homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.72.86
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45 ( [1] 2 > >     
The latest update disaster - a theory
Can it be because of ODP and Yahoo?
SlyOldDog




msg:174320
 1:10 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Many sites have suddenly dropped out of the top rankings in the latest Google update.

I was curious when I noticed I could not see ODP or Yahoo in my backward links on most of my sites, so I went and checked it out. Surprisingly, this is what I found:

In ODP the categories were GONE, for all my subject areas, and so were my listings.

On Yahoo, the categories seem to have a "PageRank penalty". One Yahoo category now has pagerank 3 where it used to be 5 or 6. The other has 4 where it used to be 6.

Since most people use ODP and Yahoo to get started, it would make sense that being dropped would have a big effect on PageRank.

 

Ove




msg:174321
 1:20 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Its too early too say anything about the algo and the changes that you see the dance has just begun, wait a few days and then we will see what they have done

/Ove

eyeinthesky




msg:174322
 1:43 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Yahoo seems to have problems displaying Google results. Not usual. Hope nothing bad is brewing, though.

Can Google maintain it growth without Yahoo?

Marcos




msg:174323
 1:46 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Iīm afraid the index is stable now, Ove.

SlyOldDog, the truth is, whatever the reason, Dmoz results are ruling Google now, an Domoz editors are king. Editors has been abusing the system for a long time, and the suddent trust deposited on them by Google has created a mayor debacle on the cuality of Googleīs index. This is a disaster, it looks like the firts Altavista debacle, years ago.

Ove




msg:174324
 1:49 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

The index have never been stable after 24 hour before, i think you will see swithched results for a few days more.

/Ove

rfgdxm1




msg:174325
 1:51 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

>The index have never been stable after 24 hour before, i think you will see swithched results for a few days more.

I'm not seeing the new index on www. As such, I wait until it is there.

Marcos




msg:174326
 1:53 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

>The index have never been stable after 24 hour before, i think you >will see swithched results for a few days more.

True enought, Ove, but after the "mayor" change taken place at the begining, you will only see minor swithchs, 1 site up, 1 site down, maybe a few positions. The Index we can see now, and the rules commanding it, is more or less the same we will see the whole month.

toolman




msg:174327
 1:54 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

You guys may want to look at this [webmasterworld.com...]

conor




msg:174328
 1:55 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

The index is not stable yet but I am sure that the new PRO and de-indexed penalty is fixed.

starec




msg:174329
 2:30 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

An interesting theory, Sly. From what I see here there are indeed a few urls that have been listed in ODP for ages, but the category does not appear in new SERPS. When looking at the corresponding googledir category, some of the urls are simply not there, some are there with no PR allocated.

Even though I can check only a very limited sample of ODP links, it looks as if Google used some incomplete (or filtered?) ODP date in this update.

argusdesigns




msg:174330
 4:10 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

I agree with Slydog, I am showing the same type of results. Yahoo cat. backlink not showing, ODP not showing. Hopefully this is a mid-dance-crisis and not some new filter.

My competition has dropped dramatically in backlinks, mainly because they had links from link farms (not quite bad neighborhoods, but close enough).

Educated guess:
1. Perhaps a new filter that will not show backlinks from directories, hubs, and the like. Basically strips (or exposes) a website to only the side dishes so to speak.

2. Perhaps the credible directories (or main courses) and so on will be added late in the dance with minor shift (I hope).

3. Google will rely only on it's own directory, not yahoo and ODP (yikes).

thoughts?

bobmark




msg:174331
 4:24 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

A variation on the theory:
The experience in my area is that medium to medium-big established sites took the hit and lost their top 10 serps to less relevant and usually small (sometimes almost "my homepage") sites. The #1 or #2 serp giants stayed the same.
Reading between the lines on this forum (mostly the update thread) it seems to me that most of the people thrilled with the new index are new or small sites; most of those dropping out of the top 10 (in many cases after years of #2 or #3 spots) are medium-big sites.
The commonality for these sites is probably links in: they are not the 1000's of links in giants, but not the 10 or under links in mini-sites. Most probably average in the 50 to 300 links in range. In my case while my links in went up, it is way less than it should be and some significant links do not appear anymore.
So...something changed in the algo that hit medium size sites - who got a serp boost from links in - the hardest. Whether its the ODP/Yahoo thing or some more random link missing error, I don't know.

Sasquatch




msg:174332
 4:58 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Reading between the lines on this forum (mostly the update thread) it seems to me that most of the people thrilled with the new index are new or small sites; most of those dropping out of the top 10 (in many cases after years of #2 or #3 spots) are medium-big sites.

Just an odd thought that popped into my head when I read this. Google has been concentrating on "minty fresh" content this last month. New and small sites often have the highest percentage of new content. Why should a big old site that is ranking top ten do very much to their site?

Could "freshness" represent some of the changes you are seeing?

