homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.168.78
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
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 819 message thread spans 28 pages: < < 819 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 28 > >     
Google Update Bourbon Part 4
GoogleGuy




msg:736898
 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.

 

flicker




msg:736958
 11:19 am on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

When is someone going to start a "serious algo thread" like in previous updates? The wailing and railing is even worse than usual, and it's starting to drift into the realm of insulting/bullying other users and imbalanced frothing. This can't be helping anyone.

Dayo_UK




msg:736959
 11:22 am on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Flicker - think we might have to wait until the updates done :)

helleborine




msg:736960
 12:06 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Don't expect to notice changes from the the binary push on CJK (Chinese-Japanese-Korean)-related searches...

Clint




msg:736961
 12:16 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Japanese,
You mentioned something in your post regarding the 301 redirects being bad. I've been told that is the way to go, instead of the 'http code 200' for fwd'd or pointed domains to main domain, as well as for the www and non-www issue. Can you please explain that? If the 301 is bad, then what should we do in lieu of that?
Thanks.

Clint




msg:736962
 12:25 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm with japanese on this one.
I can see the point about having all your eggs in the G basket, but for many site owners, like myself, it wasn't originally like that. When we started, there were about 10 worthwhile search engines, suppose Yahoo was the biggest, and we ranked OK/good on all of them. If you dropped on one of them, it was no big deal, you were ok on the others. Now, through no choice of mine, the big G has squeezed out all the others to the point where their results are irrelevant, and I now find myself in G's hands. I didn't ask them to take over the internet. Thank the other big G, we're not totally dependant, as we do traditional advertising etc, but G has got so dominant that any downward move hits me in the wallet. I was always aware that it was a bit of a free ride, getting any free advertising from organic search, but I didn't want, or expect it to end up being down to one SE.

Chard, I HAVE to say I could not have put that any better. I was looking for the correct words to say, and you found them. The fact that G got so big is what MADE it as though all the eggs are in one basket. In a matter of speaking, we were a "benefiter of google's success", therefore we are now a "victim of their success" due to this ridiculous update.

helleborine




msg:736963
 12:34 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint, I already convinced 2 people to switch to Yahoo. They agreed the results are better.

For example, I tried just now with "how many people use google?" and I liked Yahoo's results best!

Score:

Webmasters 2
Google 433,052,128

We can win this one!

theBear




msg:736964
 1:24 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

flicker, what would we look at to draw conclusions from?

Lets see:

New/old data on servers before/after reinclusions are processed before/after spam reports have been acted upon before/after search routine gets pdzaped (its binary gets patched or updated).

Tropical Island, it appears you have invoked rule number 3 :-).

fearlessrick, thanks. I probably should have used a different abend code and I spell them like they are pronounced. That SOC4 is really a S0C4 but hey I'm entitled, having been SOC'd out of bed by various malfunctioning code in the wee hours. Including several that were actually malfunctioning hardware.

bether2




msg:736965
 1:26 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Don't expect to notice changes from the the binary push on CJK (Chinese-Japanese-Korean)-related searches...

Thanks, helleborine. I was wondering what CJK meant!

max_mm




msg:736966
 1:33 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

For philosophical as well as technical reasons, i currently see PageRank as Google's central flaw, Google should abandon this system or re work it to the way it was a year or two back -- and if it doesn't, people should force it to. Many would argue that without good search engines the value of the Internet would be extremely compromised/diminished, BUT, Google are currently to the Internet the same as your power company is to your daily life. Hence, Google and other large search engines are ought to be thought of as "public utilities" and governed/regulated as such.

When many of us report that more than half or 85 percent of our referrals come (or used to come) from Google -- those are really scary numbers.

This has nothing to do with us putting all our eggs in one basket and everything to do with Google becoming all-too-powerful. It's been 6-7 years since this search engine came online, and in those years, while the whole industry has crumbled around it, Google, somehow, has only became bigger, better and more popular, a day to day public utility.

As such, we the "public" should demand transparency when it comes to this engine's mechanism and ranking algo. We should demand more regulation governing Google as well as other major popular search engine. We should demand it the same way we demanded it from Microsoft.

