| 10:24 pm on Oct 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The example from Matt's blog is a bad one. That is more likely the sandbox, or at least, it *should* be a sandbox issue.
Despite the wasted space of half this thread, and even though there will always be parasites who descend on these threads to post their ongoing hatred of Google comments, there have been some useful things posted, and some directions people can try to go.
| 11:02 pm on Oct 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>reseller 1000 posts and 75% are from you.<<
Now why have you forced me to do some calculations in such late hour my local time (instead of hitting the bed) ;-)
For obvious reasons I couldnīt go through the whole thread and the 1000 posts to verify your claim, but you are most welcome to do it. Its your claim after all.
However, instead I went through the latest 300 posts. I.e from post No. 701 to post No. 1000, and here is what I got:
I have posted 38 posts.
Now lets do the math together:
38/300 X 100 = 12.7%
So much for your 75% ;-)
Good night and God bless.
| 12:15 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For you data center watchers, the following are showing some big movement for a few things I follow:
| 12:29 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sinse my sites got banned from google, I have noticed referrals in my stats from alot of texas-holdem-poker.html webpages.
When I visit the referring page there is no reference to my website at all even when I view the source.
Every one of my banned websites has this problem.
There are many different domains doing the referring but I checked them all out and they are all owned by the same person or company.
I could not figure out how my sites could be getting referrals from the spam sites until I started reading about Matt Cutts website getting hijacked by cloakers. Now it all makes sense!
Some examples of the referring urls ar below:
Am I the only one seeing these types of referrers in their stats?When you visit the referrer there is nothing about my website at all?
| 12:49 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I noticed Google cached my homepage today, but sadly it wasn't able to crawl my website because none of the new pages are cached.
I haven't changed anything on the homepage to cause them to NOT be able to crawl, so it must be another Google glitch.
| 12:52 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A user is using an anonymizer tool to protect his true referring page identity.
This is common.
| 12:55 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
eyezshine, I have seen things like that as well with some of my domains... change your browser agent string to look like Gbot and visit those pages and see what shows up... FireFox makes it real easy to change your Browser Agent and look like a Gbot... funny what you find when looking through Google colored glasses.
reseller, crush doesn't speak for me, carry on.
| 12:57 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I notice lots of movement on some of those as well. Not that I was a datacenter watcher until recently :-)
Though inline with other problems discussed today I note on "site name" search on some of those the front page now lists an Afghanistan blog (hosted by Blogger just to complete the picture) who have copied a news article from our site.../-: Not that I am bothered about a search on "site name" since not how we get traffic, but if repeated across the board can only be bad news I think.
Indeed other sites either linking to us or posting a snippet and link have now moved onto the front page of the results for the first time ever...will be interesting to see wht effect this has if rolled out across all the data centers...though I fear a negative one for us as the source.
Easier to spot copyright violations mind you! Though getting the time to follow them up is another matter...
[edited by: FattyB at 1:10 am (utc) on Oct. 5, 2005]
| 1:07 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My observations are, on those data centers, that Google has given credit for new links. Maybe.
I say this because a site of mine that I do not optimize shot up to number one for a keyword that is in the anchor text of a PR8 link that it recently recieved.
You with me?
| 1:11 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, that would make sense regards new links. The new entries are all recent posts with snippets from us or links to us.
Though not having a positive effect on our own listing under "site name" but hopefully will have a positive on results for the term linked.
Though again even if they had not linked (in this case they linked the headline) it would still bring them up under a search for "site name," which is bad I guess, unless (where a link) the punter clicks through...with snippets I would think they will but not with a full article copy like this example...though that is a copyright manner anyway I guess.
If it rolls out then might see a traffic increase, will see what happens tomorrow...can only get better after last week or so...I hope.
| 1:49 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Have you folks seen the PR10 site that these hijackers have put together? It appears to be stealing its PR from www.google.com itself. Check out www.pr10. <hijackerdomain> .com if you've seen part of the site already. Also, I noticed that Matt's blog is showing PR0 now. Google has some serious problems on their hands.
| 1:59 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The PR trick isn't hijacking, it's tricking GoogleBot into thinking your site is actually google.com (or a different actual PR10 site) by using a 301 redirect to only GoogleBot IPs/User Agents when they request a page. Normal surfers will see the hacky site but GBot sees itself (or PR10 site). Check out the cache of the site in question (use site:www.pr10.hackydomain.com to find it), you'll see what I mean.
