| This 42 message thread spans 2 pages: 42 (  2 ) > > || |
|The Algo have changed|
| 3:18 am on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Google, like Bert, is pure Evil!
Now, seiously, Google has changed part of the algorithm. A catastrofic change, that has wiped out most popular sites, replacing those with spamy sites coming from, mostly, Dmoz listed link farms, and Dmoz "rotten" cats.
This is the the change:
Links from non-dmoz sites donīt count any more.
Thatīs all. You may have hundreds of links, but those links donīt count at all, unless the sites linking to you are themselves linked at Dmoz.
So, this is more ore less, in a very simplify way, how it works:
- Your site has 200 links, 2 of them from two sites listed at Dmoz.
- Mr Spammer has 5 links, the 5 of them listed at Dmoz, thanks to Mr Spammer post as a Dmoz Editor.
Mr Spammer wins. He has 5 valid links, and you only have 2. End of the game.
All the other rules are still there. Title, H1, number of keywords, and so on, they still work more or less the same. Good content? Sorry, googlebot has no criteria. Hundreds of end user "voting" you, Linking to you from personal web pages? Sorry, those donīt count any more.
All your bases belong to Dmoz. :-)
[edited by: Marcos at 4:30 am (utc) on Sep. 29, 2002]
| 3:25 am on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I was doing some searching tonight on google.
The topic I was searching on was in no way related to the content of my website, so I was searching from an average Google users point of view. I have to be honest and say that , what ever they have altered is for the best. The results seam a lot more on topic and I had a lot less clutter to cut through before I got what I wanted. I think on here we are all to keen to say how bad the results are, when we arent up there at the top of the serps. Algos change, we just need to live with it and evolve. Google's aim is to provide their users with relevant results, not to give the rest of the web free traffic. From what I see they are sticking to their aim.
| 3:27 am on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well then, if you think you have the algo figured out, go and get some fresh links from sites that are listed in dmoz. Things should then be peachy, no?
| 3:27 am on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
your just mad cause you dont know how to stay ontop must you vent like that give me a break! by the way IMO your analysis is not correct
stop crying and start writing good content :)
| 3:47 am on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hi mack, really? How great.
Hi pmac, figuring out a small change is easy. Understanding Google is a full time job, and itīs not my job. You said "get some fresh links from sites", well, thatīs not my business. Iīm into generating content, not briding corrupt Editor.
SuperSoup, Am I mad? >:-)
| 4:03 am on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
it is simply not true that only dmoz links are showing....a quick check on my backlinks showed links from non-dmoz sites...
| 4:15 am on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>it is simply not true that only dmoz links are showing
That is not what I said. Dmoz links are showing, but the anchor text they have do not count any more, thatīs all.
| 6:23 am on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"not briding corrupt Editor"
Oh man, we gotta start marrying the dmoz editors?
| 10:01 am on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
are you saying that the yahoo directory holds no sway now?
| 1:46 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>are you saying that the yahoo directory holds no sway now?
I donīt know. It may. In any case, a site linking to you must be linked from an "Authoritative" site to have any effect. That authoritaive site can be Dmoz, and maybe others. Yahoo, or sites with a +8 PageRank COULD be working, also. But most of your likely sites, personal web pages, small private domains and so on, donīt count any more, unles those are linked at a "Authoritative" site.
| 1:57 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
SM ISO SF-DMOZ-E
| 2:04 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You think Google would test their alrorithm before using it.
I never got hurt, but if all these people had excellent content rich web sites with no spam,and got knocked into oblivion, then Google has a problem.
People use Google to get results. If they start getting spam. Then Google will drop like a rock.
Remember New Coke, how long that lasted?. Well think of this as New Google. Next month during the updates it will be replaced by Google Classic. The month after that it will be back to the old Google, and everybody will forget this diaster (all those that are still in business, that is).
| 2:11 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Marcos, are you suggesting DMOZ editors are spammers? This is really ununsual dialogue! Get some sleep guys - Google is in flux throughout the update, and results will fluctuate from month to month.
Google still remains the most relevant search eangine today, let face it - how difficult do you think it would be to still get sensible results with the Internet and the way it is today? Try the same search on some of the other search engines - do you get better results?
| 2:13 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Who knows? The main categories are not affected. Only the "competitive" cats are affected, where Dmoz corruption is more likely. Those cats are now at the mercy of spurious editor, sometimes corrupt, sometimes clueless, no reliable in any case. In a way, competitive cats have been randomiced.
And, further more, Google probably think that is a good thing: If you are at a conpetive category, use Adworks! Pay Us! They may think it is a way to destroy the SEO market, discurage the small time webmaster, and cash in with Adworks. Less money for the SEO means more money for Adworks, they may. Think.
Of course, this course of action may back fire. Google keeps on being an excelent resource for geting academic info, or freee stuf. But is you are going to use it to find letīs say a good hosting provider, a insurance reseler, or a new house, you are now much more likely to end up at a scam artist site than ever. Browsing with google is still fun, but buying is now dangerous.
[edited by: Marcos at 3:26 pm (utc) on Sep. 29, 2002]
| 2:16 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well I have made some search on Google and I think it look like always pretty perfect results, there will always be some crap/spammy sites in a search, but still I think the new ranking result look good, the only different is that H1-5 tags dont count that much this time.
| 2:24 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
That is true for non competive cats. If you are looking for, say, cooking recipets, it will work. If you are looking for a site where you are going to spend money, and a lot of people are competing for that spot, it may work, or it may not, depending of the "size" of the market. Is the market is a big one, dominated by really big companys, with websites with a PageRank +8 or so, no problem. But if that market is smaller, letīs say a regional version of the same "Big" market, you are bound to end up spending your money at a scam artits web site.
| 2:59 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Zeus, the semi-consensus reached on another thread is that certain major keywords, when used in combination with other terms that behave as normal, produce results not up to the usual Google standard.
