homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.130.203
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
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 789 message thread spans 27 pages: < < 789 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 27 > >     
Google Update Bourbon Part 3
Sweet Cognac




msg:711613
 8:35 pm on May 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Continued From:

[webmasterworld.com...]



My whole site has a new cache date of May 25th. Maybe once these other sites around me get recached, I won't hold such an honorable top position. But at least Google has found my pages worthy to sit in the Search again.:) It seems strange to look at the stats and see Google in there, after 6 months of just seeing Yahoo and MSN referrals.

My website has plenty of outbound links, but they are on relevant pages. The problem my site has always had, was a lack of "inbound links." I got tired of searching for people to link to me (with all the spammy sites around) and gave up. So my pages have acquired some links naturally I guess(and I'll bet I still don't have more than 30 inbound links for the whole site) Still have a PR4, which I've had since it disappeared in Nov.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 8:54 pm (utc) on May 27, 2005]

 

reseller




msg:711823
 6:47 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

annej

> I do much more internal linking on the larger site that is still doing well. That is the only thing I can think of.<

And it seems that internal linking is a very important factor, at present.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I thinks the more internal links the page contains the more "protected" and "Google respected" it is.

With a high number of internal links on a page, you can also list high number of outbound links (though maximum less than 100 and equal or less than the number of internal links) on a page without the page loosing its position on the serps. But of course, I canīt say that its a general rule ;-)

MikeNoLastName




msg:711824
 7:18 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Now I'm convinced G really is broken.
I just discovered one of my pages which dropped drastically, is indexed TWICE in the index. Which would acccount for a duplicate penalty, and I would fully accept as my booboo, except...
It's indexed once as itself and once as the URL of the ancient page which was redirected to it (same domain, different file name) over 3 years ago and has been ever since! I found this by doing an allinurl: on the full address of the current page which was dumped. It's definitely a 301 in the .htaccess redirecting it. If you click on the listing in google it goes straight to the new page. Best of all... the cache on the ancient page listing...
[ dramatic pause]
... is dated: Sep 27, 2004!

Folks, I think it's time for G to hang it up and put things back to how they were. I don't think there's much else WE Webmasters can humanly do. I thought about doing an urgent URL removal, but decided it'll probably just do more damage to their database than good at this point.

[edited by: MikeNoLastName at 7:24 am (utc) on May 30, 2005]

steveb




msg:711825
 7:23 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Sep 27, 2004"

Interesting. As I recall, every page I dealt with in removing URLs involving my hijacked domain was cached within a week of that date. I thought it was just a coincidence because my www/non-www 301 was off at that time but maybe it is more sinister.

reseller




msg:711826
 7:25 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Mike

>It's indexed once as itself and once as the URL of the ancient page which was redirected to it over 3 years ago and has been ever since!<

Have you remembered to add the following meta tag to the ancient page:

<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, FOLLOW">

MikeNoLastName




msg:711827
 7:27 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

This page, as far as I know, wasn't even ever hijacked. The redirect is/was through my own domain! this extra listing was never there, or at least wasn't affecting anything, until THIS update.

Reseller,
The old page doesn't/hasn't existed since 2002. The cache showing up for the ancient page appears to be the current page in Sept 2004.

Since 2003 my .htaccess has included an entry like:
Redirect 301 ancient-page current-page

[edited by: MikeNoLastName at 7:32 am (utc) on May 30, 2005]

reseller




msg:711828
 7:31 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

One of my pages which was 302 hijacked is still there when run allinurl:

Its cache also showing

"26 Sep 2004 08:27:08 GMT."

I have removed the content of my own page to another new page, and kept the old hijacked page redirecting to the new page. Did that after trying all what I could to remove that cache, unsuccessfully.

Slone




msg:711829
 7:35 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Nevermind ;)

deleted post - my call

[edited by: Slone at 7:37 am (utc) on May 30, 2005]

MikeNoLastName




msg:711830
 7:35 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Did that work to get it back ranking?
Did you try the urgent URL remove on the old cache?
Did you try resubmitting the ancient page for indexing?

I found there were still a few backlinks to the ancient page and have changed them, so theoretically at some point between Sept and now the old page should have been spidered.

jaffstar




msg:711831
 7:41 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

What a pretty site, Google.com with a grayed out PR bar :) Love it!

This update is far from over. It’s too early to start with post mortems i.e. how many links out /adsense etc.

There are so many variables that no one is mentioning, that we simply can't.

Analyzing 56 Google DC's, we STILL see two different Algorithms in operation. And it's 50/50 Algo1/Algo2.

Algo2, on [64.233.163.104,...] ranks my site at the top, to similar positions where it's ranked in Y and M. I would say some penalty is relaxed on Algo2, possibly a link devaluation penalty (sandbox).

