homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.62.141
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe and Support WebmasterWorld
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 19 20 ... 28 > >     
Update Allegra - Google Update 2-2-2005
illusionist




msg:768548
 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 [216.239.53.99...] . Its notwhere to be found even in allinanchor, allintitle etc? I see majot change on that data center, is this a new update?

 

phantombookman




msg:768878
 7:07 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Having read some of the posts 'major update etc'I think a distinction needs to be drawn between a major update or algo change and sites that have seen a major change in their serps.

I feel G are just tinkering around the edges with their algo, granted this can affect sites that are on the 'SEO edge' but my area sees little seo and the serps are all but unchanged and have been for a couple of years.
My guess is, for example, if G was happy with 10% max KWD last week and dropped the filter to 9.9% this week then anyone just below the bar will get hammered for what is essentially only a minor change.
That said I have had a site disappear before and no explanation factual or theoretical helps with the sickening feeling!
Regards to all
Rod

Jalinder




msg:768879
 7:14 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Looks like most of google directory urls have changed. Try a directory search for "Yahoo UK Ireland" (without double quotes) and click on category link. The Google directory returns "The requested category Regional > Europe > united kingdom > guides and directories > Directories could not be found. It is likely that this category has been moved to another location within the directory.
"
Same for Web Portals and many other terms.

valeyard




msg:768880
 7:58 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm now convinced that whatever has happened has reduced the importance of on-page matches to the search term. Where I'm seeing "bad SERPS", these are usually pages that have little or no direct relevance to the query but mention the keywords once or twice.

This would fit the LSI theory. Google is no longer returning pages about the query terms but pages related to the query terms, however vaguely.

Which isn't good enough. If I search for Clockwork Widgets I want pages about clockwork widgets not pages about the history of German mechanical engineering that happen to mention that the first clockwork widget was produced in Berlin in 1867.

It's all looking very similar to the farcical Austin update about this time last year, which many people said then was the result of LSI.

Then, Google eventually backed out the update. Let's hope they do the same again and this time do it quickly.

Imaster




msg:768881
 8:20 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Then, Google eventually backed out the update. Let's hope they do the same again and this time do it quickly

They will do so only if they receive a lot of negative flak. Lets hit the search results feedback form.

theBear




msg:768882
 8:25 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

claus,

It is a fact that incomplete data, while fine for estimating within probability bounds, isn't exactly what people expect indexes to built with if the calulations are based on data that will not be in the index or that the data will kept to one side in the index instead of being placed where the calculations place it.

Now to the chap that mentioned key word density.

I've seen sites rank high in the serps with extremely high and also with zero keyword density. It makes no sense, even when factoring the number of sites in that serp universe.

The funniest one was when there was a blank page and it got first place, you now know what to use for content makes page creation a snap.

europeforvisitors




msg:768883
 8:37 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Then, Google eventually backed out the update. Let's hope they do the same again and this time do it quickly

I haven't seen a huge change in the search results for the keywords that I watch, but I have seen some improvement in the quality of the results--and not just for the terms that have contributed to a big boost in my own Google referrals. :-)

One oddity:

I searched for "[common shortened generic name of prescription drug] side effects" and got a page of gibberish results (mostly script-generated junk sites). When I repeated the search with "[fully spelled-out generic name of prescription drug] side effects," the results were right on target.

Dynamoo




msg:768884
 8:48 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm glad theBear seems to be agreeing with what I'm saying.. to me the simplest explanation as to some of these really odd results is due to an incomplete index.

Imaster




msg:768885
 9:19 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

http://216.239.57.105/ [216.239.57.105] . Both my huge new websites are completely out of sandbox there and they rank super high for competitive terms. Thats how it looks until now. God know about tommorrow.

God will bless Google with everything if they make the final switch to that datacenter ;)

Spica




msg:768886
 9:46 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

[216.239.57.105...]
Yes, this datacenter now has something that looks like a real update! Very, very different from what we have been seeing, with minor variations, for a long time...

diddlydazz




msg:768887
 10:33 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

--never watch them any more--

I hear ya Brett :) - I wasn't (on main site) until this update!