A number of us found that our serp was unchanged for keyword1, keyword2 but as soon as the "description" keyword was added to a 3 word keyphrase, results just went weird with solid sites dropping out and spam moving in.
So results are very specific to category and number of keywords in the string. So far I have noticed about 3 major descriptive keywords - purely from people mentioning their area of interest in posts - that seem to exhibit this effect.
| 3:12 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You will still use Google if you want to look for a specific produckt/news or recepts, maybe if you use 3 keywords in a search the result would not be that good, but now your are at the edge of the Google ranking and out there there will always be some sites not related to a search.
I have noticed that H tags dont count that much this time.
| 3:15 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
bobmark, that is because those "major keywords" fall under the domain of a competitive categories. If you use 3 keywords, and two of them are non-competitive, then those are not affected, but when you factor the 3th keywork in your query, you are then afected by spammers at that term, empowered thanks to the new Dmof empowerment, sending to hell your query.
Is very easy to understand:
keyword + keyword = Good Results
keyword + keyword + "major Keyword" = unreliable results
That is because when you factor in the "major Keyword", the power of Dmoz spammers, concentrated on that "mayor Keyword", ruing the query, unmbalancing it with its now much more powerfull value.
[edited by: Marcos at 3:27 pm (utc) on Sep. 29, 2002]
| 3:27 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree with your analysis of the effect, if still not positive on the cause, Marcos, although I think it is very specific to certain keywords as, in some cases, majorkeyword1, keyword, majorkeyword2 is weird but majorkeyword1, keyword is fine.
Zeus, the problem with your analysis is that search result relevance should INCREASE with additional keywords, not deteriorate. If I want to find "blue fuzzy widget" I should get my most relevant results for that exact phrase. The way it is in this update, results are better for "blue fuzzy" than for "blue fuzzy widget" in some categories.
| 3:35 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
bobmark with your example I agree, but if you made a search apartment rentals las vegas, you will see as good a result.
Still I think Google is the best and I hope they will never put those paid entries in there search.
the only little cretic could be that they do bane to many harmless sites and some of the bad ones with all spam that exists is still in the index.
| 3:41 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>in some cases, majorkeyword1, keyword, majorkeyword2 is weird but
>majorkeyword1, keyword is fine.
That is because majorkeyword2 is affected by some Dmoz twiking, and majorkeyword1 is not. Not all Dmoz categories are poisoned, only a few. Those poisoned will poison your query, others will not. Until now, popular linking was able to reduce the impact of poisoned categories. Now popular linking donīt count, only abuse prone Dmoz linking, and popular links sanctioned by Dmoz. That is DRASTICALY reducing the chances of geting a non-manipulated result in comercial cats.
I think this is not just a webmaster/SEO problem. General public MUST be alerted. Comercial querys at google, usualy more or les reliable, are now stuffet with Dmoz scam-artist. They MAY have betrayed public trust, puting consumers in danger.
We, webmasters, geeks, have been voicing for years Goggles "reliability". If the new algo prevail, that course must be reverted. We must esplaing that, if you put your money where google results is, chances are you end up losing it.
| 3:55 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I've read all - or as many as I ran across - your posts on dmoz and I largely agree with you. I have had problems with dmoz in the past and, at some point, you stop believing the refusal to list, recategrize, etc. sites is merely because of a lack of time on the part of volunteer editors.
My only uncertainty is the extent of the Google/dmoz effect. You may be 100% correct; certainly you have researched it much more thoroughly than I have.
| 4:41 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Hi bobmark, you can check your self. Just do this:
- Chose a competitive Keyword, and search it
- If the top positions are ocupied by Pagerank 7-10 sites, Forget about it, they are beyong good and evil ;-)
- Take a look at how many links does the top 10 sites have, using "keyword" in the anchor text.
- Count how many of those "linking sites" are linked at Dmoz.
- Test the theory: The more "linking sites" listed at dmoz, the higher the sites ranks in that query.
| 5:27 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Many of my domains remain at the top of the Google Directory with max page rank for that section of the directory but yet I've still dropped many pages in the index. Yes it is the algorythm... I'm lost.
| 5:36 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The name of the tread was "Google is Evil !", no "The Algo have changed".
It was supouse to be funny, in contrast with "google is horrible"/"Google is good" treads. Why did you change it? Just curious, not paranoid.
| 5:36 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
when this update first went to www i was number one for a 3 word phrase out of 1.6 million..then for 24 hrs i was top then nowhere, top then nowhere as it fluxed......now im not in the serps as far as i can see ofr that phrase...fom 1 to nowhere..yet for the same 3 words plus another 2..for a 5 word keyphrase im number one from 600,000...there is no logic to that at all!
| 7:43 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I must say this update is the BEST ever for me and I dont see any big different in my categorie keyword search then the last update, it still the same sites on the page and they belong there, so I can not see any harm done on this update.
| 7:48 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
im not talking about a change from the old to new algo..im talking about within this change....the site was new last month..no pr and no turning up in any serps..this month its pr5 and turning up in results...one particualr search was fluctuating for 2 days between me at number one for 1.6 million pages and me not in the serps.....ive ended up not in for that search..on other searches with the same 3 words plus others im number one for 600,000 pages ..something aint right!
| 8:17 pm on Sep 29, 2002 (gmt 0)|
How is your ranking in www2, www3, if your are there you will end up in the final index, if not they have deleted some sites, but I dont think so, the update is not finish yet, give the pure Google folks a change.
| This 42 message thread spans 2 pages: 42 (  2 ) > > |