| 4:58 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yeah saw it start just before 4pm PST
| 5:08 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I was noticing changes on Monday. If I was my competitor I would have have called it a huge change :) Here's hoping that everyone ends up with decent positioning.
| 6:02 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We had one site show a 40% increase in traffic yesterday. Today the SERPs for that site's search terms are all about where they were pre-Florida.
The technical term we care most about (for some other sites) has changed as well but is not back to pre-Florida. Several dozen technically competent sites are still missing and the cloaking spammer has moved up from #8 to #4.
That is an interesting response to a spam complaint with GoogleGuy in the subject.
| 7:39 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My site has totally disappeared from the Google listings yesterday about 4pm, same thing happened last week this we didn't come back up. We do an update once a week which involves building a WAR file, this restarts apache and tomcat bringing the site down for about 5 mins. Could we be penalised for that?
| 8:20 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I noticed changes on Monday. One site has come out of the 'sandbox' and jumped 90 places for one keyprhase.
| 8:32 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I note same changes and ranking varies depending of the number of results.
| 8:41 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I noticed big changes (like a site jumping 100 rankings all the way to the top 10!) since sunday I think, could have been monday though.
| 9:01 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not sure if I'm allowed to mention the URL, but the "rankpulse" website which keeps track of fluctuations in the Google SERPS is showing upward movement.
| 9:02 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing big changes in the travel searches I check on this morning (UK). Unfortunately not good... the few individual sites (not mine) that had survived being buried by directories have now gone as well. There's now nothing in the first 100 results that isn't a directory site and most of these have almost no direct relevance to the search :(
| 9:10 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Cheers for that, my site unfortunately got a mention :(
not good news. Would 3 site restarts cause a drop out from google... we had a bad day yesterday.
| 9:21 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I saw real strange things:
1 site went from 1500 to 30 visits/day on monday, another from 60 to 2300/day.
I guess there was a big algo shift or introduction of new pages/sandbox lifting.
| 9:38 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
.es is also showing lots or movers and droppers..
my question is if this classifies as a dance or not.
the chances in my sectors have been very big.
| 10:07 am on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Now all the no cache problem is solved , all the pages were indexed and now can expect to get the PR back
| 12:51 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Pretty stable on my end, except one new site un-sandboxed last night. Moving from 80 to 4 in most important site keyword combo (2 word) out of 1.6mio possibles: YEEEHAAAA!
| 1:34 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Reference the recent thread
ARE YAHOO AND GOOGLE SERPS CONVERGING?
major changes were seen on Monday.
In my case several sites went back looking like pre Florida and equating with Yahoo as it now is in ranking terms both for index and inside pages.
And, a 300% increase in visitors on one site which suffered an equivalent fall two or so months ago.
Have a look at the above mentioned thread and add your observations please.
| 3:04 pm on May 13, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes, major, major stuff going on... we had sites come out of the sandbox Friday night (I was glued to the computer the moment it happened)... traffic increases as much as 3,000%... went up even more Saturday, and still more Sunday...
Then, last night/yesterday (again, I was glued to the computer and watching it go from data center to data center)... it went back in the sandbox SORTOF... not really though... WEIRD stuff... traffic is definitely UP over sandbox, but done by about 50% (maybe more) from the last couple days... pages indexed = half of what they were (which happens sometimes in week-to-week fluctuations)... weird thing is that some of the more recent pages stuck and less recent (all under 2.5 months old) are gone.
Now here's something I have been analyzing for months across MANY sites... I believe Yahoo is absolutely using Google in some regard when it comes to at least the number of pages in their index... when Google makes a big change there, so too does Yahoo, and they match EXACTLY... that's not coincidence.
| 9:41 am on May 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone started to analyse the changes and reach any conclusions.
For one of my terms I've dropped from #1 to #2 so no disaster but I can confirm that its a change in Google and not the pages involved. Pages unchenged no update in PR or backlinks.
For another 3 word term I've dropped from 1 to 4 again no dissaster but a worrying sign is the fact that the pages moving up are from crappy directories. I was hoping that any changes in the Google algo would lead to this kind of site being dropped.
| 9:58 am on May 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
yes i can confirm that our sites with movement are movers no in pr or links, or content.
this is a new filter, or as i asked earlier, can this now be considered a dance.
| 1:49 pm on May 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Big changes on my end. Until earlier in the week, I wasn't in the top 400 for any key terms. Now I'm top 20 for most and top 5 for a few. Site was launched in December and been waiting for this for a while. Hopefully it sticks.
| 1:56 pm on May 14, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Blah.... my sudden #1 position for my main site lasted nearly 3 hours! But I did get my screenshot just to prove to myself that it was real :)
Now back to #5 and no obvious movement on that or any of my other sites since.
| 7:50 am on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
From where I'm sitting for my tracked keywords things seem to have gone back to post Brandy. Is anyone else seeing this?
| 8:34 am on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sid - yes, my main site just fell 23 places overnight to its post-Brandy state. It's been steady for a while, and there's been No changes made to the site lately.
Not representative I know, but since you asked :)
| 9:35 am on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When people say there is no change in PR or backlinks what they mean is no VISIBLE change; this doesn't mean that Google isn't using new PR and back link data to rank sites. I believe that visible PR and backlinks lag the "real" data used by Google by a couple of weeks. Expect to see PR/baclink data updated soon.
| 9:38 am on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yes Major changes i think,
one of my sites lost 90% of google traffic
| 6:04 pm on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Here's the number of refferals from Google on my site in the last few days. Using the site: command, there has been no meaningful change in the number of pages indexed.
| 8:01 pm on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It looks like google had "correct results" for about four or five days but has now reverted to the peculiar poor-relevance results they have been serving up since mid-November.
| 8:52 pm on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|can this now be considered a dance |
Maybe its a google jig, which might be considered a particular type of dance.
(123, step, 123, step, twist, bow, 123, step....)
| 9:39 pm on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Something definitely seems to have haapened today and if it stays it doesn't look good. Seems like a spammer has linked to one of my sites from hundreds of different sites, and for one of my primarily important phrases I've gone from number 2 to nowhere in at least the first hundred. I thought google once said that anything bad someone else does can't hurt you - if this stays I'm hurt badly.
And that darned sandbox is still there for my newest site...silent scream!
| 9:53 pm on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
what does this 'spammer' look like futuresky?
Is it a directory site by any chance? or a serp-scraping-scumbag?
Directories can hurt you!
Krishna (proposer of Hilltop) obviously doesn't live in the same world as webmasters...
for your newest site, can i suggest a subdomain, not a new site?
| This 74 message thread spans 3 pages: 74 (  2 3 ) > > |