| 10:10 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<-- The sites linking to me using the "go.php" and other 302-redirect scripts all have their cache dates set to 1969 -->
thats interesting, do u have a generic example?
| 10:41 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm still getting big swings. Main site was #9 before update, then #1 for 90% of yesterday, back to #9 today.
| 10:49 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
seems like Google is penalizing some pages (index in most cases) because too many inbound links are anchored with "domain.com". They might see this 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.
posted on another thread too, but didn't know this was opened
| 10:51 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In the small area I specialize (3m SERPS luxury items) the algo' doesn't seem to have affected SERPS drastically.
If anything, I have to concede, the SEPS are slightly more relevant now in that they now include all the major players in the first 20 (except our sandboxed site).
| 11:01 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
On page and title keywords less important (low frequency) and keyphrase does not need to be proximate.
Inbound links still very important while internal not so much (or even penalized with keyword repetition).
Subdomains/internal pages not featuring as they were pre update.
SERPS have been settled for a day for my keyphrase.
| 11:14 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, I just saw my first clear example of lsi. G tried this before, and it simply gutted the relevance out of this niche. Old, well established sites of a vaguely related term simply took over all the results.
This time it is a bit more balanced, but still ugly. The SERPs show about a 50% decline in relevance
This was on a very focused, specific query. A site I am associated with ranks #9, and is one of only 4 good results in the top 20. I have another site at #6 on this term that really ought to be outranked by at least a few more relevant ones. (But who's to complain:))
lsi has a long ways to go IMHO.
| 11:24 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I just saw my first clear example of lsi. |
I have seen quite a bit of it or at least some version of it. I donít think it is action across the index though.
| 11:29 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"....I think sites are being penalized temporarily to find out who the real owner of the content is... Once the scraper sites and 302-redirect sites are removed - the real sites will rise back up in the standings....."
Sounds like wishful thinking, but lets hope so....When I use the &filter=0 command I'm back at #1 for my main key words.
Allinurl:sitename.com shows sites redirecting to me, my url no longer shows up. I'll try and flush these out then see if that makes an improvement...Could be weeks before I know for sure.
| 12:08 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Was there an update?
I haven't noticed a thing on the sites I watch or searches I do. All have been pretty stable.
What did I miss?!?!?
| 12:16 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just went and analyzed the top two sites that compete for one of my key phrases. (One of the sites I created for another company).
1. Both have roughly the same keyword density for "Acme" that my site does--roughly 4% to 6%.
2. Both have the same PR as my site, which is PR 3.
3. Neither has as many incoming links as my site. Mine has double the number that one of the sites does, and five times the number that the site I created for the other company does. (Makes me want to go, "hmmm...."
4. My page title is "Acme Hammers. Acme Mallets. Acme Blue Mallets. Find Acme Mallets at MySite.com" My competitor's site's title is "Competitor.com--Acme Mallets including 2002 Special Edition Mallets." The site I created for another company has the page titled "Acme Hammer and Mallets." (Another difference that piques my interest).
6. The competitor's page uses much, much more table tags than does mine, while the page I created for the other company uses none.
7. The competitor's page doesn't use any H tags anywhere, the page I created for other company uses <h1>, and my page uses <h1> and <h2>.
8. The competitor's site, the site I created for the other company, and all of the other sites on the first page have been around for over two years. My site has only been around since last June.
Given that my site has now disappeared with the new algo, I hope the above is food for thought.
| 12:16 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i just made 2 checks at mcdar within 2 hours (last was right know)the data moves from one to the other so i don't think its over yet.
| 12:20 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm noticing HUGE changes but I doubt this is accurate. Right now, I rank great on all .akadns ones, supposedly the main one but the traffic is not showing it. To be fair they're moving every few minutes or so. I wonder if it's true or if Mcdar is shot.
IP Address Postion URL Returned
188.8.131.52 2 [www*domain*com...]
184.108.40.206 2 [www*domain*com...]
220.127.116.11 2 [www*domain*com...]
18.104.22.168 2 [www*domain*com...]
I just checked my other site, non-commercial: it is back to pre-302 redirect redirect bug. Close to 10,000 visitors today. My main commercial one has tanked.
"i just made 2 checks at mcdar within 2 hours (last was right know)the data moves from one to the other so i don't think its over yet. "
[edited by: walkman at 12:37 am (utc) on Feb. 10, 2005]
| 12:30 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
walkman is correct. I just ran through the datacenters my specially selected group of blatantly non-commercial search terms. (Since hardly any spammers would shoot for these SERPs, basically all variations between datacenters is due to the algo they are using.) I am seeing some *massive* variation between some of the datacenters. I say this dance is NOT OVER YET.
| 12:38 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i am #1 for my key word in 16 out of 33 DC's.
| 12:44 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This update is far from over. Never before has Google supposedly completed an update with half their DCs showing COMPLETELY different results.
| 1:23 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
At these two data centers, my pre allegra ranking has returned....this is far from over.
| 1:25 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The fact that these DCs' SERPS are changing every couple of minutes (from the UK) reinforces the idea that the storm is still rumbling.
| 1:37 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Right this post is a little off the top of my head here.
From what I can see is that those sites that have dissapeared (MIA'd whatever...) in Allegra are not even showing for their unique domain names. Only sites that link to them with their domain name as anchor text show as their domain name, generally in PR order.
Errr well... Let's all try and find significant new websites that have disapeared (I've seen a massive pseudo-gov.uk one here in the UK) and write their domain names in plain text on a PR 7 page and show up for their domain name! Simple idea. Easy way to steal traffic and show up Google's latest update mayhem...
| 1:42 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
what makes you so sure that google doesn't want it this way? I mean, what would be so bad about 2 sets of SERPS.
I don't see that it would be that bad IMO. They could even be tracking the SERPS to see which sites on which DC are being clicked on more often etc.
There are two sets of DC's and they have been stable like this for the past 3 days now, why haven't they changed? Maybe Google doesn't want them to change?
Anyway, my take on the update is: they have made duplicate content a major issue to stop the spammers from scraping your site and taking a snippet but in the process haven't really pulled it off properly.
Also - they haven't implemented the 301 correctly either. Eg: If I do a 301 to your website, Google will replace the Cached version of my site to be your website and well, give YOU the duplicate penalty instead of removing my 301 website.
| 1:47 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It just looks like an update of backlinks (maybe not "link:", but backlinks) and serps. I don't see anything that looks like a major algo change.
Kind of like the older days of Google when there was an update once a month.
| 2:02 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Has anyone else noticed increased prevalence of subpages? |
Suggy, I noticed that too. It is very obvious for a keyword combination I checked: only 5 index pages in the first 100 results.
| 3:20 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, beginning to wonder if Google is going to work with two sets of SERPs.
Day before, there were three sets, the old set, the changed set, and a mised set. I can see only the mixed and new set now. Interesting thing is, in the mixed set, real new and fresh content is no.1 in a category i keep checking.
My site is pure content - and as someone said here before, seems to be doing much better in the new SERPs (which many are complaining about) and a wee little bit worse in the mixed, fresher SERPs.
So is it going to settle down, or are we going to have 2 separate SERPs? Its already made life difficult when explaining some stuff to clients.
| 6:22 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My domain name is hyphenated (my-domain) so often search for a hyphenated key-word. Now, have never noticed the following before, but am not sure whether this is new or not...
SERPS report both
as results (highlighted on page) on a search for "key-word".
Other evidence suggests a stronger weighting to age of website than before.
| 6:57 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Has anyone else noticed increased prevalence of subpages? |
I have suggy, in a number of sites I monitor.
I have also noticed that a few sites appear to now be out of the sandbox with their deep linked pages while others are now in it.
The serps for my main site have returned to pre-florida, wonder if it has to do with how long the site has been up. It's like, Google checks to make sure your site is valid over a period of time.
| 9:02 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As has been said the update is not complete, 2 different DC's give wildly different results, one set very good the other the worst I can recall seeing on Google.
I also think there are serious flaws with allegra, sites are being dumped in a random nature, I am seeing sites just standard html, no link programs, no ads etc vanilla squeaky clean just disappearing but others much the same remain unchanged.
We need to wait and see!
| 9:10 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Googleguy's tone at this post...
gives me the impression this is the update, done. I don't see why he would be asking for feedback in the middle of the process. Wouldn't he just say "whoa there nelly, chill, we ain't finished yet?" if it were still ongoing?
Don't hold your breathe!
| 9:19 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My site has considrably benefited from this update. Visitors went from <200 to >600 a day. I know this is not very much in total and it is a less competitive area, but here are my observations:
i added a few dozen pages in January, designed as a sort of "dictionary" on widgets. Title and page name comprise a combination of widget plus one or two other words, connected by '-' plus '.php' the body contains a random selection of ten pictures=shop-deeplinks on widgets, plus a few outbound links (!) to similar pages, even competitors, together with a few lines of relevant (!) text from those pages.
If searching for one of the exact phrases these pages were designed for, my results are always among the top ten. To me this supports
1) the relevance of title (and url) plus keyword in body-text
2) the relevance of outbound links
though both as a neither neccesary nor sufficient condition, just as a support.
But amazingly my whole site has also benefited on its broader embracing terms. The main page went from #23 to 2 or 3 (still jumping). I assume it is now accepted as an authority because of its relevant outbound links.
Let me also add two more observations:
1) Google has considarably improved its search on pictures (note the new link on the start-page), and I'm sure we might gain significant insights in the new algos from that.
2) Take a look at maps.google.com. There google offers searches like 'townA to townB', 'pizza stores near abbey road' and the like. Note the use of those particles of localization which are obviously added to the logical operators of ordinary site-search. to me this indicates a considerable step forward on linguisitc analysis of websites, not only by LSI but other yet undiscovered features. I guess a thorrough analysis of this recent update will take a long long time.
Also: the no-rel-tag issue, but this doesn't affect me.
We definitely need means to automate our analysis of new algos. A database to register the ups and downs of pages before and after such updates.
| 9:38 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am still getting two sets of SERPs.
Both don't seem to be giving up!
This post is 4 hours after my last post saying the same.
Then again, why would Googleguy ask for feedback? I if I want to give him feedback, which SERP would I base it on...
| 10:32 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Perspective from a new user.
My site has also been removed from the main data centers. I donít think it is an algo change because it went form a PR 4 to a PR5 in the Google directory but not yet on the Google toolbar. It looks like growing pains from Google with a bandwidth problem.
By that I mean a forced update before the deep-crawl was finished?
| 10:37 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone noticed their site go in and out of the sandbox many times a day?
| 10:52 am on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
thats not your site going in and out of the sandbox.
Its different datacenters serving different results - one where you are prominent and one where you are not.
| This 114 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 114 ( 1  3 4 ) > > |