homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
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 610 message thread spans 21 pages: < < 610 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 21 > >     
Update Allegra Part 2 Update 2-2-2005

 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.



 12:39 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

What, exactly, is NEW about it? To me, it looks much the same as the results before the update.

For some of my sites, nothing is new. For other sites I've been watching, it's all new. How about number one for an unusual name for the longest time, and then no longer in the top 100 for that name? And if you do a hand check, it's not even in the top 1,000!

If you're that person with that name, that's new.

I now see the "crack effect" also. But it's not optimistic. S-c-r-o-o-g-l-e got a handful of ones back along with all those 63 rankings, but there are also a handful of zeros -- which were never there before!


 1:08 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

These have the new clean dmoz or meta descriptions instead of ransom notes too, so perhaps there is reason for optimism.

Let's hope steveb, the hope never dies. Suggestions form you "old guys" are welcome and let's hope that Googleguy read that.


 1:42 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can somebody explain the big index. One thing I noticed about the big index is that Google has finally after 6 years figure out how to spider my dynamic site.

Google has finally mastered the art of spidering complex url strings. Given this fact, they are most likely going to use these results, which gives us hope.

One thing however, none of these newly acquired sites have any PR. Using the PR algorthim, they should have a PR of 4 or 3.

Are these the supplemental results everyone is talking about.


 1:58 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

The "big index" as I called it, is where the returned results have jumped in number by anything from 20% to 50% compared to the other indexes people are seeing. Some spam is ranking lower or has disappeared in that bigger index.

I don't know if the extra results are pages coming out of the sandbox, or are new pages, or what. What I have noticed for some pages that I am seeing in that index but which are not in other indexes is that those pages have been on the web for perhaps 3 to 5 years, have had little if no editing done to them in that time, and their last cache date was 2 months ago. Google spidered and cached the pages two months ago, and has hidden the data away somewhere, and not included it in any public view until now? What is that all about?


I don't expect to see PR reported for "new" pages for several months. It is a bonus if you see any before that time, but then that is probably an estimate anyway.


Supplemental Results are just that -- those exact words appear to the right of the reported filesize and to the left of the words cached - similar pages in the bottom line of each search result. There are often a few on the last page of results. For some of the searches that I do, there are only 30 to 200 results returned, and with 100 results per page it is much easier to spot that sort of thing.

[edited by: g1smd at 2:03 am (utc) on Feb. 12, 2005]


 2:03 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0) etc show only 20% of the results of others. anti-big.


 2:05 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)


For me, those are the IPs that show 50% bigger returns, and pages that haven't appeared in searches anytime in the last 18 to 24 months or more even though they were online much longer than that: - - - - - - - - -

[edited by: g1smd at 2:09 am (utc) on Feb. 12, 2005]


 2:08 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

I posted several hours ago in msg #248. While I was gone, a wave of pessimism has swept the forum - once again for reasons not clear to me, people have declared 'game over'. I don't think so. Within the last half hour, I am still seeing clean good results on with number of results slightly higher than pre-allegra. On google.com - presently for me - I'm apparently seeing what some of you are calling an "inflated index". For one search term I monitor the number of results is about 60% higher than pre-allegra; for another the number of results is about 50% LOWER. I've been seeing this so-called "inflated" index on google.com since Tuesday, off and on. I see nothing that has changed from my perspective on things in msg #248 except the index has grown slightly on both search terms (I'm using 3 word searches).


 2:10 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Webhosting 14 million on the others
5.9 million on etc.


 2:11 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> a wave of pessimism has swept the forum - once again for reasons not clear to me <<

All 55 IPs reported the same results for an hour or so, ending about 2 hours ago. At that time, several people's sites therefore disappeared from all results.


>> 5.9 million on <<

Hmm, that's where I am seeing a larger return, not smaller!

[edited by: g1smd at 2:20 am (utc) on Feb. 12, 2005]


 2:17 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

[] has tripled my number of indexed pages.

Hope this will continue!


 2:28 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0) is showing me all pages indexed (plus a few url only) on a site... instead of 528 of 720, it shows 709 of 710.

I hope THAT continues. Nice to see whole domains up to 1000 pages.


 2:50 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Check the cache date in results where the whole site is indexed.

Is it, by chance, sometime early to mid-December 2004?


 3:01 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Mostly the past two days; nothing older than a month.

Arizona Web Design

 3:20 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

This is getting frustrating. Since the past 2 updates I am finding myself using yahoo and MSN more lately.