I only started watching these things about a month ago, so I don't have any good data to compare it to.

brotherhood of LAN




msg:174333
 5:01 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

it seems to me that most of the people thrilled with the new index are new or small sites; most of those dropping out of the top 10 (in many cases after years of #2 or #3 spots) are medium-big sites.

I was thinking that too....maybe thats why the update thread is sooo big. :)

I've seen homepage and root pages rank less well and deep "money" pages ranking better. Also, a link that I have on every page to another site that is not entirely on topic has also went down in the rankings.

I suspect Google is trying to add more emphasis on "themes" one way or another, and this is why the update looks so different to many (at the moment).

Just hunches.....glad to see that everyone wants to get down the nitty gritty of it all.

Marcos




msg:174334
 5:03 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

That is more or less what I seen, bobmark. You may have 100-300 sites linking to you, but a guy with just 5-10 links interlinking betwen them can surpas you if those 5-10 sites have been indexed at Domz. Your hundreds of links, your hundreds of īpopular votesī donīt count any more, only the links from sites indexed at Dmoz count now. And that is bad news for all the competitive categories, where a few editors have taken control, abusing their position, and stablish a Link-Only-My-Sites schemme.

Thatīs how a few small ībanditī Editoīs sites have been able to take over the big players. They have been spamming Dmoz for some time, and, all of the sudent, now they hold power to drive us out from Google too, who does not seem to be aware of the spaming problems at Dmoz. THis is going to be an horrible month, lets hope Google realize soon enought they may have commited a terrible error doing that. The current Index is worthless for many competitive, no-english categories.

bobmark




msg:174335
 5:07 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

"Just an odd thought that popped into my head when I read this. Google has been concentrating on "minty fresh" content this last month. New and small sites often have the highest percentage of new content. Why should a big old site that is ranking top ten do very much to their site?

Could "freshness" represent some of the changes you are seeing?"

In my case, no, sasquatch. None of my "minty fresh" pages - including those in the top 10 that were added the 2nd to 3rd week of sep - are included in the update. It is as if Google tossed out all the minty fresh pages and only used the "big crawl" index from 15 to 30 days ago. My hope is that my serp will return rapidly if Google either adds or re-indexes these pages.

SlyOldDog




msg:174336
 5:15 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

:)

Marcos.... I'm sure Google know a thing or 2 about spam!

I agree that ODP is not very representative, at least in the commercial sections. I used to be an editor, but I forgot about it and lost my rights. Now my competition is the editor, and of course they dominate it with their various sites. You have to give it to them...they were 1 step ahead.

If Google were to filter the ODP results, they would probably drop the commercial sections. Maybe that's what they have done?

bobmark




msg:174337
 5:33 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

I haven't checked my surviving links in regard to dmoz yet Marcos, but I will. I do know that one significant one - which was in dmoz - is gone from this index.
I tend to agree with your comments on dmoz in general - and I too have been a dmoz editor in the past. My impression when I used to keep up with the internal happenings there was probably the majority of editors had a personal stake in their categories, another large group were retired or other people with a lot of time who - in many cases - brought their own rigid views of what the 'net should look like to their listing decisions and did not add sites out of very narrow personal opinions as to content or quality.
And, of course, there are good and honest editors.

Marcos




msg:174338
 5:36 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hi SlyOldDog,

>Marcos.... I'm sure Google know a thing or 2 about spam!

Of course they do. But it seems they didnīt know that much about Dmoz spam. They will find out now, anyhow.

>I agree that ODP is not very representative, at least in the
>commercial sections. I used to be an editor, but I forgot about it
>and lost my rights. Now my competition is the editor, and of course
>they dominate it with their various sites. You have to give it to
>them...they were 1 step ahead.

No, we donīt have to give it to them. That is unfair, and it will reduce Googleīs result quality. Taking out the power from popular linking, and giving it to competing entities is a mistake.

>If Google were to filter the ODP results, they would probably drop
>the commercial sections. Maybe that's what they have done?

No, they did not, unless in my esperience. All of the sudent, a few unknow little sites have poped up on a number of relevant categories. Where did they came from? How did all those spammy lokng, poor content, worthless sites became, all of the sudent, #1, #2, #3, and all the way down to number #20 sometimes? They Have 20 sites, all of them, and only them, at the relevant dmoz category.

SlyOldDog




msg:174339
 5:44 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Marcos...sounds like you are hurting pretty bad. Sorry for that.

The basic fact is none of us give a hoot about "Search engine quality". We are all here for 1 reason: To have OUR OWN site at #1. So spammy sites are doing well. I'm sure next month we will all be spammy too if that's what Google likes.

I have lost 2 from 3 #1 sites. One is completely gone and the other is on page 2. Then we had 2 other sites we were working on. They were 3rd page. Now they are gone too. But we will be back, just like you Marcos, so chill out. It's Friday.

