| 10:51 pm on Mar 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I posted the following on page 10 of this thread:
"I forgot to mention that site number one improved 3 positions [to number 13] thanks to the "The Ides of March". It's much closer to the Top 10."
About 8 hours ago, site no. 1 moved to number 12. I just checked the SERPs and site no. 1 is now number 11.
Also, the issue related to SERPs for "country real estate" and "country property" has been fixed.
I'm very happy about "The Ides of March". Thank you Google.
| 2:22 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Was this fixed as a result of a SPAM report you sent to Google, or did it happen on it's own?
My no.1 site did extremely well the past few updates, but my others disappeared for no apparent reason. One was replaced by a lot of spammy results, the other lost it's kw positions because it is an older stagnant site that I need to update (I assume). It sat near the top of the SERPs for so long I was afraid to touch it ;)
| 2:57 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
wellzy, I believe it happened on its own.
The spammers on the Top 10 remain there. I haven't sent reports to Google.
I've been keeping track of Google changes since late November 2003. Everything looks like Google hasn't applied filters for doorways, hidden links, hidden and semi-hidden text.
A few weeks ago, GG said spam filters were waiting to be approved.
I think Google will take care of the spammers on its own.
| 5:27 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy wrote: "There's still some spam changes waiting to be approved, and I know there's at least one in Dutch pending."
wellzy, I hope the above information helps you figure out the issue.
| 9:28 am on Mar 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|GoogleGuy wrote: "There's still some spam changes waiting to be approved, and I know there's at least one in Dutch pending." |
This is fascinating, I remember reading this, but didn't pick up on it at the time: this is a spam filter in dutch, not a spam filter for the Netherlands.
On the face of this statement, it would seem that their spam filters aren't just about KW density, hidden words, repeated words etc. etc., they are language specific.
This must mean that certain words must matter - a semantic spam filter. Perhaps a spam filter where certain words are given 'special attention' ;)
I know these ideas aren't knew, but GG's statement looks like a confirmation.
| 4:29 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Update: My site no. 1 has made it to the Top 10 at [www2.google.com...] and [www3.google.com...]
Once again, thank you Google.
| 5:16 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I haven't done any major legwork here, but is it just me or are you guys seeing results closer to Austin on 126.96.36.199? I'm seeing lots of sites that were on top in Austin reappear into the top 10 after languishing since Brandy.
| 7:20 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Prior to Florida (late November 2003), the search "country real estate" brought a Top 100 full of relevant sites. Many of these relevant sites had ODP listings.
In late February 2004, Brandy restored only a tiny fraction of those sites back to the Top 100.
So far, those few sites remain within the Top 100 with little changes in their positions. There are other sites that were Top 100 prior to Florida within today's Top 700.
I believe the reason my site has improved its position is due to pages of relevant content that I added about 5 weeks ago.
I'm happy the current results are much better than Austin. The months of December and January were a complete nuisance to me.
In relation to 188.8.131.52, that datacenter displays my main site within the Top 10 whereas www.google.com displays it within the Top 20.
| 7:43 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I just checked the Top 700 for "country real estate" at 184.108.40.206 and two other sites I have with relevant content have improved their positions. Those sites climbed 100 to 120 positions.
| 10:50 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is fascinating, I remember reading this, but didn't pick up on it at the time: this is a spam filter in dutch, not a spam filter for the Netherlands.
If there is such a thing for Dutch sites, it's not working well as far as I can tell. For almost all combinations of [keyword1][keyword2], where keyword1 is a highly commercial Dutch term I'm watching, a subdomain spammer is typically occupying positions 1 to 3. The pages at positions 1 and 2 are often even (nearly) identical. This has been the case since March 12.
| 11:13 am on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I recovered my page 1 positions after Florida, when my backlinks were pared to the bone and those from within the site were removed. Now pages from within the site are showing as backlinks again, and I have lost my positions again. I don't know if that has anything to do with it or if it is a coincidence.
| 5:25 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am also seeing results identical to Austin in several searches in my sector, while others are still Brandy. I mentioned this earlier in this thread, but got no response. I thought I was the only one seeing this.
I'm not encouraged by this. My Google traffic has recovered to about 75% of pre Austin, but sales are still down 50%. I don't know what to make of this.
| 8:20 pm on Mar 27, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've been finding that I'm getting more clicks on my adwords campaigns in the last few weeks since the changes occurred on the 12th. I'd rather be getting the traffic for free personally.
Had to do a web search myself a minute ago. Out of habit I used google and 'UK widget makers' brought up such irrelevant results that I kept reloading the page and clicking on the adwords boxes as they were the only ones that were at all useful. Now I understand why my adwords clicks have increased.
| 2:50 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm still not seeing any better search results. I want to laugh and cry at the same time. If do a search for specific city specific state web design (or web designer) I get pages and pages of results the top 15 of which are to directory listings of designers, then mixed in with the other directories on page 2 is a country club and a DJ service. If I add affordable to the keyword mix, I get the almost same results.
I went from first page to oblivion - waaaah! Thank goodness Yahoo still ranks me as first page.
| 10:43 am on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I can't prove it, but I'm certain the spam keywords can be language-specific. Some words are common to all languages, and some are language-specific.
There was a glitch a while ago where I saw the spam effects in some languages and not others (fixed now, so I can't demonstrate it).
Adding Dutch-specific words may just not be high priority.
| 2:21 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Had to do a web search myself a minute ago. Out of habit I used google and 'UK widget makers' brought up such irrelevant results that I kept reloading the page and clicking on the adwords boxes as they were the only ones that were at all useful. Now I understand why my adwords clicks have increased. |
They are not so stupid, eh? ;o)
Google are now VERY good at finding directories and they insist that this is what we want in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. If they really want to serve up relevant results and they honestly believe that directories are relevant then they should do as I suggested a week ago in this thread.
At the top of each results page provide a link to the list of directories that they have found and leave the real information sites where they should be. Think about it, if you were trying to produce the best results then you would do this would you not? This gives people the best of both worlds.
| 2:45 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The simplest explanation is that Google now has to balance the 'quality' of its results (however that is defined), with its revenue.
(of course, all SEs need to generate revenue, and why shouldn't they? - but G seems more revenue driven than most these days - therin lies the problem)
Brandy, in its original form, looked like a good old honest, high quality set of serps. High quality commerce sites didn't appear to be hit, and 'info' searches were good too.
But it's not unreasonable to suggest that Google needs to balance this with its adwords revenue. Hence the constant tweaking, and move away from the much admired Brandy algo.
How do you produce a half-decent set of serps, and still keep the money coming in?
Adsense probably complicates this even further. Successful Adsense sites (like that of a pal of mine) need to be high volume, extremely high quality sites, to generate Google income. But if these are driven from the top of the serps by off topic sites, due to a silly algo, Adsense reveunue will go down.
Add into this DomainPark, where ads are served up on parked domains, with, I assume, the ad targetting based on the URL alone, and G ends up not just trying to square the circle, but cubing the sphere (?!)
Being just an individual, obviously 'whingeing' webmaster, who am I to comment? ;)
But it seems to me, that Google is pulling in several different directions at the moment, and making a bit of a pig's ear of it. *Somebody* at the top ought to decide what their priorities are, and aim in that direction.
(Quick message to those inclined to shout 'whinger,' my sites all moved up today, from #3 to #2 - but go ahead anyway :)
p.s. I've omitted all those irritating IMO, and IMHOs etc. It's obviously my opinion, and if it was humble, I wouldn't post it. :)
p.p.s. I did a management degree a few hundred years ago, most of it was 'blue sky thinking' etc. etc. - straight in one ear, out the other. But there was one principle that stuck in my mind: "Go for quality - never go for the quick buck - go for quality."
| 3:05 pm on Mar 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>SyntheticUpper - "The simplest explanation is that Google now has to balance the 'quality' of its results (however that is defined), with its revenue."
I think you just hit the nail square on the head.
| 5:03 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Google are now VERY good at finding directories and they insist that this is what we want in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. If they really want to serve up relevant results and they honestly believe that directories are relevant then they should do as I suggested a week ago in this thread. |
If I wanted a listing of directories when I searched I would have added directory as a keyword.
Does Google really think that average Joe Surfer wants pages and pages of directories? Does Google think the average Joe Surfer doesn't know how to add the word directory to his search term when he wants that kind of result?
| 7:53 am on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In all the recent threads I think I can remember only one person who was in favour of directory results. Effectively no one wants them and as you say, if anyone does want them all they have to do is add the word "directory" to their search.
This filtering of useful commercial results (apart from those available through Adwords) leads me to draw my own conclusions.
| 1:00 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I had disappeared from my good PR for three weeks but noticed as from today about a third of them are back on 1 to 10 on Google worldwide, I`m writing from London. The others seem to be struggling in the 20`s and 30`s having also been missing presumed killed in action. This suggests "work in progress" to me from Google, maybe mixed with a bit of old fashioned screw up. This could take months to settle down. In the meantime Google benefits from all the people who go over to ppc. Can`t afford it myself..my business is too modest. If there is a large, significant increase in people moving over to ppc Googles motivation in making sense of all this will diminish as the ppc revenue increases.
| 1:28 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The fact that Google have not commented on this suggests to me that what is happening may all be part of a master plan as opposed to a "screw up."
| 1:34 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>But it's not unreasonable to suggest that Google needs to balance this with its adwords revenue. Hence the constant tweaking, and move away from the much admired Brandy algo.
I continue to doubt that G could be that shortsightedly stupid. It is puzzling though, that they had in Brandy an algo that seemed to gain almost universal praise (even from the most senior, and most info-oriented webmasters) ... and yet days after its early appearance, original Brandy was manipulated into the dreky results that we more or less continue to see today.
I think the problem is simply that the PHD's are in charge of G**gle's Ministry of Common Sense. :-)
| 5:04 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I dont think there is any reason why Google should be looking for affirmation from web masters over the way their algos are perceived. They are a business who, one assumes, is trying to maximise profits.
However, if they produce relevant results to surfers search terms they will stay on top. Surely it is one of the main jobs of discussions like these to point out to Google when they stray too far from the straight and narrow?
That way web masters, their clients, Google surfers and Google all win.
Right, I shall have a go at sorting the Middle East question next!
| 5:32 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Watch what you're saying Jeffers! Next thing you know there will be a thread on the Google Middle East update :o)
| 6:03 pm on Mar 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The tongue was firmly in the cheek on my last remark!
| 11:37 am on May 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
On March 22 I posted….
March 12th. was disastrous day for Spain, and a fairly interesting one for G, inspite of GG’s explanation, which of course I accept.
A 20 page niche site which has survived every tweak the G engineers could experiment with in the last 9 months.
Stayed No. 1 for 20 search terms.
Got to 10,000 vistors a month.
As far as we thought not an iota of SEO, just text in a niche market.
Since then not a single visitor.
Can I make a claim for a world record.
At least I now feel happy that we are not to be excluded completely from the new ALGO exclusions.
Despite advice from many not to tweak with sites, I could not resist playing with my own algo’s to try to detect the change, and put up the latest text changes last week.
Last night – bingo- No.1 again.
BTW I perhaps should have mentioned before that the site I was competing with has PR6 and 388 backlinks showing, my test site has PR3 and one backlink.
As a result I am still reasonably keen on the idea of page content playing a major part in our game.
[edited by: GranPops at 12:46 pm (utc) on May 11, 2004]
| 11:59 am on May 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sounds like you're sure doing something right.
| 12:25 pm on May 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Come on then GranPops whats the secret formula?
If you tell me I'll let you know how we managed to get a site from postion 7 for our keyword to....wait for it...page 40.
sounds like a fair trade to me.
| 12:57 pm on May 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Don't be too quick to assume its been your tweaking which has got you back to No 1.
Niche sites are suddenly coming back from the pits and there is evidence that, for some categories at least,Google are reverting to the previous (before Feb) algo.
Please visit the thread about Google and Yahoo Serps Convergence.
| 12:59 pm on May 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
No idea really.
'Tis a case of the blind leading the blind.
The two guys who know, and their employees, ain't saying nuffin'.
Each time I have a stab at something, the G engineers change their algo, up to 10 times a month by my reckoning.
| This 158 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 158 ( 1 2 3 4  6 ) > > |