This update thread brings memories flooding back, remember when the Recent Posts link seemed to glow it got that many clicks every time of the month?

I am seeing a lot of dodgy tactics reaping benefits in one of my areas, offset DIVS, hidden text, etc, all the stuff that I thought was old news !

One top position for a VERY competitive term is taken by a site which would make an excellent example of what you SHOULDN'T do!

It is that blatant I am in disbelief!

But hey, that's the game, they will (hopefully) eventually be dropped and all will be well.

For those white hats that have taken a beating with this update, my thoughts are with you, I still firmly believe that content is king and it will rule again.

Im my humble opinion the big G updates are far too complicated (at least for me) to try and grasp in their entirety, too many parameters, too many Phd mathematicians and too much stress!

I will just sit back and wait, it isn't worth getting my blood pressure up :)

Good luck to all!

Dazz

theBear




msg:768888
 10:55 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

diddlydazz,

That is why I never watch them either.

But for some reason this one has made itself known to me.

I don't know if it is over yet and am not sure of what the end result will be.

However we run a content based site and have done our nav and layout for people to use. We have always been expanding our content collection and we wanted to do much more. This current update is going to slow down those plans. It is simply a matter of being able to pay for the work.

We can most certainly play the other game, up to and including buying links and creating a massive set of sites all on thier own IP addys and all registered to different entities.

claus,

I also understand what you are saying I've done a bit of that semantic matching although not on the scale that G would be doing it.

GoogleGuy,

If you are reading this, I'm also aware of how little it takes for one of these updates to get messed up.

If it helps any all of the S/E have problems and it isn't an easy thing to index and rank the thing known as the "net".

Just to attempt it is an amazing feat.

Good luck

The Contractor




msg:768889
 11:00 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

They don't seem interested in the quality of my sites - I certainly don't intend to worry about the quality of their index.

uhmm...I never did. That's their job, not yours/mine.

nutsandbolts




msg:768890
 11:02 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's certainly something when diddlydazz pops up again! :) I've noticed a ton of datafeed affiliate sites taking a dive with this update.

rehabguy




msg:768891
 11:10 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well I can certainly accept other's points of view like "Google doesn't owe you anything" and "the results are free, you can't complain" and "For every winner there's a loser", etc.

Here's my problem with dropping from #1 to #70 overnight...

If the United States Federal Reserve Board started wildly fluctuating interest rates from 4% to 12% every quarter, with no explanation, the U.S. economy, and probably, the whole WORLD economy would go to pot.

You can't run a business without consistency. You do process A, it has result B. This is how a business grows. You try A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and then you put more money/time/effort into the one that gave you results.

If you start getting result F when doing A, and next time you get result Q from doing A, you eventually quit doing A because there's no correlation between A and it's result!

I recently changed servers (therefore IP addresses), but not my domain name. However, since Google is not open with their methods, I will never know if changing servers is the problem, or if I am a "victim" of a random algo change. How can someone run a web business if you don't know how A influences B?

I'm sure I'll get some interesting responses to this post.

europeforvisitors




msg:768892
 11:19 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

You can't run a business without consistency.

If that's the case, it's your job to find ways to make traffic and earnings more consistent--e.g., by diversifying your sources of free referrals and running ads that attract prospects.

Google certainly isn't legally obligated to maintain a consistent level of free referrals. (At least, not in the U.S., where a federal court has ruled that its search rankings are Constitutionally protected "opinions" just like newspaper or magazine reviews.)

theBear




msg:768893
 11:53 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Content sites running ads on other sites .... hmmm ... buy'em link pop huh?

Doesn't G frown on manipulating link pop?

Let's see get a list of all google ip addys, serve them all blank pages, serve everyone else content.

Buy'em links.

Wait for next update .... boom #1 for all inbound link text keywords.

Let me see I remember some sites selling straight text links for reasonable amounts.

/me now finished reading Blackhat SEO for fun. Time to take the final test. How did I do?

LostOne




msg:768894
 11:55 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

[216.239.57.105...]

