| 8:52 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|They have a DMOZ link coming in with <widget> as the anchor text. That'll do it. |
yeah...i saw that to before i posted it.
proves my point...google gives to much weight to off page factors
[edited by: ciml at 7:57 am (utc) on June 8, 2005]
[edit reason] Widgetised [/edit]
| 9:04 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
doing a search for <widget> on any of the other search engines, this turkey site is no where to be found.
With nothing whatsoever in the html, outbounds, content located on this turkey site...it seems these geniuses at the googleplex would not totally abdicate their algo to dmoz.
with this example, a dmoz listing is the ultimate weapon in the webmaster's arsenal when it comes to google
[edited by: ciml at 7:58 am (utc) on June 8, 2005]
[edit reason] Widgetised [/edit]
| 9:14 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One of the most important searches for a macroeconomist. Financial stability (free search):
1. Google: I like the first rankings.
2. dmoz. Google is better than that directory in my
3. Yhaoo Directory. Google better.
4. Yahoo: Very good.
5. MSN Good.
6. www.search-22.com Not tried it.
So should I return to my fist love, Yahoo? That engine has always been good in the financial industry.
Where will you bee seen in the future?
"If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of rubbish into it."
- William A. Orton
[edited by: kgun at 9:20 pm (utc) on June 7, 2005]
| 9:15 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
digging a little deeper...
so does most of the listings below the turkey site have a listing on dmoz with anchor text for the keyword.
the only difference is the sites ranked below it have keyword densities within the acceptable range.
So...can we conclude that to do perfect seo for google would be to get a dmoz listing with your targeted keyword, then have 0% keyword density on the actual site?
For the record...I am not one of those proposing google is broken. It is a mess right now, but I have faith we will see the good ole google again...someday.
| 9:16 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Like I said, maybe "broken" was the wrong term in describing the state of Google's algo. Maybe hampered, hindered, or inefficient would be more appropriate.
Has the fat lady sung? Is this over?
I will call Google's algo officially broken when I see or hear somebody from their company utter the word, "seasonality."
That word usually serves as a sign that something's not right.
| 9:25 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Has the fat lady sung? Is this over? |
If GoogleGuy's timetable was accurate, it won't be over for another week or two.
| 9:30 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If it's over, boy am I disappointed.
It took Bourbon a fraction of a second to dump my best website from #1 to page 15, and 3 weeks not to fix it.
But people in my niche will notice. They will query Google for spinning widget plans, and Google can't even give them THE site everyone knows is by FAR the BEST in the first 10 pages. They will notice that Yahoo gives it top billing.
EFV, I thought the hooks on that CJK-binary push-related were going to sink on MOnday!
Do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do! What's that I hear?
[edited by: helleborine at 9:31 pm (utc) on June 7, 2005]
| 9:30 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
next person that says
"Content is King"
somebody slap them upside the head
| 9:38 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Content is king. Without it you would have but a blank page.
Ready to get slapped :)
Added: Now if you said quality content is king, well, that is another story.
| 9:58 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Did you get my sticky to you? I was pointing out that you have a link on your link page to the very site that has hijacked you. Also, and important, click on that link and then click on the link that "supposedly" links back to your site....very surprising.
(Sorry, I just read your sticky back to me....Doh)
| 10:30 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Content is king, that doesn't mean an inept webmaster and/or an inept search engine can't damage search ranking for that kingly content.
| 10:35 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Some people were mentioning that "google is broken". I agree that this update - up to now - is not well "formed". It has many deficiencies and I hope that those will be fixed within the next days (though I don't really believe in that)
BUT: (sorry for mentioning a specific keyword but it is neither my site, nor is it a term where anybody would want to "waste" some SEO time on it). If the kw gets snipped, you might want to sticky me.
Do a search for 'h@zard rate' (without the ' and instead of the @ use an a) on google, msn, Gigablast and yahoo!. Look at the SERPs and judge by yourself. IMHO MSN is just cr@p. MSN does not even list one "on-topic" site on the first page. Even Gigablast does better than MSN. Google and Yahoo both do fine with slightly better results for Google.
As always: Your mileage may vary...
| 10:53 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
hehe, good one.
| 11:29 pm on Jun 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Google stock flirts with USD 300".
The financial community has not noted any trouble.
| 12:36 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Many of us had sites before Google existed. So, yeah, they did build their engine around us. (OT, but I never even tried to "optimize" for G. I used to rank highly in AV. AV went bust, but what worked in AV also worked in G and I had hundreds of page 1 listings without trying). |
My story is the same - I ranked well in Google right from the beginning, and I've never done any optimisation for search engines, only for users.
