| 3:02 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Google isn't going to put itself out of business just because a group of "pathetic" Webmasters didn't follow the steps indicated above."
for many that was the biggest mistake. Following rules=bankruptcy with Google these days. The days of being honest and build and they will come are gone. Too many variables in G today. I'm #240 searching for mydomain.com for a money site of mine. That means that 239 directories, scrapper sites or sites that link me are ahead. How is that relevant? At least a hundred sites link me with "mydomain-com".
[edited by: walkman at 3:04 am (utc) on Feb. 8, 2005]
| 3:03 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Okay Steveb, what do you mean by that?
If I search for my domain name, I am not in Google anymore, but if I search for a long string of text - I'm there.
| 3:04 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<-- Is this update over? -->
After a lot of clicking :)
This update is far from over, i don't think anyone has seen the real index.
188.8.131.52 is the most solid data center with the highest amount of results (23,800,000 for a term i target) although it is still intermittent and I don't think it is the final index as urls are still popping in and out of the SERPS, this box also seems to have eliminated the strange URL querk/problem that has been seen for the last day or so.
Another example: 184.108.40.206
This seems to be showing very poor results and still has the URL problem (mentioned many times), this box returns 20,500,000 results for the same term as above.
Just my observations
<added> the results from 220.127.116.11 seem to propagating to other boxes slowly but surely </added>
[edited by: diddlydazz at 3:06 am (utc) on Feb. 8, 2005]
| 3:05 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Everytime Google turns the "knob" they get a whole bunch more Adwords customers - folks who got used to Google traffic over the yeas but can no longer rely on it.
Google will keep turning the knob - the old days are gone forever.
| 3:13 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I see the Top 30 pretty stable with little variations.
| 3:17 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|If I search for my domain name, I am not in Google anymore, but if I search for a long string of text - I'm there. |
It means your still in the index and you have not been banned.
| 3:19 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Here is what insulates one from the search engines:
A high number of regular visitors who bookmark and use your site.
We get only 17% of our traffic from search engines.
Now Bretts guide is fine as far as it goes and for when it was written.
Requiring other sites who provide unsolicted links to do it exactly so is a joke, as I understand it Google doesn't hold you responsible for another sites actions.
So all your carping about folks linking to you is a laugh.
| 3:25 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"A high number of regular visitors who bookmark and use your site." :)
If you want to link to my sites, ask me for permission. If I don't respond, don't go ahead and link to me. Simply, I don't want your spammy link!
"We get only 17% of our traffic from search engines." :)
| 3:29 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I use news as a searchterm:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,060,000,000 for news more than 1/8 of all pages have news in it or in a link to it.
Now out of all the news pages looky who is in the top 10.
Not a reporter in the whole organization that I am aware of and they tell you that they are scraping news stories from other "sites".
Gotta just roll on the floor for a bit over that one.
| 3:30 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"If you want to link to my sites, ask me for permission. If I don't respond, don't go ahead and link to me. I just don't want your spammy link!"
wrong! People can link you whether you like it or not! It's freedom of speech, here in USA anyway.
| 3:34 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|It means your still in the index and you have not been banned. |
Okay, let me be specific:
If I search for "mydomainname.com" the only listing is on the 3rd page and looks like this:
If I search for any of the terms that I used to rank well for, the site does not appear at all.
I still have pagerank (in the toolbar anyway) and Google has fresh cached verions of all of my pages.
If I search for a very long sentence (25 words) then my page miraculously appears as a normal result with Title, link cached version etc.
Noticed one very odd thing in the results for "mydomainname.com" though. On the 3rd page of results (the results are obviously pages that link to me) there is a site that quite obviously shouldn't be there. When I click on the link, the page has no mention of my website, stranger still is that when I try to view the cached version, it redirects also.
| 3:35 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"People can link you whether you like it or not! It's freedom of speech, here in USA anyway."
Go ahead now, Google now seems to distinguish good links from bad ones. Before February 1, 2005, that was a problem.
"news": pretty relevant results.
| 3:37 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
on 18.104.22.168 for news i am seeing
which data center are you referring to?
| 3:42 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What he's saying is that news.google.com is listed, when really they should never be competing with those other names, I think! And that it's ironic scraper sites don't rank, but the google news site scrapes content but it ranks.
| 3:48 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If I want to link to your site I will link to your site, now google if it operates correctly will not hold that against you.
Not that I would probably be interested, you probably also whouldn't be interested in any of the two sites I work on either. But we have one large niche content site on 5 servers and one small specility ecom site.
I was going through some of the 9100 files in one section of the site looking for some things several nights ago when I first read this thread. We also have a forum that has many thousands of threads related to our niche area.
I have never seen google hold inbound links against one.
The only downside might be extra traffic, but the last I knew traffic is what you wanted when you placed a web site on a publiclly accesible server. Who knows you might get a loyal customer.
| 3:49 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
ahh,i need sleep!
| 3:49 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Try the one that starts news. ;)
| 3:50 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Please, tell me it will get better or if it's not going to, what are your recomendations?"
Short term approach: AdWords campaign.
Long term approach: Start from scratch, follow the steps indicated at [webmasterworld.com...]
Don't mix the steps with "alternative" strategies. Sooner or later, you'll get caught.
| 3:57 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Is it possible that this disappearing site issue might be a bug introduced inadvertantly by this update?
I just noticed that the only site of mine that was dropped was the one where I didn't have a redirect from the [mydomain.com...] to [mydomain.com....]
| 4:05 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It is possible glitterball.
