homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.111.111
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 271 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 271 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 > >     
July Update?
Heywood_J




msg:193183
 12:59 am on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

Is it me or does it look like a significant update is going on at google. I am noticing a number of SERP changes for a few of my sites and they've been fluctuating for the past few days.

Anyone else noticing any major changes?

 

europeforvisitors




msg:193363
 3:22 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Filtering out duplicate or near-duplicate content does not equate to filtering out e-commerce pages. And such a filter can be applied equally to information pages and e-commerce pages.

Sure, but duplicate content is more likely to be a problem with e-commerce and affiliate pages, because:

1) One widget, hotel, etc. can resulting hundreds or even thousands of near-duplicate pages on e-commerce and affiliate sites; and...

2) E-commerce and affiliate pages are more likely to use SEO techniques that bring them to the top of the SERPs, causing greater clutter in the search results that most users see.

(With AdSense encouraging the development of ODP clones and sitescraper pages, duplicate content is likely to grow exponentially on the "information" side of the aisle, too, which makes it the more important for Google to become more skilled at filtering or downgrading boilerplate pages.)

rfgdxm1




msg:193364
 3:32 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Dead meat doesnt mean that Google doesnt know about them.

Google most definitely knows what pages are guestbooks, and excludes them from the algo. That they before were able to filter them when someone used the link: command is proof of that. Although I'm curious as to why they are showing guestbooks again? An interesting theory is they may actually *want* sleazy webmasters and SEOs spamming guestbooks. Better they waste their time doing that than something that may actually get higher SERPs in Google. Obviously, people with guestbooks will not be pleased Google is encouraging spamming them. :( However, I've noticed almost all guestbook spammers do so more looking for hits from people reading the guestbook than for SEO reasons. This is obvious because if they were doing it for SEO reasons, they'd try and hide the fact they are spamming. As in dropping the URL after an idle flattery of the site, rather than "Buy the best widgets at the lowest price at the link below."

BReflection




msg:193365
 4:00 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

My photo gallery just registered on Google Images and my backlinks jumped from 33 to 176 - and most of them are garbage inter-blog backlinks. Nonetheless I am getting a ton more referrals.

ownerrim




msg:193366
 4:20 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

trillianjedi, i think the model you mention will become the most likely to succeed over time. With original content, of course. Users like content imbued with the following: originality, accuracy, fresh perspective, and insight. Those things connote trustworthiness and translate into word of mouth referrals.

outland88




msg:193367
 4:24 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Google has never claimed to be a shopping engine, so it would be well within its rights to filter out order pages or pages that use boilerplate catalog or affiliate content. (I'm not saying it should do that, although that certainly would reduce a lot of clutter in the SERPs.

So what has it claimed itself to be or not to be?

The clutter is being created by Adsense. Millions of pages created daily with just a few links, a paragraph, and sometimes a picture to induce click-throughs. Every motherís brother is throwing up a site now to earn Adsense revenue. Many sites owners know that if they create X amount of pages a certain percentage of people will stumble through and click a few Adsense links. The sheer size of these sites normally increases rankings. The problem is that more and more sites are lifting copyrighted materials from legitimate sites and web results to create these pages at breakneck speed. Without Adsense most of these sites would die a quick death, as they should.

Most commerce sites know theyíve got to work hard, especially on the Internet, to make money. The aura of theft which grows daily forces many to bend over backwards to establish legitimacy. Most Adsense sites created lately donít care about legitimacy theyíre aiming for the click. They could care less if anybody reads whatís written. Adsense is just a form of affiliate marketing. You find me an information site and 75% of the time it will be a boilerplate site littered with links pointing to other information. In some of my areas many even the authority sites havenít created any original content in years. It would kill them.

metatarsal




msg:193368
 5:28 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

If Google is absolutely required to 'monetise', as someone suggested earlier, maybe we should all monetise?

I could 'monetise' my wife for example; there's certainly untapped income there. She's a fine looking woman.

If only I had a personal mantra like 'Don't be Evil' -this is an excellent philosophy if you're a buffoon. With such a mantra, I could monetarise my wife with no moral concerns whatsoever.

This is because *Not being evil* covers such a multitude of potential sins, that it is absolutely meaningless. As long as you are 'not evil', you can do pretty much as you like, according to the strict definition.

I suspect its a log scale of 'badness', with evil far out of reach at the top.

Did no-one spot this?

europeforvisitors




msg:193369
 5:29 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

So what has it claimed itself to be or not to be?

That's easy: Read Google's mission statement.