Can anyone else remember when Lycos came along in 1994? My book review site had sputtered along with a few dozen visitors a day, from scattered links, but that jumped to hundreds of visitors a day when search became possible. (There really wasn't much content on the web back then, and it was almost entirely non-commercial.)
| 12:44 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I've never done any optimisation for search engines, only for users |
That is exactly what I've done all along! If I have an article, I want people who are searching for this information to find it easily and that, to me, is the whole reason for SEO anyhow. Occasionally I'd look at my stats and see a frequent search term appearing and write an article about that, because it was what readers wanted. And I'd SEO it to make it easier for readers to find what they were looking for. To me, that basically means, proper use of bold, h1, alt and meta tags. Maybe throwing the pertinent keywords into the first paragraph (they'd usually be there naturally anyhow). And of late, the use of anchor links.
For most sane SE's this seems to work. I seriously don't want to build a page and content around what Google wants - I want to please and inform readers. But if I'm not in Google, a lot of readers who would love to know about my articles won't find them. Flat out, that blows.
| 12:50 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|There should be a binary push this week to improve a corner-case of CJK-related search, and that new binary should have the hooks to turn on the third set of data. |
Not sure if anyone has figured this out yet, but here is my take on this... let's break it down.
Binary push - my guess this is a referral to a recompile of the algorithm. They create the rules, then code the rules, then compile the binary into some kind of program that runs quickly.
This week - could be a reference to anytime this year.
Corner case - usually in reference to silicon chips and their defects (which they all have). Used here it is a reference to unusual events or circumstances that don't happen frequently.
CJK - Someone mentioned this earlier - Chinese, Japanese, Korean
Hooks - the ability to catch something like a fish. Here it is used to describe additional functionality.
Putting it all together...
Later this week we are going to recompile our algorithm to improve our some of the infrequently occurring problems we have with certain asian languages. While we are at it, we've made some other changes which will result in the third set of data you're going to see in Bourbon.
| 12:58 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
edit reason - no need to post when i'm pissed off.
| 1:19 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Bourbon may or may not be finished, but the more dropped sites that are examined, the clearer the picture that emerges.
And I'd go as far as to say, that very soon, we'll all be taking the "law" into our own hands, and rather than try to rank higher, we'll actively drag the sites that rank above us into the sewers, if only to have company.
| 2:36 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just removing the link to them from your site won't stop them as they are not linked to you.
It will, of course, show Google that you are not endorsing them... Just a thought.
| 2:59 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have removed the link to ME from THEIR site = it's one of those "directories" where you login, and can add/modify your own listing.
That "business model" of self-service link pages, it turns out, is an extremely risky practice and is begging for a 302 hijack - either innocently, or sytematically and purposely.
| 3:00 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|we'll actively drag the sites that rank above us into the sewers, if only to have company |
They made the rules. Let the games begin!
| 3:01 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just checked some of your keywords on Google and you're back. Most of the results are in the top 10. Check your logs for referals.
| 3:53 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<snip>If you beat me to making this discovery, it can only mean that you are more obsessed about MY site than I am. And even worse, you were so quick in finding out, that there wasn't even a single referral from G in my logs yet. I'm afraid to say that your prognosis is extremely poor under these conditions.
Back to more trivial matters, you're right - I'm back in second place. Must be that CJK-related hook 2.5 binary thingie.
[edited by: ciml at 7:45 am (utc) on June 8, 2005]
[edit reason] Be respectful to other members. [/edit]
| 3:54 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Congrats... Really happy for ya. :) *tries to hide intense jealousy*
| 4:05 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Please - no cheering or congratulations. Good fortune is not particularly satisfying, when so many around you are still deprived. I hope with all my heart that it's a sign that there might still be hope for everyone else.
| 4:23 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I sure hope so.. For my site and everyone else suffering.
I feel so sad about my site but hearing your news did bring a smile to my face.
| 4:23 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Please - no cheering or congratulations. Good fortune is not particularly satisfying, when so many around you are still deprived. I hope with all my heart that it's a sign that there might still be hope for everyone else. |
Thanks, and I hope your good luck holds. My site is still in the dumps, unranked for "my name book reviews", or searches on any book title I've tried :-(.
| 4:41 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
congrats Helleborne, on both counts. :)
| 4:49 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm still stuck on page 29 for "[Name of the Book] Review" too.
Can't make sense of the sites that have top ranks. Their coding is as bad (if not worse) than mine.
But congrats to H on google success.
(edit for grammar)
| 4:57 am on Jun 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Danny - the obvious search for you "yourname book reviews yoursite.com", ONLY shows you when you click "repeat the search with the omitted results included" at the very end of the list. With that filter removed you show up as you should at number one.
We have the same situation - the filters omit our site from the listings even for obvious searches.
Did you make any major link changes in the last 5 months? Do you have an email stating you are NOT penalized? We have several stating "no penalty" but I think Google makes a distinction between "filtered out" and "penalized". You and we are filtered out for mysterious reasons, but I think they are related to *other sites* copying or referencing the material and then getting ranked higher for the searches.
You have a superb site - esp. frustrating to users is that some of the most original book review material on the web can't be found!