So stop wasting your time typing into this thread and start writing to your member of Parliament (or member of Senate) and outline the dangers of such monopoly power and it's negative influence over your life in recent months. This would be the only effective way to teach someone a lesson up there in the algo control room. This new algo is no longer democratic as claimed and it is badly affecting too many lifes around the world.

Google's policies are essentially no different than the policies of Microsoft, Yahoo, Alexa and Amazon. However, these others have been spelling out their nasty policies in detail for years now. We should demand that Google do the same.

[edited by: max_mm at 1:50 pm (utc) on June 4, 2005]

helleborine




msg:736967
 1:34 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I didn't know CJK either, but I Yahooed and got my the answer! ;)

fearlessrick




msg:736968
 1:57 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

netmeg,
"I'll reassert my contentions. Yahoo and every othe SE doesn't put people through these gyrations, so why should Google and why should we accept it? Why shouldn't we support SE's that work."

Umm, how do you propose we not accept it?

Ever heard of robots.txt?

Disallow: googlebot

Something along those lines.

enotalone




msg:736969
 2:00 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

often i try to find time to clean, validate my site, see what might be seen as spammy etc. but i wonder if i miss something as working on it i might not see what others see. if anyone has time would you please take a quick look in it and let me know if you see anything spammy, things that might need a fix?

i appreciate it in advance. the domain is the same as my username here, just add the .com part

one thing i believe i need to do is minimaze amazon feeds, but other than that i am not sure. thanks.

[edited by: enotalone at 2:02 pm (utc) on June 4, 2005]

walkman




msg:736970
 2:01 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

max_mm,
how is it Google's fault that people use them? What do you expect the Senate to do? Tell Google not to be so popular?

max_mm




msg:736971
 2:06 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

walkman

Read my post again and you'll find the answers to your questions. I'm busy typing a letter to my member of parliament. I'm expecting more mandatory regulations governing search engines and their obligation when it comes to disclosing their rank algo / mechanism. Doe’s Microsoft case ring a bell?

[edited by: max_mm at 2:11 pm (utc) on June 4, 2005]

fearlessrick




msg:736972
 2:07 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

max_mm,

on the topic of pagerank, I do agree, but I don't agree that Google needs to be regulated. Let the market take care of it. The last thing we need is government regulation of the internet. Besides, which government? US, UK, Russia, China? It's a worldwide entity, s leave it be.

As for market forces, while Google sturggles to get back on their feet, take a look at exalead (it's a .com), a French search engine in beta. Pretty cool. From what I've read, over 1B listings so far.

Sorry to get off topic, but I feel Google's troubles are only beginning.

walkman




msg:736973
 2:16 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

sure max it rings a bell, and it was totally different. MSFT used their 95% monopoly to "force" people to use other MSFT products and harm competitors.

Should Google be forced to let webmasters know on how to cheat the system too? How about a guaranteed ranking? Will these make it it into your letter?

max_mm




msg:736974
 2:18 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

on the topic of pagerank, I do agree, but I don't agree that Google needs to be regulated. Let the market take care of it. The last thing we need is government regulation of the internet. Besides, which government? US, UK, Russia, China? It's a worldwide entity, s leave it be.

Just like Microsoft, in any country this "entity" conduct business at.

max_mm




msg:736975
 2:23 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Should Google be forced to let webmasters know on how to cheat the system too?

Invalid argument. It is the same like saying "knowing the law will help you easily cheat. The law should be a secret known only to a few to avoid cheating”.

Doe’s not (and should not) work this way.

[edited by: max_mm at 2:24 pm (utc) on June 4, 2005]

fjpapaleo




msg:736976
 2:24 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

"i currently see PageRank as Google's central flaw"

Exactly. Unfortunately, they'll never admit it. For about 80 billion different reasons.

europeforvisitors




msg:736977
 2:29 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

This thread should be renamed "Invasion of the Trolls."

novice




msg:736978
 2:37 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Should Google be forced to let webmasters know on how to cheat the system too? How about a guaranteed ranking? Will these make it it into your letter?

