homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.128.254
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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 819 message thread spans 28 pages: < < 819 ( 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 > >     
Google Update Bourbon Part 4
GoogleGuy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member googleguy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 12:02 am on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Continued from part 3 here: [webmasterworld.com...]


I did the rounds to check on the state of various data updates. I'd estimate that the "0.5" (not algorithmic changes, but rather responses to various spam/porn complaints + processing reinclusion requests) should go out this weekend sometime or possibly Monday. 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. Regarding finishing up the second piece of data, there's still two data centers with older data. Those data centers will probably be switched over by Monday. By Monday, 2.5 of the 3.5 things will probably be on.

 

Dayo_UK

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:20 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

history

Welcome to WebmasterWorld - might be worth waiting a few more days for Google to finish there update.

Do you know of any redirects to your sites?

Have you got problems with non-www and www duplicate listing?

- When I search my main keyword I am 124 from originally #10, but if I do a ‘search within results’ with ‘mysite.com’ I get 4400 pages and I am #39. At least the first 100 links appeared to be legitimate on topic sites.

Bit confused by this bit - are you saying that if you do a site search on your domain for a keyword on a certain page then other internal pages appear before the correct page? Or that lots of other sites with 'mysite.com' which link to you are above you - eg scraped content?

------------

GG - Clint Type sites?

Cant work out if you mean 302 redirect prob or canonical url prob - although I think these two problems are heavily interlinked (eg canoncial url leads to loss of "reputation" which could lead to hijack being easier?)

Or something totally different.

Confused Ellie - I might want to change my name to Confused Dayo_UK

------------

Reseller - I just dont get the fact that I always seem to have two ant steps forward and one ant step back.

[edited by: Dayo_UK at 2:20 pm (utc) on June 9, 2005]

KrisVal

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:20 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

My site had been hit because I was using an “ethical” integrated affiliate shop that is also being used by a few other sites (dupe content) and only one or two have survived maybe because they added some alternative text that kept it out of the threshold to get a penalty

I have a couple of private label affiliate programs. I now use rel="nofollow" when linking to them and rel="nofollow" in my link back from the private label. I was hit with dupe content penalty last fall. This seems to have worked.

RichTC

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:20 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Results at 64.233.183.104 are currently very good, very clean imo.

If these are to be the results from now on i think they are better than expected

ltedesco

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:31 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Results at 64.233.183.104 are currently very good, very clean imo.
If these are to be the results from now on i think they are better than expected

Better, but still need a lot of improvement.

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:32 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK

>Reseller - I just dont get the fact that I always seem to have two ant steps forward and one ant step back<

And I thought you already practice "Google Dance"
...two steps forward.. and one step back.. ;-)

randle

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:34 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

On these two data centers here;

64.233.183.99
64.233.183.104

A site of ours that has been in the sandbox for 14 months has just appeared on the second page. It is out!

Not sure who to thank, but thanks! (and hope it stays)

Dayo_UK

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:38 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

:) - Google Ant Dance.

What I also dont understand is that the DCs are still all different to me.

EG 64.233.183.104 Might have a new Algo - but it's not like when I check the other DCs they all align and 64.233.183.104 is by itself - it just as different as the others.

EG:-

DC Whatever I could be 12

DC Something else I could be 5

DC Another one I could be 17

DC 64.233.183.104 I could be 25

I am 80% (ish) sure I have a canonical url problem - but I dont know if this will get fixed independent of the update (therefore will it get fixed with the algo change on the same dc - or on a different dc and I wont see the effect until it has all merged - or what)

Just waited ages for a fix :(.

[edit reason]Just cleaning up[/edit]

[edited by: Dayo_UK at 2:42 pm (utc) on June 9, 2005]

serafino

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:40 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

sorry for the travel sites lost rank just in time for big revenues due summer ,June July, (enjoy your 2 months Adsence,affiliate money-winners, especially the Dutch template crap gigasite that EFV mention previously....thanks oh mighty GOD in Yahoo they have only there index page listed...while 1.500.000 pages listed in Google..(seems Yahoo can recognize Spam more easy the G), well for the rest of us loosers don't worry we can enjoy some dog food by the end of August (time for a new update I recon),Septemper is a good holiday month ,so do not worry.