The clutter is being created by Adsense. Millions of pages created daily with just a few links, a paragraph, and sometimes a picture to induce click-throughs.

The clutter started with e-commerce and affiliate pages, and it reached epidemic proportions long before AdSense came along. Fortunately, it should be easier for Google to control "AdSense spam" than e-commerce and affiliate spam, because all Google has to do is tighten up its rules and close down the offenders' accounts.

metatarsal




msg:193370
 5:36 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes, but Europeforvisitors, why are Google complaining about these low content pages - if their algos keep throwing up these results in high positions?
Oh - and who created Adsense?

ownerrim




msg:193371
 8:16 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

that's if they really close such accounts. they seem to leave a lot of dubious accounts running--perhaps because they are above the $ threshold for easy termination (pure speculation on my part)

europeforvisitors




msg:193372
 8:37 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes, but Europeforvisitors, why are Google complaining about these low content pages - if their algos keep throwing up these results in high positions?

That should be fairly obvious: The Google Search team are playing Whack-a-Mole, just as they've been doing with affiliate and e-commerce SEOs for years.

oh - and who created AdSense

Not the Google Search team, that's for sure. :-)

When Google launched AdSense, it obviously decided that winning an overwhelming market share among publishers outweighed the inevitable problems that would result from a nearly total lack of quality control. Now it's got to clean up the mess, at the same time that it needs to deal with long-existing boilerplate clutter from e-commerce and affiliate sites.

IITian




msg:193373
 8:39 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

I was doing research on a e-commerce sector to link to from my info site. I could only find them through ODP listing. They were not to be seen in the serps. They love their work, and provide parts and service that are unique but their sites are just not SEOed. After I linked to them, i thought I would ask them for reciprocal link. Only problem was that they don't have a links page or any other place. Perhaps, they haven't heard of "reciprocal links."

However, I saw lots of "informational" sites with Adsense and affiliate links coming on top of serps.

outland88




msg:193374
 8:43 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Fortunately, it should be easier for Google to control "AdSense spam" than e-commerce and affiliate spam, because all Google has to do is tighten up its rules and close down the offenders' accounts.

Let me see should I shut down thousands of spamming cookie cutter sites that are producing me millions in revenue through Adsense or should I shut down sites spamming that produce me no revenue. That's a toughy.

Lookee here, if we push content and penalize commerce then people will only find many sites by clicking on our Adsense ads. After all we're in business to make money aren't we.

Are you telling me search engines don't manipulate results as much as the webmasters they accuse of doing it?

steveb




msg:193375
 9:06 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

"The link command as always been flawed ..it never showed links from sites pr3 and below"

A "criteria" is not a "flaw".

There is nothing flawed about setting a standard that is consistent, or even 95%+ consistent.

randle




msg:193376
 9:10 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Has anyone been using this command lately?

allinurl:www.widgets.com

I have not been checking lately so maybe I missed the bus, but it seems to display all links to the site.

europeforvisitors




msg:193377
 10:06 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Let me see should I shut down thousands of spamming cookie cutter sites that are producing me millions in revenue through Adsense or should I shut down sites spamming that produce me no revenue. That's a toughy.

Google's core product is search. If it delivers lousy search results, it loses traffic, ad impressions, and revenue. IMHO, it's naive to think that Google is going to risk a proven business model by looking the other way when the fast-buck crowd spam its search results (whether with affiliate pages, e-commerce pages, or "cookie-cutter" AdSense sites).

Lookee here, if we push content and penalize commerce then people will only find many sites by clicking on our Adsense ads. After all we're in business to make money aren't we.

There's certainly a precedent for that point of view: In offline media, businesses are expected to advertise when they want to promote their goods and services. Instead of bashing Google, owners of commerce sites should thank Google for the free ride. :-)

Are you telling me search engines don't manipulate results as much as the webmasters they accuse of doing it?

Yes.

outland88




msg:193378
 11:29 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

>Instead of bashing Google, owners of commerce sites should thank Google for the free ride. :-)

I think if you're an information site married to Adsense you should be thanking Adword commerce sites not Google.

The only way to check the abuse with Adsense is to decentralize the policing. I donít know of many affiliate networks that donít allow the advertisers to pick and choose their affiliates.

All media including search engines manipulate the final product.

JMeeks




msg:193379
 11:57 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi Everyone,

I'm new to the forum but have been lurking for a few weeks.

After seeing almost a 50% drop in backlinks this weekend I've just noticed google reverting back to the old list of links from before the weekend update.