This recent update has my site at #1 for nearly all of my keyphrases. This is great, but then occasionally I check and see myself lower than I was 6 months ago -before I really started building relevant links and adding good content.

The sites before mine in the other index are terrible. They have less links, worse content, less pages, but they are ooold. Seems like that flavor of the index likes old sites. The seemingly newer flavor of the index, the one with my site ruling the SERPs, seems to like good smart links and content.

I wish Google would just pick one index or one formula and go with it. I would rather lose ranks and know I can jump ship and focus on other engines than have the whole index change drastically every day for weeks. I am not a spammer, but Google seems to be on a witch hunt that on one index kills me, and on the other has me sitting on the top.

Sorry if that post was a flip out (gotta love a first post rant) but this update seems to have been going on since mid december and it does not seem to be improving the relevancy of the SERPs for any searches.


 3:34 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just have had a site return to the serps within the last few hours on DC
This site had disappeared from all dc's and I mean all DC'S so this is good news for those whose sites have disappeared.


 4:44 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

All today and most of yesterday my site was ranking again for mycompanyname, with date tags - it's dissappeared again though.

It seems thos rolling updates bring it back in sometimes and sometimes not - very annoying. Anyways - For the past 2 days I've been using Yahoo Search, so I haven't looked much. Yahoo takes a bit of getting used to, but I am finding that things are being found faster.


 4:49 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

"All today and most of yesterday my site was ranking again for mycompanyname, with date tags - it's dissappeared again though. "

I thought GoogleGuy fixed it for you. You essentially forced him to post :). Didn't you e-mail him?


 5:03 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Didn't you e-mail him

Of course - I sent an email to that groups address the very moment I saw his reply (which I am grateful for). The issue has not been resolved. I stopped posting like a freak because I assumed I should give them some time to at least finish the update, however it would appear that this new update will stick at least for some time.

Interestingly, one of my main competitors is now highly ranked for a search on "mycompanyname" - so Google is actually doing me more harm than good. :( - With all the promotion and backing I've done for Google, I take this somewhat personally.

Darrin Ward.


 5:47 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Recent G SERPs are a real joke. It took me more than 20 minutes to weed through all the noise to find a decent site that is REALLY related and contain the content i was after.

Tried MSN search and it was a bit (but just a bit) better. I eventually found what i was looking for over yahoo (within 2 minutes). That’s what I call a search engine.

As someone already put it above. The recent google SERPs are a joke. Game over google.....your engineers need a rest. Google is no longer a SE but an ad delivery system. Time we all realise it and move on.

The recent update forced me to reduce my adsense monthly spending by more then half. Income from two of my sites is no longer the same, so is my advertising budget with adwords. A double hedged sward i guess. GG check your statistics and you'll notice that 60%-70% of your advertisers are webmasters. Hitting so many web sites (with all them illogical, bug riddled filters) IS directly hitting webmasters ad dollar budget spent on adwords. Real crap! you’ll get it eventually. The sooner you do, the better for your shareholders.

[edited by: max_mm at 5:54 am (utc) on Feb. 12, 2005]


 5:52 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

How many of you see infosearch created articles ( from articleinsider) in the first 2 pages of your KW?


 9:42 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Perhaps a lot of webmasters will now be using Google adwords to get in results - Has google got greedy?


 9:48 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Any news on when Google are going to fix this?

Search for my "unique company name uk" which has the same title on my home page and some deep pages returns a deep page cached from October 2004 which is now a 404 - rather than my homepage which was cached on 11th February 2005.

Even the deep page is lower than pseudo directories.

I know - only getting frustrated - they will never admit they have a problem


 9:49 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Perhaps a lot of webmasters will now be using Google adwords to get in results

To the contrary, I cancelled our adwords campaigns on the 4th (we were spending a few hundred $$$ daily), but no more - using Overture now.

Has google got greedy

Do cows sleep while standing up?

They in themselves didn't make them greedy - Investors made them greedy, and this will probably only get worse.

When you consider that advertising over the 1st quarter won't be close to the last qtr (christmas)... they'll have to pull some strings now to keep the trend appearing as though it's on the up .. so all of this will get worse!

Don't fix something that ain't broken.... Up until a while ago, I'd of said this phrase was stupid - but apparently Google tried to "fix" themselves and they just made themselves worse off.

Google, in order to survive you need a product. Without a product, you have nothing to offer. Your product was search, it was fine... then you screwed it up with this latest update. I urge you to turn it back.