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:41 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

steveb

>At the same time, these are the spammiest results Google has served up in a very very long time. Endless redirects, blog spam garbage, keyword subdomain crap... while authoritative sandboxed domains are hurled deeper into the freezer.<

So you don´t agree with GoogleGuy describing the aim of the first 2.0 parts of the 3.5 of Bourbon; Improvement in serach quality ;-)

kgun



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:43 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Fearlessrick wrote:

"BTW: Google stock was down 13.56 points today".

News is reported story. If you use technical analyses like Elliott Wave analysis and Japanese candelsticks, you may se patterns in the silent message, the price movements, days before the reported news.

KBleivik

serafino

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:43 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

should GG take a close view to that site? EFV can give him advise.

serafino

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:46 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

"sorry for the travel sites lost rank just in time for big revenues due summer ,June July, (enjoy your 2 months Adsence,affiliate money-winners, especially the Dutch template crap gigasite that EFV mention previously....thanks oh mighty GOD in Yahoo they have only there index page listed...while 1.500.000 pages listed in Google..(seems Yahoo can recognize Spam more easy the G), well for the rest of us loosers don't worry we can enjoy some dog food by the end of August (time for a new update I recon),Septemper is a good holiday month ,so do not worry."
Will be great if GG take a close view to that site? EFV can give him advise.

thebug151

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:46 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

For the last two weeks or so googlebot has been on my site non-stop day/night. Maybe this is normal, may be before Bourbon I just did not notice because I had so many visitors as compaired to now.
Anyone else notice this? Is it normal?

My PR6 site is, for the most part still burried in the basement of google. It use to be nice when my site saw daylight.

history

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:48 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK

Thanks…

"Do you know of any redirects to your sites? "

Haven’t found redirects yet. I don’t think it is a topic or money generating site to steal.

"Have you got problems with non-www and www duplicate listing?"

Not sure I understand if this is problem… all links on my site have always been the full ‘http://www.mysite.com/”. A search with 'Site:mysite.com' or 'Site:www.mysite.com' usually are almost the same amount of results.

"Bit confused by this bit - are you saying that if you do a site search on your domain for a keyword on a certain page then other internal pages appear before the correct page? Or that lots of other sites with 'mysite.com' which link to you are above you - eg scraped content?"

Topic keyword gets 12,000,000+ pages with my site #124. If I then do Google’s “search within results” with my url, I am showing up in 4400 pages linking to me. My www.mysite.com is #39. At least the first 10 pages were not scraper but legitimate on topic pages linking to me. In other words, I think I have 9 years of legitimate links.

Dayo_UK

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:53 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

history

If you do a search for link:domain.com does it show different results to link:www.domain.com?

Can you access the domain.com and www.domain.com in your browser (eg when you type domain.com does it remain in the address bar or change to www.domain.com)?

If you have the G Toolbar with Page Rank - do you get different page ranks for domain.com and www.domain.com?

If yes to all three then it might be worth considering a 301 redirect - you may have seen this discussed a few times on the thread and in GG post number 7 here:-

[webmasterworld.com...]

Hope that helps.

history

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 2:59 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK

“If you do a search for link:domain.com does it show different results to link:www.domain.com?”

No, both show 116 links

“Can you access the domain.com and www.domain.com in your browser (eg when you type domain.com does it remain in the address bar or change to www.domain.com)?”

yes

“If you have the G Toolbar with Page Rank - do you get different page ranks for domain.com and www.domain.com?”

No, both are PR6

“If yes to all three then it might be worth considering a 301 redirect - you may have seen this discussed a few times on the thread and in GG post number 7 here:- “
[webmasterworld.com...]

helleborine

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:01 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think the allin's were updated in the past 24 or 48 hours. In my niche, at least.

