared. G can't seem to resist moving in that direction.
I can only hope that the new update, whenver it arrives, represents a more balanced approach to providing *useful* SERP's.
| 2:20 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have finally seen a shift in the results and it looks just like the orginal Brandy 64 results.
| 2:33 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I can only hope that the new update, whenver it arrives, represents a more balanced approach to providing *useful* SERP's.
Useful to who? Commercial webmasters, or the average searcher who rarely does commercial searches? Google on their own site state they see their mission as categorizing the information on the Internet. As opposed to making it as easy as possible to buy widgets. There is Froogle for that. And, let's not forget the reality that Google makes money selling Adwords. If .edu and .gov sites tend to dominate over commercial sites, then I'd say that Google is on the right track.
| 2:41 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am also seeing big changes and it looks ugly. Any one else not seeing ads in the SERPs right now?
| 2:47 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
[184.108.40.206...] is basically very good. But there is other stuff going in and out of www and www2 every time I look, and some of it is pretty junky.
| 2:55 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Whoa, I take that back...
Another one of those massive upheavels like a wek ago underway now on 220.127.116.11 and apparently elsewhere.
Wow, this sooooooo creepy!
| 3:17 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Dammit I'm pissed off with this. We spend months and months developing a product and a website (ok so it just happens to be commercial). In the SERPS one week, back out the next, Page one today, page three tommorrow.
To be honest I wouldnt mind that much if we were on page 3 and 20 of the sites above us were good, relevant sites. The reality is most of it is fluff, crap that mentions our KW once in linking to someone else, spam heavy dross with hidden text and all kinds of doorway pages - and worst of all a competitor who went out of business 2 months ago and was the biggest spammer of guestbooks in known history.
Even I've given up searching on Google now, at least Yahoo stays the same from one hour to the next.
You know tweaking the algo every day might seem like a good idea, but in reality searchers want consistency. They want to put in the same search term they put in last week and find the same results by and large. They dont want constant change - no one does, its the nature of humans. Remeber, if it aint broke and you mess with it you WILL break it (is that how that saying goes?)
I remember 3 years ago saying search engines were a canny lot, every time you think you have it sussed they would move the goalposts. But this is ridiculous, there ARE no goalposts... for gods sake get some normality back in the Googleplex.
[edited by: ntrance at 3:21 am (utc) on Mar. 11, 2004]
| 3:18 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In my sector everything looks pretty much like it has for the past 2 to 3 weeks. Same month old pages with few fresh dates. There are a few moves of one or two positions showing on www2 and www3 and 216***** looks no different.
Reference the meaning of "useful" and "information". I don't see being able to locate pure information when needed and finding a product when thats what you're after as being mutually exclusive. I don't find it difficult to determine which type of site I'm going to using what Google displays.
| 3:28 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
wow from #2 to #57 and back again....go figure
| 3:37 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Useful to who? Commercial webmasters, or the average searcher who rarely does commercial searches? |
A bit touchy rfgdxm1? :-)
My meaning was: Useful to *searchers*. It escapes me why some insist on distinguishing between types of searches. To paraphrase one of the Web's founders, a great search engine will be able to take all the information at its disposal and intuit the best set of responses regardless of the search term, to address the needs of the searcher.
FWIW, 99% of the sites we run are information based, supported by advertising. If info searches do badly, so do we. Let's be careful not to make assumptions about the intent or background of posters.
Regarding usefulness btw, I think it was pretty well established that the usefulness of the SERP's at times during Florida and Austin was poor. OTOH, the early Brandy results, before they started twisting too many knobs, were as good as any I'd ever seen on the Web.
But what I glimpsed that prompted my last post was pretty bad...meaning, not useful results on wide variety of searches. Except for those who love books and news. Me, I don't need G to find books and news. ;-)
Ugh. I feed that tidal wave approaching...
| 3:59 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You all remind me of Henny Penny.
I'm not seeing much change at all the past few weeks. I'm still waiting for them to update their cache on my pages that were changed LONG ago. I think at this rate just adding the new cache would be enough to create a major change in the results because it seems like it's been in limbo FOREVER.
Somebody wake me up if they ever do it.
| 4:03 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have to say that in terms of non-commercial searches, lately google has been terrible. I turn to google first when I'm trouble shooting various *nix problems (which I do a lot of). Six months ago I could cut and paste an error message into G and there would be a solution on the first page... now I get pages and pages of irrelevant crap.
| 4:06 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's not so bad... rather entertaining really, watching the flux.
Hate to rile people up, but I have to agree with good old rfgdxm1 about the info versus com stuff. For straight knowledge searches, I'm finding it decent and no great change. For commercial stuff, it's the same old... thousands of sites duking it out over camel rentals in Patagonia, or whatever.
I have to agree about Amazon, (wherever that was in the thread...) the thing is nothing but spam. It's blo*dy riduculous having that thing popping up on every other search.
| 4:15 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Today's the first time I noticed www2 & 3 on www since my comment on msg#3 four days ago.
| 4:22 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Over the past couple of weeks I have seen stable, but different sets of SERPs that seem to reflect one that weights large sites with good internal link structure more highly (with good on topic pages, with Amazon near the top), and another that emphasizes authority sites (smaller, but with more incoming links from on topic sites, with Amazon down in the 10 or 20 position).
It might be the case that Google sticks with 2 or 3 different, but stable algos, but alternate which results they post (like each data center having a specific algo -- or something).
I am okay with this. It's the only way to do justice to both big important sites and smaller authority sites.
| 5:08 am on Mar 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
pele, FYI, tsunami is pronouced "SU 'NA ME" ... not "HEH NE PEH NE". Try to keep up. ;-)
When G does what it's doing right now to the SERP's, it bugs us for two reasons (basically the same reason twice):
1 -- On our two lone e-commerce sites (used to be one), conversions drop significantly, as they have been doing since last Friday when G started showing variations of these SERP's we're seeing now.
2 -- Our many info oriented sites show much higher abandon rates off of the landing pages. In other words, people are finding us for searches that don't very well match page content, so after they get a look at the page, they split.
Happens when G fiddles with adding too much of that semantic sauce, I believe, turning back to the direction of Florida/Austin...