| 3:04 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have exactly the same results like before September 22nd on that datacenter. Hopefully something is happening
| 3:05 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I had a 40% increase in traffic during the last hour.
| 3:11 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You can also watch the following dcs:
Is it moving?
| 3:13 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
[edited by: tebrino at 3:14 am (utc) on Oct. 10, 2005]
| 3:14 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Does your site do links? 3 ways? non recip?
| 3:27 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have 20 sites gone and 2 are left in the results. Strange day.
If this sticks then google really screwed up. I don't see any sites on the first 10 pages that are relevant. Bye bye google
| 3:42 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Our site does not normally do links, we just link out where appropriate and it fits our content, never ask or get links back. 99.9% are natural organic links (we have been going for 6 years or so)Just have three recip links (we did these three years ago to very good sites) , don't know what 3 way links are (sorry) However, we have linked to a site in the UK which is trying to get established ie its new with no PR. I have deleted our links to it and will ask the site in the UK to stop linking to us (when they wake up in the UK) Thing is we are still receiving google traffic but all these phantoms are worrying.
| 3:59 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I saw the results on 126.96.36.199 on other dc's earlier today. They don't appear to be there anymore. On the july 22nd update (the start of the niche updates) they kept one dc with the old results for about a week.
Are the current production results new as well?
| 4:31 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Just had a thought- we do have a new recip link to a brand new site in same vein as ours in another country (the UK) we are trying to help out. Has pr of 0 and its purely informational, original and very very well written and researched. Could it be new site recip link filter then? Should I take our link to them off or ask them not to link back to us? |
Perhaps the better idea would be to simply
If there is a site you think is good quality, and you would link to it anyway for your visitors, by all means link to it (that's the way the web is supposed to work).
|It makes me nervous as do we stop what we are doing (basicaly adding infromation on our subject) as it looks like years of work is going down the pan. |
Why? Has your site crashed? Has all you info been wiped out? Can people no longer access your site?
For gosh sakes people.....if Google can make or break your traffic, then it's YOUR problem, not theirs. One of our major sites dropped from google on July 16th or so, yet we still receive thousands of visitors per day. Perhaps if some of you would take off your "Google traffic is everything" blinders and realize there is a plethora of OTHER inexpensive and (relatively) easy ways to generate traffic, perhaps these rediculous "this datacenter moved my site one spot" threads would stop dominating the discussions here, and we could focus on the heart of the REAL issue - the lack of a diversified traffic strategy by so many webmasters.
| 4:44 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Point taken, but despite what people say Google accounts for 70% of our se traffic.
We do need other avenues, agreed and it is our problem and we never say its anyone elses, I'm not blaming Google (or never have), we have no god given right to be in but so far nothing we can find comes close so I don't really want to upset them if I can help it.
The other site we link to is of exceptional quality but we have inadvertently tripped a Google link filter then maybe I have found out from this thread. I just want to understand what we have done wrong (if anything) The recip link has gone and we'll see what happens.
| 5:35 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
on 188.8.131.52 some of the sites affected by the Sep 22nd changes (and from previous updates) are back in good positions and a few others (mainly low quality sites IMHO) disappear almost completely.
But the ones coming back into the SERPs, at least in my sector, are all good quality pages. Among my sites, most do not get positive, some a couple of spots backwards (due to reappearances of others) and a small site doing very good.
Overall I believe those results look good and would indicate that Google is on the right path, although they may not spread to other DCs as yesterday they were in approximately 10-12 DCs and as of now they are just visible on 66.102.7.x
| 7:05 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If the results on 66.102.7.** stick, I guess it will be one of the biggest updates since Florida. Clearly taking a dig at SEOs in a way that recips and/or keywords in anchors are attempted at being discounted.