Grumpus




msg:174340
 5:46 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Could "freshness" represent some of the changes you are seeing?

My "fresh" pages are in the old index when it's appearing on www, but they aren't appearing (nor cached as fresh) in the www2/3 and when www has the newer results. I don't think it's a factor - at least not yet...

most of the people thrilled with the new index are new or small sites

My site opened in March, so it's not really new. It's also HUGE (over a million pages). I'm seeing major upgrades in the serps for my site. In some cases, I've moved up 40 or more spots. The ones that I've seen where I moved down were only by a spot or two and only where my "fresh" tag has vanished due to the dance itself. I'm expecting even better results once things calm down and the fresh results get injected back in.

It really is too early to tell for sure, though....

G.

Sasquatch




msg:174341
 5:54 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

The basic fact is none of us give a hoot about "Search engine quality". We are all here for 1 reason: To have OUR OWN site at #1. So spammy sites are doing well. I'm sure next month we will all be spammy too if that's what Google likes.

Nope, not going to change a thing for google's sake. Don't really want #1. I even got #1 in a search where I didn't want it (ended up above the manufacturer in most keword phrases that I tried). But if I had money on it, you bet I would be trying for that #1 spot.

But you are right. You cannot judge the quality of the search results in a category where you have a site. If you want to judge how spammy it is, you should start your christmas shopping now. Start searching for stuff you are interested in, not what you have a vested interest in.

bobmark




msg:174342
 5:55 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

That tends to fit in with my hypothesis, Grumpus:
Huge sites: relatively untouched (yours is a special case as it is relatively new so still climbing).
medium-big sites: hit hard
small sites: moving way up due to the drop experienced by the medium-big sites.
I disagree sasquatch. I don't have time to analyze the Christmas shopping results as I have no familiarity with the broad retail area. I know who is naughty or nice in my own category and am capable of some objective analysis.

cminblues




msg:174343
 5:59 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)


Huge sites: relatively untouched (yours is a special case as it is relatively new so still climbing).
medium-big sites: hit hard
small sites: moving way up due to the drop experienced by the medium-big sites.

I totally agree.

The next step, is:

Why?
Which is the Google interest in making this?

cminblues


bobmark




msg:174344
 6:11 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

sorry to keep posting so much on this but I honestly feel we are getting somewhere in analyzing this.
My guess, cminblues, is that it is an unanticipated result of a change made for other purposes. I think it probably is related to link counting/weighting and may have been designed to control links-in spam.
Unfortunately, in the top 10 of my category it has dropped quality, medium size sites (many besides mine) that were highly relevant to the search term (i,e, 3 out of 3 in the keyphrase) and replaced them with small niche sites that match 1 or 2 of the search terms.
Hard to see why Google would shoot for this as a result.

Marcos




msg:174345
 6:24 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hi cminblues,

>I totally agree.
>The next step, is:
>Why?
>Which is the Google interest in making this?

Well, I have a theory:

[webmasterworld.com...]

cminblues




msg:174346
 6:40 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Interesting theory, Marcos..

Another one:
What happen if all the medium/medium-big SEO making money by Google traffic start being insecure about their rankings?
Maybe they start thinking:

"Well, if I'll well ranked, good.
But I want also a secure rank, in the case of a disaster.
Let's see at this AdWord link.."

cminblues


Marcos




msg:174347
 6:54 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Hi cminblues,

>"Well, if I'll well ranked, good.
>But I want also a secure rank, in the case of a disaster.
>Let's see at this AdWord link.."

I donīt think so. They are thinking " how the heck do I get in to this Dmoz thing?", or, most likely, "Well, it WAS a great idea to get into this Dmoz thing". Those suffering now are good content, popular sites, not the so-call profesionals: many of those are allready working hard optimizing their sites at Dmoz, Altavista, and a number of different sites.

cminblues




msg:174348
 7:08 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

Those suffering now are good content, popular sites, not the so-call profesionals: many of those are allready working hard optimizing their sites at Dmoz, Altavista, and a number of different sites.

Marcos, I mean exactly this..

"If I've spent a lot of time in making good and richcontent sites, spent time also in optimizing them, and now I realize that poor and non-relevant sites are getting top positions over me.. what I can do, when my rage for this nonsense update is lowered?"

cminblues


john316




msg:174349
 7:10 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)

You're not looking at the obvious...follow the money.

I'm calling this the adwords algo, "money terms" have a different algo applied, it relies heavily on PR at the expense of "on the page" factors, this supplies "relevant" (news sites, .edu's, large corporates, message boards, etc.) results, but keeps kw optimized sites shut out. All designed to drive more clickthroughs for adwords.

The beginning of the end.

[edited by: john316 at 7:56 pm (utc) on Sep. 27, 2002]

This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45 ( [1] 2 > >
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