| 4:30 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"What’s interesting is that it can still be found on searches for it's own “domain” name straight up (so I assume it’s not been dropped) but on “target keyword + domain” I only see other websites where it is listed, referenced or linked? Looks like a filter on keyword clusters or a filter/penalty on the domain? Sailorjwd, Firefox does not make a difference in this case."
We are seeing the same. But searching own company(unique) name there is no "more results from..." link like usual.
searching a keyword + domain is a bunch of other pages linking to us but we are nowhere to be found.
If we do a search for our domain it does not show title or description nor is there an option to view cached version. In the results for the company name it shows as being cached on feb 1st.
| 4:36 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am also seeing a different set of results (terrible for me) at [220.127.116.11...]
Currently I am monitoring results at the following datacenters:
[edited by: Imaster at 4:43 pm (utc) on Feb. 3, 2005]
| 4:38 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I still don't understand the mechanism as to why Firefox shows normal (good) search results for me and IE6 shows my site deeeep in the results. |
Did you clear the cache?
I can find my domain at number one now at the following datacenters with a chnge in the serps brutal but better
| 4:46 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My site is also #1 on those data centers listed above... what does that tell me? Are those the future results about to be implemented?
My visitors are still down 70%
Note, I'm not a website developer nor am I SEO knowledgeable.
| 4:51 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I can find my domain at number one now at the following datacenters with a chnge in the serps brutal but better |
The above IP addresses show the exact same results (very good ones) for me. There doesn't seem to be any difference in the serps. Thats how it looks from where I am checking it.
But the following IP addresses have completely different serps on each of them.
Which ones are working for you?
| 4:52 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Checked the 3 datacenters.
[18.104.22.168...] [good] - What is different on this one is that is shows the "more results for..." and has the the dual result from the site.
[22.214.171.124...] [bad] - No "more results for..." and only a single result from the site. Even in other keywords I search for. Poor results.
[126.96.36.199...] [terrible] - No "more results for..." and only a single result from the site. Even in other keywords I search for. Poor results.
[edited by: arubicus at 4:53 pm (utc) on Feb. 3, 2005]
| 4:53 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Only a few changes on all changing datacenters for my sites. But the index on 188.8.131.52 for example is VERY old. For all keywords I monitor it has only half the results the index on .com has. And there are sites in from my domain which don't exist any longer since years.
| 4:56 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Anyone that is having problems, if you put in yoursite.com does it show the title and description?
| 4:59 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am having a problem with one of my site, but using site.com at all the ips show me the title/description perfectly.
| 5:02 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> I am also seeing a different set of results (terrible for me) at [184.108.40.206...]
Just out of curiosity I checked that server and my results were even better than the others, strange.
Google is definitely voodoo magic, guess I need to get more garlic and a goat's head for tonight's ritual dance.
| 5:11 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i have good results for my enterprise name on some the servers mentioned above.
site.com does not work for my main site but for another, smaller one.
I hope the 64.233.171-servers show the future, not the past.
since it cannot become worse in my eyes I used some time to tidy up my site. I finally put on some permanent redirect from widdget.com to widget.com. (Both are indexed).
I hope this will please the googleplex. If not, I'll go to sacrifice some php-code or one of my computers ;-)
| 5:18 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It has been for about a month that the results on 104 had more supplemental results and a little change in serps, so I realy dot think this is real deal yet.
| 5:20 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Anyone that is having problems, if you put in yoursite.com does it show the title and description? |
Yes. Google shows the title and description when I search for mysite.com.
| 5:23 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|since it cannot become worse in my eyes I used some time to tidy up my site. |
LOL I am using my time to build landing pages for PPC to affiliates. Enough of this stuff.
| 5:25 pm on Feb 3, 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.
| 5:35 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My index page has dropped out of sight from #17 to #267 and when I try site.com it doesn't give a description at all. Just the URL.
Anybody have any idea why that would be?
| 5:38 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Happening with two of my sites also. Strange as it's not the classic case of a duplicate by linking to widgets.com/index.php instead of just widgets.com
Very scary update but I'm kind of used to Google doing this sort of thing now....
| 6:06 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Here's a list. They are all working from at least one of two locations that I tried today. Anyone got any that I missed?
| 6:07 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"kind of used to Google doing this sort of thing now...."
I guess every month we will see from now on this kind of thing,enoughf time to see what went wrong with a or b or c site and fix it. Good school for SEO.
| 6:13 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Explains why my traffic is up 30%
| 6:15 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|It seems to be mainly the sites that were affected in the mid-December algo change that are seeing changes on these datacenters. If you didn't see any changes in your area in mid-December, you may not see anything unusual on these datacenters today. If you were badly affected by the mid-December blip, then you may see positive results on these datacenters today. (my observation only) |
Yes I agree. My site took a small hit in September then a massive drop in December. It's a regional travel site that had been performing very well for years in Google. In December Google referals went from 25,000 down to around 1,000 per day. Yes I was freaked! The site is clean and I did nothing SEO wise in Sept. or Dec. I simply continued to add content, get links (over 1,000 now) and worked on a new site as well. Today wella...back in the serps in a major way.
|What we're seeing is not a daily flux (listen to dazzlindonna). For those of us destroyed in the December 'limited update' this is significant - I have one site that went from 8,000 Google referrals a day to 400 - this has returned to #1 on many phrases. I also have other sites where I can see no discernable change in rankings. |
So, another limited update - whether you attribute this to glitch or filter is up to you. If your sites weren't hit in December you will barely notice this.
I agree with Iguana...I shared this exact experience.
|After 5 years of consistent, good, search results ranking, my site as almost disappeared - not even first when search on my company name. |
This is absurd..
sailorjwd - Assuming your doing good SEO I would recommend working on a new site, work on getting backlinks or start a new hobby for a few months. Because you will drive yourself crazy otherwise, I know from personal experience.
| 6:26 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I still find it strange that the site:www.mydomain.com command seems to be broken on some of the DCs.
Even when I do find the site entering just www.mydomain.com and even for (very carefully and not at all common) search terms, the site: command returns nothing...
Mixed fealings, since it looks as if it's on the DCs showing improvements for my old sites (from 1998 and 1999), that cannot find my new sites...
They aren't sandboxed. They do show up for some searches, but not for the site: command.
| 6:33 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to LSI hell, folks.
| 6:44 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Welcome to LSI hell, folks. |
Can you shed some more light on LSI, haven't researched much on this topic. Plus, could the update be related to Hilltop implementation around the board (old sites as well as new sites)?
| 6:45 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"worse update ever"
| 6:47 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Am I dreaming? When's the last time an update was on the home page? The only thing missing is, "Hey, this is GoogleGuy. I'll be dropping in & out..." :(
Google cuts a rug quasi-old-fashioned on MSN's muted debut...
| 6:49 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
lsi [webmasterworld.com] - latent semantic indexing
| 7:07 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google's new moto should be:
"Bookmark this site now, it may not be here 5 minutes from now"
How can users be comfortable with a search engine that changes the results everytime you do a search?
My site varies from top five on page one, to non-existant, depending on G's mood, i guess....
This has been going on for months.
| 7:32 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
....Google should do what they "were" good at search ... and stop trying to take over the world! ....
gmail...local search....froogle...google news...google groups... ..Google Desktop ..Blogging...
need I go on! think they lost focus on what they used to be good at!
| 7:35 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Every site I operate is doing better across the board. Two sites are suddenly out of the sandbox and traffic is going haywire in a good way. This one's got my vote.
Keep it steady Google.
| 7:35 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Welcome to LSI hell, folks. |
Oh no, not a repeat of the Austin fiasco.
It is about that time again.