 10:04 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

and those who now have "no" traffic will have to advertise - or just wait and wait


 10:08 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm going to reserve judgement on whether this is all motivated by greed until it is all over.

I went to bed last night with my MIA site absent from all datacenters, but this morning I see that it is on some of them, Google has actually indexed more pages than ever before, so hopefully these will re-appear in the 'public' index.

Taking a leaf out of Chico_Loco's book -

GoogleGuy, can you please tell us when this is over?


 10:35 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

I went to bed last night with my MIA site absent from all datacenters, but this morning I see that it is on some of them, Google has actually indexed more pages than ever before, so hopefully these will re-appear in the 'public' index.

From experience, it might take approx two months for traffic to recover once the tap is turned off as it happened with this update. You then get a flood which lasts about a month and off again and round and round it goes. This has been my experience with two of my sites for some time now anyway.

I'm now seeing a very distinct pattern on my G traffic. I noticed that it always spikes (approx 30%-60% more viewers) two days just before it reduces to 0. And then something very interesting happens, i suddenly start getting (a few days just before traffic is back) hits from non English google searches (my sites are English only BTW), i suddenly start getting hits from google.com.it and google.com.in, google.com.hu, google.com.fr etc. This consistently indicted (in my case) that normal traffic is about to be back soon and so it does, Approx one week later.

Anyone else noticed the weird pattern.

The up and down spike in traffic may indicate that the whatever new sites the spider finds are being added to the SERPs at the bottom and this pushes all other sites up slowly….this creates the spike that some may notice on their logs...and then the traffic dies altogether, it is like your site is pushed over the dial and is nowhere to be found on the SERPs (maybe just being added at the bottom of the que again and start pushing up slowly till it get back to position again).

That’s what I’ve been experiencing in the last 7 or so months anyway... wounder if anyone else noticed such pattern.


 1:11 pm on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Perhaps a lot of webmasters will now be using Google adwords to get in results - Has google got greedy?

There's a couple of ways of looking at this.

1. Yes, webmasters will use AdWords to bring traffic to their sites to replace natural search traffic that has gone AWOL.

2. Webmasters will have to cut back on AdWords, or stop it completely, because they can no longer afford it due to reduced traffic/reduced income.

3. Webmasters will increase ad spending elsewhere, figuring that Google is so messed up right now, their ads will not appear on relevant pages, thus wasting their ad budgets.

Personally, I think #3 is the most likely. If Google can't return your own site when searched for by name, how can it make sure ads are targeted properly? Whatever has been going on with Google during this update certainly indicates deep, serious problems to me. This has not been a typical update, if there is such a thing any more.

What Google has right now is a search engine mess. Even normal spam filters aren't effective right now, as seriously spammy sites are doing as well or better than my clean site. How a site that mentions my site in hidden text at the bottom of the page in super small font ranks almost the same as my clean index page has got to be indicative of something pretty serious going on.

And I keep hearing comments from typical searchers that Google seems to be broken, so the general public is beginning to notice. Google needs to get this straightened out quickly, it's gone on too long!


 1:21 pm on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

I won't use AdWord if Google isn't attracting the footfall of searchers. To make AdWords worthwhile you need to have people actually using the search engine to see the ads.

I have to hope for the following:

Google, even post-IPO is more sophisticated than to think that if their natural SERPS are crap then people will have to turn to AdWords. This is a 'blunt object' approach to business.

That once this 'goes public', and the mess is widely reported in the media (beyond our own SEM 'village') that Google's credibility will be severely knocked. Loosing credibility (Google's USP?) is not what their shareholders will want - even the more 'commercial' ones. Therefore, they will have to return Google to it's pre-update glory.

If this whole thing is designed to get rid of a lot of the spam, link farms and 'black hatters' out there who were also making the SERPS less than useful, I tend to think that with this update Google has 'thrown the baby out with the bathwater'...


 1:26 pm on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google has 'thrown the baby out with the bathwater'

Nicely put

I think maybe we are seeing a less 'caring' Google and a fair bit of collateral damage is to be expected


 1:33 pm on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

How many of you see infosearch created articles ( from articleinsider) in the first 2 pages of your KW?

Most probably you're infected. Check your PC throughly.


 1:35 pm on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google results are so bad it would not surprise me if I had some sort of spyware on my PC.

Unfortunately I have not!

This 610 message thread spans 21 pages: < < 610 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 21 > >
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