Dayo_UK

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:02 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

History

Ok, that might not be the problem then.

I have sent you a Sticky.

Helleborine

Rankings holding steady - I dare not look ;)

subbu

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:18 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

thought i'd throw this into the ring -

i'm still seeing shuffling results - entirely different sets for a certain kw pair - 700K, 800K, 900K, 1M and 1.5M results returned depending on the set.

i would wait until there is stability before deciding to lament... unless your site isn't included in any of the data sets...

s.

fearlessrick

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:20 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm happy to report some positive news, finally, after 20 days.

My site (for a very relevant search) seemingly bottomed out #194 or thereabouts on vanilla google.com. I just checked 64.233.183.99 DC and came up #148, and on google.com am #138. This is still a far cry from #1, which is where I was - and rightfully so, I might add - before Bourbon, and #72-86 which is where I was for the first two weeks of Bourbon.

Can't wait for this update to be over, at which point I will likely be on page 1 and banned from AdSense for violating the TOS. Taking a month out of everyone's lives for this update seems a bit cruel to me.

Man, I've had too much Bourbon!

Clint



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:22 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well this is interesting. All this time I've been checking who is currently 1st on the 1st page for "my" search terms and I just only now noticed that the site that is linking to me that is now in the 1st position is "hijacking" my site with a 302! I never thought to go to the webpage and "copy shortcut" of the link that goes to my site. I just now did that (due to what I learned yesterday about another site 302'ing me). So, if any of you want to check this, you CANNOT just hover the link and look at the status bar in IE, when I do that it does indeed show my URL. But when you right click the link and "copy shortcut" and paste it into the header checker it's a totally different URL. BTW, I see some asked again for the header check page, it's [webmasterworld.com...] .

I also found another site doing massive 302's similar to the site I mentioned that was 302'ing me yesterday. (Helleborine, it's the site you posted in that other forum you told me about earlier today). This new site is one of those "shady search engines" that index a lot of porn, mortgaging, Rx, etc. I still appear in it for some of my search terms I checked and in 1st place, (and NO, the search terms are NOT related to topics such as that!) ;), and EVERY HIT in their index is a 302 to the webpage!

So if this is indeed a type of malicious hijack (going on what MyWifeSays......uhhh, says, that sounds odd ;) ), then it is probably apropos for these type of "underground" SE's to be 302'ing ALL of their results! I don't know if the technical term of these sites would be a "search engine", but it's the type of Shopping Directory sites with a search box on their page, and the search box of course is their SE that searches their index for the results. So, whatever you want to call that.

bunltd

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:28 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

entirely different sets for a certain kw pair - 700K, 800K, 900K, 1M and 1.5M results returned depending on the set

that's what I've been seeing in my area, and I'm there, on page 10, not on page 1 as pre-update.

Found several 302's, including one that was like Clint's post back on page 26 except with ebay listings on the page, then a list of links like he mentioned. But out of the 8 or so 302's I found yesterday, how do you determine which are 'bad' and causing problems and would removing them do any good?

LisaB

walkman



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:29 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

thank you GG,
a lot of people are happy to see their sites back on those two DCs. I know I am. I now have a reason to keep updating that site daily.

Clint



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:30 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

<confused>All this 302 talk may be meaningless. I just discovered that Yahoo is "302'ing" EVERY hit in its index....according to the header check. Search for anything, right click a result's link and copy the shortcut, paste in the header check and it's a 302. "HTTP/1.1 302 Found". So obviously there's either nothing to it, OR, as another member said, there are bad and good 302 redirects? I think it would be safe to say that Yahoo is not doing any kind of malicious 302, but some other sites are.? If so, if this is true, then how can one distinguish between a good one and a bad one? On the other hand, is all this talk about 302 hijacks irrelevant? </confused>

I did noticed that some of the 302's I found to my site said "HTTP/1.1 302 Temporarily moved" instead of what it says for the Yahoo shortcuts. Maybe that's the difference?

kgun



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:37 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Different rules on different forums can make you frustrated. Some of my (I mean relevant and important posts) were sensored because I pasted the URL's to some sites here.

