homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.235.227.60
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 1014 message thread spans 34 pages: < < 1014 ( 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 34 > >     
My site has been First Now vanished from Google
My site has been the first of its kind, I drop off Google
sabine7777




msg:760006
 6:35 am on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

For the past year I have experienced periodically being completely dropped off Google. My site has been the FIRST of its kind and is in all the natural search results on the first spot. I'm just a small business, but since spet of 2004 I have been vanishing off of Google every 6 weeks or so--recently it has been more often and for longer periods. Does Google discriminate against Older sites? Are they doing it so that we will advertise with them? Any help, advice, comment from a desperate single mother of 4!

 

stargeek




msg:760456
 7:21 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

web_seeker: i don't think its really a comparison as much as a memorial and a metaphor, perhaps it is a bit insesative.

so Rita sounds good.

reseller




msg:760457
 7:38 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Folks

Its a cease fire now, where Google engineers are doing some "damage Assessment" before the launch of the next wave of carpet bombing. The same happened during Allegra and Bourbon.

I see you also relaxing with Rita Garbo. Or was it Rita Hayworth ;-)

Next few days you migt discover that you are dealing with nothing less than The Terminator himself.

Enjoy the cease fire ;-)

tmartini




msg:760458
 7:53 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

What's to enjoy? The results are still crap. ;-) I've even stopped using Google for personal searches because it's become impossible to find what I'm looking for. The good news is that if they keep screwing up this bad, we won't have to worry about ranking in Google for too much longer! They'll be going the way of AltaVista, Excite, Lycos, etc... 8-)

-- T

stargeek




msg:760459
 7:59 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Its a cease fire now, where Google engineers are doing some "damage Assessment" before the launch of the next wave of carpet bombing."

you think that the updated DCs will go back to what we saw yesterday?

edit: it doesn't appear as a rollback tho, there are more results on the updated DCs today than there was yesterday and than are on www now.

stargeek




msg:760460
 8:01 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

and BTW when i say updated DCs I mean:
66.102.9.104 and
66.102.9.99

reseller




msg:760461
 8:18 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

stargeek

>>you think that the updated DCs will go back to what we saw yesterday? <<

Not at all. Take a look at one of the Dcs I posted and compare its serps to the one you posted, and you shall see the difference. Im gonna sticky you a keyphrases to save your time. You may wish to pay a special attention to first 10 results ;-)

66.102.9.104 stargeek DC

216.239.59.104 reseller Dc

stargeek




msg:760462
 8:20 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

reseller: sounds good
so far i've been unable to see changes on that dc.

edit: OK now i'm seeing 3 different data sets on www, your dc, and mine.

steveb




msg:760463
 8:27 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

There is no www.
There is no "google.com"
There are only datacenters.

reseller




msg:760464
 8:30 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

stargeek

>>edit: OK now i'm seeing 3 different data sets on www, your dc, and mine. <<

Agreed.

Therefor awaiting for the emerge of The Terminator ;-)

pescatore




msg:760465
 8:46 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Happy last birthday google (we hope)

stargeek




msg:760466
 8:47 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

"There is no www.
There is no "google.com"
There are only datacenters."

agreed, and i should correct myself because the dc you are seeing on "www" varies by location I believe.

Dayo_UK




msg:760467
 9:24 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Reseller.

Thanks but No way ;)

The Reseller update is perhaps more appropriate.

Although if G are after affiliate sites then perhaps that is not the correct term :(

Let GG name it then at least we know it is official :)

reseller




msg:760468
 9:39 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Here is a very interesting reading!

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said in a phone interview with CNET News.com (Published: September 26, 2005):

"We're announcing tonight that in terms of unduplicated pages our index is now three times larger than any other search engine," he said, without saying how many pages are in the index."

What did he mean by; in terms of unduplicated pages?

steveb




msg:760469
 10:08 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

[google.com...]
"To see for yourself, try searching for something very specific, or try a query that previously returned very few results. For example, you could enter your name or hometown, along with your favorite color or animal. Navigate to the last page to see how many results the search engine really delivered. (On the last page, you may have to click the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link to see all the results.) Do this on different search engines for several queries and see what you come up with. As you can imagine, we've run quite a few tests like this, and we expect your results will be very similar to ours."

Then, Google, you should be embarrassed. Forcing people to go to the last page to click a link to bring up your "real" search results is embarrassing to say the least.

Then, to state the obvious, no Google employee has earned the right to say "unduplicated pages". Google has not demonstrated *any* ability to know what those two words mean.

pescatore




msg:760470
 10:28 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

"We're announcing tonight that in terms of unduplicated pages our index is now three times larger than any other search engine,"
........
how many of you fellow webmasters have 2-20 times more (ghost) pages then you really have?
I run a site with 1200 pages and a search site:www.mysite.com gives 11000 results! Is that the way google trying to proof that they have the largest index? Cary on Google...Keep on blowing the balloon until it booms......and then RIP.

europeforvisitors




msg:760471
 10:30 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is that the way google trying to proof that they have the largest index? Cary on Google...Keep on blowing the balloon until it booms......and then RIP.

[webmasterworld.com...]

FromRocky




msg:760472
 10:32 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

(On the last page, you may have to click the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link to see all the results.)

Not all the results but the most you can see is 1000.

JoeHouse




msg:760473
 10:36 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Guys just got in from a long day on my day job. Can someone fill me in?

Are we in the beginning of a new google update? Or is this the middle or end?

How long will this update last for?

Please Advise. I have not been kept up to speed on how google now updates their index.

Thanks in advance for your response.

modemmike




msg:760474
 11:03 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

JoeHouse, no official update yet, just a pissing contest to see who has the biggest index... Slurp is going nuts & Google is inflating index count.

I keep asking myself, who cares who has the bigger index? I hate to say it but saying "Yahoo it" or "MSN it" doesn't have the same ring as "Google it". The only people that care IMHO who has the bigger index is the SE's themselves. Is all of this index count BS meant to drive stocks up or what?

nutsandbolts




msg:760475
 11:05 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

> Is all of this index count BS meant to drive stocks up or what?

Possibly. It should be the QUALITY of the results, not the quantity.

I just wish Google would remember how they became successful and at least try and bolster their support structure for webmasters.

modemmike




msg:760476
 11:14 pm on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I sometimes wish I was back at my old job in TV (I was just a low level grunt) because someone needs to pick up this underground rumbling and make a national story out of it... there is a lot of "meat" to this whole SE war taking place... any reporter with half the knowledge of myself could make a great special about all of this.

The general public won't stop using Google even if the results get horrible because Google is so implanted into everyone's psyche... heck my grandmother that thinks her computer is haunted knows to use Google. Hmmm, were is Stone Phillips phone number :)

macdave




msg:760477
 12:09 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Eric Schmidt:
"We're announcing tonight that in terms of unduplicated pages our index is now three times larger than any other search engine," he said, without saying how many pages are in the index."

That pretty much confirms that this "update" is not an algo change but, as previously noted in this thread, the inclusion or reinclusion in the index of many scrapers, near-duplicates, old redirects, deleted pages, URL-only listings, supplemental results, and other junk URLs.

All of them extremely information-rich and useful, I'm sure.

europeforvisitors




msg:760478
 1:24 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

That pretty much confirms that this "update" is not an algo change but, as previously noted in this thread, the inclusion or reinclusion in the index of many scrapers, near-duplicates, old redirects, deleted pages, URL-only listings, supplemental results, and other junk URLs.

Are you suggesting that the update (if it is an update) is complete? That doesn't appear to be the case, to judge from the minute-to-minute bouncing that I'm seeing for several competitive keywords and keyphrases.

macdave




msg:760479
 1:27 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

No, it doesn't seem to be complete. There are still pages being shuffled in and out of the index for many of the keywords I've been watching.

walkman




msg:760480
 3:40 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> No, it doesn't seem to be complete

It never is complete...especially in the begining of an update cycle. They're always fine tunning not to harm innocent sites.

reseller




msg:760481
 5:46 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Good morning Folks

Maybe we are just looking at the reason(s) why THIS update hasn't been recognized yet as an update.

It will be embarrassing for Google to say that there is an update underway to clean the index of duplicates while Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt announcing at the same time that Google ALREADY in terms of unduplicated pages is now three times larger than any other search engine.

Having said that, nothing done or said have dismissed the possibility of algo changes during this update or dismissed the possibility that they are also targetting sites/pages related to affiliate marketing among other things etc..

Lets wait and see what will happen during the next phase of this update ;-)

pescatore




msg:760482
 5:55 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

good morning Reseler ,is not funny that this thread has now 48 pages and 477 messages ,but no ww insider(Brett or GG) has not mention anything yet?.(not even mention at the front page of ww)

reseller




msg:760483
 6:23 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wouldn't blame our generous host Brett for anything. He said on September 22, "Lets put it on ice till something more definative comes up"

[webmasterworld.com...]

And neither GoogleGuy or Matt Cutts said anything definitive about this update yet.

Having said that, we should keep in mind that those two kind gentlemen are both employed by Google and we should expect that they are there to serve the interest of Google as commercial organization.

Moreover, neither GoogleGuy or Matt Cutts is expected to say anything that contradict what Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt say.

