homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.197.215.146
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 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 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?

 

minnapple




msg:769028
 7:59 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have worked with numerous sites over the last 6 years.
I collect alot of data, because thats what I do for whatever reason. Because of this I have site history on over 100 sites.

Looking at 40 of these sites, here is my input on Allegra.

1. Old onsite optimization has regained weight.

2. Many filters have eased off significantly, trapping less sites in purgatory. This is true in the case of both old and new sites.

3. The need to have anchor text to break filters, has been greatly minimized.

4. Inbound links are being treated differently.

Questions rolling around in my head regarding inbounds.

A. Is google considering accumulative linkage?
Not only current inbounds, but linkage over a period of time.

A link gone, still carries weight?
I have sites that currenly have next to zero inbounds that rank well on terms that they haven't for a least a year.
Or is due to old fashioned on page optimization?

B. Are the benefits to inbound links, traveling farther throughout a site?

Not to long ago one heavy PR link to a homepage could raise a site overall. Are we back to this with a twist?

Of the 40 sites all but one are ecoms sites and the age of these sites range from 6 years to 5 months.

24 sites gained significantly in this update.
8 of the above sites were released from purgatory.

12 sites held steady. No significant changes.

4 sites plunged. No tricky stuff related to these, not much different compared to the others, they just went MIA

[edited by: minnapple at 8:09 am (utc) on Feb. 7, 2005]

robster124




msg:769029
 8:07 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

The site I previously mentioned that had been doing well but had now apparently been sandboxed on the new google.com SERPs is back in its normal places on 216... DC SERPs.

Hope they use them!

wanderingmind




msg:769030
 9:16 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

This update has not settled down. Even after 3 days of ups and downs. In these three days, I have seen my site moving up, moving down, holding steady - and dancing across different datacenters like an LED graphic equalizer. Waiting for the music to stop...

Imaster




msg:769031
 9:31 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Walkman - I still do good at these DCs:
64.233.171.99
64.233.171.104
64.233.171.105
64.233.171.147 "

The only thing I noticed on these datacenters is that my sandboxed sites which are currently out at www.google.com are still sandboxed on those datacenters.

AlexK




msg:769032
 10:00 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Warning: WIM (woe is me) post follows:

Unique visitors on 3 Feb were 63% down on the previous day's numbers. 78% of this drop was due to Google referral losses. Curiously:

    Google referrals have continued to slip, and is currently at it's lowest point ever
    In the week prior to 3 Feb this share rose to it's highest point ever (55% of all visitors).

Has history ever seen the sort of commercial situation that site-owners like ourselves face now? In such mass numbers? Certainly not a scenario for the faint-hearted, eh? It does remind me of the dangers of monopolies, and of the value of diversification. This was, after all, the problem with the Soviet monopolisation of Russia.

Macro




msg:769033
 10:03 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>We'll know what has happened when the dust settles.

Or not. :)

Google is playing with you guys. There are vastly different opinions here about what's going on, what factors now count, and what don't. They've created hype, disappointment, elation, speculation, calculation and conspiracy theories. The one they're probably chuckling about most though is the "confusion". It must always please Google when SEOs are confused. :)

You guys could get smarter than exchanging Woe Is Me posts and get down to some serious analysis and everyone could cooperate to share here actual results you are noticing. But, even that may be to no avail.

Google could be in a flux, yes. But, they could also be trying different algos on different keywords/markets. They could be doing A/B testing. In fact, that may be a continuous process from here on. Because results used to "settle" in the past is not enough reason for them to "settle" now. They may never do.

That's why, if you are relying too much on Google traffic, you have to diversify. Now. Those of you who have benefiited from Allegra need be most afraid. You're more likely to be complacent and therefore more likely to get burned.

elmarpanzenberger




msg:769034
 10:23 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good point Macro,

think even about all those Adwords users. Half of them might run out of their budget - if G changes the algo twice or three times a year, they might find more custormers, at least new ones (with a fresh budget).

Changing the algo must not necessary have to do with SERPS improvement, but might have to do with business ...

rankin_gav




msg:769035
 10:34 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Macro - I agree "you shouldn't have all you eggs in one basket" to borrow a well worn cliche, but there is no denying even though other search engines produce traffic there is no denying google seems to bring 90% of the customers. I find google adwords to be money down the drain eating most of your profit and other forms of advertising too expensive, so I have to reply on the search engines.

We've all been through this before and found a solutions it happened last year and it will no doubt happen again.

I see it as a challenge, google has thrown down the guantlet and we should pick it up.

ncgimaker




msg:769036
 10:35 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well we have 7 hits from Google over the weekend down from 3000-5000. Yahoo is good and steady and on topic, msn search hits are rising.

Searches on our products and we don't show up on any of them. Search on our name, and we get mostly link pages to us. This is a 2.5 year old site, large number >3000 pages, diverse phrases but one group of products, different structures within the pages, all hand written, and all our pages still seems to be indexed and can be pulled up on a site search.