About Clocking and redirection:

I have a cloack and a redirection to my site. It is shown as an example of what digital branding and digital ad is about on my Norwegian site.

I will not change that. A good spider should filter them out and crawl the original site.

KBleivik
"Make it simple, as simple as possible, but no simpler"
A. Einstein

Dayo_UK

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:37 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>a lot of people are happy to see their sites back on those two DCs.

Sniff! - No sign of mine yet :(

Clint - There is nothing wrong with a 302 redirect as a link - it is a very very common way of linking to sites, and most sites would normally stop robots from following the 302 redirect (via robots.txt). It is where Googlebot is following these links there maybe a problem.

sailorjwd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:43 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've begun cc'ing CNN on all my whinings to Google about 302's and canonical page issues.

Maybe that's why the stock is dropping.

caveman

WebmasterWorld Senior Member caveman us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:48 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

64.233.183.99
64.233.183.104

At the same time, these are the spammiest results Google has served up in a very very long time. Endless redirects, blog spam garbage, keyword subdomain crap... while authoritative sandboxed domains are hurled deeper into the freezer.

Yeah, all that...

Plus vaguely related auth/hub sites still displacing the better pages they link to (I thought G sorted out how to avoid this about five major updates ago).

And, we still see weak pages from (our own) old and neglected sites (with few IBL's), popping up all over the place. Talk about the anti-SEO.

Another really odd thing. I've got a competitor following me around trying always to match my links. I have a feeling that our increasingly common network of backlinks makes it look like we're co-owned by some idiot that doesn't know G can ID related sites by link patterns, so G seems to be choosing in almost all cases to show one or the other of our comparable pages but not both, for any given search. So this site copies mine, matches my links, and G splits us down the middle. Two dead half-babies. Bizzarre.

kgun



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:49 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

No problem to program a spider to go around robots.text and meta tags for spiders that will dig deeper. Is it possible to encrypt the code?

From reenginering and disassembling it is known that "viruses" may be encrypted in the code, and live up in case of specific actions.

If the infected file has the same bitsize as the uninfected file, there may be some problems. No problem to remove bits from the infected file so it has the same bitsize as the clean file?

KBleivk
"He said the only thing that did not lie was mathematics, simply because it could not."

Quote from "The Reminicences of a stock operator." Excellent reading for people that does not use BOT-trading.

[edited by: kgun at 3:58 pm (utc) on June 9, 2005]

dazzlindonna

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:55 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ok, this is hysterical (well, it would be if it wasn't my site). One of my search terms got nuked with Bourbon. So, I go to 64.233.183.99 to see if it returned there. To my surprise, it is still nuked BUT above all the listings are three images (it says See 6040 image results for "my keyword phrase"). One of those three images is mine - and leads to my site.

So google in its wisdom has gotten rid of my #1 ranking in the organic listings, but decided to show an image leading to the site above the organic listings. Go figure....

Clint



 
Msg#: 29782 posted 3:58 pm on Jun 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint - There is nothing wrong with a 302 redirect as a link - it is a very very common way of linking to sites, and most sites would normally stop robots from following the 302 redirect (via robots.txt). It is where Googlebot is following these links there maybe a problem.

So then is it safe to say that Yahoo is blocking via robots.txt? Maybe that doesn't even matter with them. So is it safe to say that if you find a "disallow" tag in the <head> tag for SE's that the site is OK? I checked the sites that were 302'ing me and of those that DID have a robots.txt file, they were:

User-agent: *

Disallow: /images

Which appears they are not blocking any SE from indexing the pages. Of course if there is no robots.txt file, it's implied to index all. Also, if these sites have replaced you for your phrases where you ONCE were pre-May 21st, is it safe to say that these ARE the bad 302 hijacks? I didn't find any <head> tags either that were disallowing SE's.

This 819 message thread spans 28 pages: < < 819 ( 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 > >
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