| 8:44 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That is exctaly how our site is set up but not for geo. Our site is a product catalog generated from a database using heiarchy to drill down to the products. Over 100k pages. I think you might be right. But. Our site is now bouncing back some what.
| 10:43 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Why should Google make a distinction between paid-for links and natural links? If a company is willing and able to pay for a link to boost their ranking then chances are that they are offering a quality service - right?
The problem I have is with reciprocal linking, they are easy to spot and should have their anchor text and Pagerank value stripped.
|i.e. if we see a 80% reduction in spam is it worthwhile to disadvantage 10% of webmasters that are innocent. I believe that Google will also choose the result that gives the customer the best SERPs. |
I couldn't agree more. I hate it when webmasters moan and complain that Google "just ain't treating them right!" - Google doesn't owe anyone a living and if they want to be completely unfair then it's their perogative. There end result is making users happy, not webmasters, I say sacrifice the few to please the many - hooray for the communist search engine Google!
They could turn around tommorrow and say "from now on we're going to charge $2.00 per click and there will be no free listings" and there's not a damn thing you can do about it and they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
| 10:49 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
our site is geo-targeting phrases but we're not selling anything. I did the site:www.mysite.com and noticed several old pages that have not existed for several months. The rest of the pages all have their titles etc.
It appears old data may be playing some role?
| 11:25 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have a question for you.
Is googlebot downloading/accepting gzip html?
On all my sites with 80% drop in traffic, many pages are downloaded compressed!
ex: file_a : 2604 bytes downloded by googlebot
file_a : 11,638 bytes (view source + count bytes)
file_a : 2604 bytes downloded if I use IE
I forgot! - sorry the bot IPs 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199
(maybe are more IPs)
From other ips ex 188.8.131.52 is downloading the correct size!
A new update! it looks like
from 64.68.83.*, 64.68.81.* the content is compressed
from 64.68.82.* the content is not compressed!
[edited by: axa504 at 12:12 am (utc) on Aug. 17, 2004]
| 11:56 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Why should Google make a distinction between paid-for links and natural links? If a company is willing and able to pay for a link to boost their ranking then chances are that they are offering a quality service - right? |
Why? Because natural links are a better indicator of quality. If a company is willing and able to pay for, say, 2000 links to boost their rankings it says nothing whatsoever about the quality of what they're offering. If 2000 individual webmasters each decide to link to that site it's more likely to mean it's worth visiting. There are no guarantees, of course, but statistically it's more likely.
| 12:30 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just my 2 cents. Based on everything I've been reading in this and other recent threads (re: large sites dropping, apparent paid links sites dropping) and our own experience, I'm thinking the simplest explanation (which is usually the right one) is that they are simply eliminating or greatly dampening (say from a prior factor of .85 down to .25) the value of reciprocal links BETWEEN PAGES within a domain AS WELL AS between domains as a whole. This seems to explain most everything.
Most large sites tend to reciprocately interlink their pages a lot (i.e. home <-> menu <-> sub-menu)
where each <-> represents a RECIP link. Think: prev page, next page, return to home, etc. Elminate most of the page-rank garnered previously from such links and plop! the site drops.
Next repeat the above for any DOMAINS which reciprocate links to each other (possibly even indirectly, maybe not?, how many levels-of-indirection? ) and any rank exiting MOST link farms is suddenly nil.
This also explains simply why many non-reciprocated, paid links are still doing okay.
| 1:01 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There is no such thing as "reciprocal linking within a website".
It is called site navigation. If I can't direct my visitors other content on the website then we'd all be left with orphan web pages.
| 1:11 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Finally! We see Google is finally penalizing or devaluing the duplicate content spam sites that have taken so much traffic from us. Were taking 6000 pages of duplicate content over 100 web sites or so.
They don't have descriptions in the SERPs.
THIS IS LONG OVERDUE.
IT BETTER STICK.
Wow, our visitors have shot up.
| 1:52 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
good to see yours is up.. my serps is full of spam. I have never seen them this bad. The sites with unique content are the ones getting penalised.