I think they have a new spam penalty system and its making a lot of false positives, the searches on major key phrases are a little cleaner of spam than normal.

The filter must be site wide, its affecting all of our pages. I don't think its an inbound link filter, our inbound links are real and solid and with a wide range of many different sites. (We've avoided link exchanging with link farms), DMOZ & Yahoo links.

I think its false positives in that spam filter flagging our site, because theres nothing particularly spammy about our site. Too many links off the front page, a language redirect perhaps? Who knows what triggers it.

In a search with 10000+ good results, it doesn't matter if they get 3000 false spam positives because there are still plenty of other good sites to fill the result with. It causes more problems in obscure product searches where there are only one or two suppliers.
Sure its bad if its your site in the 3000.

Dynamoo




msg:769037
 10:37 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

"National" Googles (.co.uk) etc seem to be pumping out very different results still.

I'm not convinced that *old* sites are going into the sandbox. If you have an established site, then just forget about the sandbox.

I think this is just a normal update gone wrong - there are a lot of sites just not indexed properly, and those are impacting on the results. I think the duplicate content filter is over-agressive too though, but basically these seems to be a too-early rollout of the SERPs based on incomplete data.

valeyard




msg:769038
 10:52 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well we have 7 hits from Google over the weekend down from 3000-5000. Yahoo is good and steady and on topic, msn search hits are rising.

That's a key point. I've also seen Y and MSN hits almost double in absolute numbers.

Users aint as stupid as we sometimes like to think. They've seen the mess G is currently serving up and are voting with their feet.

Not just WIM, also WIG.

Jalinder




msg:769039
 11:38 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Bill Gates is a lucky man. His competitors do mistakes just when he wants them to.

itloc




msg:769040
 11:40 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

For me it's very simple - if Google fails to deliver results i will block their bot. Its just accessing too many of our pages and causing too much traffic to justify the results.

For me, that is a business relationship. They read and cache our pages - in exchange they provide visitors.

If they even fail to list our website for its unique business name - their bot is just putting useless traffic on our systems.

But it's not over yet...

itloc

soapystar




msg:769041
 11:50 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

block the Google bot because today it wont list your site..?..wow..theres long term strategy for yer!

Imaster




msg:769042
 11:50 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Bill Gates is a lucky man. His competitors do mistakes just when he wants them to.

Thats why I say, never panic and make stupid mistakes ;) Google has gone into panic mode.

Macro




msg:769043
 11:55 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

This thread goes 17 pages (based on my page preferences). It's gotta be one of the longest threads ever. But, strip all the emotion out and there isn't much :(

OK, some have lost traffic, some have lost all traffic. How does it help to moan about it? There's the Samaritans for that. How does it help you to make threats against Google (there are several of those too)? <sigh> Look forward, plan ahead, discuss future strategies. You'll be doing yourself a favour. The few good posts in this thread are drowning for all the noise.

Jalinder




msg:769044
 12:00 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

May be sites which have printable version for their articles are getting heavy penalty? Print version page of an article is duplicate content, right?

itloc




msg:769045
 12:17 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

"block the Google bot because today it wont list your site..?..wow..theres long term strategy for yer! "

Soapy

The Gbot reads thousands of pages per day on our system. Why in the world should we allow this if we get no return? To keep hope up? To see our nice pages cached?

At the moment they even fail to list our website for its very unique name...

This is not a hate thread or so - but if they are useless ... why in gods name should we deliver them our bandwith?

itloc

Macro




msg:769046
 12:23 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Changing the algo must not necessary have to do with SERPS improvement, but might have to do with business ...

Speculation again :) But yes, it's not impossible. Two threads already on that subject:

Anyone planning around quarterly financial statements? [webmasterworld.com]

SERPs vs Google's earnings from Adwords [webmasterworld.com]

limbo




msg:769047
 12:24 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Print version page of an article is duplicate content, right?

I guess that depends how it's done. Use CSS and you are not duplicating just reassigning styles for a print version. I would use a print style sheet, not another page of content. Same goes for text only. It'll be less work to create usability stylesheets than mulitple versions of a single page for different media.

/** end off topic **/

max_mm




msg:769048
 12:37 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)


The Gbot reads thousands of pages per day on our system. Why in the world should we allow this if we get no return? To keep hope up? To see our nice pages cached?

At the moment they even fail to list our website for its very unique name...

This is not a hate thread or so - but if they are useless ... why in gods name should we deliver them our bandwith?

Ditto every word. Why on earth would someone want to spend so much bandwidth (daily) and get no visitors in return.

Maybe if more webmasters join forces and start taking actual action against this weird seismic google ups and downs (with absolute disregard to the impact it have on so many web sites/businesses). Maybe then the guys at google will think twice before shacking the boat too hard (SERPs and Adsense). Maybe then they will roll what ever algo changes they have SLOWLY.

