homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.67.26
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
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 417 message thread spans 14 pages: < < 417 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 > >     
Backlinks updated Today
Marval




msg:743570
 10:23 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Noted a change in backlinks starting today - seems a small increase across sites I look at

 

tigger




msg:743840
 9:47 am on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

yep starting to see some positive movement again back in the top 3 :)

MHes




msg:743841
 11:05 am on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes, older pages on sites seem to be back to positions a few months ago but new pages (on an established site) made in the last few months are still down in my case.

newwebster




msg:743842
 2:08 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

64.233.183.104

This data center seems to more up to date as far as factoring backlinks in. SERPS seem more accurate in the areas that I follow as well.

jgbmarc




msg:743843
 2:38 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

this thread is comical..

bekyed




msg:743844
 2:46 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

jgbmarc

If you are going to make comments. please make them on topic or dont make comments at all.

Bek

reseller




msg:743845
 2:50 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have also noticed a change in backlinks today to the posative direction :-)

Not much improvement in traffic from G though. However, Y is sending more and more targeted visitors at present.

I have a feeling that I should change soon the headlines at the body of my pages. Change all <h1>/<h2> to font size and color (1,2 & 3 in black in my case) which match the rest of the of content of pages. This might make G happy .. but how about Y and MSN?

Rugles




msg:743846
 3:43 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am with jgbmarc, it is funny.

It seems to me that were are in a never ending, rolling, morphing, SEO frustrating, dynamic, dc jumping update cycle.

It is no use making any major changes to your website anymore.

If you don't like the SERPS you see, wait 12 hours!

randle




msg:743847
 3:48 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have also noticed a change in backlinks today

How are you guys determining this in Google?

newwebster




msg:743848
 4:11 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Rugles

With all due respect, I fail to see what is funny about analyzing data in order to understand what Google is doing and adapt to changes as necessary. By webmasters posting their observations here, we can share these observations and come to some feeling as to what is happening. Additionally, this update has been going on since the first part of Feb and it is more than just everflux, new crawl data, or PR calculation. Google is making changes to how they process data for ranking and are using various backlink data for testing.

SEOPTI




msg:743849
 4:15 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

64.233.183.104

No, this one contains old links.

taps




msg:743850
 4:36 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

since yesterday afternoon (early morning pacific time) I can see some slight improvement in user numbers. It is still far back behind pre-Allegra figures but it's a start.

My impression is that referals from google are changing - I have a dump and a peek every few hours. I think it depends on which DC provides the serps.

Rugles




msg:743851
 4:48 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>adapt to changes as necessary

I completely understand that, that is why I joined this forum several years ago.

However, in the current climate (everflux for ever) does it make sense to make any radical changes to your code? I mean, by the time you adapt, google has gone and changed the algo again. Leaving you forever one algo behind.

When people ask me how to optimize for google these days. I just tell that once you get a page ranking well, stop tweaking and start adding content and get links. This plan has worked for several sites I manage for over a year now.

BillyS




msg:743852
 4:48 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Like clockwork, I am currently being served google.com results from 64.233.161.104 right now.

These results seem far more accurate with respect to the actual number of pages I have in my website. They are only served for about an hour each day.

newwebster




msg:743853
 5:05 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

64.233.183.104
No, this one contains old links.

You can not look at Google's backlink garbage and make any kind of conclusion. Google has been showing the same 2 sets of backlinks for the past 2 months.

What they are "showing" in backlinks and what they are processing are 2 different things.

newwebster




msg:743854
 5:18 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

However, in the current climate (everflux for ever) does it make sense to make any radical changes to your code? I mean, by the time you adapt, google has gone and changed the algo again. Leaving you forever one algo behind.

When people ask me how to optimize for google these days. I just tell that once you get a page ranking well, stop tweaking and start adding content and get links. This plan has worked for several sites I manage for over a year now.

