Chico_Loco
msg:769358 | 9:04 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Ahhhh - I knew I'd get you to reply .. Sorry to do that, was just making sure you were still alive... Great reply though! I've sent off an email - hopefully you'll take a look at the issue and at the very least let me know what's happenin'. I did include my handle. Thank you GoogleGuy!
|
Total Paranoia
msg:769359 | 9:37 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I guess GG's comments mean that the update is done. Are these pretty much the results we shall see until the next update?
|
illusionist
msg:769360 | 10:01 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Thanx for your help googleguy, email sent.
|
march83
msg:769361 | 10:55 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Well I think I know why our site dropped, dont know if anyone else has checked this. There are 14 sites in the SERPs that have copied most the content from our site, which now rank above us! Pretty sure we got a penalty as show bottom for "ouruniquedomain" search with inbound links been above us. Good work Google. The dupicate content filter is working great!
|
valeyard
msg:769362 | 10:56 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
GoogleGuy: Thanks. A few days ago that would have made a world of difference. Today? I suspect a lot of the PR and goodwill damage has already been done. Obviously you personally are constrained on what you can say. Perhaps The Management could be persuaded that this is something to add to the rollout plan for the next update?
|
Dayo_UK
msg:769363 | 10:59 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
GG - email sent. If we can have a google back that can find my unique business name in the search it would be appreciated ;) One that ranks pages on content again would be even better :) Happy problem solving.
|
stargeek
msg:769364 | 11:17 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
I'm seeing this as a huge 302 redirect problem. At least for me. Anything I can other than wait for the bug to fix itself?
|
BeeDeeDubbleU
msg:769365 | 11:40 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
On Googleguy ...
.
Obviously you personally are constrained on what you can say. Perhaps The Management could be persuaded that this is something to add to the rollout plan for the next update? |
|
Before I proceed let me just say that apart from dropping an excellent, original content, non-profit literary association site this update has hardly affected me at all. I am not here to complain but another reality check is required. Apart from the fact that their business is founded on the use of other people's content free search engines like Google owe webmasters nothing - Zero - Zilch! If they were to provide assistance to webmasters (real assistance!) through this website they would be only be creating further problems for themselves because of the many spammers, black hatters and system gamers who populate this and other related forums. If you want to complain to Google about the quality of their search results complain about a real problem, i.e. the sandbox. Ask them why millions of clean, original content filled sites that are up to one year old cannot be found in the top 500 results for something as obvious as their company name?
|
nuthin
msg:769366 | 11:44 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
GG thanks for taking your time to reply to this thread.
Alot of long time members have not been seen in this thread, so to me thats an indication of the update that is going on is on the right foot. It's good to see you are allowing more websites to rank accordingly and have taken a stance on some of those directory-type spammy sites. the serp's are looking much better and i'm glad some of the work i have been doing over the past 6-9 months to establish our smaller clients on the internet is starting to pay off. cheers,
|
nuthin
msg:769367 | 11:49 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
also i can't go back and read over the 80 odd pages, but can you make a comment on why you's are displaying DMOZ descriptions on sites? i would just like to know why the DMOZ description of the website is being favoured before the actual content of the site in the "snippets" below listings. :)
|
Macro
msg:769368 | 11:51 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
| complain about a real problem |
|
Can't see the sandbox being a "real" problem, or a problem at all. It's there to stop the SPAM. If I start a new company called Mesothelioma Lawyers Ltd you reckon I should show up in the top 500 purely because that's my company name? Sure, the "sandbox", whatever it is, hurts some. It hurts people who are creating sites for free traffic. Many of them are spammers/freeloaders. It also hurts others. They - particularly anyone starting a new business with a business plan that relies on free SE traffic - are probably better off staying unemployed (or employed if they can find a job). Any new site starting off on the premise that free traffic will sustain it deserves to fail. So, if you remove the sandbox as a reasonable cause for complaint, and remove most of the other whining, we'd reduce this thread to one page and those that can't even be bothered to read it will get a personal reply from Googleguy because he owes them.
|
nuthin
msg:769369 | 11:56 am on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
well personally i have to look at this update from the view of all of our client base, not just one particular website. some of you's (which may have been affected by this update) may only have a few websites to judge this update. the overall perception of all of our 500+++ clients is that there is a dramtic increase in there rankings in the serp's. over the past 6-9 months we have been doing all the "leg work" waiting for an update like this to happen. sure where gonna have a few drops to look over but this is like any major update or algorithm change that we just have to adjust too, most are starting to come from with this update.. which is good news and why i see it as a good update, for us anyway. serp's look much better in the areas i monitor. (i monitor quite a few industries / spectrums.)
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:769370 | 12:04 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0) |
Continued here:
[webmasterworld.com...]
|
|
