| 6:46 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
hi i have seen no changes in my ranks, maybe a slight drop. However my site has gone from 450 back links to 3900 last night, but i am very disappointed as neither my pr or rankings have changed. Has anyone alos had this happen, also does google ever update pr after it has updated back links.
| 7:05 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Everyone is having simlar (or opposite) experiences. For a while now there has been no correlation in the timing of any aspects that used to make up a complete update (backlinks, pr, rankings, and pages indexed)
|Has anyone alos had this happen, also does google ever update pr after it has updated back links. |
| 7:29 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Something odd is definitely going on, I am now in #1 position for my KW2-KW3 phrase, I was #3, unfortunately the phrase is useless without KW1 added to it and for that 3 word phrase, I still do not show up in the top 100. Definitely seeing odd backlinks on some DC's, and a loss of important ones, can only hope this is the start of a dance. My question is:
What the heck kinda music are they dancing to?
| 7:37 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yep, things are a bit weird in Google land.
| 7:59 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
backlinks and pr update is always after the real update. after this, people will say, why the SERPs is the same? friends, the SERPs has changed BEFORE backlinks and PR update, not AFTER. That's why the subject of this thread is 'July Update?'
| 8:18 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If thats correct i have seen a drop in rankings despite going from 450 backlinks to 3900. That i find very disapointing as i have worked very hard on my links, i also have lots of content on my site, i do not use any cheats. my titels are not spammy. if increase in links doesnt work what does. Any ideas guys
| 8:29 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
If you are seeing an increase in links today, your links are very likely very low quality, or in some cases from a single domain. Whatever benefit their is from either of those, objectively it shouldn't be that much.
I see one site go from 118 backlinks to 6440. Those links (all from one domain) have been there for months, but now Google has decided to show them. It's not a sign of the domain being "better" today than yesterday.
| 9:31 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My backlinks are very strange, most of them are showing up first time, but some of my older back links are disappeared while they are from relevant high PR sites, i really don't understand this update :?
| 9:55 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Very weird backlink update...
Has anyone tried allinurl:www.yourdomain.com?
Also very interesting results, especially if your sites are old enough. Google seems to display much more results than it used to be...I think it could also help to explain more clearly why some sites or some pages get mysteriously higher favor and higher rankings from Google.
| 10:46 am on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>> from my perspective this is the end of the second week of a wierd shuffle in one of my SERPS
On July 9 i first observed some backlink oddities (missing expected backlinks), but then again, it was a company and an industry i had not researched before, and (as it was during a meeting) i hadn't got the time to do deeper research, so i discarded it as a "temporary glimpse" or something.
The ODP and Google dir backlink was there, nothing else, not even internals.
(Yep, a meeting without previous research. These things do happen out there.)
| 12:06 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've seen backlinks drop by about 25% but my rankings on keywords actually improved.
| 1:45 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The backlinks being shown are not what G is using to establish serps. Evidently, someone has attacked a bank of servers with a firehose, or perhaps the recent solar flare resulted in a computer version of a nervous breakdown.
Even if they decide to stick with those visible backlinks, it really means nothing. (And I still have my yoogoo link, at the very worst...)
| 4:00 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i have a bald spot where im scratching my head....how does a one page subdomain which is simply a frame of a totally different site beat a 2000 page site for a city widgets search..blimey...google really fliped this time....
| 5:33 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What is the best way to check your backlinks on Google?
| 5:39 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well a certain popular affiliate program provider whose name is two letters appears to have received a white bar 0/10 PR.
So something screwy is going on.
| 6:30 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I saw the number of backlinks to my site drop from 38 to 12 recently. This is the result when I check "backlinks" in the Google toolbar. But when I use: allinurl:www.mydomain.com to check links, I get about 700. I'm pretty new at this stuff, but why the difference?
| 7:02 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google is figuring out more and more ways to rid the results of any site with an ordering page. In my areas I can only find two sites within the top 100 results, for five major keywords, that have ordering pages. Last year there were 60 to 70 commerce sites ranking within the top 100 for these particular words before Florida. Quite frankly Froogle and most Adword campaigns wonít make up for killing commerce sites in the regular results. If youíve got an ordering page in Google it seems like youíre a sitting duck.
It seems to me Google wants site owners to create page after page of worthless drivel to rank or sell itís Adsense. Yahoo on the other hand sits in the corner censoring the meaningless content you have to create to rank in Google. I tell you the truth I didnít set out to be Hemingway to rank well in Google or pass the supposed quality guidelines in Yahoo. But I better conjure up the old boy from his grave if I expect to do business much longer in Google or Yahoo. Any more of these strange updates and I'm about finished.
| 7:21 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It seems to me Google wants site owners to create page after page of worthless drivel to rank or sell itís Adsense. |
From Google's Web site:
Organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
I don't see anything in there about "worthless drivel"--but I don't see anything in that mission statement about organizing e-commerce pages and making them universally accessible, either. Fact is, Google doesn't owe any of us a living; Google's job is to deliver the results that, in its opinion, searchers are looking for.
|I tell you the truth I didnít set out to be Hemingway to rank well in Google or pass the supposed quality guidelines in Yahoo. But I better conjure up the old boy from his grave if I expect to do business much longer in Google or Yahoo. |
Try conjuring up David Ogilvy. He's a more useful role model if you're trying to sell something. :-)
| 7:39 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I see a lot of spam backlinks now so Google must be showing the good with the bad. Quite a few also have only a url as the title with no description.
| 9:22 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I dont get it! I have a ton of backlinks, from related, .gov and .edu sites PR 6, and 7's and they dont show All that shows in backlinks is all of the junk, spam links.? Whats the deal with this?
I have a link in DMOZ, and have had it for years, it doesnt even show as a backlink.
| 9:36 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Fact is, Google doesn't owe any of us a living; Google's job is to deliver the results that, in its opinion, searchers are looking for. |
a one page subdomain that is simply a frame of another domain is googles idea of what the user is looking for? yeah right.!
| 9:39 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|a one page subdomain that is simply a frame of another domain is googles idea of what the user is looking for? yeah right.! |
No, it's an example of "content spam" that Google needs to deal with. But it doesn't follow that the solution to content spam is to rank somebody's affiliate or order page in the top 10 for an information search.
| 10:12 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<I've seen backlinks drop by about 25% but my rankings on keywords actually improved>
same here backlinks droped 50% but PR stays at 6 and my main keywords went sky high,well done G
| 10:21 pm on Jul 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|No, it's an example of "content spam" that Google needs to deal with. But it doesn't follow that the solution to content spam is to rank somebody's affiliate or order page in the top 10 for an information search. |
an assumption not implied in my statement. Also not born out in reality.
i am pointing out the effect of the latest change. How is a one page subdomain frame in anyway content spam? There is simply no content. The effect is the focus of the shift even futher to ranking on anchor text and less on on-site content with runs in the opposite direction to your original statement and indeed your followup.
| 1:39 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Another useless G "update". If you can call it that... Get back to the algo drawing board before everyone just gives up on you as a spam engine...
| 2:19 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My backlinks dropped 18%. I have a lot of weird ones (and lower PR) showing. No bother because it didn't affect my rankings or PR. Rankings is all I really care about anyway ;)
I wonder if it is supposed to be making it harder on us Webmasters to find quality links...
I didn't think anybody still used G to find those anyways (at least the backlink function)
| 2:25 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It's a glitch.
These are oviously not the proper backlinks. Do yourself a favour and don't even look at them.
|troels nybo nielsen|
| 3:48 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree, Stefan. I checked the backlinks for a couple of pages yesterday. Then I decided that this was useless and I would turn my back on it for a couple of days. I did not check more backlinks and I won't check any today. Perhaps tomorrow. Perhaps.
| 4:05 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm with Stefan on this.
There's a certain curiosity factor, something like watching TV to see buildings and freeways collapsing after a major earthquake, for whatever that's worth for those who enjoy such things. Then there's motion picture industry fabrications for public showing in films - which could well be what Google's showing us.
IMHO they're gaslighting us again.
| 4:10 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Something else I noticed...
since the end of may the site: search had been showing several strange urls that have never existed as well as several tracking urls. Now I am not seeing these urls in the index.
I am still seeing fully indexed pages that have been 301'd for quite a while and are showing title and description of the 404 error page.
| 4:35 am on Jul 18, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Since I use a Mac ... I (thankfully) have no toolbar to consult. Like everyone else though, the PR for my site has been going up and down like a toilet seat at a beer festival for the past two days.
However, when I check the directory listing which shows the green bar measure ... it remains the same as it has been for many, many months.
I wouldn't get too excited about this yo-yo effect we are seeing. As long as your rankings remain similar or unchanged, there doesn't seem to be any reason to panic.
Making major changes to the algo DURING an IPO would just be too dumb for words! As much as people seem to love to bash Google these days ... I seriously doubt this is anything to worry about. Of course, Google may have discovered "the" perfect algorithm ... in which case you can ignore this post. :)