Actually, I totally agree with you. I do not plan and changing anything anytime soon. But, by observing and understanding the changes that Google makes over a period of time will help you understand what the implications are if you do change something down the road.

Most of what I am observing in this update has to do with external backlink processing anyway.

reseller




msg:743855
 8:18 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

"However, in the current climate (everflux for ever) does it make sense to make any radical changes to your code? I mean, by the time you adapt, google has gone and changed the algo again. Leaving you forever one algo behind.

When people ask me how to optimize for google these days. I just tell that once you get a page ranking well, stop tweaking and start adding content and get links."

Ok..here are my personal thoughts on this subject, and I might be VERY VERY wrong on this one :)

I believe that Google is moving in entirely different direction (policy) than what we have been used to and the algo will just serve the new policy. In short IT´S ALL ABOUT MONEY and shareholders satisfaction. Today Google is neither for searchers nor for publishers (webmasters). It is for shareholders and their ROI.

The continuous instability of search results, page ranking and backlinks illustrates a continuous tweaking process and maybe testing several sets of algo. The aim of Google is to make it rather difficult for any white hat SEO and spammers to achieve continuous stable top ranking on the serps. Hence forcing, at least commercial sites, to purchase Adwords/Adsense and hence more profit for Google shareholders.
And this can be achieved by for example serving different sets of results pr. week, pr day or even pr. hour.

Its therefor some of us are witnessing exchange of top ranking for a period and low ranking or even total absence on the serps.

The problem is that once Google chose to ignor the logic of white hat SEO, as it might be doing now, there will be the risk that searchers end up with very low quality search results and land on irrelevant pages.
And that what I´m experiencing at present and other friends have mentioned the same on this thread and/or other thread.

The question now is: should we wait and see or should we start doing som test/changes in an attempt to get more qualified traffic?

europeforvisitors




msg:743856
 9:19 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

The aim of Google is to make it rather difficult for any white hat SEO and spammers to achieve continuous stable top ranking on the serps. Hence forcing, at least commercial sites, to purchase Adwords/Adsense and hence more profit for Google shareholders.

The trouble with that logic is that editorial sites are being hit, too, and Google knows that the economics of content publishing seldom make PPC a viable way to obtain traffic.

Plus, if Google really wanted to force commercial sites to buy AdWords/AdSense ads, affiliate and e-commerce pages wouldn't be ranking as high in the SERPs (whether those SERPs are rotating or not) as they often do.

In my opinion, the changes in Google's SERPs (regardless of what thinks of their quality) simply reflect the difficulty of balancing all of the elements that go into determining the results for any given search query--especially at a time when the Web is being flooded with exponential growth in autogenerated directories, scraper sites, review sites with user-created content, etc.

steveb




msg:743857
 10:12 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

People should stop thinking the areas of Google that are a mess (they do some things great) are deliberate.

They don't deliberately have listings in their index for pages that have been deleted off the Internet for over a year.

They do not deliberately for reasons of quality keep such non-existent pages in the index even when you link to them and they crawl to the 404 location... while removing in a week regular/dead pages under the same circumstance.

Just two obvious examples of Google's technical failures. In a way it's a miracle the algo does as well as it does given their problems.

That doesn't excuse ripping the niche authority knob off the wall of course...

Rugles




msg:743858
 10:16 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>>The aim of Google is to make it rather difficult for any white hat SEO and spammers to achieve continuous stable top ranking on the serps.

Oh Ya! That is exactly my impression the everfluxing everflux.

I deleted a sentance from my post that said the same thing.

mfishy




msg:743859
 10:19 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

<<That doesn't excuse ripping the niche authority knob off the wall of course...>>

Yah, I can't get past this though. I would think this would bother all publishers I guess.

reseller




msg:743860
 10:26 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

"In my opinion, the changes in Google's SERPs (regardless of what thinks of their quality) simply reflect the difficulty of balancing all of the elements that go into determining the results for any given search query--especially ..."

