| 2:28 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Reseller - I am not really seeing anything special about those two dcs.
My Google.com is currently 18.104.22.168
While Google.co.uk is currently 22.214.171.124
| 2:28 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"If it takes a 2x4 to convince Google my site is worthy of the top spot"
That's great. Problem is, by the time you convince them by changing your entire site around, they're likely to tell you they liked it better the first time.
Getting back to the update; looks like the same old cr*p to me. Links,links,links, anchor text, anchor text.
I'm really starting to hate Google. They're doing way more harm than good to the internet with their stupid "trust rank", "page rank", "aged links", blah blah blah. It's no wonder you can't find any decent sites any more, all the webmasters are out working on their link campaigns instead creating quality sites. If this is the best 200 phd's can come up with, somebody with some common sense needs to get in there and kick some serious butt.
| 2:35 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am not going to switch hosts, but I am putting all new content on a new website, which I hope will consolidate my position. Since my current position is in the sewers, this may not be a good thing...
It's difficult to believe the same Google engineers that are too inept to figure out your www. and non-www. pages are the same are trusted to implement something as sophisticated as "TrustRank."
If such a thing exists, I might very well be a victim of it. Victim of my own link popularity? I can hear the violins.
| 2:40 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks. Much appreciated.
But when you run a query of the same keyphrase/keyword on google.com , do you get the same top 5 sites as per the two DCs I mentioned?
| 2:41 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The allegra update took me out of the sandbox for 3 months. I use standard white hat seo. This bourbon update vanished me, but I think it would be stupid to go changing every single page so the keyphrase does not repeat as much. I think theres more to it than that. Perhaps Google applies a filter to 50 percent of the websites that were doing well, and lets the other 50 percent in their index for this update to be fair to everyone that does honest seo. There are so many webpages, that you can't rank everyone number 1-10. So maybe Google is just giving webmasters who have a fairly new site, a site that gets maybe 0-10,000 visitors per day, chances every other update? So far, I have been alternated. 9 months, in sandbox. Next update, out of sandbox. This update, back in sandbox. Perhaps next update, I will be back in their index. Who knows, just a thought.
| 2:44 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Nope - you must be just hitting those DCs. If you ping Google.com you will see which datacenters you are accessing.
Also check out the sticky I have sent you.
| 2:44 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree 100% with your post that Google is ruining the web by making webmasters work on rankings instead of content. Kind of like the US tax code: it's so bloated, everybody needs an expert to sort it out.
Pissed at Ph.D. morons more and more every day.
| 2:47 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Educational site with some "commercial" pages (say about 5% of total pages at this point). Lost about 80% of google traffic in mid-Dec. Lost most of rest of google traffic after update at beginning of Feb. Site not found in serps for site name.
Since then, resolved a 302 redirect problem and dup content issues. And google changed the way they're handling the canonical stuff (per googleguy). Over past 6 weeks google traffic had come back to about 80% of mid-Dec level. Site moved up to #3 for site name (used to be #1), and three main subpages were back to #1 for their name.
Since Bourbon, google traffic is off about 60-70% and site is not found in first 30 serps (didn't look further) for site name. Three main subpages are not in first 30 for their name.
Was just beginning to add more content, since I now had some visitors to see it. Guess I'll go work on something else...
[edited by: bether2 at 2:51 pm (utc) on May 22, 2005]
| 2:49 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
abbeyvet, are your clients' sites relatively new (< 9 months)? Sounds like they're in the sandbox.
| 2:52 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|have you considered the possibility that what you've been experiencing since February could be some sort of implementation of Trustrank? |
Many of my incoming links are "old" and may be devalued because of their age. But they're all organic - I've never run any kind of link campaign - and because of the variety of books I review they're pretty diverse. So I have links from techie sites to my computing reviews, links from academic sites to my history and science reviews, links from literary sites to my literature reviews, etc.
In any event, the structure of my incoming/outgoing links has been pretty stable, so I can't see how Google's algorithms for evaluating trust could move my site from "sort of trusted" (November) to "most highly trusted" (in December/January) to "suspect" (February to May) and now "totally untrustworthy" -- or if they have, how I can possibly track them so as to stay trusted!
| 3:07 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One thing I've noticed is that numbers for the following haven't changed at all for my domain since this update began:
Is this normal?
| 3:14 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You're a prime example of what's wrong with the current Google algo and why nobody should be betting their future on their Google rankings.
If somebody searches "specific book review" and visits your site, it's not hard to tell if they found valuable info or not. If they spent a significant amount of time there, they obviously found your site suited there interest. And that's all that should matter! I always check my page views and time spent as an indicator of what people think of my site.
That's not hard for google either with all the google toolbars out there.