Geesh, I kinda hope that one doesn't stick. I'd have to hire more people very quickly..hehe

Brett_Tabke




msg:768895
 12:05 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

> never watch them anymore.

Well, you know I belive in broadbased optimization. If I have a page getting more than 100 referrals a month on the same phrase - I try to change the page if I can.

I'd rather have 50 referrals total to 50 pages, than 50 referrals to 1 page.

theBear




msg:768896
 12:09 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Brett,

Others2185529

331789 different keyphrases

This diverse enough ;)

cabbie




msg:768897
 12:12 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hmm my clean sites gone ,my spam sites improve.
maybe what i think is clean, is spam ,and what i thought was spam, is actually what google wants.

cabbie




msg:768898
 12:14 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>I'd rather have 50 referrals total to 50 pages, than 50 referrals to 1 page.>>
sounds like your page cranker is working.

bobothecat




msg:768899
 12:31 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I'd rather have 50 referrals total to 50 pages, than 50 referrals to 1 page."

Amen... a reminder of the 'too many eggs in one basket' syndrome.

Oldiesgal




msg:768900
 2:48 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have a large content site that has been around since 1996. No spamming, no black hat stuff. I have enjoyed the #1 spot for my main keyword, and #4-#5 for many others for a long time.

Now my main is #2 and the #1 spot isn't as perfect a match as I am. The worst is that several of my #4-#5 keywords are now pushing #50 and one that has been #4-#5 for a couple of years is now about #200.

I keep wanting to scream "this isn't fair." You do everything "right" do clean SEO and then for no apparent reason you get slammed. They keep changing the rules without notification or explanation.

I hope that at some point we will be able to figure out what it is they want THIS QUARTER so I can make an effort to compensate and comply.

brixton




msg:768901
 3:10 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Now my main is #2 "
really? and you are angree?
Just look how many people the vanished from the first page to the abyss and you just lost your #1 to 2#
thats very ironic and very egoistic.

Powdork




msg:768902
 3:20 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can understand this
I'd rather have 50 referrals total to 50 pages, than 50 referrals to 1 page.

but not this
If I have a page getting more than 100 referrals a month on the same phrase - I try to change the page if I can.

theBear




msg:768903
 4:01 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Powdork,

What Brett was saying was don't have all your eggs based on one page (one keyword phrase).

More pages more keywords covered, more keywords covered less chance of getting zinged on all or even a majority of them in any one update.

I don't think he was saying that if you get 100 or more hits on any one page you need to rewrite that page unless of course that was the only one of very few that you had.

He is saying diversify.

Powdork




msg:768904
 4:05 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

He is saying diversify.
I realize that.
But would 51 pages with each one getting one referral except one that gets 100 also be diversifying?

Oldiesgal




msg:768905
 4:24 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

WOW. One of my first posts and I'm "egoistic."

I worked hard for those positions. And my main concern was the drop of the other keywords which you would have intuned had you read the full text.

Yes, I'm [sic] angry for myself and for all those who have experienced loss with Allegra.

graywolf




msg:768906
 4:27 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, you know I belive in broadbased optimization. If I have a page getting more than 100 referrals a month on the same phrase - I try to change the page if I can.

So do you leave the old page up and add more similarly themed pages with links to the other pages?

DO you turn the page into a mini site map with as many different sub pages as needed?

Or is every case different?

If this gets any longer can we split this into it's own thread?

Vec_One




msg:768907
 4:49 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Although Allegra has not smiled favorably on my site, some of my pages are still doing well. That tells me that there is still hope. It's not like the site was sandboxed. It's presumably just an algorithm change that must be compensated for.

I've started some experimentation, to try to determine what will help. Progress would be much quicker, however, if it was done by more people on different sites. If anyone wants to cooperate on this, please sticky me.

Welcome to the forum, Oldiesgal. : )

thaedge




msg:768908
 4:49 am on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

This change for me and my KW was like a roll back to the previous Serps prior to the Dec 22nd change. The first time any of my sites had ever been hit

I guess there is a first time ever, just didnt have to be this bad :(

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 19 20 ... 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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved