homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.166.171
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 ... 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.

 

Unca_Tim




msg:753068
 8:45 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks Jakpot,
I've been reading and following this forum since "Florida".

Currently I have titles/snippets for all of my site, other than when I do the search described in my previous post. My main page is displayed with title/snippet for keyword searches, but buried deep for all the searches I used to rank well for.

BillyS




msg:753069
 9:01 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I saw something interesting on 64.233.171.99 today, it is still there. (Hope this is not a repeat.)

When searching for my website via its name, the description appearing in the search results is from the Directory listing. These are the exact words from DMoz and do not appear anywhere on the website at all as written. Anyone else seeing this?

Papagaio




msg:753070
 9:06 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've been trying to find out, but my "new thread" posts on the subject are on hold for whatever reason -- How do you tell which data centers have been updated, and which have not? I'm getting vastly different results on different data centers. It would be very helpful to know which are the updated results and which are not.

Thanks in advance...

diddlydazz




msg:753071
 9:08 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

<-- It would be very helpful to know which are the updated results and which are not -->

if you find out sticky me first :o)

dazz

cabbie




msg:753072
 9:21 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>if you find out sticky me first )

Me 2nd.
If someone thinks its over can they give me the DC for the new serps.My google.com still fluctuates greatly to me.

Jon_King




msg:753073
 9:29 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just checked 15 data centers. The update is not over, the results are too dissimilar.

walkman




msg:753074
 9:35 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

"The update is not over. "
I hope my neighbor that started singing is wrong ;). The consensus seem to be that many index pages aren't ranking well on both DC versions. Some rank well on one, others on another. Very weird, and lets hope we see some tweaking on the filter that caught us.

SoleDrag




msg:753075
 9:37 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I know I'm in the minority, but the results look much cleaner to me.

extra chrisb




msg:753076
 9:43 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I like the results better too from both an SEO perspective and from the increased relevance I am experiencing as a regular Google web searcher.

g1smd




msg:753077
 9:47 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hmm, a few hours ago I reported on a search with 42.2 million results. That has grown to 43.2 million on google.com in just a few hours now.

On the 64.. datacentre the 60 million results search I mentioned earlier has now grown to 64.3 million results; and this was for a term reporting much less than 20 million results right before the big expansion of numbers just a few months ago.

Are these numbers real?

.

A different search, one with just 21 results, and consistent for the last few months, suddenly grew to 23 results today (on the 64.. datacentre). The two new pages have cache dates of 2004-12-04 and 2004-12-16. Those two pages have actually been online for several years with only minor tweaking of their content about a year ago. Why would Google hang on to the data about those pages for so long before finally adding it to the index? Additionally, I see that the search has now grown to say "1 to 23, of about 26", so I am now wondering if another 3 pages are about to pop out.

.

I see some fresh dates on PDF files here and there (and I know their content has not changed). Not seen fresh dates on PDF files before.

I see some fresh dates (in 64.. datacentre) on HTML pages where the cache date is still weeks or months old.

[edited by: g1smd at 9:49 pm (utc) on Feb. 9, 2005]

Kangol




msg:753078
 9:47 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

BillyS,
Yes the some DCs, the good ones in my opinion, are showing the DMOZ description. I think that its an interesting thing: Google is combining an automated result based on an algorithm with a human vote of confidence and tries to offer a relevant result.

ltedesco




msg:753079
 9:49 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't like the new results, I search for a keyword and the results show 2 identical sites, with different domains (duplicate) and it doesn't have what I am looking for.

Jon_King




msg:753080
 9:59 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>I know I'm in the minority, but the results look much cleaner to me.

Results are what they are. No minority, just report what you are seeing....

OptiRex




msg:753081
 10:00 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

SoleDrag
I know I'm in the minority, but the results look much cleaner to me.

Me too, you're only reading about the guys who're having a problem, not the ones who have benefited.

Kangol




msg:753082
 10:02 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

We are partials judging the SEPR. It depends after our interest. There can be a big debate on witch SEPR are better.
I like the SEPR on witch my site, and other, comes out after his name.

With any update there will be webmasters that complain, its normal if one goes up one must come down. I would not post today if my site would skip a couple of places due to an algo change or due to the fact that my competition went ahead but in this case I feel that something is not working proper.

OptiRex




msg:753083
 10:02 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

it doesn't have what I am looking for.

But does it have what someone else may be looking for with the same search term?

diddlydazz




msg:753084
 10:14 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

not sure if has been said before but is it possible that the sharp increases in results on the diff DCs are sandboxed sites making a slow comeback?

anyone have an example of a sandboxed site that is now solid in the SERPS?

dazz

<edit>clarity</edit>

dickbaker




msg:753085
 10:25 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)


"anyone have an example of a sandboxed site that is now solid in the SERPS?"

Mine was sandboxed, then started to rank for a variety of terms. Not exceptional rankings, but it was moving up.