Anyone else seeing this reverse.

---Nevermind just check after 5 minutes and it moved back again to the updated (50% less links)list. Oh well so much for getting my hopes up.

[edited by: JMeeks at 12:03 am (utc) on July 20, 2004]

bbott




msg:193380
 11:59 pm on Jul 19, 2004 (gmt 0)

THis is really disappointing. My site is about 3 months old. backlinks went from 11 to 42 and PR remained the same (dont' think anyones PR changed though). Anyways, still no where to be seen in the SERPS. BUT in google i'm ranking top 20 for my keyword temrs when i do ALLINANCHOR, ALLINTEXT, and ALLINTITLE. Maybne i'm sandboxed.. who knows :*(

snipped

[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 12:19 am (utc) on July 20, 2004]
[edit reason] URL removed [/edit]

1milehgh80210




msg:193381
 1:00 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Are you telling me search engines don't manipulate results as much as the webmasters they accuse of doing it?"

All a SE DOES is manipulate results.
If the -right- kinds of pages dont show (instead..spam or someones definition of) the algo must be adjusted.
Or apply a manual penalty -site- not page. )

europeforvisitors




msg:193382
 1:38 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Search engines create algorithms. The algorithms determine the order in which results are displayed.

Webmasters and SEOs, on the other hand, often attempt to defeat the algorithms by artificial means. That's how I'd define "manipulation." If you prefer to use a different definition, that's your privilege, but it's disingenous to pretend that the design and refinement of an algorithm is in any way comparable to black-hat or even grey-hat SEO. The search engine tries to deliver the best possible results for the user; the SEO tries to deliver the results that are best for himself or his client.

1milehgh80210




msg:193383
 1:50 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)


"Search engines create algorithms"
I would
say People create algorithms (using software and computers), and they will do what is in their best interest. Nothing wrong with that.

Otherwise, yes we're just talking definitions here.

jimpoo




msg:193384
 3:17 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Instead of bashing Google, owners of commerce sites should thank Google for the free ride. :-)

I'd rather say Google should thanks Webmasters for the free ride. :P

amaruca




msg:193385
 3:58 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

I'd rather say Google should thanks Webmasters for the free ride. :P

It's about time someone stood up and said that. Google has been getting a free ride on our content for a LONG TIME.

We were here LONG before Google came around and we'll be around LONG after they bite the dust (mark my words, Google WILL bite it).

Google is nothing more than the worlds largest link farm with the ability to locate links by keyword. Other than that, Google has no content anyone is interested in.

1milehgh80210




msg:193386
 4:05 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google is nothing more than the worlds largest link farm with the ability to locate links by keyword

sheesh

hugo_guzman




msg:193387
 4:15 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

My advice to all of you that aren't ranking well in the the Google SERP's is to stop overanalyzing the algorithm tweaks that Google makes on an ongoing basis and keep acquiring high powered relevant backlinks.

Imaster




msg:193388
 6:52 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have to keep going to Yahoo Search for checking backlinks, might as well even change my homepage to Yahoo.

I think Google is shooting themselves in the foot, what they should had done is actually improve the backlink function and possibly even allow seeing results beyond the first 1000 results for the link command (for a fee if this puts computing load without any direct returns).

This way their reputation is definitely going down in the webmaster community.

McMohan




msg:193389
 11:10 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

JMeeks - Righto.

This is making my heart, beat at different paces as I check for backlinks at different time intervals!

Now am seeing all the backlinks that were there before this backlink mix-up.

Till when? Million dollar question :)

Mc

McMohan




msg:193390
 11:12 am on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Added -
Just as I finished my above post, am seeing again the mixed-up, less than PR3 backlinks :(

Million dollar question answered :)

Mc

McMohan




msg:193391
 12:16 pm on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Is this the end to it all? The backlinks are sane for the last 60 minutes now!

Hope it holds-up

Mc

Kirby




msg:193392
 1:27 pm on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

>There is nothing flawed about setting a standard that is consistent, or even 95%+ consistent.

Good point, but when has the link command ever been consistent? I have one way inbound links from authority sites as do some of my competitors. Sometimes they show for me and not others and vice versa.

Its always been just a sampling and for whatever reason Google has changed the basis for the sample.

troels nybo nielsen




msg:193393
 1:34 pm on Jul 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

From where I look the SERPs seem to be back in the old pattern known before the update with small changes from day to day. Backlinks still look confusing. Guess I'll have to accept that this is not a glitch but on purpose.

This 271 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 271 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved