homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 823 message thread spans 28 pages: < < 823 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 28 > >     
Update Allegra - Google Update 2-2-2005

 1:34 pm on Feb 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

My site which came back on december 26 update, seems to have disappeared again on this data center [] . Its notwhere to be found even in allinanchor, allintitle etc? I see majot change on that data center, is this a new update?



 6:16 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Zeus: [] and others.


 6:31 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

very interesting

I have a site with a LOOOOT of urls like this:


all hits from google to .../crap1/crap2/crap3/ have disappeared.

I only have now hits coming into /crap1/crap2/

and the problem is, most content was under .../crap3/

so, anything farther than 2 levels down the tree is actually a goner, even if any of the /crap3/ folders actually had PageRank 3.

[edited by: rogerd at 6:53 pm (utc) on Feb. 4, 2005]
[edit reason] examplified [/edit]


 6:40 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)


Do you have any deep links to that deep content?

How many clicks is it from your home page?

I doubt that directory depth has anything to do with it. It is almost certainly a matter of click depth.


 6:51 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

3 clicks from home page.

but they do have a bunch of links direct from other domains. I gather those "deep links" are now worthless maybe.


EDIT: however, if you read my previous post about the "top models" issue. well, that search term has gone rank 15-20 before 2004-12, then to ZILCH, and now 4. out of 41 million results. and I only have one link to that page.
weirdly weird.
The /crap3/ pages had MUCH MORE MANY links to them, and they were much more explicitly worded, but yet they have disappeared.


 7:16 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would tend to agree with Vespasians earlier comment.
I have the remnants of my fist ever site. It moved a bit but is still hosted with my email provider.

It has good ratings fro its keywords. My big site 100,000 pages has been hit very very badly. Traffic down 60%+!

I think I can fix things but it is worrying when you can get hit like this.

Another advantage of smaller sites is having them spidered by all the search engines. yahoo appears to only have a bout a 10th of my site indexed.


 7:24 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

My theories:

1 - PROFIT-MINDED GOOGLE. Google is turning the results upside down looking for good Adsense click generators. Put some new sites at the top of the list, see if they generate Adwords revenues in a big way, if they do keep them high, if they don't bury them. Eventually return some of the original results back to the top of the SERPS, especially those that contribute to Adwords revenue.

2 - COMPASSIONATE GOOGLE. Throw a bone to sites that are about to disappear forever. Put them up on top even though they are bad, give them a head rush and a few Adsense dollars. Eventually correct things and get the good results back in place and lose the bad sites forever. Kind of like a severance payment.

3 - GOOGLE OVERSIGHT. A coding error. Oops, somebody accidentally referenced the function GetLameResults instead of the function GetGoodResults. They'll fix it soon.

4 - INCOMPETENT GOOGLE. They've been deluded into some new algo they thought'd give good results and instead it's mucked things up big time.

5 - INTERNAL SABOTAGE. Somebody bought a bunch of put options on the Google stock and then mucked up the code.

6 - MSN SABOTAGE. See #5.


 7:26 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

well what ever ,that update brought me at last at the first page after 2 years of combat.(just to post a positive message)


 8:02 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

What happened to BigDave's post about conspiracy theories, which was one of the more sensible observations in this thread? :-)


 8:32 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Update from G:


[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 9:47 pm (utc) on Feb. 4, 2005]
[edit reason] no email quotes on WebmasterWorld please - [webmasterworld.com...] [/edit]


 9:16 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

"ps: Write G, they are listening "

yea right. This has been going on fo rmonths. First of all, if your site is dropped, other sites will do better and adesense will pick up on those sites. Zero sum game. I could see how an Adsense person can help you though, they all know each other and the search engineer might fix it as a favor. But generally speaking, Google doesn't care about you or me.


 9:20 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oh a number of people are writing.

What comes of it all though remains to be seen.

Meanwhile I've got other work to do.


 9:25 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't agree with ya walman. Think about that "zero sum game fallacy".


 9:37 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

So far, I'm very happy with Allegra.

I've been checking my Web sites via link:mysite.com and many rubbish links are gone.

I hope after Allegra is finished, irresponsible webmasters learn not to create links on their own to clean Web sites like mine.

If you're one of those webmasters, don't waste your time creating rubbish links. Instead, spend your time creating relevant content.

Google rocks!


 9:42 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I don't agree with ya walman. Think about that "zero sum game fallacy". "

100 people search google for widget. If all sites get the same equal number, it would be 10 each. If my site is banned, the other have the change to get more visitors. Those 100 people are looking for something and in 99% of the cases, hundreds, if not thousands of sites offer similar information.


 9:54 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

And here I spent an hour yesterday digging through logs trying to find that rogue bot. Should have known the traffic increase was due to Google updating.

Hehe ... its been a long time hasn't it Brett? Personally, I think its fun to have an "update" thread again. Keeps things lively.

Good luck to all. I'm liking this update myself. Up a little here, down a little there, but holding my own.

I realize some of you are hurting, but wait until the dust settles before doing anything drastic. There always seems to be an aftershock or two after the main shake up. Wait and see for about a week ... then take a good hard look at your site to see what you are doing wrong ... if anything.

I have searched the library for over an hour and tried site search to find a post by (I think) DaveN (I could be wrong) so I apologize to the author if I am crediting the wrong author with one of the best posts I have seen on WebmasterWorld in a very long time. Unfortunately, I was unable to find it.

Perhaps somebody else has flagged it and can post the link here for those who might benefit.

The post was about what to look for if your site suddenly tanks on Google. The advice posted was truly excellent and well worth visiting if having problems on Google.


 10:02 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

It should be for an information site--or any site--that consists mostly of "evergreen" content (as opposed to news or other time-sensitive material) and adds new pages regularly.

That's what I used to think, until my sites got dumped on. And this time it's even worse than it was from May to November last year.

Some of the results now are just bizarre. In some places it looks like pages with the most incoming links from other sites are doing the worst! (And we're talking 100% natural linking here, I almost never bother asking people for links, and there's certainly no spamming involved.) I think internal link anchors are being anti-weighted where they disagree with external ones, or something like that.

Damned if I know why my navigation links upset Google so much, though - my personal site just has breadcrumbs and my review site just has a standard menu on every page.


 10:02 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Tell ya what zafile you write all that content and put it on your site.

Tell me if no one links to you how are you going to be found ....

The last I knew without a link from someplace the G knows nada about you.

And the last I knew if you failed to obtain more than a few inbounds you were sort of put at the bottom of the heap.

But maybe things have changed and it is all done wireless now.

[edited by: theBear at 10:05 pm (utc) on Feb. 4, 2005]


 10:03 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Liane; Are you thinking of this thread that Caveman started... (May 2004)

A Dropped Site Checklist [webmasterworld.com]


 10:05 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)


I find that (now snipped) email very worrying. I would have expected G to say something along the lines of "the update is still in progress, please give it a few days before complaining". The fact that they didn't suggests that this farcical update is genuine.

I've spent two years working hard to build solid, hand-written content sites. What's the point?

I'll give it until Monday, then it'll be time to embrace the Dark Side.


 10:16 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google engineers took too-too long to address the issue of rubbish links created by irresponsible webmasters.

It's OK the engineers spent some time enjoying the IPO. However, it was time for them to go back to work.

Thank the Higher Power for MSN to go live with their own search engine. I'm pretty sure Matt Cutts is enjoying the competition (perhaps sweating a bit too).

Keep cleaning those rubbish links pointing to clean sites from URLs similar to www.keyword1-keyword2-keyword3-keyword4.com/keyword5/keyword3-keyword6-keyword7-keyword8-keyword2.html

Google can do better than that!


 10:41 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

walkman - Zero sum game

Take currency for instance. Many would argue that currency is a zero sum game. If I make a dollar I am thus taking away that dollar from someone else. Which in fact this is not true. It is a value exchange. Usually the "zero sum game" is thought about things of limited supply. Food for instance people may think that this is of limited supply thus a "zero sum game". I eat therefor I am taking food from another. In fact check history. We are able to produce more, in less time, better quality, with the same amount of land. If it was "zero sum" then we could only produce the same ammount as we always have throughout history.

As far as google. Yes you can count how many searches google had for this and that month. So it would "seem" like there is a finite amount of people searching for these phrases. But it comes down to value. People search based on what is of value to them. This value is subjective and can be influenced. Producing more or less searches. If it were completely finite then you have a "zero sum game".

Google results itself seem like a "zero sum game". Yes you can count how many people are listed in those results. If you move up 1 position then you are taking the position from another. This makes it appear "zero sum" which in fact it isn't. It is still based on value. And in google search results google determins the value to it's searchers based on it's algo. So if you get dropped or "loose" a ranking it means that google places more value on others. You didn't loose value nor was it taken away, you just don't have as much as others (again as what google deems what is of value). Like a horse drawn carriage. It still has it's value. Motorvehicles just have greater value. Like and old atari system. The value is the same but the x-box and playstation has created more value. It may seem as the x-box, nintendo, playstation, sega, took the value from the atari, they didn't. You can't take away something that atari never had and that is the greater value these other systems CREATED. Did a such and such site take your ranking. Nope. It created more value than you in accordance to what Google deems as value.

Hard to explain. But do you catch what I am saying.


 10:55 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

KenB ... that's the one! Many thanks for posting that. I think a lot of folks will find that post very helpful right about now. Apologies to caveman for accrediting his post to someone else.

Be sure to read the whole thread as there is additioal info to be had throughout!


 11:10 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

But do you catch what I am saying.



 11:58 pm on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

soapystar - Gotta think outside the box. Logically the "zero sum game" sounds correct. But we are dealing with infinate creativity of the minds of people. The subjectiveness of value. Sometimes you got to put the logic aside and think.


 12:48 am on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just wanted to chip in.

I knew yesterday that the results in the SERPS were dire but it was only after using the search a number of times today that i realised just how bad it really was.

As im looking to buy another website i tried a number of search options to get some details of sites that buy and sell sites. These were the returned SERPS results UK for "Buy a website"

1. Recycled Products
2. Music website templates
3. Autotrader - For New and Used Cars
4. 2 minuite website
5. Thorntons Chocolates
6. Amazon Books
7. Low cost Travel
8. Tesco shopping
9. Buy a website from design smart
10. Car Trader

I guess 4th in the SERPS and 9 in the SERPS may have been worth a look but were not what i was after. The other 80% had absolutely nothing to do with the search term.

Now before anyone that loves Google says "i can show you poor examples on other search engines" you have to admit that Google at one time was superb at finding information. Now its just a mix match of Cr@p.

Whilst i realise they want to push adwords, words fail me for just how bad search results on google now are. They have next to nothing to do with content


 12:53 am on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

You aren't searching correctly for "Buy a Website" ... you need to put quotes around this to narrow it to an exact match.. otherwise Google will return 41,000,000 results that have a lot to do with "Buy" and "Website"....
....very broad, generic results..

Then there is the issue with how you spelled "Website" ...should be "Web site" ... now this narrows results even more and actually starts to steer you away from information relating to "Buy a Website" ... (becuase most people seem detemined to search with "website" instead of "web site"...

So your example needs some refining......


 1:11 am on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

> Apologies to caveman for accrediting his post to someone else.

An honor to be confused with DaveN, even if only for a brief moment. ;-)

> Zero sum

On a given day, there exists - at the end of the 24th hour - a finite number of searches that took place related to my sites. Either I got a bunch of 'em or I did not. There are a lot of complex aspects to SEO/SEM, but that ain't one. (There is the notion that one can capture a ton of correlary searches to one's advantage, but I assume most of the players in here are smart enough to have that covered.)

Man, it was beautiful outside today. :-)


 1:17 am on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree that quotes should be used. But did you analyze the resutls. Check the cached page by google. Notice the highlighted terms even when the quotes are used.


 1:25 am on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

caveman - "On a given day, there exists - at the end of the 24th hour - a finite number of searches that took place related to my sites. Either I got a bunch of 'em or I did not. There are a lot of complex aspects to SEO/SEM, but that ain't one. (There is the notion that one can capture a ton of correlary searches to one's advantage, but I assume most of the players in here are smart enough to have that covered.)"

Yep but that changes each day. And that number is not finite for everyday there after. It can go up or down. That number is not set until after the day is COMPLETE. There can be influences during the day that can and will affect that. If it were fininte you should know the amount of search exactly before hand. You choose it to be finite by giving it a finite context such as a 24 hour period. Tell me when and how many search until that keyword is no longer searched for. Hence a Zero sum Fallacy!

I do agree however. It was a beautiful day out today.

Rather than scrapping for a so called "limited supply" of business, step outside the box and CREATE the business.

[edited by: arubicus at 1:29 am (utc) on Feb. 5, 2005]


 1:29 am on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)


Yes, you are right i know however, Joe average just wants to stick a few words in the search box and get results that are RELEVENT to the keywords - this is the point

In the past Google could do this - now it just cant. I can give thousands of examples of the same.

The SERPS has directory sites, non relevent content sites listing high that dont even mention the keywords.

I would go so far as to say that web page content now has almost ZERO status in relation to the search keywords.

In fact i would go further and say that a webpage can have any old sh@t on it and as long as you have plently of anchor text links to it you and its a few years old you feature high in the index. Start introducing loads of relevent content mind you and you can forget it.


 1:33 am on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

RichTC -

Exactly. Look at the cached pages in the result. Many I seen with the search term above had maybe one mention (even with quotes) and some had none with some links that have the term pointing to it. It is kinda sad.

This 823 message thread spans 28 pages: < < 823 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 28 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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