Most of the top 10 remain constant in both these Algo's with a specific kw, however one contains my site, one does not.

reseller




msg:711832
 7:48 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

MikeNoLastName

>Did that work to get it back ranking?<

Actually i created the new page for few days ago, and google hasnīt indexed the new page yet. Shall keep you posted once its indexed.

>Did you try the urgent URL remove on the old cache?<

Yes. Before creating the new page, I removed the ancient page using google removal tool successfully. But the hijacked page (with hijacker url) together with the old cache is still there.

>Did you try resubmitting the ancient page for indexing?<

No.

reseller




msg:711833
 7:57 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

jaffstar

>Algo2, on [64.233.163.104,...] ranks my site at the top, to similar positions where it's ranked in Y and M. I would say some penalty is relaxed on Algo2, possibly a link devaluation penalty (sandbox). <

Can you give an example of a DC showing algo1 in action too?

Thanks.

jaffstar




msg:711834
 8:05 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Here you go Reseller:

[64.233.161.105...]

reseller




msg:711835
 8:11 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

jaffstar

>Here you go Reseller:

[64.233.161.105<...]

FASCINATING!

I see around 4 different "serps groups" through out the DCs. You see 2 algos.

If everything is rotating, we end up with:

2 algos x 4 serps groups = 8 combinations

Well done google engineers!

jaffstar




msg:711836
 8:17 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's possibly that they rotate their Dc's to Feed www1-www2-www3.

Data Center's that have let sites out of the sandbox (algo2), could be fed into www1-www2-www3 every 1/8 searches. Therefore giving them a taste of the pie, but not a full slice.

reseller




msg:711837
 8:19 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

jaffstar

>It's possibly that they rotate their Dc's to Feed www1-www2-www3.<

Very possible..my friend. Very possible!

May I call it "THE MAGIC of THE ROTATING ALGOS"?

jaffstar




msg:711838
 8:26 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

THE MAGIC of THE ROTATING ALGOS"?

LOL!

How about:

"Rotating Algo Lottery" * you never know when your algo will be picked*

*chuckle*

Clint




msg:711839
 8:33 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm seeing irrelevant results for uncompetitive phrases but the results for competitive phrases look good.
Are any of you who are complaining about irrelevance looking at competitive phrases?

Yes, mine are DEFINITELY competitive phrases and the results are loaded with non-relevent BS! When I search for it in QUOTES, all the sites on the first page don't even have the go**amn phrases on it!

[edited by: Clint at 8:38 am (utc) on May 30, 2005]

reseller




msg:711840
 8:35 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

jaffstar

>"Rotating Algo Lottery" * you never know when your algo will be picked* <

EXACTLY...

Several posts on this and other threads are confirming the theory..

Actually the fellow members have been describing the symptoms of the ROTATING ALGOS since allegra.

Clint




msg:711841
 8:52 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just found a page which is now beating one of my pages in the SERPS.
The page:

1. Doesn't have the keyword phrase in the page title.
2. Doesn't have the keyword phrase in the page filename.
3. Doesn't have the keyword phrase in the page text.
4. Doesn't contain one of the three words in the keyword phrase at all - anywhere.
5. Has 0 backlinks.
6. Is in Chinese.

Sure Google... sure this is more "relevant" than a page which is all about that keyword phrase.


A page? When I search for the phrases where I was 1st, ALL but a couple of the pages that now show fit that criteria! And in my case, most of them are in INDIA! It's this way using ANY of the Google IP's! It appears they've been hacked by Asia! Futhermore, as of today, I've now been TOTALLY ELIMINATED from their results for every search phrase I've checked and on every Google.com IP I've checked!

Clint




msg:711842
 9:04 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Now I'm convinced G really is broken.
I just discovered one of my pages which dropped drastically, is indexed TWICE in the index. Which would acccount for a duplicate penalty, and I would fully accept as my booboo, except...
It's indexed once as itself and once as the URL of the ancient page which was redirected to it (same domain, different file name) over 3 years ago and has been ever since! I found this by doing an allinurl: on the full address of the current page which was dumped. It's definitely a 301 in the .htaccess redirecting it. If you click on the listing in google it goes straight to the new page. Best of all... the cache on the ancient page listing...
[ dramatic pause]
... is dated: Sep 27, 2004!
Folks, I think it's time for G to hang it up and put things back to how they were. I don't think there's much else WE Webmasters can humanly do. I thought about doing an urgent URL removal, but decided it'll probably just do more damage to their database than good at this point.

Mike can you please elab on that "allinurl:" command? What should be showing for that? When I do it, allinurl:MyDomain.com, only TWO pages show up! One is the index page and the other is the "main" page. Does this signify anything?

Also, can you or anyone tell me if I should remove my parked/pointed domains? They are related domain names that when they are "clicked" they go to my main domain name and site and THEIR URL's appear in the address bar, not my main domain URL. (This is done in cPanel). I hate to do this since a couple of them are at least showing up in a search for my biz name.

