| 3:29 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Do you all consider this update, done and complete, or are you expecting to see more shuffling over the next week or so? (just curious) "
We're in the middle of Part 2 of a 3 part update. the third part may or may not start next wednesday according to Google bloke.
| 3:31 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Sure their adwords revenues are going up... their business is growing at a fantastic rate. To demonstrate a connection like the one suggested you would actually have to show that the people who got dropped spent less on adwords than those who got to stay, and that those who got dropped then increased adwords revenues in order to contribute to Google's growth. |
Did their number of over all clients increase at such a phenomenal rate? ..or did many spend more revenue ..over more target words ..?
Yes the adwords market overall is growing ..but the money in the advertising machine is not getting significantly greater ..just shuffling around from print to screen ..
Speculation on my part ..no ..jaded experience speaking ..yes .:)
| 3:51 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've did a spam report on a pharmaceutical search term. The query was "Keyword online".
I just looked at the first 20 results and there were only 3 relevant sites. The rest were only blog spamms, redirects or pages from spammed blogs...
Will Google ever make some light on pharmaceuticals. There are quite a few quality and relevant sites that are lost in that jungle... Anyone who works in this sector can confirm this.
| 3:58 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't think there is an IP that will preview the new Google UK results.
It is worth keeping an eye on AOL UK as historically the new results have often appeared here first.
| 4:02 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Wordy :-)
Now, here is one for you all about SEO, and its merits! Take a look at the site www.tired.com . Then take a look at the page rank and source code, and tell me what SEO is! Fab idea by the way!
| 4:16 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
87 backlinks ..most with relevant surrounding text ..
| 4:17 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
this tired one looks like using the coment spam im constantly banning from my site.
| 4:18 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Then take a look at the page rank |
PR has *everything* to do with inbound links and NOTHING to do with content...
Besides the single *tiny* term (10K searches/month - Overture) -- the domain name -- what does the site rank for?
| 4:20 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And it ranks number 1 in Google and Yahoo!
SEO's ask your nextdoor neighbor to optimize your site and forget everything you learned. :oP
| 4:21 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Now, here is one for you all about SEO, and its merits! Take a look at the site www.tired.com . Then take a look at the page rank and source code, and tell me what SEO is! |
87 backlinks ( showing )..most with relevant surrounding text ..even if on irrelevant areas ..and then one wonders who owns the domains that are linking ..
gaming "g" isn't hard ..
nicest minimalist landing page I ever saw ..Uber doorway!#1 from 53 million ..
| 4:27 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|SEO's ask your nextdoor neighbor to optimize your site and forget everything you learned |
Probably the best advice so far in this thread!
| 4:31 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
if we remove pages via Google remove, are they still counted when it comes to the SERPS?
More specifically: I linked to my good site from a now old site (no more update but has lot's of articles and comments). I only linked to it from the index page, but it's phpnuke based and uses mod_rewrite. Somehow, the index page had 8000+ entries on Google. Yahoo and Google had /indexsomething/folder/folder/etc... and ALL showed the index.html instead of a 404. I think, that G's algo flipped when they saw "8000+ links" from another site I owned and "sandboxed" /sent my site to no man's land.
I'm not asking you to confirm if that will cause a penalty, but please answer if "remove" means that those pages will not be looked at when doing the algo calculations?
| 4:53 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Does it seem like when you ad adsense to your site , adding more than 1 box and google thinks your site is a spam site and DROPS you from the SERPS like a bad habit.... Yea that does seem about right.
| 4:55 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Would the following increase a site's "trustmark"?
Subscribe to the Better Business Bureau online certification program or a similar "Trust-e" certification program and place their logo on your home page with a link back to their site.
Would this demonstrate to Google that a site is not spamming?
| 5:20 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
jd01 > PR has *everything* to do with inbound links and NOTHING to do with content...
According to Googles own page rank explanation, it does!
They say at [google.com...] " Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines all aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query."
| 5:23 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|like when you ad adsense to your site , adding more than 1 box and google thinks your site is a spam site |
yeah, and if you say google backwards, it contains a satanic message... sorry couldn't resist!
| 5:24 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have 2 adsense for content boxes on my new blog, and one for search, and it got PR3 , so not sure about that one.
| 5:25 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Page rank is exactly as jd said.
Ranking in serps is a combination of factors. One of the factors is PR.
You can even read the original papers on it.
| 5:27 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just did as you instructed and filed a "Dissatisfied? Help us improve" report with the subject Jagger2, GoogleGuy and my WebmasterWorld nick.
Our rankings tanked on October 16th and we are completely white hat with tons of industry related content (update daily).