Thanks for feedback.

You might be right ..and you might be wrong :)

But we need here to add time factor to your and my assumption. We use to operate with time factors regarding dances per month and major/minor updates per few months or a year etc. Now we need to have a time factor to what you describe as "difficulty of balancing". How long such difficulty will last and how often is Google going to face such a case?

Because if the time factor of the state of "difficulty of balancing" shall be for example 6 months or 12 months, then we are talking about a permanent element/status and not a unique incident. Hence we should talk about Google operating with constant "rotating" sets of results and accordingly sets of algo.

Because nor GG or any Google source have indicated anytime that Google is facing "difficulty of balancing", then we can assume that whats happening now is under Google´s full control. Which coincide with my thoughts posted at my previous post.

Spine




msg:743861
 11:32 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dammit, for me this update is turning into a replay of the fall, when my site was hit badly by the update on the 23rd of September.

My site came back in mid December, went along well until the March 23rd update, which has pretty much wiped me out again.

I don't get it.

Has anybody been badly beat down by this update who was also affected Sept 23rd 2004?

DslLmi




msg:743862
 11:35 pm on Mar 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have a few diffrent sites that were hurt by this update!

Atticus




msg:743863
 12:09 am on Mar 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

Spine,

I also took a big hit on Sept. 23, came back on Dec. 19 better than ever, but I crashed and burned on Feb. 2 and have been being picked at little by little ever since then.

Rollo




msg:743864
 12:28 am on Mar 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

Atticus,

You and me both... that has been almost exactly my pattern.

Does anyone have any predictions when PR is going to be updated?

BillyS




msg:743865
 1:58 am on Mar 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

Does anyone have any predictions when PR is going to be updated?

This Saturday it will start, by Monday everything is populated... Google Luck everyone!

webmasterguy




msg:743866
 3:31 am on Mar 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

PR update will be earlier than Sat -

2morrow or Friday at the latest!

dazzlindonna




msg:743867
 3:43 am on Mar 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

I also took a big hit on Sept. 23, came back on Dec. 19 better than ever, but I crashed and burned on Feb. 2 and have been being picked at little by little ever since then.

This statement, along with many other posts around that discuss flip-flopping of old/new cache, old/new backlinks, old/new indexed pages, etc., leads me to wonder if this whole cycle has been caused by old data being used at times and new data being used at times.

We've all seen this before, throughout the years, but in a much narrower context. There have been times where Google has reverted to old data for one reason or another, but this seems to be a constant flipflop between old and new. I don't want this to sound like I know this to be true, but it was just a thought that keeps coming back to haunt me. Does Google have a handle on its data?

Spine




msg:743868
 4:37 am on Mar 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

The fact that others who had problems from Sept 23rd to Dec 19th are having problems again is a little scary.

Then again people like europeforvisitors didn't have a problem back in the fall, so maybe there are other factors involved with this 'issue'.

I'm looking forward to the PR update that's predicted, or anything else that can put my site where it should be.

I can't handle another 3 month span with my Google traffic down by 75% - the stress - arrghhhh!

RonS




msg:743869
 4:44 am on Mar 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's hard to catch up with a 300 (now 301) post thread, but perhaps alot of Google's fluctuations have to do with the roll-out of rel="nofollow" and the massive changes and instability in backlinks that would follow.... maybe? Perhaps the number of links to follow on the web suddenly dropped by a large percentage as blog software adopts the policy?

Not even sure this makes any sense.

blend27




msg:743870
 4:47 am on Mar 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

I see some realy strange things with this update as well.

One of the domain names i've purchased, if i look at the cached date in the snipet Mar 30, 2005 - Cached -, but if I click on the chache page link, it shows me cached page as retrieved on May 20, 2004 04:52:33 GMT.

Thats realy odd. 64.233.179.104

This 417 message thread spans 14 pages: < < 417 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 > >
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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved