homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.237.54.83
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 109 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 109 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >     
Speculation about August Google Changes
google update aug 2004
conradmiller123




msg:49014
 8:11 pm on Aug 10, 2004 (gmt 0)

From what I can tell G is trying to weed out paid links. Or off topic links from Site A to B.

Especially sites with many links from site A to B with the same Anchor text across the site.

As far as I can tell the links are not worthless they are just devalued.

Also I think the amount of PR passing has been devalued.

Any Ideas.

 

AmericanBulldog




msg:49044
 3:21 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

I can clearly see serps driven by paid links, whose positions remain unchanged, and, without getting into a philisophical debate, I don't see how it is in G's best interest to devalue paid links/adverts.

You can be sure If I advertise shiny red widgets and spend my money doing it, I am only promoting a page that is targeted to shiny red widgets and would be at home in those serps.

Also, I can see many serps driven by "off topic" links, and, I agree with those who say g are not theming, as already pointed out in this thread, the actual connections by words alone do not take into account the bigger picture.

My speculation is they have turned up the filter on duplicate content and dampened internal anchor text.

europeforvisitors




msg:49045
 3:32 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

I don't see how it is in G's best interest to devalue paid links/adverts.
You can be sure If I advertise shiny red widgets and spend my money doing it, I am only promoting a page that is targeted to shiny red widgets and would be at home in those serps.

Sure, but the only sites that pay for links are e-commerce or affiliate sites. This means that, if Google didn't devalue paid links, it would be favoring commercial pages over information pages in competitive categories. That would violate Google's stated corporate mission, which is to "organize the Web's information and make it universally accessible."

AmericanBulldog




msg:49046
 3:37 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Good point europe, but G is about the largest paid link whore out there, and I'm sure they believe they have great value.

However, they are still not #1 for the term search engine in their own serps, so that would lend credence to your idea.

[google.com...]

trimmer80




msg:49047
 3:43 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

The PR system is a popularity system. Which is based on people liking a site and therefor linking to the site.

Paying for links is 'buying friends' which means there is no guarantee of its quality.

thus is it in googles best interest to ignore / devalue paid links

bears5122




msg:49048
 3:45 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Europe,

So having commercial sites is bad for the SERPs? Wouldn't that mean adwords is bad for Google? I mean if I run a search for Soda and Pepsi's page pops up, I'm not going to be disappointed.

bears5122




msg:49049
 3:47 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

I disagree with paid links don't guarantee a good result. If you go out and buy a link for "Blue Widgets", I'm pretty sure you're not selling "Red Thingees".

trimmer80




msg:49050
 3:54 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

I disagree with paid links don't guarantee a good result. If you go out and buy a link for "Blue Widgets", I'm pretty sure you're not selling "Red Thingees".

no... but it doesn't mean that you are the best result for blue widgets. It means that you think you are the best result. But of course we all think we should be ranked number 1

conradmiller123




msg:49051
 4:24 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

My point is not only about off topic sites. But also global paid links. as the same domain links to you on many pages. Single on topic paid links dont seem to be affected.

trimmer80




msg:49052
 4:35 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have a site that is exactly as you discussed. Off topic link purchased for my site. The link appears on 500 pages.
I am seeing no decrease in traffic (increased marginally).

trimmer80




msg:49053
 4:54 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

out of interest... i also have other sites that have lost up to 70% of traffic.

They have not purchased links. All on topic linking inbound (that i know off) and outbound. They do have a substancial amount of reciprical linking though....

Im still looking through results grasping for answers.

europeforvisitors




msg:49054
 6:02 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Europe, So having commercial sites is bad for the SERPs?

I didn't say that. My point was simply that, since Google's stated mission is to organize the Web's information, it wouldn't make sense for them to give more weight to sites that pay for links. That would tend to favor commercial pages over information pages, thereby detracting from their corporate mission.

Wouldn't that mean adwords is bad for Google?

No, of course not. Ads aren't bad for THE NEW YORK TIMES or THE GUARDIAN, so why should they be bad for Google?

I mean if I run a search for Soda and Pepsi's page pops up, I'm not going to be disappointed.

No, but you might be disappointed if cheap-discount-pepsi-by-the-case.com bought a bunch of PR9 links and you got their site instead of Coke, Pepsi, or the Soft Drink Institute when you searched on "soda." :-)

bears5122




msg:49055
 6:13 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

No, but you might be disappointed if cheap-discount-pepsi-by-the-case.com bought a bunch of PR9 links and you got their site instead of Coke, Pepsi, or the Soft Drink Institute when you searched on "soda." :-)

Well if cheap-discount-pepsi-by-the-case.com put in more effort with their site than Pepsi did, they deserve to be on top.

I think the fact that buying a couple links would put you on top of Pepsi is more a factor of a poor search engine than of sites taking advantage of it.

europeforvisitors




msg:49056
 6:21 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well if cheap-discount-pepsi-by-the-case.com put in more effort with their site than Pepsi did, they deserve to be on top.

Google doesn't judge effort when it calculates search results, and it certainly isn't looking to reward sites that have shelled out money for inbound links.

figment88




msg:49057
 6:44 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think it would be possible to alogorithmically determine paid links. Any automatic process would come up with some false positives, but that does not mean an automatic system could not be used. Google may consider paid links to be a big enough problem that they willing to devalue a small percentage of legitimate links.

An algorithm might identify paid links by modeling human actions. Awhile ago I was interested in investigating the paid link market. It was not overly difficult to find a bunch of sites selling links and a bunch of sites buying links.

The basic process I followed involved identifying certain seed links that were clearly identified as paid links, checking all backlinks to these websites that bought links, than checking to see if other sites served as backlinks to more than one of the original buying sites. Links in close proximity I also assumed were paid.

For example, Site A clearly identifies links to
red widgets, blue widgets, green widgets as paid links.

I check the backlinks to the red widget site and see site B is also a backlink. I go to Site B and find that in addition to linking to red widgets it also links to blue widgets (another known link buyer). A link to green widgets is missing, but right next to the blue widgets link is one to yellow widgets. I now suspect that the yellow widgets link is also paid.

If later on Site C I find a yellow widget link in close proximity to one of the others, my confidence will rise that they are all paid.

bears5122




msg:49058
 6:44 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

If buying links has that much of an effect on their SERPs, they have a lot of work to do.

mfishy




msg:49059
 10:35 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Nothing has changed, or will change regarding the purchasing of links. Still working wonderfully as it has for years. Sure, if you are buying text links from PR8 sites with a block of links at the botom of every page, you MIGHT get popped if some Google geek is cranky but if one is smarter about it, there is no possible way google could know the motivation behind any link.

The way in which G is attempting to control paid links has been in place for a while and it is algorythmic. This can dampen the effects of a few high PR links but not a smart link buying campaign.

"Off topic" links are also as effective, if not more effective than ever. Theming is the biggest myth in the history of SEO.

I think AB was spot on when he said to take a really close look at internal anchor and dupe content. IMO, most of those that lost pages will find these things mostly work themselves out after the "shakeup" settles down.

planit




msg:49060
 11:22 am on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think that Google might try to classify pages to some extent and orders the results in such a way that there are different kinds of pages towards the top of the results.

A search where the top 100 results are the sites with the biggest budjets would not be as good as one with a bit more variety.

zeus




msg:49061
 1:52 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Here are my thoughts : most of us see a drop in Google visits, I think it has something to do with the last spidering, they just did not do a good job, so we now get the results of that spidering.

If you look at your site you will see some of your internal sites has lost there PR(white Bar) those pages they are now lost in the serps or bad ranked and they are also bad for your Theme of your site.

Of cuase its summer, but htat only has a value of about 5%.

Another thing Google is not that popular as before be cause of there results, thats why you see a little boost in MSN.com

I hope this helps.

zeus

alika




msg:49062
 2:10 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Another thing Google is not that popular as before be cause of there results

Any proof of this? G's popularity may be affected among those webmasters whose sites were penalized or dropped for whatever reason. But is there proof that their market share is indeed going down? Remember that there are many more G users out there who are not webmasters or savvy about the goings-on of the Web.

mfishy




msg:49063
 2:19 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

<<Any proof of this?>>

No.

zeus




msg:49064
 2:28 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

2 years in a row MSN was choisen as the best SE in Germany, but ok the results on Google.de is the worst and my site is still no.1 on Google.com, so theres no trouble here, Im just interested in search engines.

nalin




msg:49065
 2:46 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well if cheap-discount-pepsi-by-the-case.com put in more effort with their site than Pepsi did, they deserve to be on top.

Google doesn't judge effort when it calculates search results, and it certainly isn't looking to reward sites that have shelled out money for inbound links.

I completly disagree with the above. Specifically I think google results (for products and brands and types of products) are skewed in favor of a large web marketing budget - not necessarily with text links but also with ppc advertising that is indexed, pfi directories, and a whole host of content that requires monitary investment.

If cheap-discount-pepsi-by-the-case.com lands number one for soda due to paid links then they have a large marketing budget indeed and are therefore, one must assume, are amoung the more prominent companies offering pepsi by the case online. Should they be number one for "soda" - No, probably not but argueably neither should pepsi or coke (as either of these would reflect bias and likly not be what the sercher was after).

rj87uk




msg:49066
 3:01 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Some of you are saying that Google is doing - Done the right thing here...

But ive got to admit some results I get are pretty bad.

I think that Google is really Simple. Fast. and Easy to use, but without the results they are nothing...

I do still like Google and hope the results get better...

bears5122




msg:49067
 3:13 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

My sites do well on Google which for the most part.

But from a sheer user standpoint, their results are horrible. If I needed to do a search for something, Google would be one of the last places I would go.

ogletree




msg:49068
 3:20 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you can't find something on G you don't know how to use it or it does not exist. It is not G's fault that the site you are looking for has their URL as the title of every page. Learn to use advanced features or even the (-) that will help more than anything. No other SE is as fresh as G in my opinion. I go to specility se's when I want to find some things just because they are set up for only that subject. Like citysearch for restaurants or ebay for buying things or amazon for books. They are a little more targeted. You can still find those things on G.

bears5122




msg:49069
 3:28 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

To be honest, when I want to make a quick search, I don't care to sit around and use the advanced features. I can spend a couple minutes running a search on Google and tweaking it, or just make a search on one that provides good SERPs.

WebFusion




msg:49070
 3:33 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

If you can't find something on G you don't know how to use it or it does not exist. It is not G's fault that the site you are looking for has their URL as the title of every page. Learn to use advanced features or even the (-) that will help more than anything.

The problem with that thinking (IMHO) is that in order for ANY product to have (and keep) mass appeal, it has to be easy to use for those WITHOUT advanced knowledge.

Let's face it...99% (or more) or the internet population couldn;t care less about advanced search features. Look at how many URLs are still typed into a search box everyday. All the masses care about is being able to type that phrase and find what they want. While Google still (for the most part) delivers the goods, there is simply no denying the quality is no where is used to be (by a long shot).

Having said that, I've taken a look at the Beta MSN, and they're no better (over 5 pages of cloaks/redirects found in one search alone)

ogletree




msg:49071
 4:05 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

G does not care about the general terms. There is no way to tell what somebody is looking for when they type in some real generic 1 or 2 word phrases. There are also hundreds of sites that deserve to be there. There is no fair way to determine that. When people complain abou this they are just mad they are not there not that G is relavant. If G was so bad and there was some other SE that was so much better G would not have such a large chunk of se business. People are finding what they want. I always find what I want even without the advanced features. How well general terms do has no factor in the future of G or any se. As long as people find what they want G will stay on top. Just because they don't find you is no major deal in the grand scheme of thing. It does not matter what you and I think it matters what the majority thinks and they don't think much.

rj87uk




msg:49072
 4:16 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

ogletree i get your point, we all know not to type in html if your looking for html builders in japan... but thats just silly, I still think that the results have went down hill.

Maybe due to the fact that many people use sneaky tatics redirects, etc etc.

I think that Google still has much business because there is no other 'real' se, apart from y! etc but some people just dont like the feel - layout etc...

In my market Id say i have the best keyword. we offer the best product, So i dont mind about that, im talking about when im searching in general!

And yes i can use the advanced stuff, but like last posts says not everyone can.

I noticed that Google now has added 'did you mean...' and gives more options some good some totaly off!

I done a search for blue widgets and it came up with 'did you mean... 'blue widgets in alaska' '

I dont know how they worked out what to put there maybe the amount of specific searches etc who knows to say the least i wasnt impressed... heh

im not exactly complaining Google is good to my sites :)

erykalefrak




msg:49073
 4:20 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

OK, so I am trying again, my last post didn't go in for some reason...

As for links... I track my links and the links of my 3 main competitors and we all tend to use the same pleaces to advertise and get a link back from. Meanwhile I dropped like a rock with this whole situation and they stayed still. I have(had) a PR6 and they have PR5 or less. Suddenly I get a white bar or a grey bar with showing no PR, and I dropped 20 places in the rankings. It makes no sense. I have been replaced by crap sites that do not have anything to do with the search. I have gone through all the sites above me and so far the only thing I could find that was different was a googlebot tag I have on my index page, that none of them have... also they have either no robots.txt file or they have a modified one with many specifications... perhaps google is eliminating the use of such tags?

TerrCan123




msg:49074
 4:44 pm on Aug 11, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes there is no rhyme or reason for this past drop unless they added in enough factors that our sites were caught up by a fluke. My site is listed in all directories and on libraries and it was dropped like a rock, so it can happen to any site.

As far as Google goes, I wouldn't be surprised to see Google drop a lot of market share in the search business in the coming years and the reason is because Microsoft controls the OS and browser. Only a look at the past will show what Google faces, I hope they do well but they have Yahoo to go up against too.

This 109 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 109 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >
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