Did Matt's Blog ever have visible PR yet?
Sorry, a bit OT.
| 2:32 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
eyezshine, that is a common tactic of one network of garbage sites. They link to authority sites, get crawled, then serve up other trash on the domain.
While I doubt that is "it", certainly all these putrid links don't help the value of a site in Google's eyes, despite the now plainly false claim that competitors can't hurt you.
| 3:58 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This thread is the proof that whatever Google did, it did right.
The more SEO's are whining the better the algo was.
How's that for beeing googleguy buddy for so long. Keep your mouth shut instead of helping the googleguys the next time. Do you know how much your feedback is worth? All this "my DC here, the search term there, spam complaint here, etc"....all this beanspilling got you exactly where you deserve to be.
I won't get specific regarding who it is, but on this thread you'll see exactly who I mean: look at their previous posts to googleguy. They helped their own demise and are now shook up cuz Google is just a business and not your beer buddy.
When, in the million year history of capitalism, have you heard of a company help you crush her? WHO told you you'd get away with it helping googleguy? Since when are SEO's big buddies with engineguys? Get real.
Stop whining, the more you whine the biggest the raise for whoever destroyed SEO at google.
| 4:22 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am sure there are SEO's posting here but I am also sure most of the users are just 'normal' web masters...I do not consider myself a SEO...a web masters and a user yes.
If posting what I think is wrong with a results page or flux in how a site is doing helps Google then all the better. I don't get up to anything shady so I am not worried about them using info on here to work against me. It is in their interest to work with sites to give users the most relevant results and so generate income for both parties and keep users of both services happy...as I understand it.
I am not sure I see the point of your post either...
| 4:54 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone had every page on a site buried but their index page? I dropped a few positions there, but quit looking for my other pages although they are still in Google somewhere.
| 6:05 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Coolblues, Yes, I have every page except the index removed.
Like all of my sites every page has been written by me
and I have not copied anything.
over the last few days I did notice that some of the metas were similar, so I have gone through every page of the site (its not that large) and ensured that it is 100% original and organic.
have also filed a reinclusion request.
Right now I have zero confidence that the site which is 100% original will be back in Google any time soon, if ever..
| 6:13 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good morning Folks!
I see the top 5 sites have settled down on the majority of the Dcs in relation to the keyphrases I test.
Lets wait and see whether this update/non-update thing is over or whether it is going to keep everfluxing.
To my friends fellow webmasters whom sites have been affected since 22nd Sept. 2005!
I do hope that what has been going on wasnīt an update, and there is still an update pending between now and December 2005 (as per GoogleGuy) where your sites will see the daylight again.
| 6:36 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The search phrase was ami-2019f [google.com] ... I'm shocked AlexK since for my current version of Google.com your supplemental pages are showing up as #1 and as an indented #2 |
Thanks for looking. However...
Click on the link, and you will find that it is nothing to do with my site - an old free sub-domain from years ago which no longer goes to my site yet, like the undead, stays on Planet Google and supplants my actual site in the SERPs.
| 7:01 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
OK, one of my sites moved waaay down the SERFp for a search against its own site name. So, I added on another domain to the account, created a few links from another site and hey presto.. the new site easily outranks the old one.
It *does* look like some sort of penalty has been applied then.
| 7:40 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
check those 2 DC's
| 8:03 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Sinse my sites got banned from google, I have noticed referrals in my stats from alot of texas-holdem-poker.html webpages. |
the exact same thing happened to me last week. My site which is about 2.5 years old and had steady pr7/6 for over 2 years got toally removed from google and the pr dropped.
referals from these gambling/drugs sites - but nothing on the sites when I visit them. Clearly these sites are cloaked with one thing in mind - getting sites banned.
The game is well and truely over - how can we trust google again after this.
Luckly the site was a hobby site with no real income, but I fear it could happen to more important sites.
I anyone knows more about this, please sticky me.
| 8:13 am on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The most loved search engine amongst webmasters is quickly becoming the most hated. I'm sure everyone here will soon be jumping on the Microsoft MSN bandwagon and dump Google altogether, they have a lousy team of engineers at Google, and guess what?
Everyone here helped GoogleGuy but look what happens when things go down? Where is he? Maybe he's laughing away, sending all your feedback and insights to the Google engineers and disappeared. He already has all the things he needs to know, and know everyone here has been duped by Google, the team of greedy nerds.
| 12:10 pm on Oct 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This thread has run its course.