They are using our content to deliver thier clients search results (and increase thier bottom line in the process). They do owe us somthing in return!

Sorry for the rant but i see nothing good in whatever google brought to this world except for cyber slavery for most of us webmaster. I already started removing the google search box and recommending MSN & Yahoo search to my visitors on all of my sites.

The google power over our lives is way too great, and i feel that something must be done about it.

valeyard




msg:769049
 12:50 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

May be sites which have printable version for their articles are getting heavy penalty? Print version page of an article is duplicate content, right?

Nice idea but doesn't fit what I'm seeing. I only have "print versions" on one site and that is the one site not hit by this update.

Several people have suggested an over-eager dupe filter, but some of the worst SERPS results I'm seeing are filled with many copies of identical blog-comment spam.

Intensity




msg:769050
 12:51 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

For me it's very simple - if Google fails to deliver results i will block their bot. Its just accessing too many of our pages and causing too much traffic to justify the results.

For me, that is a business relationship. They read and cache our pages - in exchange they provide visitors.


Tame Google. I think Google is like a Rotweiler on a choke collar. If Google pulls away, pull Google right back in, and make it be felt. lol. Not always easy though :P

Oliver Henniges




msg:769051
 12:59 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

> This thread goes 17 pages (based on my page preferences). It's gotta be one of the longest threads ever. But, strip all the emotion out and there isn't much :(

How true. So first a big thanks to Brett that he pays all this webspace for all unhappy webmasters to empty their hearts.

I just had the idea whether It'd make sense to establish a tool (database) where all webmasters might insert their observations instead of chaotically complaining and filling threads like this.

For a simple start it would perhaps suffice to have a form/database comprising the date, url (deep), keyword and two integer values for the result-spot before and after any update.

If you ask me googles algos have become so complex, that any hand-made analysis by trial and error is somewhat out of time. We urgently need means to proceed towards a more professional process of theory-builing and -evaluation of SEO-techniques. Such a database might be a very good basis for building automatic tools for analysis, and it would be perfectly fine if read-access to such a database was limited to the paid section.

Macro




msg:769052
 1:03 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

So first a big thanks to Brett that he pays all this webspace for all unhappy webmasters to empty their hearts

I concur. In fact, go one step better. Sign up as subscribers. Everyone. Seriously :) It was worth it when I first did. It's still worth it now.

Nawaralsaadi




msg:769053
 1:12 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Maybe the introduction of local search is playing a role & messing up the results?, I see that google launched that today (apparently to compete with Microsoft local).

Anyone has an input on this?

Nawar

AndyA




msg:769054
 1:33 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think I might join the "Ban Googlebot" crowd. It does me no good to have Google use my site to increase its indexed page count, when people can't find my site using typical search terms. Things like the unique name of my site.

If enough webmasters get fed up and ban Googlebot, word will get out that Google's index is not complete, because their bot has been banned. People will go elsewhere to search, because they know Google can't list all the sites due to the ban.

It's a two way street, if Google uses my bandwidth and my pages to increase its index count, I expect visitors from them in return. When I search for page titles on my site, and the page doesn't come up in the top 100, it proves to me that Google's relevancy is in bad shape, especially when I'm the only site out there with a page full of information on the subject.

Google is really screwed up right now, IMO.

Andy

sji2671




msg:769055
 1:40 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Around the end of January 2004 my main site dropped like a stone for my keywords, however I took evasing action and now have advertising in place that means I generate the money I need from my site(s)

I have ignored google for the most part and carried on growing my site and it appears within the last 2 days I am getting the rankings that I had a year ago and google has more than doubled its traffic to me, with the extra from MSN and Yahoo I am suitably happy with twice the traffic I have been used to, however I know that if and when it changes I will not be reliant on google again so it's a lesson learned for me, and at this point a nice bonus to be getting much improved SERPS.

Dominic_X




msg:769056
 2:07 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

The update is still in progress.

Wait until the dust has settled and then we will know what has happened.

Until then, if your serps are good mid-update enjoy, if they are bad mid-update ride it out.

There is no point getting excited or disapointed just yet.

navneet




msg:769057
 2:25 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

I see my sites which came out of sandbox back into sandbox on
66.102.7.99
216.239.37.99
216.239.39.104
216.239.57.99

on some of the above ips my site was out of sandbox few hours back now its nowhere to be found

soapystar




msg:769058
 2:44 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

If enough webmasters get fed up and ban Googlebot, word will get out that Google's index is not complete, because their bot has been banned. People will go elsewhere to search, because they know Google can't list all the sites due to the ban.

the list of TRULY banned sites on yahoo makes that pretty insignificant by comparison, yet thats had no affect on users.

This 823 message thread spans 28 pages: < < 823 ( 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 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