| 1:06 am on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm out of the sandbox and back in the listings... Anyone else experience this within the last couple of hours? Could this be a big update or perhaps is Google toying with my feeble emotions again?
I haven't seen these SERPS for my sample keywords before, not even in the data centers.
| 4:10 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing some changes on 126.96.36.199. I did not have time to check out the other DCs. For one term I monitor I see one MIA site ranking as it should and one on my site is ranking on #1 for its name.
Anyone sees any changes? Could this be the start of a new set of changes?
| 11:06 am on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hi, do you guys know what's going on with Google? My backlink count is still fluctuating after 3 weeks of dance. I understand Google is using different database, but shouldn't it stay in one that settles with the backlink count?
| 1:30 am on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Many of us occasionally drop in rank, and wonder why.
What new criteria are being applied in a new algo?
What are we doing that worked before but doesn't seem to work anymore, what can we correct or change to get back to our previous rank?
Rather than cry and complain threads (there is never anything imperfect in G serps, there is only reality), this one is for success stories, and why we think it happened.
Only one of my domain pages (in a highly competitive industry) suddenly dropped rank in serps since Allegra, so I switched priorities and let content expansion ride for a while whilst I redesigned anything and everything I could think of (and read about here in WebmasterWorld) that might help to win the love and respect of the current G algo.
Nothing seemed to help.
The other day, I looked closely at what brief description text G picked out of my pages, and I was disappointed, not what I would like or expect to see.
I came to the conclusion (for what it's worth) that G gave more weight to text in outer tables irrespective of keyword density and h1 tags throughout the page, over text in inner tables. So I changed that.
Bingo! As the robot revisits, ranking for those pages is back up higher.
My conclusion may be wrong (could be something else has happened), it may not work for you, but either way I'm sure we are all eager to hear success story reasonings, rightly or wrongly interpreted.
Anyone else here with morale boosting reasonings ................
| 12:13 am on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
These two are showing me different results and the updated number is showing on www.google.com right now.
| 5:58 pm on Feb 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Noted last night that the datacenters all went askew and backlinks were different on some of the datacenters (including the old reliable check of Yahoo.com)
Im still seeing major dancing this morning on a lot of datacenters with a (non-freshie) new index that seems to have 1/4 the results that just showed itself late yesterday - seems to have many ups and downs.
| 10:15 pm on Feb 23, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We recently added a large number of pages to our site. We saw them being spidered by googlebot and they would show up (most with URL only) when doing an inurl: search for our domain name. So we know Google found them, and we measured the increase in results for this search at almost 50%. However, when we did a site: search for a term on all of our pages (to see how many pages have been fully indexed) the number of results decreased (vs. the previous month) by about 30%. After some time this second number bounced back up to 150% of the original value, where we thought it should be all along.
One hypothesis is that Google found the new pages, said "I'm starting over" and rebuilt its index of our site from 0, which is why we saw our site:domain.com results decrease.
Has anyone else seen something like this happen, or is it more likely Google's recent update that we're seeing?
| 12:10 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I hope results like these on 188.8.131.52 will not settle. My sites are represented very poorely on this IP - even worse than after Allegra.
Hoever on .de I can see my site ranked a little higher than before on a strong keyword (#3 before allegra, down to low 40ies after allegra, now back on #17).
Let's see what will happen.
| 2:07 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm sorry. Would you mind elaborate on this conclusion a bit more?
"I came to the conclusion (for what it's worth) that G gave more weight to text in outer tables irrespective of keyword density and h1 tags throughout the page, over text in inner tables. So I changed that."
| 2:17 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|These two are showing me different results and the updated number is showing on www.google.com right now. |
On these data centres, the SERPS show one of my pages with the old (February 28th) title & description, whereas in the cache it shows the new updated (March 1st) page. On google.com both the latest title, description and cache are shown.
So those data centres seem to show slighly older information.
