homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.249.155
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 ... 21 > >     
Update Allegra Part 2 Update 2-2-2005
Macro




msg:752948
 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.

 

WebFusion




msg:752978
 2:42 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

It looks to me as if this update is over, so I'll just add this bit of advice (for lack of a better word) that served me well over the past 5 years or so.

When I first started in this business, I was also enjoying the free ride on the back of the search engines (at the time it was altavista/Inktomi/Yahoo treating me well). When Yahoo dropped Inktomi for it's supplemental results, it took about 4000 visitors a day I had been receiving with it, which of course, made me contemplate my decision to go into business for myself on the web.

I spent many a sleepless night the first few days pondering what I could do, hoping they would see the "error of their ways" and bring my site backs, etc.

In the end I finally realized the only reliable way to market from then on would be to assume the engines no longer existed (in fact, I printed a banner that hung in front of my desk that says "There are No Search Engines" ;-)

Consider it....what if no one had ever invented a search engine....how would you get the word out about your site then? Out yourself in that mindset and see what you can come up with:

For instance: If you've been spending hundreds (or even thousands) a month on purchased links from unrelated/semi-related high-PR sites solely for the reason of increasing your PR and artifically increasing your ranking in the serps (and you site still tanked), take those funds and redirect them to a more long-term solution, i.e. hire some content writers, seek out partnerships/paid advertising with high-ranking sites that DO still rank for your search terms, have a ghost writer create some press releases about your products, look into starting an affiliate program, etc. etc.

Use this as an opportunity to drastically change the way you market your site, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised what a few months of work in that direction can do. We receive OVER 4000 targeted visitors (on average) per day from NON search engine sources. And I've got news for you...the visitors that reach us via non search engine traffic convert at a rate that is almost double that on free search traffic.

Just keep repeating to yourself "There is no google, there is no google...."

willmullis




msg:752979
 2:52 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I noticed last night that google.com was showing me the new results that have been in the DCs. Now everything is back to the "old" way, anybody else seeing this?

steve40




msg:752980
 2:53 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

good post webfusion

And in some ways can be viewed from a different prospective for those sites that are mainly content so therefore PPC is often not an option

If the content is good the following occurs

1 Word of mouth ( never forget G success was 75% due to this )
2 Visitors add site to favs and come back via direct access
3 Make the site sticky in some way
4 Depending on your budget let links grow naturally from relevent sources
5 If you believe in your site invest in Press Releases , depending on how good the site is will depend if the visitors come once ( curiosity ) or bookmark

just my 2 cents
steve

Rollo




msg:752981
 3:03 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Macro...

That was the most ignorant post I've ever read on this board.

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?
Top 500? Yes, obviously. Number 1, no. The point is that you should show up. But what if your business name is unique and not keywords? If someone types in your name and you don't show up, they may just think you've gone out of business. Google has created a reasonable expectation with the public that they should be able to "Google" your business and locate it. I see no value whatever in having pages upon pages of other sites that link to your site come up before you when someone types in your business name.

Sure, the "sandbox", whatever it is, hurts some. It hurts people who are creating sites for free traffic.
This is totally bs, it's unfair to a lot of people, not just spammers and Google knows it. Taking down lots of innocent folks just to be sure you get the abusers defies any standard of universal fairness. Most serious business don't use only keywords in their business name, still they're being punished.

They - particularly anyone starting a new business with a business plan that relies on free SE traffic - are probably better off staying unemployed.
This is the point where someone really needs to break their foot off in your... There are a lot of folks out there that have great ideas but don't have the capital needed to start a mega-site. Free traffic is essential for them to get started and help them grow. The point, or so I thought, was that the best sites should rise to the top, not just the richest. God knows lenders aren't showering capital on dotcoms with hot ideas anymore.

Macro




msg:752982
 3:13 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>There are a lot of folks out there that have great ideas
There is no connection between having a great idea and being entitled to free traffic.

Rollo, attacking me doesn't help. I stated the facts. That's the state of play. That's how things are. You may not like the facts but attacking me doesn't change them.

Some will "get it" and adapt/adjust. Those who think they can rely on "reasonable expectation", "reasonable fairness", "Free traffic... to... help them grow " and feel they are being "still being punished" by not getting free traffic will probably fail. And they deserve it for living in a dream world and not recognising the reality. Each one of them can come and "break feet in my mouth" but that does change the reality either, and it doesn't get them traffic.

[edited by: Macro at 3:21 pm (utc) on Feb. 9, 2005]

vabtz




msg:752983
 3:20 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebFusion that was a great insight to share

This thread is so redundant could it be summed up by 2 posts

"ok so the updates over and I got clobbered I am going to complain until google listens to me and sends me free money"

and

"updates over I need to see what I can do to make up for all that lost traffic"

one of those statements makes sense

paulbay




msg:752984
 3:27 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

How is this update over? the datacenters are still showing two sets of backlinks.

theBear




msg:752985
 3:32 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

A tighter check for duplicate content

If that's the case it may be that the "knob" wasn't sensitive enough to see http:// and [www...] content as being on the same site. Some sites seem to have suffered because of this.

Me thinks the knob was too tight in that respect. It basiclly said if page 1 = page 2 then mark as dup, looks like a few if statements were removed or commented out ;) the ones that checked to see if the domains were really the same and that the ip addys matched etc.

OptiRex




msg:752986
 3:35 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Consider it....what if no one had ever invented a search engine....how would you get the word out about your site then? Out yourself in that mindset and see what you can come up with:

Hallelujah, or whatever your religion may be if you have one.

The Net is only one of many marketing channels which must be harnessed correctly to gain the most effective exposure.

Sounds like we are promoting some sort of closed shop against small businesses here and put ME out of business as well.

piskie - It's not wise to "assume" that a successful web site is necessarily owned by "Mega Corp". I would have a fair bet that the most successful/highly ranked sites are owner operators/small businesses however I have no way of proving that but it would be interesting to know.

paulbay




msg:752987
 3:38 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

"If that's the case it may be that the "knob" wasn't sensitive enough to see http:// and [www...] content as being on the same site. Some sites seem to have suffered because of this."

Yes my site suffered because of this, they have my homepage index with and without the www, i show on about 30% of data centers when i search for my domain, i have now placed a 301 on http:// redirecting everything to [www,...] after wait and see if this fixes it.

[edited by: paulbay at 3:49 pm (utc) on Feb. 9, 2005]

soapystar




msg:752988
 3:44 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

sure theres more to life than just search engines..but this is this google search engine forum so i think its fair enough for posts to be tightly focussed on views and affects of google algo changes......

Rollo




msg:752989
 3:56 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Macro, that wasn't an attack... just stating facts. Your post seemed to be a bit too callous about other people’s legitimate complaints. Nothing is nastier than sucessful people, as I'm sure you are, going around acting like Marie Antoinette.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:752990
 4:00 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

The point, or so I thought, was that the best sites should rise to the top, not just the richest.

Absolutely correct! Wasn't this the rock that google was founded upon? Isn't this part of the cuddly image that they still enjoy?

Marie Antoinette

LOL! ( A great analogy.)

steve40




msg:752991
 4:09 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just one further observation re: alegra finished or not

No I don't think it's finished
I am currently seeing what looks like a new type of filter applied on some datacenters that i have not seen used before.
This i think will only apply to those with a listing and an indented second listing ,
I think there MAY be some checking of possible duplication on those 2 pages
NO PROOF just funny gut feel from those i am seeing indented listing dissapearing for

have so far checked about 150 keywords that I monitor and seems to be the case

anybody else with similar observations
steve

willmullis




msg:752992
 4:09 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can somebody confirm this for me? Is anybody else still seeing a difference between the DCs and google.com? I hear that the update is over and I was just wondering why I still see dramatic differences in the rankings.

Don't the DCs and google.com normally reflect the same rankings once the update is final?

Thanks for you help guys

idoc




msg:752993
 4:11 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Google has created a reasonable expectation with the public that they should be able to "Google" your business and locate it."

Yes, and they are now creating new expectations. I have seen just this in searches of my own. A contrived name company website coming underneath multiple adsense serving sites that merely link to it via dynamic redirects.

I believe this will resolve itself soon enough. Hopefully, no one entity will ever have so much of a share of Internet search again.

vabtz




msg:752994
 4:14 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

steve what DC's are you checking?

Kangol




msg:752995
 4:14 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am still seeing other SEPT in some DCs. The results showed in the other DCs are better for us. Our company shows up for its name. 6 hours ago I’ve seen those SEPR in google.com by getting trough different US IPs.
[64.233.171.99...] for example shows different results.

lgn1




msg:752996
 4:19 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

One thing that google should implement is a damping algrorithm. For example sites (that don't spam or black hat) can drop by no more than 10 or 20 positions per update.

This way Google does not wipe out authority sites in one blow. Companies that have the resources are going to pry and poke google for the next few months until they recover their top positions anyways.

Im not dependent on Search Engine results, but we consider ourselves an industry leader for our niche market, and was one of the founders for our niche. For relevancy sake, we deserve to be at least in the top 10. Note I said relevancy not finanicially.

walkman




msg:752997
 4:20 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy,
how about offering an "amnesty" so people are encouraged to send you e-mails? Many, many sites have been effected and it seems like a glitch somewhere. Maybe if you get enough e-mails you guys will be able to see a pattern and figure out what happened. You went through this with the 302 redirects and for days no one sent you any e-mails because they were afraid of being banned when G engineers checked it. Regarding the 302 problems, you said that the info it will be used ONLY to figure out why it happened, for nothing else. For example, if what one did (let's say an obvious spammy title), didn't directly cause the ranking problem you ignore it.

Even the government forgave Sammy "The Bull" Gravano to catch John Gotti ;). They will get caught through normal channels eventually. It maybe worth to overlook a few sites in order to solve this. Better results is what you want and when someone searches for "domain.com" they obviously want to go there. If they don't find it, Google loses credibility in their eyes. Your word carries a lot of credibility and people would be more inclined to send their URLs and help solve the problem. It exists.

