| 8:24 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>the playing field is no longer level.
The playing field has never been level. Not on the web, or even in the 3-D world of life. There always has been and always will be people/organizations who have a greater advantage than you.
| 8:43 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It's also a listing that can be very hard to get because of under-staffing at ODP. |
You got that right. We submitted our Body Jewelry business/site over 7 months ago...and it still sits in the "queue".
Meanwhile, other "competitors" build mirror after spammy mirror, all pulling from the same database, and google gobbles them up and shoots them to the top.
Hell...we're the only member of the BBB (that I can find) in our entire genre, yet the above types of sites are ruling the serps.
Ah well...we're just doing what google obvisouly wants us to do and "paying" for the exposure we deserve.
| 8:50 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Mom & Pop are still doing it.
| 8:58 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
moms and pops who produce hundreds if not thousands of pages on their site continue to do well ...
| 9:01 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't think it is a glitch either. I think this is Google's way of making a ton of money. Before for certain search keywords there were no paid ads on the results. Now it is full of paid ads and this is just one very small category. They are rapidly expanding their revenue to show well for their upcoming IPO. The bottom line is it is about money, THEIR money. The poor little guy is out with nothing and they can't do anything about it. I really feel they no longer want free listings to actually build their searches. They don't want to scrap them so they have come up with another way to force people that need to be found to buy adwords. It's all about money.
The search results now are full of sites that may have the keyword on them but are not what the searcher requested. And on their new local search, I typed in City, State and got results that show not the city, state but surrounding cities and states. A lot of very unrelated topics just because they are near. If I wanted to go to just say Texas, would I type in Arkansas? But that is the type results showing.
This is very frustrating and there is no way to try to figure it out. The more I read all the posts the more it is like watching critters jump through hoops at the circus.
Maybe I will put search boxes to other search engines on my site (which is still showing quite well on most of the other search engines) to encourage people to try searches on sites other than Google.
| 9:02 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It's not a Google Glitch! |
You are stating this as fact. Where is the supporting evidence?
| 9:09 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Before for certain search keywords there were no paid ads on the results. Now it is full of paid ads and this is just one very small category.
did i miss this or something? since when did G have pay for inclusion in their SERPs?
| 9:09 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"We've found that people spent more minutes with MSN Search, when we had algorithmic search results above the fold, 100 percent of the time."
| 9:12 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>Most of the top G search results favor listings in DMOZ
GoogleGuy said that DMOZ listing does not get any extra points, I don't see any favor to large sites either.
I believe Google uses same Algo criteria for a site large or small.
|troels nybo nielsen|
| 9:27 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I hope for Google's own sake that some of the tendencies that I see lately are due to a glitch. There are some search terms that I check frequently and that give worse SERPs than I have ever seen. (Websites "under construction" on page 1 etc.)
I do not see any tendencies of large sites or sites with listings on ODP being favoured, but that may very well be a question about which search terms you use for a test.
| 9:30 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
All one needs to come to the same conclusion is a few searches and a look at the returns. Try looking for a car dealer under - make model city state - or - make dealer city -
I wish we could post examples here but it's against the wishes of WebmasterWorld so spend a little time doing searchs and see for your self.
| 9:30 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes, they use the same algo for large or small sites but the theory is that Google are using 'Hilltop' which favours larger themed sites which will probably be getting links from the smaller ones.
| 9:33 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Surely the results on google now are so irrelevent that they will begin to lose market share.
I can say now for sure that MSN and Yahoo give more relevent results... certainly for my keywords... and this isnt just sour grapes because my sites have been affected.
Maybe us webmasters should form some kind of union and demand that google go back to older algos... otherwise we'll gang up and have a mass boycott of adwords... :-)
| 9:34 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes it is obvious that Google is giving an unfair boost to directory listings. Anyone that would argue otherwise has obviously not done much research. A DMOZ listing is like solid gold for the latest Google algo.
What Google *appears* to have essentially done is to say...
'We no longer trust our own computer generated ranking system, so we will now only trust human edited directories to tell us what is a good site.'
Now, you can play this game with Google if you like and spend the next year trying to get listed in as many human edited directories as possible (or pay them extortion money with adwords) and hope you eventually get past Google’s algo filters or you can do as I have done and say screw Google. I am telling everyone I know to not use Google any more. I have taken all Google search boxes off my sites. The only way to change Google’s behavior at this point is to make it hurt their bottom line.
| 9:36 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
internetheaven - Maybe they use the same algo for all keywords but I believe the algo is tweaked differently for different keywords... hence why for some people certain techniques work... and for other they don't... it certainly keeps us guessing...
| 9:39 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>moms and pops who produce hundreds if not thousands of pages on their site continue to do well
I have a small site (less than 50 pages) that Google loves and has been courting for years now.
>A DMOZ listing is like solid gold for the latest Google algo.
How many examples do you want that disprove this fallacy?
| 9:50 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
By paid ads I am referring to Adwords. There were none before and now there are many many. I'm one of them since this is the only way to be found. Am I happy about this? No, I'm not but right now I have no choice and they know it. Just look at the revenue coming now just before their IPO. It always looks better for a company to be making more money so the investors will buy their stock. This is a business move on their end. They are entitled to do whatever it takes to make money. But in the meantime the quality of their searches is getting worse. So in the long run will this help them or hurt them. I'm hearing better things about some of the competition. Y used to be the lead and may come back to that spot.
| 9:51 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You are stating this as fact. Where is the supporting evidence? |
The noose gets tighter each update, so Google is apparently pleased with its new algo. This has been going on for nearly 5 months. If it were a glitch, surely Google would have corrected it by now. I realize that none of us has access to the algo (except GoogleGuy), so we can't prove it one way or another, but what we can see (i.e., the results) indicate that this is a deliberate flushing of sites, both legit and spammy.