Clint




msg:711843
 9:21 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Will Spencer,
I have a set of search results that would make everyone really sick but I'd both be breaking a promise and the no specifics policy of this site.

It involves a set of indented search results that has the same page displayed in its two forms one over the other:

WWW.Result1.com/page.html
------ WWW.Result1.com/page.html
Result1.com/page.html
------ Result1.com/page.html

I was doing a search using a text string taken from WWW.Result1.com/page.html

The first result said showing 1 of 4 yada

So I clicked the display ommitted results and was dumbfounded.

I then looked at the html making up the result page and the hrefs were the same for the two WWW.Result1.com pages and likewise for the Results1.com pages.

Talk about a duplicate content problem .

This is all I can say since I promised the affected party I wouldn't disclose the domain.


"TheBear", you didn't read that correctly. Those pages are NOT the same URL, check them again. One is a - and the other is a _ . Word-word and word_word. Should I then take one of these pages and direct it/point it to the other page instead of having two actual physical pages? There are two pages in some cases (hyphenated and underscore) because years ago I first made them - , then some were telling me that the _ version is better, so that's when I created the _ version of the URL. I didn't remove the - version because they were ranking well. It's been like this for several years.

ann




msg:711844
 9:32 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

As regarding broken or hacked google. I just checked the Google page of hiring and this is what I found.

! We are hiring engineers for Google New York, Google Santa Monica, Google Kirkland, Google India (Bangalore and Hyderabad), Google Europe (Zurich and Dublin) and Google Japan

Looks like they need help judging from the exclamation point in front of it.

nzmatt




msg:711845
 9:55 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's the sort of thing one would expect from Yahoo!

With all their out of place exclamations...

mickeymart




msg:711846
 10:17 am on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Someone told me the SERPS are more closely tied to _adsense conversions_

can this be true?

reseller




msg:711847
 12:26 pm on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

We need somebody to declare Bourbon completed. I personally don't dare to do so.

Maybe Dayo_UK, the man who called Bourbon on a friday :-)

helleborine




msg:711848
 12:27 pm on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would be very shocked to find out that any of what we're seeing has to do with AdSense conversion rates. So many things can influence this... like your placement in the SERPs! I can't believe Google would be so crazy as to implement something so obviously wrong - even if it's in their patent application (I won't bother to check).

I'd be more inclined to believe that the Bourbon algo has had undesired consequences, to an extent greater than anticipated. There is no way they set out to penalize sites like mine.

BTW, I came up first in the allin's last week, then for 48 hrs I came second. This morning I'm back at first. So - something is happening, maybe, what do I know?

reseller




msg:711849
 12:40 pm on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

helleborine

>BTW, I came up first in the allin's last week, then for 48 hrs I came second. This morning I'm back at first. So - something is happening, maybe, what do I know?<

May I suggest you join us; The Disciples of The Rotating Algos :-)

helleborine




msg:711850
 12:49 pm on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Are they rotating algos, or different sets of data to which they apply the same algo?

I'm a already a disciple of "suggestion rank" where a spammy page that mentions my name in font size 1, and not even a link to boot, outranks my website by 150 positions in the SERPs.

You'd lose all faith that the "SERPs are cleaner" if you saw the page that comes first for my company name, especially if you know my site.

Clint




msg:711851
 12:57 pm on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Regarding my post of:
A continuation of of my message #183 above:
When I search for that phrase in quotes (PC hardware related phrase), one of my (get this) ONE PAGE SITES for a DOMAIN NAME FOR SALE in the MEDICAL FIELD shows up on the 1st page! Yes, that's right! (On the page I have "this site owned by blah-blah", etc., and the search phrase). Now you wanna talk about more non-relevant BS! Sure, at least a site shows up that "could" reach me.... if anyone happens to think to click a website in the MEDICAL FIELD when looking for HARDWARE!

Well, I've now be DELETED for even that! That #@$!@% website now is also G-O-N-E in the search! Someone has GOT to find someway to STOP THIS INSANITY. As each hour passes, I become more and more "trashed into nothingness".

reseller




msg:711852
 1:05 pm on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

helleborine

>Are they rotating algos, or different sets of data to which they apply the same algo?<

Mostly its done by applying different algos to different groups of DCs. That process generates different results at different periods of time. Only Google engineers (maybe including GG ;-)) know the exact parameters.

Dayo_UK




msg:711853
 1:14 pm on May 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Reseller

I did not call the update ;) - Brett did really. I only noticed something of interest on a couple of DCs.

PS. I dont believe in the rotating algo theory

Clint

Have you done the 301 redirect of your duplicate domains to your main domain. If not you should really consider doing this. Not a short term fix as it sounds that you may have a duplicate content penatly - this penalty may have to run its course.

This 789 message thread spans 27 pages: < < 789 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 27 > >
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