|Is 'site size' a new criteria?|
Speculation on algorithm changes
| 8:50 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It was suggested in another thread that perhaps site size is now playing a factor in the new algorithm.
It may be just my evaluation of the situation, but it seems many mid-sized sites are suffering dramatically, while newer 'small' sites are now providing many more results.
Does anyone have sites in the range of 20-300 pages with between 10-1000 backlinks that has had major serp dropping this month? I guess the flipside would be major gains as well? Try to speak in terms of "all else remaining constant" as much as possible.
| 9:20 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think it's because dynamic pages now (for the first time, it seems) actually have a pagerank value that's real. (I can see it on my site from time to time as the dance progresses). Some pages have better PR than Google used to "guess" at, and some have worse (though my nav structure seems to be working out well to keep the real PR from going out the bottom).
My theory is that for dynamic (which usually means mid to large sites) that their results came into the SERPS via Google's guess at the PR - it really had nothing else to go on. Now as pages get a real PR, their rankings in the SERPS are adjusted accordingly.
Why haven't big sites been effected as much? Well, because all the pages at big sites haven't been crawled and there hasn't been enough time to actually give a page rank to many pages. (Some pages on my site seem to have the same "guessed" PR while other pages have a real PR).
On many medium sites where you go from the front page to the second page to the third page, the innermost pages are getting hit really badly because the PR from the homepage is coming in from two levels above and is being diluted whereas in the past, if it was in the root directory, it got good "guessed" PR based solely on its position in the site structure.
The reasons for my theory? My own observations during the moments where the new PR appears in my toolbar (I'll be able to be a lot more concrete once everything stabilizes and I don't have to keep going back to my control page to check if the results are still new or old), and GoogleGuy's recent comments about dynamic pages in several threads. (He also alluded to the notion that pages that are dynamic but are disguised as static might receive some sort of penalty...)
| 9:27 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Does anyone have sites in the range of 20-300 pages with between 10-1000 backlinks that has had major serp dropping this month? |
I have a site with ~160 pages and ~200 backlinks, and I have had a great update so far! Most of my pages have not changed any since the last update, and I only gained 30 or so links.
I still think TITLE is playing a huge role in the jump in traffic from google today/yesterday, and I can't see any signs of a penalty for size of my site.
| 9:30 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have around 70 pages, 200 backlinks, did basically nothing to my site last month, and basically remain where I was last month. So I cannot confirm your interesting hypothesis.
|Does anyone have sites in the range of 20-300 pages with between 10-1000 backlinks that has had major serp dropping this month? I guess the flipside would be major gains as well? Try to speak in terms of "all else remaining constant" as much as possible. |
To put it more strongly, my experience suggests that there has been NO change to the algorithm. Unchanged site with unchanged ranking strongly suggests unchanged algo (at least for that category of sites).
| 11:46 pm on Sep 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
In my opinion this update is weird.
i found many doorway pages have good update.
[edited by: heini at 11:51 pm (utc) on Sep. 27, 2002]
[edit reason] no specifics please / thanks! [/edit]
| 12:40 am on Sep 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
That is another good working theory grumpus. I am open to any ideas at this point, to start getting ready for next month. My sites didn't fare near as well as I hoped, so I will admit bias against the new algo tweaks, but it sure seems like I am not the only one.
Does it seem like more people are complaining this month, or is it my bias?
I'll be interested to hear about the findings of your working theory.