I seriously doubt if this will work in favor, since it seems algo is discounting recips only on the basis of them being recips (direct or 3-way). Relevancy of links doesn't seem to make any difference.
| 7:22 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> If the results on 66.102.7.** stick
I find a new job ;) Horrible results..yuck.. (which means they probably will stick...)
| 7:33 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If they stick no one will use google anymore. I can't find any useful sites when I search. Many sites are gone. Yahoo and Msn is much better.
| 7:34 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
184.108.40.206 isn't effecting any Sept 22 sites I've been tracking.
| 7:35 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>If the results on 66.102.7.** stick, I guess it will be one of the biggest updates since Florida.<<
The results on the DCs you mentioned show that Google hasnīt been able yet to fix the duplicates problems. I.e Google still canīt differentiate between the originals and duplicated contents. I.e legitimate sites will still risk being dropped while duplicated pages/sites rank high on the serps, UNFORTUNATELY (:(
| 7:43 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The results on the DCs you mentioned show that Google hasnīt been able yet to fix the duplicates problems |
Reseller, there isn't any attempt at addressing the dupe problem in this dc. It is clearly a "kill the SEO" attempt. Narrow vision of a BIG company?
| 7:49 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
you guys are really hurting my feelings saying that the 220.127.116.11 results are terrible. I'm back to #1 again on most search just as it was from year 2000 to feb 2005.
These results still have not propagated to my default google.com
| 8:07 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>Reseller, there isn't any attempt at addressing the dupe problem in this dc. It is clearly a "kill the SEO" attempt. Narrow vision of a BIG company? <<
Exactly. Just after Allegra 2-3rd Feb 2005, I wrote several posts that Google engineers have been waging undeclared war against SEO, mostly against whitehat SEO.
And see what kind of miserable serps the folks at Google Search Quality Team have ended with. Instead of solving REAL problems as duplicated pages, canonical issue, supplemental results etc.. they ended in killing legitimate sites including education sites.
And they are killing Google Search Engine at daylight. Who is paying those people to kill our beloved Google - The Mother of All search Engines?
| 8:14 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Is 66.102.7.** on the main google for anyone?
| 8:17 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I dont know if those results are spreading or not.
Not really moving around the dcs much.
I am also not seeing enough Googlebot activity for my sites to even hope of a recovery yet :( - but those DCs have restored slight faith that Google can sometimes get things right - or a bit better at any rate.
Of course IMO :)
[edited by: Dayo_UK at 8:18 am (utc) on Oct. 10, 2005]
| 8:17 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google is dead.
| 8:20 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> Google is dead.
Not so much dead, more like a teenager who has an embarrassing medical condition but refuses to see the doctor. Or something.
| 8:43 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>>Google is dead.
Even if this is an update and not a test of certain factors on some DC - it is only at a very very early stage.
Wait it out for a little while.
>>>>>If they stick no one will use google anymore. I can't find any useful sites when I search. Many sites are gone. Yahoo and Msn is much better.
Lol - have you been using Google recently. It has been hard to find useful sites for a while - yet they still seem to retain the traffic.
| 8:47 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|it is only at a very very early stage |
Dayo, it may be in an early stage with few filters to be added/removed. But the intent is pretty clear.
[edited by: McMohan at 8:50 am (utc) on Oct. 10, 2005]
| 8:48 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>But the intent is clear.
Yep - it does look like they are trying to fix a problem - but they have tried to fix it before and failed.
Lets hope that this one works :) - If they get it right it is more likely to be the return of Google :)
But I have seen many false dawns.
| 8:51 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For me it IS on Google.com. No, it's not good. One site up, one site down. No change in their ability to index the pages they crawl. Still a good project for a couple of college kids though. ;)
| 9:01 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
its a mix of heavyweight sites and schoolboy classic spam that they seemed to be getting the better of two years ago. Keyword stuffing, network linking, anchor spam now sits shoulder to shoulder with heavyweight sites while what was inbetween has been dropped. Its almost as though heavyweight sites have been manually boosted or some form of trust rank is in operation since its hard to see how they could get it so wrong and so right at the same time.
| 9:05 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
soapystar, near perfect analysis :)
| 9:44 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I watch carefully a regional real estate niche.
I didn't see many changes on the week of September 22nd.
However, on the weekend of September 30th, I saw some sites with duplicate and high keyword density drop in SERPs.
From what I've read, many of the posts in this thread are related to travel and vacation rental niches.
I will like to see more tremors in my regional niche.
So far, I like very, very much what I've seen.
| 10:02 am on Oct 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Oh ffs - a site that Google was treating the Canonical page correctly (or so it appeared) and was getting crawled again - G has now got wrong.
Listen Google - I will say this only another 90 times. The canonical url for my site is the homepage with the www - I have done the 301 - this is the page with the most backlinks - it is the page that should rank for the company name search. Etc.
and where is Googlebot for these sites with Canonical url problems?