A cluster bomb - their answer to the Google bomb.
| 9:57 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Kirby if you would sticky me two or three, I'll be happy to sticky you two or three that do prove it. Only google knows for sure what the truth is.
This is a very recent change - what GG said some time back about DMOZ not offering a boost seems to no longer be the case.
Google had the very best algo there was, but in their atempt to fight spam or improve on something that didn't need improving they have taken several steps back.
| 10:00 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>The recent G changes favor larger sites with DMOZ listing and links coming from larger sites with DMOZ listings.
I seriously doubt the ODP has anything to do with this. To start, Google has *always* favored larger sites. The larger a site is, that tends to mean more content garnering more links from other sites. Higher PR, and more anchor text. The typical ODP commercial cat has low PR, and plenty of sites listed which dilutes the amount of PR transferred to each. Seriously, it's all kinds of easy to find teenagers with personal pages that getting a link on will do you more good with Google than an ODP listing. The teenager home pages transfer much more PR. And, unlike the ODP, you can get exactly the keyword rich anchor text you want from these teenagers.
>It's also a listing that can be very hard to get because of under-staffing at ODP.
A pox on all those volunteer editors for not working fast enough for you.
>And in many many cases people just don't know it's important!
Because it isn't.
>This is a major change from G's previous policy and practices.
Not that I can see.
| 10:02 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>How many examples do you want that disprove this fallacy?
How many examples do you want that actually prove it?
If you want to see where Google is heading with 2 and 3 word searches all you have to do is look at what they have already done to 1 word searches.
I could go on and on. The only way you will consistently get in those highly contested commercial-phrase top results with Google now are by having a directory listing of some sort. This concept is now moving into the 2 and 3 word phrases with Google. Yes it is stupid and yes it is Google.
| 10:03 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not seeing any evidence to support these claims.
I think you people are just trying to explain your lack of success by attributing rankings to factors beyond your control, like a DMOZ listing.
| 10:05 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
rfgdxm1 - We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. In some searches DMOZed sites may hold the top 10 to 20 positions. I respect your opinion but am seeing things much differenctly here.
Remember to ck a site in the directory you have to carry the URL back to domain.com and not domain.com/something
| 10:06 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I'm not seeing any evidence to support these claims.
Do you work at Google by chance? lol
| 10:11 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Dolemite - most of my sites are in DMOZ - it's part of the reason I can see this so clearly. Again, I wish examples were permitted but they are not...
However if you are happy with the results you are getting, great, but what we are talking about is a change that recently happened, not poor web developer skills.
| 10:14 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>rfgdxm1 - We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. In some searches DMOZed sites may hold the top 10 to 20 positions. I respect your opinion but am seeing things much differenctly here.
The one significant problem I have with your claim about the value of ODP listings is you also wrote:
"Most of the top G search results favor large sites with hundreds of pages rather that a dozen or two - even though small sites bring some of the best content to the web."
If you are seeing large sites with hundreds of pages that also have ODP listings holding almost all the top positions, then it may be that it is site size that is what really counts, rather than an ODP listing. Assuming your hypothesis about an ODP listing being that important is true, evidence to support that would be that small sites with just a few pages which are ODP listed are typically beating out large, comprehensive sites in the SERPs.
| 10:24 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What I am personnally seeing, as a surfer who does a lot of research on the internet, is lots of 404 pages, doorway pages, link farms and other crap on the first page or two of serps. Sites you would expect to be on top are two three or 10 pages down. for example, searched on first and last name of someone. two months ago, that person was on first page, as he has domain name, hypenated and not, matching his name and, of course, the site is peppered with his name. Now, 10 pages down. The stuff preceeding it is links to his site.
The case of 404 pages and sometimes server not found pages is very puzzling. In some ways it almost looks like the database contains stale data, as if a data recovery was done or something. I mean, some of the sites that are listed have been 404 for years!
I don't see a favoring of big sites or ODP sites or anything like that in my searches.
But I'll tell you one thing. I do hundreds of searches per day, and google's results in the last 30 days or so are worse than altavista 3 or 4 years ago at it's worst. This is from the point of view of trying to find information (not commercial sites) that I am looking for.
And, as a surfer, I am finding myself trying the newer yahoo search more and more. I don't really like all of their advertisements, but I need to find the right data, not some silly link farm, link page, or worse, three pages of guestbooks when I am looking for information about Alexander the great or rome or my old college teacher.
| 10:32 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am the web developer for a site that exactly matches what you just said. It's a site with about 50 pages and it ranks 9 under a keyphrase - every site above it is DMOZed - but my clients site beat out many, much larger sites that are not DMOZed.
The top 12 listings for that keyphrase are in DMOZ.
Another example: We work with a car dealer who has not had any luck getting into DMOZ for some unknown reason (lack of editors I would guess) They were Number One for all their important terms relating to their city and state.
Now they are not on the radar (Google says they don't have a penalty) but all the junk that get's served up is in DMOZ. None of the search results are even close to what someone would be looking for but they are in DMOZ - go figure.
| 10:55 pm on Mar 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Think of it this way. In Google's new wacky world the DMOZ listing (or other human edited directory) would be somewhat equiv to a paid inclusion. It puts you up to the top of the listings and allows you to compete. Once you get the DMOZ listing then you are competing with others for the actual competitive commercial search phrase (assuming you don't get nuked by Google for other retarded algo reasons). The big big problem is that there is no way to consistantly get into DMOZ no matter how good your site is, unless maybe...you try to become a DMOZ editor and claim you have no sites that you manage. The whole process is corrupt and nutty.
| This 124 message thread spans 5 pages: 124 (  2 3 4 5 ) > > |