I know I will be attacked for saying the obvious by certain people here who are just better than all of us. If you feel that your site are perfect, slam me and post your site on the profile. Let's all have a look at those 13 pt H1, italics, backlinks with perfect anchor, titles and those extra keywords you might have. :)

march83




msg:752998
 4:22 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

At the minute the following are showing older/different(/better) listings than google.com:

64.233.171.99
64.233.171.104
64.233.171.105
64.233.171.147
216.239.37.99
216.239.39.99
216.239.53.99
66.102.7.99
66.102.7.105
216.239.37.105
216.239.37.147
66.102.7.147

phantombookman




msg:752999
 4:24 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Kangol
thanks for that, very interesting and encouraging
[64.233.171.99...]

the DC you mentions puts right all my sites, returns 2 missing ones and returns my main company name from #3 back to #1
Hope this sticks, far more like it
Fingers crossed
Rod

robster124




msg:753000
 4:26 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

This is encouraging seeing these DCs with these SERPs. We can only hope that Google uses these as their final update.

walkman




msg:753001
 4:26 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

"At the minute the following are showing older/different(/better) listings than google.com:
64.233.171.99
64.233.171.104
64.233.171.105
64.233.171.147
216.239.37.99
216.239.39.99
216.239.53.99
66.102.7.99
66.102.7.105
216.239.37.105
216.239.37.147
66.102.7.147 "

much better listings :). this was before the filter or whatever they did on the 5-6th was applied. I rule on those serps! However, I think the update is over and we're screwed.

Kangol




msg:753002
 4:28 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

True,
I am seeing my site there ranking after his name, I see that my ODP description is showed and I notice that if you click twice on search you get a:
"Tip: Save time by hitting the return key instead of clicking on "search"."

steve40




msg:753003
 4:29 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

walkman
I am afraid i disagree with your ideas on amnesty , if you play with fire and get burnt so be it , we all have a choice to play with fire and I have seen some of the most senior members on this board say that did use black / grey hat in the beginning and decided to go to the white side purely for long term business goals
It's a chance you take by trying to skirt the rules
I do feel sorry for you as it sounds like you have been hit very hard but i suspect no amnesty will occur

P.S. I also suspect any who use G's email address to identify problems had better be sqeeky clean on all associated sites or could be clobbered even more

just my own views on life and the small world i know about
steve

soapystar




msg:753004
 4:34 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

you gotta feel sorry for googleguy...90% of emails are gonna be signed from either bigdave or europeforvisitors.. :)

march83




msg:753005
 4:34 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

On the above DCs I am getting about 20% extra results. Don't know if that means anything, just an observation. Also they aren't identical to pre-allegra as a few of my sites have moved up.

Kangol




msg:753006
 4:39 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

2005 most searched people
Elvis
GoogleGuy
Ben Laden
Paris Hilton

I am pretty sure that GoogleGuy and G stuff cannot handle all those mails. I did not wrote him because I am sure that my problem was already reported by somebody else.
Maybe we should create a syndicate and have representative communicating with them. You know like a union…

walkman




msg:753007
 4:40 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

steve40,
I see your point, however 95-98% of our sites (SEOs that follow WebmasterWorld and other SEO forums) are designed with Google in mind among other things. let's not kid ourselves.

forget about the webmaster for a second, Google needs to fix this. It is their product and it's in their interest to solve it. If you wear the gray and black hat you will get caught eventually. Bank on it. I just think it's more important for G to solve this than penalise 20-30 (already penalised) sites. It's volunteered info, so make believe you don't have it.

signed,
BigDave :)

max_mm




msg:753008
 4:41 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Our biggest mistake was to promote G to our viewers, family and clients all these years.

G is no longer the big fair authoravite search engine I thought and wished it was,
“Changing the web for the better” , LOL LOL LOL.

Seams like whatever algo/indexing criteria G is implementing now is purely and evidently designed to push millions of web developers WW into the G adwords program (if they wish to see any google hits on their logs). The new algo is clearly designed to take into account sites with adsense code on and to favour or kick out (off the serps) according to the adsense/adwords program targets and needs.

REGARDLESS OF THE CONTENT YOU ARE OFFERING TO YOUR VIEWERS, SITE QUALITY, BACKLINKES, SITE AGE etc. It doe’s not seam to matter anymore. It is now just about money and bottom lines and share holders meetings.

Watch them continue to round up the entire web and suffocate millions of small businesses around the world. If you think this algo affected a couple of your sites, just wait, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

It is now in every webmaster best interest to proactively promote to their viewers G’s competition or there will hardly be anyone visiting these board a year or two from now. The vast majority of us we’ll be too busy with our day jobs.

BTW GG
I have never seen the SERPs in such bad state. I did a search for a few popular sites I normally visit and all I could get were sites linking to these sites while the correct site is berried way far down the list. Great update/algo indeed.

My 50 cents per click ;)

[edited by: max_mm at 4:47 pm (utc) on Feb. 9, 2005]

This 610 message thread spans 21 pages: < < 610 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 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