Then it disappeared completely. I can find it on one datacenter.

walkman




msg:753086
 10:32 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

could it be that Google is penalizing us because too many links are anchored with "domain.com"? They see it as a link scheme and don't distinguish it from "keyword1 keyword2 keyword3". Once that happens you're sandboxed until the situation is remedied.

I'm trying to understand why the spammy link pages are ranking before many of the established sites. It's very strange

[edited by: walkman at 10:36 pm (utc) on Feb. 9, 2005]

nzmatt




msg:753087
 10:33 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

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

I for one, have been remedying this for several weeks now.

nzmatt




msg:753088
 10:43 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebFusion,
since you chose to misread the post, what's your URL? Put it on your profile. Show us mortals how it's done. Teach us a lesson!

I second this...

idoc




msg:753089
 11:17 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

"trying to understand why the spammy link pages are ranking before many of the established sites"

Hate to be a conspiracist, but the spammy sites in my one case where this happening all have adwords at the top of them. Also, just recently a competitor began buying hits on adwords on the company's registered name. It is a contrived name.. in other words not a dictionary word or otherwise a keyword at all. Now that the term is a "pay for click" adword maybe it falls under the money keyword filter that also doesn't overtly exist and we are being penalized for it being all over the site and for being the domain name etc. (maybe a bit cynical I know) ;)

cityboss




msg:753090
 2:06 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is there any kind of consensus evolving on this thread as to what about the Google algorythm changed?

xcomm




msg:753091
 2:53 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I see more Google referers landing on my main page instead of the pages created for the special search terms. This looks something like the MSNBeta issue when they startet to bring traffic to secondary related pages on a site.

This would also match to the posts here claiming their self created domain name is lost to seconday pages linking to them.

BTW: Some of my sandboxed content pages (not my top pages I would think - more 2nd grade pages) getting more traffic from big G now. So G! may not have solved the sandbox issue but swapped in some older sites in exchange for some 6 month plus ones.

Liane




msg:753092
 3:21 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I know I'm in the minority, but the results look much cleaner to me.

Actually, if you count the number of "unique" posters in this thread versus the naysayers in the original update thread ... I think the general concensus is on your side of the argument. Good job Google! ;)

In any update, some win ... some lose. Its only the losers who become very vocal and post over and over again about how "bad" the update is, how "poor" the search results are and how they plan to let everyone they know (including their customers) in on the fact that Google sucks!

Truth of the matter is ... Google is still number 1 and the sooner everyone comes to terms with that fact, the sooner they can start helping themselves and their customers.

People who are hurting tend to lash out. Its understandable and its human nature after all. We've all been there. But we also have to get over life's tragedies and get a grip. The sooner ... the better.

Now ... right now ... this minute ... is the time to get down to some serious analysis of your individual sites and get busy making things right with the world. Take care of business guys. All is not lost!

Best of luck in the coming months everyone ... I'm off to do some tweaking myself! :)

xcomm




msg:753093
 4:17 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Liane,

Truth of the matter is ... Google is still number 1 and the sooner everyone comes to terms with that fact, the sooner they can start helping themselves and their customers.

For me personaly Yahoo! is the best engine this days!
MSN is also needed to shake it up.
But I must admit Google may have done a little step to the better (with new gliches as the domain issue by its way).

Nevertheless I will relate the image Google has in the public to some more realistic view to all the people arround me who trust my judgement. There need to be a more open market and mind in searching the Web!

BTW: I see the sandbox as a real crime Google has done to the Internet not being able to do their basic job but able to open a new shop every week the altavista way.

guddu




msg:753094
 4:53 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

On Google.com I see a complete rollback. The sites that came out of sandbox are again buried in sand. But in different datacentres, I can still view the new Google results and these are of course better. I saw lot of authority sites ranking well in the new results.

Atleast the websites that have been sandboxed due to bad link neighbourhood, i.e., links through other directories and websites that hijack webpages should be allowed to come out of the sandbox.

I hope when the update is over, it is the new Google algo that follows.

Marshall Clark




msg:753095
 5:09 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm still seeing Google boucing between two sets of results. On one I'm buried for my own company name - on the other things are decidedly better.

walkman




msg:753096
 5:09 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

"On Google.com I see a complete rollback. "
if I'm not mistaken, there's no one google.com, meaning that depending where you live you might see different results. Different DCs still have drastic differences

guddu




msg:753097
 5:19 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dear Walkman,

What I meant was if you search for results in Google as a layman, you see complete rollback. www.Google.com is the one anyone as user would use in general.

Different datacentres are for SEOs and webmasters who take keen interest in search engine algorithms.

I hope now I make myself clear.

Regards

[edited by: guddu at 5:20 am (utc) on Feb. 10, 2005]

natural number




msg:753098
 5:20 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

whoomp there it is.... it takes a while for this update to update, but the newer serps on some of the dcs are going moreso to better results. ones that i think are more sensible for my kw.... wowsers i am using lots of lingo. stay cool, in the long run the best site will prevail.

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