The same goes for spam and scraper sites. If the visitor hits the site and they're 3 seconds and out, not to return, than it's obviously just a scraper/directory/spam, whatever! There's no need for this ridiculous "sandbox" or whatever you want to call it. Let the surfer decide. Sheesh........
| 3:23 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
dont forget the lag involved in these evolving uodates.
| 3:25 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I must say, we haven't seen any difference in the newest website we built, and hope this will be the update to make a difference.
| 3:26 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The only time I have trouble getting a website better listings is if it is a new website.
I think that says something in itself.
| 3:35 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i can see movement again on
126.96.36.199 (better for me)
| 3:37 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|abbeyvet, are your clients' sites relatively new (< 9 months)? Sounds like they're in the sandbox. |
Some not new, some newish. All the results I am referring to are on the first page of results, some where there before this update, some just appeared.
So it means that my site (web design/services etc) is appearing on the first page results, above client sites, for all kinds of completely and utterly unrelated stuff just because a page, unlinked to from anywhere, appears in my portfolio that has a brief description of what a site I made does/sells/is for.
These are single pages, and by design have no more than a sentence or two, an image and a link. So I suppose are highly focused, though I cannot say I was thinking about that when I made them. But at least they act as a conduit to client sites and to what people searched for. It is just a bit embarrasing that client sites are now below them!
None of the client sites link back to my site as I never put links on client sites.
| 3:49 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I would guess that Google may see your non-www and www sites as two seperate entities still as they show different backlinks and PR.
I redirected from a non-www to a www and the backlinks and page rank only consolidated at a PR update. (Having said that traffic aint improved much yet)
Taps - I am starting to see a bit of movement too.
Oh well I am off down the pub and then back for sunday roast ;). Maybe I will have a bourbon
| 3:56 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have a question. For all of you who dropped out of google, are you on a shared ip, or dedicated? I am currently on shared.
| 3:58 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'll take a long jog now to calm down. It's very exciting to see my site back alive.
Since it is not over yet there's still hope for anyone else.
| 4:01 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This update is absolute BS. They are clearly penalizing plenty of legit sites just to get rid of some of the garbage ones. I guess they shouldn't really care, though, because no surfer is going to miss my site even though it's a good one. Bad things happen when companies go public.
| 4:17 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|They are clearly penalizing plenty of legit sites just to get rid of some of the garbage ones. |
Definitely. I am wondering though, maybe they are penalizing some sites that are on shared ip's. If my site was penalized by ip, if I changed to dedicated, would my site still be penalized? All of this is automated, so there is room for error.
| 4:20 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am on a shared IP as well. That's actually kinda interesting. Considering G is big business now, they could really make some friends by wiping out the small budget sites (shared) and boosting rankings of the big budgets (dedicated).
| 4:21 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have four sites on a shared IP. My main one is buried in this crap update but I have another that now ranks #1 for widgets for sale in minnesota. That one is on the same IP and has popups just like my toasted site. The IP is to a server in my house so I know exactly what else it on it however.
| 4:24 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am on dedicated IP. vanished too.
| 4:31 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Here is a short note about where we are:
We're a long-established niche content site with slow-but-steady growth over a six-year period. (Forbes Best of the Web, Yahoo "cool shades" etc.) We lost about 85% of Google referrals in in mid-December and slipped a bit more with the update in February.
Over the winter, we fixed a 302 redirect problem and also the canonical stuff per GoogleGuy's suggestions.
In mid-March our Google referrals roared back to similar levels to those before mid-December. They fell apart again with the Bourbon update -- again dropping about 85% in a day's time.
While it is possible that this is only temporary it is of concern because it acts like all of that work was a waste of time.
Updates of this magnitude take time to roll out and we have no Idea as to exactly where in the process this update is.
| 4:31 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well I am VERY happy. I have a content only site. And for five years it has done very well with google. Then out of the blue this past March 23, it lost most of its rankings. I did nothing to change the site so I was quite confused. Anyway, with this update I am back with my top rankings and other sites that I follow that are good solid sites are back too. So thank you Google for this update.
For those of you who lost your rankings, I really feel for you because I know how I felt after March 23.
| 4:32 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Are the new SERPS showing on Google.com yet? I'm out of the loop on data center watching, are there any up-to-date dance tools out there? And some clues as to which data centers are worth watching, if at all? Or is it better to keep head down until it's all over?!?
| 4:36 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Personally, I have been seeing the same depressing results every time I search since I found out about this yesterday so it just looks like it may be over for me. Is anyone seeing continuing MAJOR fluctuations?
| 4:43 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing only minor moves, which result in +1/-1 for my pages.
| 4:44 pm on May 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The following datacenters seem ok to me.
The following two have a bit more spam with less up-to-date Web sites.
Nevertheless, Google needs to bring more up-to-date sites to SERPS and apply heaviers spam filters. MSN gives much better results than the above datacenters.
My business is strictly real estate (I build Web sites for official RE/MAX offices).