Yahoo went through that problem a few times and from the looks of things MSN has that problem currently .... and it can make a huge difference if links get missed.
| 4:05 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
my site is ranking pretty low, i'm getting about 30% less traffic. its pathetic that my life depends a great deal on google, but that isn't so bad. lots of people have their bread depend on one company.
i hope we can find the commonality in the missing sites, so we can collectively arrive at a conclusion as to why we are MIA. we need to get proactive.
| 4:50 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|WebFusion, how do you determine most of us did not diversify or are not putting enough time to other things or more attention to other SE like yahoo or MSN. |
You're absolutely right, I should have been more clearly. My comments were directed to those who have based their entire livelihood on the whims of a company over which they have zero control. Kind of "if the shoe fits" situation ;-)
|for many that was the biggest mistake. Following rules=bankruptcy with Google these days. The days of being honest and build and they will come are gone. |
Yawn. You must be kidding. SImply because a hadful of sites go (probably temporarily) MIA for a bit, it's time to start spamming/cloaking [insert black hat method of your choice] to make ends meet. yep, sounds like a GREAT long term solution.
I'm still waiting for the doom and gloomers to explain why not a single one of thousands of "white-hat" websites have been affected negatively.
|Here is what insulates one from the search engines: |
A high number of regular visitors who bookmark and use your site.
Spot on. We currently enjoy an over 20% repeat customer rate. In fact, it sometimes takes dyas before we notice any kind of slide in "free" traffic.
|Is it possible that this disappearing site issue might be a bug introduced inadvertantly by this update? |
Definitely a possibly, I'm sure we all remember the "disappearing index page" threads a while back (which was indeed a bug). Having said that, when it occurred to us once, we were back in 5-6 weeks or so...no big deal.
|its pathetic that my life depends a great deal on google, but that isn't so bad. |
Not so bad to be pathetic...I think that's the quote of the thread!
| 5:07 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
WIMTM post #2
|i'm getting about 30% less traffic |
Amazing! I come especially to post the following, and the above is the first thing I see.
Very consistent numbers on my site for the drop in visitors following this Google update :
Thu 3 Feb: 28%
Fri 4 Feb: 30%
Sat 5 Feb: 27%
Sun 6 Feb: 26%
Mon 7 Feb: 28%
(compared to the average of the same day, previous 3/4 weeks) (actual visitor numbers in 4 figures daily)
On the previous Monday morning I had just instituted a mod_rewrite into httpd.conf to 301 old sub-domains from some years back into the current domain (www.mysite.host.net => www.mysite.com), thinking that the continued existence of these sub-domain SERPS was causing a duplicate penalty in Google. When this drop first showed up it was `oh-my-God-what-have-I-done'. It was quite a relief to discover that the drop had nothing to do with my actions. I think.
[Just read this immediately after posting]
|I'm still waiting for the doom and gloomers to explain why not a single one of thousands of "white-hat" websites have been affected negatively. |
You are kidding, right?
| 5:52 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, i think he's sure is.
I have 7 sites in total. The ones greatly affected (3 of them) are about or a littel less then one year old. The rest (“old sites”)continue to receive steady traffic +-10% no major hit there.
My entire network consist of white-hat sites with approx 20-25% return (bookmark) visitors. This new algo has/seams to have something to do with new sites (again).
I’m getting these wiled fluctuations on them for some time now. Traffic peaks of 4000 visitors p/day for a couple of weeks and then back to 0 visitors for a month and then a trickle and a flood and round and round it goes.
This must have something to do with "go Adsense" hint then google worrying about the quality of serps.
I bet most webmasters who experience such spikes get them on a year or less old sites.
This is how it looks to me from analysing my states anyway…
| 6:01 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
To the people whining about the "news" results...
First of all news.google is not a "scraper site", its a news portal and search engine that links to the other news sites.
Secondly if google wanted to... they could redirect every search for "news" directly to thier news portal (doubt thats gonna ever happen, but you get my point).
Last I checked news.google.com was a great portal with no ads whatsoever.
| 6:38 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Webfusion, one of my completely normal all html sites have tanked. There is no change in the PR rank and the no. of pages indexed.
Since this site makes its income from Adsense. Free search engine traffic is the only way to go. PPC, affiliate program and other forms of advertising are out of bounds.
| 6:48 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|To the people whining about the "news" results |
I emphasized the point, not complaining about it, sir!
On the .37.99 address my site was back for part of then the, but it seems to be dissappearing again. Were those the old results, or something different?
| 6:56 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The following has happened to me so far:
-In December my site went from 1st page to nowhere to be found (well page 10)
-When Allegra started my site was reinstated back to pre-Decembar position
-Two days later it went to page 20. That was very disappointing.
-An hour ago it is back to pre-Decembar position and better.
I think we should wait till everything is finished and then make some conclusions. My site is NOT optimised at all and I do not have any serious competitors. It is very clean and follows all Google rules.
| 7:37 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
are these results going to stick?
i think i see what google are trying to do.
as has been mentioned here before, allow sites to establish themseleves within (6/9months) not rank them under their industries leading keyword phrases, let them rank under obscure terms etc. after that time has passed do a update like this one and allow those sites in.
during that 6/9 months of being in the lobby, google could evaluate that site and penalize it if it's not playing by there guidelines.
if they are doing something like this, it's an ok method. of course you will always have sites that will slip through the system / try to manipulate there serp's all the time.
my 2 cents + gst.
| 7:54 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My site has gone from being sandboxed to staying sandboxed PLUS it's also now MIA for it's own domain name search.
Lovely stuff, Google.
Back to the drawing board ;-)
I'm not going to agonize over it by spending weeks trying to track why Almighty Google doesn't like the site - I'm simply going to concentrate on getting quality backlinks and capitalize on the excellent results I get with MSN and Yahoo.
| 8:38 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I really hope these results don't stick. Another 2 sites sandboxed now... None out.