Of course not. Google should not disclose all the does and don't, but they should at least reveal the absolute don'ts which can cause severe penalty or banning.

When a clean site gets hit with a penalty that sends it down from the first couple of results to nowhere to be found, Google should give some indication of what may cause that.

I know that Google has a webmasters guidelines page, but many of the sites that were hit do follow those guidelines.

Perhaps Google should update it's guidelines page.

japanese




msg:736979
 2:38 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint,

If somebody or an automated script links to you in an adverse manner such as [silverwidgetshouse.tld...] , note the missing www and the missing trailing slash, or indeed if the links is done in this manner where a dot is applied into the url before the trailing slash such as [silverwidgetshouse.tld....] google will see all of these a totally independent urls.

Ignore the silly aside that somebody made earlier that they have always used 301 redirects indiscriminately and haphazardly to no ill effect at their very successful websites. One character even challenged me to prove that a loop cannot occur in htaccess.

Googlebot will follow these active links and they will all resolve to your domain, not your website pages. Your domain name.
Googlebot will then follow links according to the link and you could end up with 2,3 or 4 websites as far as google is concerned. Google is clever enough to know that this is almost unavoidable and will not penalize you for duplicate content. What it will do is opt to display the canonical url with the highest pagerank. Or so we are led to believe. In my experience this is not the case and disaster awaits any websites that do not resolve to just one canonical url. Your server could indeed create a temporary moved headers for the above links or the best case scenario a highly tuned up apache server in the hands of a dexterous mod re-writer can resolve all issues via a 301 header.

In a worst case scenario the door is now wide open for your website to be attacked by competitors or even penalized by google for an untold number possibilities. The most outlandish being that if another website with a higher pagerank pointed a 302 to your non www low pagerank site and googlebot followed the pointing sites serverside directive, your non canonical url will be seen by google to be a temporary url of the pointing website. Now your are a primary target for a duplicate content penalty by google's patented infamous duplicate content filter at any one of their datacenters that harvesting googlebots supply info to. So in essence your website is at the mercy of automated php, asp, and cgi scripts that are fed by link harvesters also that remove the www by default and link to you. Some will even meta refresh as a combo style redirect.
Google knows this and has victimized hundreds of thousands of websites over the past couple of years. Google also knew that only a few knew about this problem until recently and that it is highly ulikely that it will ever taint their name as a respectable search engine.

Unfortunately evidence exists that google now see a 301 as indication of instability of a website and much talk amongst webmasters has produced a general understanding that if needed to be done it is best to do it serverside and not .htaccess side. How beneficial this is only time will tell because google certainly will not say anything.

Clint, in your case your site has tanked into total oblivion. No webmaster here or at any other forum in the world knows why it tanked. We can only speculate and I would suggest you do absolutely nothing until bourbon reveals its sinister motives.
Some of the biggest tricks on redirects are now being exploited using 301 to 307 status codes. You will soon hear about major hijackings/demolitions of competitors using a 301 directive that exploits a loophole in some robots including googlebot.
Google are aware of it and see all types of redirects as suspicious. As to how google react to them only google knows. But do not worry about these ill advised 301 redirects at the moment.

If you want to resolve your non www to the www version it is best done on your ANAME RECORDS where you create the non www version to point to the www version. You will obviate google suspecting anything and it is the cleanest and safest method. Doing a 301 in the middle of the most outlandish update in internet history will play havoc on your website because google will have to recalculate everything about your site whilst it may be having problems or indeed it is a sinister update.

There are some guru's here such as theBear who can advise on a multitude of ways to do a proper 301 redirect taking into account the type of server your website is on. Don’t also forget the earlier post I made about possible detrimental effects depending on what your server is etc.
And do not forget that we are not discounting also the dastardly possible thing that google may indeed ban an ip range and if your website sits on the same server as a spammer, google will not hesitate to bring down hundreds of innocent sites just to get one. Trust me this has happened and is happening. Google will also shed no tears if its patented duplicate content filter determines that you are not the owner of your content and that a higher pagerank website with a snippet of your code is awarded precedence over you and a certain amount of duplicate content penalty will be deducted from your website and indeed your website can embark on a slippery sliding slope of diminishing reputation as far as google is concerned.

Sorry about the dismal reply. It is what the internet has become in the hands of google.

We all helped them go to the top and now we are paying the price of their success. For those of you who no longer rank in google, you would have been ranking on others if there were 10 engines of equal popularity. Bourbon would have been almost insignificant to your website. None of google update would have been given spectacular names, just updates and they certainly would not have upset webmasters as they are doing now.

[edited by: ciml at 4:55 pm (utc) on June 4, 2005]
[edit reason] Examplified [/edit]

fearlessrick




msg:736980
 2:40 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, excuuuuuuuse me!

Us trolls sitting under the bridge have a right to be heard just as much - and probably moreso - than the high and mighty.

I suggest that somebody re-read a few Dale Carnegie books and maybe decide if today might not be a great day for a long walk off a short pier.

I am amazed a what some people will post.

fjpapaleo




msg:736981
 2:50 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

"This thread should be renamed "Invasion of the Trolls."

What's that supposed to mean EFV? We'd all like to add something constructive if we could. The fact is, nobody really understands goog these days. Enotalone has a perfectly fine website that's just been thrown into oblivion at the whim of Google. Nobody really knows why. The sad part is, she'll probably spend the next three months trying to figure it out rather than devoloping her site. "Do no evil"? I don't think so.

europeforvisitors




msg:736982
 2:51 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am amazed a what some people will post.

Me, too. :-)

max_mm




msg:736983
 2:52 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Of course not. Google should not disclose all the does and don't, but they should at least reveal the absolute don'ts which can cause severe penalty or banning.

Spot on.

Google as well as other search engine should provide a utility enabling you to quickly identify if your site was penalized and the likely reasons for this penalty. I don't think anyone really want them to revel all. BUT if they did penalize your site they should explain why! and not send you guessing for the next 3-6 months.

Imagine them banning during election time all pages containing the name of a certain runner up from appearing on millions of "public" searches per day. How is this different to what they are doing now?

Why are they forcing searchers to look at my competitors when someone searche for my business name? and why is my site nowhere to be seen?

What many of us want is a timely explanations and appropriate mechanism to resolve such burning issues.

[edited by: max_mm at 3:07 pm (utc) on June 4, 2005]

bobothecat




msg:736984
 2:52 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am amazed a what some people will post.

Looking at the past 20-30 messages... I am too :)

fearlessrick




msg:736985
 3:02 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Waiting patiently for inteligent, thought-provoking, paradign-changing posts from full and senior members...

tap, tap, tap...

max_mm




msg:736986
 3:03 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Waiting patiently for inteligent, thought-provoking, paradign-changing posts from full and senior members...
tap, tap, tap...

Me too :)

novice




msg:736987
 3:28 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Has anyone that was hit hard with the Bourbon update recovered yet?

clearvision




msg:736988
 3:38 pm on Jun 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am looking for facts that people are finding relative to there site (opinions are great, but sometimes, they are just your opinion). I think that is what EFV may be talking about.

My Opinion ( I'm going to be a troll for a minute:)
Think of it this way...there are only going to be 10 top 10 sites out of(God only knows) how many other sites. In our eyes, our sites are the most important and not everyone can be in the top 10.

I don't know many peoples sites that post here and maybe there is a darn good reason their sites have been removed. For the longest time we complain about scrapper sites etc. Now that they are gone, maybe some of the scrappers are here complaining.....I just don't know. All we can do is regroup and make another plan.

Our site is not a scrapper site by any means ( scrappers steal from us). We lost rankings this update, like most of you. I just realize "You can't be #1 forever" because something better may just come along...maybe Google should remember that too...and maybe that is what they are attempting to prevent with the update :)

[edited by: clearvision at 3:40 pm (utc) on June 4, 2005]

This 819 message thread spans 28 pages: < < 819 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 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