It better not stick
| 3:14 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You are right, there is no such as "reciprical linking within a website" but it does appear likely from where I sit that MikeNoLastName is right in suggesting that there was a tweak that devalued links within a website. Unless I'm not thinking this through too carefully, which is possible, it would appear that large sites would be affected more by this devaluation.
This does not mean that there's a penalty, just that it's not worth as much as it used to be. So it's not like Google made a pronouncement that internal navigation is bad, which would have been, well, nonsensical.
| 4:29 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
But it doesn't justify an 80% decrease in traffic.
I have many many pages that were ranking well and drop.
Most of which we hardly internally linked at all.
| 4:43 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I couldn't agree more. I hate it when webmasters moan and complain that Google "just ain't treating them right!" - Google doesn't owe anyone a living and if they want to be completely unfair then it's their perogative. There end result is making users happy, not webmasters, I say sacrifice the few to please the many - hooray for the communist search engine Google! |
True, Google doesn't owe webmasters anything. However, without webmasters Google is nothing. It would be foolish of them to ignore the needs of webmasters.
If Google is to survive, they must find a balance between giving users relevant SERPS and giving webmasters the ability to drive traffic to their sites.
| 4:56 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I totally disagree. I think Google should be 100% focused on the user.
Everything else good will follow. Certainly the traffic, the revenue, and the web will be a better place.
Google owes nothing to webmasters, except those that help it make search results more relevant.
| 5:06 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If Google is to survive, they must find a balance between giving users relevant SERPS and giving webmasters the ability to drive traffic to their sites. |
But isn't that traffic going somewhere?
The game's rules are constantly changing. That is part of what makes it so interesting, isn't it?
As has been stated in these forums many times before, it is foolish to build one's business on free traffic from the SE's. It literally can disappear overnight.
Google has grown far beyond the webmasters that may have increased its popularity initially. We have pushed the train over the top of the hill. Now that is is headed down, I don't think I want to get in front of it to try to stop it.
We can discuss the changes we see, and what we thinks drives them, and we will all benefit. On the other hand, if we want to participate in useless whining, we can head over to the DMOZ forum. There is probably a recent thread abut editor corruption. :)
| 7:47 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Overall people are finding what they want. I find what I want all the time. |
You are clearly not talking to enough people. A friend of mine was looking for a job, typing in "recruitment agencies location" and all they were getting was adsense fuelled directory sites, not the local agencies.
Thats just one example, my parents have asked similar questions. They homepage is now set to Yahoo!.
The fact that you find what you what I like me saying all is well because I can find what I want. I have to tell you I am pretry damn good at finding things with G. If you know what you are doing it works great. But Joe Schmo Public is thick most of the time when it comes to the T'internet.
Any degregdation in SERP quality is entirely Google's fault, they monetised EVERY single search phrase with Adsense.
Back on topic, I have found it surprising that internal links have not been massively devalued, they are worse than paid links.
| 7:48 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Is the Google August crawl over or still going?
I am suddenly getting deep crawls by Google in the past few hours on one of my sites that have never seen Google go that deep before. Then MSN crawler showed up a little after that. For this particular site this is brand new activity.
| 8:34 am on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Just looking at my site stats and i have 'most' traffic back after that recent loss! - great news,
This is on Google.com and we are back on top of results Is anyone else seen these changes?
>> 'without webmasters Google is nothing' that is wrong! Think about it people not seoing, exchanging links etc etc then it would be easyer for google to have good results :p
| 5:01 pm on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|True, Google doesn't owe webmasters anything. However, without webmasters Google is nothing. It would be foolish of them to ignore the needs of webmasters. |
'Ignore the needs of the webmaster'?
Google got on fine before webmasters started manipulating the results. The only interest Google has in webmasters is their current Adwords expenditure .....
| 5:11 pm on Aug 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I am suddenly getting deep crawls by Google in the past few hours on one of my sites that have never seen Google go that deep before. |
Me too. About an hour ago Gbot launched into its biggest crawl of my site ever.
Also, perhaps related, changes I made late last week to internal pages have been reflected in the SERPs. Previously buried internal pages are now showing on page one. Maybe today Gbot is having second thoughts about having promoted those internal pages...
| This 109 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 109 ( 1 2 3  ) |