| 11:12 am on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Marval - interesting comment - but our feedback is that users find it perplexing - experienced users know to hit the favourites or lose it.
Surely Google users will increase in absolute numbers as the number of surfers increase - given the same market share.
Perhaps I should have phrased it as "significant stability" - as new sites - some of whom are great - obviously should be shown high if worthwhile to the user - but I would think the number of those is a very small % of new sites added in a year.
Weeding out the ones that are no real advantage to the user is very difficult to do with an automated system so hence "everflux" I presume.
However I could also argue against myself on the basis that each user has different requirements even for the same search phrase.
I just wish that the updates were sometimes not so drastic.
I would be interested to learn if those here that undertake SEO for a living take on competitive sites -and how it is dealt with - another thread that though.
Cannot seem to spel today so apologise for any errors.
Off to do some work...
| 12:36 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Three of my websites showing more supplemental pages results when i do site:www mysite.com. All pages which are showing as supplemental pages are exists on web site.
Anybody over there noted the same?
| 12:22 am on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's not an update... However, why the explosion in page count? When using the site command lots of people have experienced five to ten times the number of actual pages. What gives? We went from 88K to 239K when we only have 20K pages.
| 4:57 am on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Is this a complete update for incoming links?
| 9:29 am on Sep 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have recently done an allinurl:www.site.co.uk and my number of pages has gone from 72,000 to 190,000.
Whilst I am optimistic about this, I am concerned that the increase in pages in Google is not reflective in the level of traffic...
My question is, does Google take time before the extra pages are searchable in the search engine after they show they exist?
| 3:01 pm on Sep 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Overnight our pages listed in G for our website
has more than tripled the actual amount and we can't
ascertain why. Does anyone have any ideas on this one?
| 2:29 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Starting to feel like the end of an era is nearly upon us ... *sigh* ... :/
| 2:48 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>Starting to feel like the end of an era is nearly upon us ... *sigh* ... :/<<
And we shall not hear "The Fat Lady" singing anymore. She only sing in connection with an update not everflux (:-(
| 2:50 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why does this feel like an end of an era? Has it not been this way for a while?
| 2:51 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
DS says, It's an Update [blog.searchenginewatch.com]
| 2:56 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Still I will not call this a update, it has to be real changes in the serps and thats not the case.
| 3:04 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Danny Sullivan, wrote:
"Matt links over to WebmasterWorld, which initially dubbed this an update with the name of "Gilligan" but has since retitled the thread "False Alarm."
It's not a false alarm to me. That's because I don't define an "update" solely by whether there's an algorithm change that shows massive shifts in rankings. I'd define an update to be any major, significant change to the search engine's underlying index, noticed or not. And that's what's going right now. Google has either added a significant number of new pages to its index or significantly changed the way that it reports counts.
Moreover, the change IS getting noticed and commented upon. One person emailed me happy that he suddenly went from 5 pages to having all of his 120 or so pages indexed. Another person emailed that an SEO contract that was to be based on how "competitive" a term is in Google had to be rewritten when the counts for various words shot up, suddenly making them seemingly a much more competitive challenge. This has been an update to both of those people!"
Thanks a bunch..Danny
| 3:11 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The strangest thing IMO is the increased number of pages being returned for a site.
However, from the sites I look at these pages are just old pages/data - not from a recent crawl. Sometimes Google has to go back before going forwards..
Also some of the number of pages returned in a site command seem to be false to me. (Even including url only, pages G knows about but is not allowed to index etc)
| 3:13 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> The strangest thing IMO is the increased number
> of pages being returned for a site.
We heard a month ago in comments (from Sergey?) that G was actively trying to increase it's db size. If they have done that, then we should see some increases in the number of pages indexed on some sites.
| 3:16 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I had all my pages finally craw;ed. (hey! It's even a small site!)
Now here is the kicker- they put back in old pages...ones I have blocked in robots.txt and google is displaying THOSE pages as supplemental results.
LOL..it's not an update! It's Sergei Brin trying to outnumber yahoo with indexing.
| 3:17 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hi, new here - was directed here because of recent problems with our site on Google.
We were very high in the rankings for some time and then vanished completely. Now, site:www.-----.tv finds NO pages indexed on the "pages from the UK" search but finds the site normally on the "search the web" search. This is on www.google.co.uk.
I don't know if this is the same thing going on and it will reappear, or google decided .tv was not a UK site - which would be unfortunate. I have emailed Google but only got an automated reply so not holding much hope there.
TIA for any insight.
[edited by: HenryWills at 3:33 pm (utc) on Sep. 9, 2005]
| 3:18 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes Brett - but my main site has not been indexed properly for ages due probably to www/non-www situation.
But my page count has shot up - adding back crawled data from Nov/Dec last year again.
| 3:22 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Remove you url if you can as is it againt TOS here.
Sounds like you have a hosting problem - If your domain is not .co.uk or you are not hosted in the UK - you will probably not appear in UK results.
| 3:30 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to WebmasterWorld. Your domain name will probably have been removed by the time you read this as you're not allowed to quote specifics in posts.
Is your domain hosted in the UK? That is where Google gets its location from, the IP address of your hosts, as far as I'm aware.
I hope this helps.
| 3:39 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hi, I removed the URL now.
The domain is hosted in the UK (London), the company is UK registered (in a Whois search). However, it is a .tv domain name as a lot of companies are even though they are not located in the Tuvalu Islands!
THe website has been ranking high in the UK search results for a long time now. Unfortunately (for me) the vanishing act was noticed because a significant portion of their business come from the website and a sharp downward trend was noticed this past week. Now, you cannot even search on the unique company name to find the website because the UK search indexes NO pages.
I've repsonded to the Google automated reply "with more information" as they suggested. Should I be hoping for a 'human' repsonse to that at all, do you think?
| 3:42 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Henry - I suppose Google might have changed their geo-location system.
Are you sure the server is located in the UK - When I first started out I thought I was dealing with a UK company but the servers were all based in Germany (luckily I only deal with .co.uk domain names normally so I was OK)
Also do you know of other .tv that are effected?
| 3:48 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>Should I be hoping for a 'human' repsonse to that at all, do you think?
Henry, do not hold your breath. Imagine how many people contact them everyday. Also, go to google's information for webmasters page and make sure you are not doing anything tricky that google does not like. Like was mentioned earlier, call your ISP and find out exactly where your server is located.
| 3:50 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes definately - Telehouse 2 to be precise. We know quite a a lot about the hosting company, which is based in London.
I do wonder how Google decides what is a UK website though. There were 120 mentions of "UK" throughout the site, 6 of which were in a legal disclaimer that appeared on ever page! You'd think that would indicate it was a UK site? After all, there is really no reason why a website should not be for UK visitors/interest and yet be hosted somewhere else in the world. It's supposed to be a global comunity aferall. Not what is happening in this case though.
One thing we have just done is go through a rebranding exercise. That entailed visiting every page and just tweaking the wording slightly and replacing a few images here and there. I wonder if that could be seen as bening "gaming google" which I was reading about here.
| 3:54 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>There were 120 mentions of "UK" throughout the site
I could put up a page 240 UK mentions in five minutes, but my site would still be hosted in North America.
| 4:07 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This subject comes up a fair amount in the UK Search Engine forum here - this is a thread from the library of that forum:-
| 4:25 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yah, like in some cases between 2X and 10X the number of pages actually there. :?
It seems to me that they've changed the way they're filtering backlinks. If so, that comes awfully close to what I used to think of as an algo shift, though I guess technically it's not algorythmic. (?) But honestly, the noise level is so high right now that any guess I have about changes in the way they filter backlinks is REALLY a guess. That's OK, I don't mind throwing things out as guesses or opinions that sometimes turn out to be wrong. Much of what goes on in here is just guesswork. IMHO, that's what forum discussion is all about. ;-)
|Why does this feel like an end of an era? |
Dayo_UK, again that's just my personal take, but with the SERP's becoming increasingly dynamic, almost approaching real time in some respects, the line between everflux and update grows ever more fuzzy.
As G moves more to constant updating on a growing number of important ranking factors, with ongoing testing and tweaking of multiple algo's, the scope and magnitude of everflux becomes greater, approaching that of some of the more minor updates. At the same time, as G gets ever better at identifying spam, and testing ranking variables, it may also be possible that algo updates will eventually become less severe.
It seems to me that they are making changes so frequently now (not to mention playing around with time lags, 'eh 'em), that it's getting increasingly difficult to sort out what is going on. Like I said: Guesswork. Idle speculation. Pay no attention. ;-)
| 4:53 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hi Again Henry,
I think you're right about .tv not showing up in the UK - I searched on a very well known tv domain (think Lorraine Kelly for breakfast) and it only shows up on google.com.
| 4:56 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Dayo, I just read that thread (its closed unfortunatly as I found when I tried to join in).
What was being said, was that to do business in the UK you should host in the UK AND have a .uk domain name.
We are definately hosting here, or were, will go and check that! As for the .uk domain name, that is going to be harder. Our client is .tv you see. I ran some test just a few minutes ago on Google as follows:
Search for BT on G. Filter the results for UK only and bt.com comes top of the listing. If you search for "whois" then you get whois-search.com top of the listing. Where then is the evidence that you have to be .uk to be found on the UK listing?
Confused completely now. :~(
| 5:00 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Wibfision, I just tried that. I see what you mean.
Am I breaking some guidelines by mentioning domains in my post above? I saw the ban on promotional posts etc and that is fine an understandable, but I don't see how you can have a discussion like this without the spcifics. I just had to scratch my head to figure whih channel Lorraine Kelly was on these days! SOrry if I'm breaking the rules. :(
| 5:06 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|As G moves more to constant updating on a growing number of important ranking factors, with ongoing testing and tweaking of multiple algo's, the scope and magnitude of everflux becomes greater, approaching that of some of the more minor updates. At the same time, as G gets ever better at identifying spam, and testing ranking variables, it may also be possible that algo updates will eventually become less severe. |
A gem of a post!
If that's true SEOs who paid little attention to everflux are going to find that monitoring it is becoming an increasingly important part of the job (and a time consuming one). And that opens the market for a new range of webmaster tools.
| 5:36 pm on Sep 9, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Not sure this really fits in here, but I was thinking about the large increase in pages showing in the index.
What if Google is counting the same URL more than once - if it is different at different times? The old page would be in the supplemental index, and the new page in the current index. It would be a combination of Google and archive.org. I am guessing Google has the ability to do this, and there would be definite advantages to doing this.
There has been speculation that time factors were introducted with one of the updates (was it Florida?) - and the Sandbox started sometime after that.
It is one factor I think I'd be interested in looking at to rank websites on quality. The best way to calculate the development of a site over time would require you to have snapshots of the web at different time points.
Additionally, there may be relevant content that was on a site last year, but it got removed. Additionally, a site may have linked to another site from it's main page last month, but now is linking to the site from an archive page on the site this month - should the pagerank from the original link maybe still carry some weight? You could get some very elaborate forumla for rankings sites if you added a time dimension.
Of course while the formula may become more elaborate, it doesn't necessarily equate to better search results. As it may help filter artificial linking schemes and duplicate content issues, though, I think it would have potential. If I'm thinking of it - I'm sure someone at Google has considered it at some point. I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually been discussed here at WW before - sorry if it has, or if it is of no interest. I just think it's important to consider all possibilities when trying to understand changes in the SERPs.