Therefor the killing silence of GoogleGuy and Matt Cutts!

reseller




msg:760484
 6:24 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

by mistake have posted a duplicate while editing my previous post... sorry

[edited by: reseller at 6:25 am (utc) on Sep. 28, 2005]

Kimkia




msg:760485
 6:25 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

This update reminds me of 2002, when the Webseed network had a major penalty imposed by Google. Webseed was a network of content based sites; it provided the content management system and made it easy for writers accepted into the network to have their own domain and appear on the web without any knowledge of html.

That's how I started. There were thousands of content based sites in Webseed; many of them high ranking in PR and SERPS. Then the penalty came and the bottom fell out.

What Google decided it didn't like was Webseed's habit of linking "related" results from their network in the footer. What you had was thousands of sites interlinked artificially by Webseed. At first, it worked great - new sites got links from established domains and within a month or so were indexed in Google and off to the races. Webseed shared advertising revenue with the writers - sort of, but that's another story.

Anyway, somewhere along the line, Google decided that Webseed was little more than a link farm and thousands of innocent writers were left in the dust. Webseed folded. Writers with no HTML experience either left the web...or found a new web host and struggled to learn HTML. Like me.

I joined WebmasterWorld and learned what I needed to get by. I bought a domain intending to have the best site in my field and to work my way up to the top of very competitive SERPS - and I made it. I provided original content for hundreds of projects and occupied the top of the tree for the past three years. Now I'm in the toilet.

Why am I feeling deja vu? Because in my haste to put up pages, I used a simple navigation system...home page, description of the separate sections, plus links to "featured" articles; sitemap, a simple listing of all pages with complete urls; and then separate category indexes, almost like subdomains, to allow me to offer a thumbnail pic and description of the various projects available on my site. And on individual pages, I gave a hand selected (not dynamic) list of "related" pages on my own site that readers might find interesting. I should have learned from Webseed's mistake!

For months now I've been feeling disheartened...because the site that dominates the SERPS for my search terms is a directory...all it provides is links to other pages on other sites. Those links are buried in the page under the heading "Free Widget Plans" or whatever...below the listings for Amazon books, with text description of the book about widget plans that is relevant to many other affiliate offerings but only incidentally to the "content" of the page itself. If you can call links to pages on another site your "content."

This is NOT a scraper site. Links are hand selected and do have some relevance. But still - they are just links, never mind that this site is in DMOZ as a "directory" and is obviously regarded by Google as the world expert in my field. Bah...

Here's the conundrum for me: this site is doing fine and dandy, thank you, because none of the scraper sites bother to scrape a directory that is little more than links itself. What scraper sites hunt for is sites like mine...those with original, valid content that until now were regarded with some respect in Google.

Not any more. Apparently, because I have linked to my own pages with snippet keyword phrases that make sense to readers, I'm now a "spam" site that is worthy of nothing more than supplemental index.

I haven't returned a reciprocal link for ages. I get natural links and think that should speak for itself.

I was proud of my site and what I had accomplished. This update makes me ill. I'm now being outclassed in a lot of search terms by Amazon book ads. So much for Google's slimmed down index...I'm sure that readers looking for solid information on the net are going to be thrilled with links to books they can buy at their local Chapters.

reseller




msg:760486
 7:35 am on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Open Letter To:

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt

Dear Sir,

I'm asking you kindly in the name of public interest, the truth that should always be told and decent conduct to withdraw or amend your following statement which was published September 26, 2005 on CNET News.com :

"We're announcing tonight that in terms of unduplicated pages our index is now three times larger than any other search engine,"

[news.com.com...]

My reasons:

- You haven't mentioned the exact number of "unduplicated pages" on Google index at present. The public has the right to know the exact figures you are operating with and base your statement on.

- You haven't mentioned how you define and count "unduplicated pages".

- Several members of WebmasterWorld community have documented without any reasonable doubt that Google has removed the "legitimate originals" of hundreds or maybe thousands of pages from Google index, while the duplicates of such "legitimate originals" are left to appear and rank on Google serach result pages. I.e you are counting and regarding duplicated pages as unduplicated pages.

Finally, I'm in support of the following statement of my fellow WebmasterWorld member steveb:

"Then, Google, you should be embarrassed. Forcing people to go to the last page to click a link to bring up your "real" search results is embarrassing to say the least.
Then, to state the obvious, no Google employee has earned the right to say "unduplicated pages". Google has not demonstrated *any* ability to know what those two words mean."

[webmasterworld.com...]

Looking forward for your urgent action.

All the best,

reseller

This 1014 message thread spans 34 pages: < < 1014 ( 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 34 > >
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