Is this significant?
| 2:30 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
probably is a new update ,my non comercial small site that vanished with no reason 2/2/05 is back slowly 3 days ago in a few DCcenters ,today is in 18 DCenters.
| 2:35 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This data center seems more updated even though there are no fresh tags.
| 2:42 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
check mcdar for your KW,s
results seems to be stabilized in 18 Dcenters
| 3:02 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Nevermind, just more Google games... back in the sandbox again.
| 3:03 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
it looks like no game to me
| 3:23 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
don't waste your time on the DCs. I did that enough, only to be disappointed time after time. Google will do what Google wants to do, no matter how much we look.
| 4:05 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
About outer/inner tables.
On one page I had all content (> 1000 words) in an overall table, except for one line of small print (font 1) at the bottom of the page thus not included in the overall table. That bottom line is what G picked up as the site description for serps!
After removing the line, the page picked up in serps again and got a decent description.
That example is extreme, but similar happened with tables in tables in tables. An outer one had some irrelevant text for the site theme, an inner table had the title with H1, but the title seems to have been ignored, and the irrelevant text got used as description, which makes it logical to me that my keywords weren't getting noticed and would explain a drop in serps. Redoing the tables hierarchy got me a better description and improved ranking.
I triple checked for possible html errors since it seemed very strange, but there were none. Weird.
| 4:16 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This data center seems more updated even though there are no fresh tags.
On my search, that one seems more out of date than the one I mentioned abouve. Even the cache is saying 21st February, the other one had a cache date of ist March, even if it did have an old description.
| 4:21 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am out of the sandbox for one site on 184.108.40.206
| 1:33 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I dont se ANY signs of a new update or linkback update sorry, I think its just a little flux.
I do think we will see something late next week
| 2:06 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have seen three different backlink counts in the last 24 hours. Normal slight movements in SERPS. Don't know if it qualifies as an update, but it is odd.
| 2:34 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'd been sandboxed by Google (site went through a major redesign mid-Jan 2005), but still ranks #1 on both MSN and Yahoo. I have been watching my stats using mcdar's and #*$!'s tools almost daily.
Nothing major seemed to change for weeks (since about Feb 10th), but now some things are definitely shifting around for me...
In the last few days, my site went from:
to 24 zeros / 6 1's
to 20 zeros / 10 1's
to 24 zeros / 6 1's
to 16 zeros / 14 1's
(The zeros were probably actually in the 400's, but #*$! truncates at 100)
fluctuated between 2-6 DC C-clocks showed 1st place, others ranked between #420-460
6-8 DC C-blocks now show 1st place, others still in the 400's
If I had to describe the behavior I'm seeing, it's as if I'm watching my site "come of age" out of the sandbox. I'm also seeing more of my site's pages with the datestamp in green (freshtag?). Old pages that no longer exist on my site (they were 301'd but remained cached in Google) are now finally dropping out of the SERPs when I search mydomain.com
Quite fascinating to monitor these changes!
[author: why does "scr__gle" get turned into "#*$!"?]
[edited by: lego_maniac at 2:38 am (utc) on Mar. 3, 2005]
| 2:35 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
We have seen a lot of odd, weird and strange things during the last few weeks - don't we? ;-)
However, for around three weeks i had a great choice between 3 different backlink figures from different dcs ... now they have stabilized.
For how long? :-)
| 2:36 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No obvious change in backlinks for me but it appears a big weight has been removed from many of my pages and are now appearing back in the top 3 for keywords that stopped working for me on Feb 2. This is on whatever the default Google.com is for me (...57.99)
| 2:42 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing what could be called a minor update, or some serious flux. The problem is that we don't have the monthly Google dances of days gone by. There is no agreed upon term for these minor updates today.
| 2:47 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Absolutely no movement for me. Not even minimal.
| 3:57 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Same search on two different datacenters yields these #s:
Results 1 - 10 of about 22,300,000
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,740,000
3 days ago 4 -5 million was returned and prior to Allegra 2.2 million was the norm.
Dont know what you call it, but this isnt the normal flux.
| 5:59 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Somebody at Google noticed the authority knob had been accidentally turned up for a couple weeks to .0000000000732, so they got the pipe wrench out and snapped it back down to .0000000000131
| 7:23 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just had about 90 backlinks added using the google link: command.
| This 145 message thread spans 5 pages: 145 (  2 3 4 5 ) > > |