| 11:00 am on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to WebmasterWorld, johnniebry.
(Make sure to read paynt's welcome post [webmasterworld.com])
> What does real good for me is having sites listed in DMOZ linking to my site with keyword in text.
Definitely. Especially if that link text matches the on-page optimisation (title and body text).
> ...one person's idea of Heaven and another, Hell...
Yes, but it's easier to see that if you're in Heaven this month. Otherwise, the problem is Google's poor results.
I think that Google has great results every month.:)
| 11:24 am on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|You thought wrong. Really, really wrong. Google has never banned sites for having pop-ups/unders -- it just refuses to have any of its own |
I stand corrected cheers :)
| 11:25 am on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I just had a look on a search on my keywords, but Im still gone, but I saw a page on no.3 on www3 with a cache that was totaly white and when I push the link I get a 404 and my page works perfect with absoluty no spamming, no pop ups and so on and Im out and before I was number 1.
| 12:29 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>Yes, but it's easier to see that if you're in Heaven this month. Otherwise, the problem is Google's poor results.
ROFLMAO. I think this is very much true. For the last month I have been comparing Google to the Internet equivalent of Satan because in the last month my main site was totally dropped from the last index, due either to my webserver having a glitch, Google being buggy, or perhaps both.
From what I am seeing at the moment on www2, not only am I back in Google, but beyond my wildest dreams. Possibly even #1 for the most important keyword to me. Now that it looks like I will be in Google Heaven for the next month, Google looks like the One True God, and not Satan. ;)
| 12:49 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
About the popup remarks:
I think google ad words select does not allow sites with popups. Maybe that was where you heard it.
| 12:57 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
One things for sure. I will never, ever take being listed in Google for granted again. It's not been Hell (because that tends to involve eternity in a blazing fire) - more like a 12 month holiday in Butlins. Or a meal at Arby's, everyday, for a year.
| 1:11 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Ok, newbie in town so I thought I'd introduce myself with a little song.
Oompa Loompa doopity doo
I've got a little story for you
Oompa Loompa doopity dee
If you are wise you'll listen to me
What do you get with the new Google Dance
Mixing your sites in a dizzying trance
First you are in and then you are out
What in the heck is this change a bout?
(I don't like the looks of it)
Oompa Loompa dippidy dar
spammers and dash sites, you will go far
You will find search happiness too
Like the oompa-loompa-doopity.com do
| 1:19 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Just kidding ;) Welcome!
I've finally gotten to #3, so hopefully we will see why everyone works so hard to be on the front page. Let the hits start rollin' in!
| 1:41 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I've decided. Make it pay only. Definitely. Now. This instant.
| 1:48 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well, I was ecstatic last week, when I spent a brief couple of days at #7. Then a dizzying fall down to #13, and now I'm back at my usual station, #11.
Very confusing week...
| 1:54 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
1) Spammy Sites That Should be Banished to Hell:
Any of your lame-a** sites that are ahead of mine.
2) Quality Sites That Make the World a Better Place:
Any of my lame-a** sites that are ahead of yours.
| 3:44 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm showing good results for this update on www2 and www3.
But www still shows the *same results* from the last update and none of the pages in www2 and www3 are in www.
Is it still "wait and see" or am I out of luck?
Thank you webmasterworld!
| 4:20 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Assuming (fingers crossed, knock on wood, silent prayer) the www3 results I'm getting migrate to www I like this update. I do not have a spammy site - I really use no gimmicks at all beyond basic optimization. So far in www3 I have really improved on generalized keywords whereas before I was only top 10 on niche keywords. I DO notice I have dropped on some of the niche keyords, but at least I have been pushed down by sites with greater relevance.
What I like about the www3 results I see is that I really climbed on "Canada" + keyword(s); as a Canadian site it always irritated me that my main page would rank WAY below U.S. or other foreign site's tiny Canada sub-pages (I mean my 400+ page site was lower than someone's SINGLE Canada page buried on their site). Of course as a modest Canuck I do not even dream of ever ranking high on general keyphrases without Canada in them.
| 5:47 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well, my joy at being back in was snuffed quickly. I was waaaay down in w, w2 and w3 for the last two days and just when I'd given up and decided to not watch anymore (too, depressing), I'm back on page one for several kw.
I don't think it's over yet because two minutes before this I was not there and could only be found after page 7 for three word phrases - and now (two more minutes later) I'm gone again....
| 6:14 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
My PR has gone from un-indexed to PR4?, When I click on the pages it sometimes shows the PR of 4 and sometimes doesn't. Is this normal?, however my 3 word search phrase is leaving me at No 65, so plenty to do for next time.
| 6:22 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|why ain't my pr not fluctuating and your's is? |
My pr for some html's it is still not yet calculated.
ans also weird things happen, my descriptions have diappeard, i now only see title + url in ww2????
| 6:35 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
> My PR has gone from un-indexed to PR4?, When I click on the pages it sometimes shows the PR of 4 and sometimes doesn't. Is this normal?
clickclick, yesyes! During the Google Dance, the PR will fluctuate dramatically depending on a number of factors. Give it some time...
| 6:40 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm getting referals from [uk.google.yahoo.com...] for my new pages that listed on www2 & www3
Has anyone else noticed that google.yahoo.com seems to deliver the results first?
It's happened on the last 3 or 4 updates
What does it all mean!
| 6:43 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
> What does it all mean!
It means that the dance is still going strong. What you are seeing is data moving from www2 and www3 over to www and then back again. This will happen from the day the dance starts until the day it ends. One day it may look like the update is done, the next we are back to the old database.
Again, give it time...
| 6:50 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
yeah - but why do the results start showing on google/yahoo first rather than just google
I've noticed this is has been consistant for 4 updates now.
I would have thought I would get only google referals before google/yahoo results.
Or could it be just what happens where I'm plugged in (ISP's, caches etc)
| 7:11 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
How long after a new update (on average) before the results show up in AOL?
| 7:12 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
www2 has "dissatisfied with your results? help us improve" underneath the results, but not www
By the sound of most of the threads in this post, they're asking for trouble.
| 7:23 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well... I've just had the new index on WWW from the UK from one of my ISPs. It was certainly the new one, but not the same as WWW2 or WWW3. Some of the missing sites returned and the quality was actually better than WWW2/WWW3 which I had a whinge about earlier. So it's possibly another example of jumping the gun too early in the dance.
| 7:30 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone experienced different results from www and www2 when checking at the same time from different geographical locations? To clarify I mean two people checking the same server from different parts of the country and getting different results.
| 7:39 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
In Oregon, www2 is now on www...Not on AOL yet though
| 7:44 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
yes, while google.nl showed www2 results google.de showed the old www database at the same time.
| 7:48 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the quick replies. I am in San Jose and my secretary is checking from New Orleans. We did good this month so hoping what I see from here holds till the update is over.
| 8:45 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Google is using my meta tag descriptions on a new site. I did't think Google used metas or did i just thunk wrong?
| 8:58 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yes, google shows descr. sometimes.
I have a redirection, which has meta description and further is empty and google displays the meta description in the results.
i don't know when google does or doesn't do it but sometimes (s)he does.
| 9:00 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
> Google is using my meta tag descriptions on a new site.
If Google cannot find any other text to index on your page, then it will use the META description. If you have a Flash intro page with no text, Google will index the description if it is available.
If you have an intro page that is all graphics, Google may show the META description. There are many different scenarios where this may happen.
| 9:42 pm on Aug 23, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I verified with a friend of mine in Florida (I'm in San Francisco) that he sees different results on www than I. I didn't verify this just now, but yesterday. I assume that www is different around the globe until the dance is over.