Your help would be *greatly* appreciated.
[edited by: dspringer at 5:32 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
| 5:31 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
theBear....point taken,having checked on Google with define:page rank
| 5:32 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|You can even read the original papers on it. |
I highly recommend this!
The *importance* of a page (PR) does *not* have to do with the text on the page...
The *relevance* of a page has everything to do with the text on the page...
I have seen BLANK PR4 pages, because they were linked to by high PR pages (on accident), but those pages did not show in the results... It was important, but not relevant to anything.
PR has nothing to do with the content of a page, and everything to do with links.
Added: Did not see the previous reply while posting =)
| 5:44 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>PR has nothing to do with the content of a page, and everything to with links. <<<
Ok. But I went and wrote many articles about uses and safety with the product we sell thru a storefront. The website is for that storefront. Many article sites picked them up and many sites that cater to people that use our products picked them up. Then all the links back to me began to be dup content and filtered by google. They all became supplemental results.
So then I began to get directories to link to me and actually picked up quite a bit of traffic from them. not google. but they were displayed in google so in a roundabout way I was getting the traffic. Then google decide directories were irrelevant and most of them ended up disappearing and I believe their links discounted.
Where does that leave me? Harvard isn't going to link to me. msn, cnn aren't going to link to me.
Google continues to ignore my site.
msn and yahoo give me 80% of my traffic. The rest comes from directories, ask, some sites for people that are for people that use our products.
| 5:49 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hotel/travel SERPs still not good.
We run a small destination site and obviously offer ones of the best deals on the Web. However, Google results consist of only large booking sites only - there are approx. 30 travel/hotel sites changing their spots and nothing else.
Each of these sites have auto-generated pages. Each page with the same keyword stuffed text such as:
"enjoy up to 70% discounts on hotels in <small destination>. We have xx hotels here ..."
I am sure all of us know what I am talking about.
Of course, quality sites offering good information and better choice for the buyer have been kicked to pages 4-8 or even further.
Same happened to us on October 16, 2005 as well.
Is it going to be altered with Jagger3 or does Google consider such SERPs right ones?
| 5:52 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Mmmmm Interesting. MSN referrals up 400% and G down 400%
| 5:56 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Based on what I'm seeing, the #1 factor in getting ranked now is quantity of BL's (over quality). Quality has been thrown out the window.
Seems like to be #1, you should make a free hit counter, make everyone who uses it link to a site you want to rank #1 and voila, in a few weeks you are there! Seems to work like a charm for tons of sites ranking #1 now.
I've reported the sites I've seen doing this, but if this report is followed the same way as the others I've done, I have a feeling the site will actually improve in rankings afterwards.
|More Traffic Please|
| 6:02 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Based on what I'm seeing, the #1 factor in getting ranked now is quantity of BL's (over quality). Quality has been thrown out the window. |
I agree, and I also think the number of internal BL's is playing a much bigger role accounting for the 50K + page sites wiping out the smaller more focused niche sites.
[edited by: More_Traffic_Please at 6:03 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
| 6:02 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just saw your post to me. Thank you very much. Now if I could just figure out how that seo is using his servers to funnel backlinks to these sites that really don't belong there I would let you know that too. These guys not only wear the black hats but masks too. I just get bent out of shape when I work so hard on my sites and try to avoid anything that could possibly impede their progress and then along comes a firm that will be so dark. It's also why they can do things so cheap. No real content=no real hours of work.
Now I have to go watch my daughter receive her academic achievement award <brag> lol
| 6:04 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I see many of the new results gets from google.co.uk to google.com now, it looks like the new results are slowly moving to google.com.
| 6:10 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Looks like Google can change it's mission statement to me...
"... aggregate into our search results any and everything that looks and smells like yellow and white pages -- no matter the validity... "
| 6:11 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Subscribe to the Better Business Bureau online certification program or a similar "Trust-e" certification program and place their logo on your home page with a link back to their site."
Girish, no, think about it, if this would increase your trust rank, then all the seos would start creating certified sites, once they figured out what the minimum standards to get certification were.
Trust rank can't be bought, not easily, although it can with some work be manufactored. Google wants one and only one arbitrator of trust rank: google. That's why there is no trustrank bar, that's why they don't show you backlinks anymore, and that's why the tools don't work anymore in any meaningful way.
|The object was always ..make 2 guys lots o' money ..and now it is make the companies shareholders lots o' money.. |
Just like newspapers are there to sell ad space ..not to provide news or info ..
c'mon man, don't let everyone in on the secret, then they will all know, what are you doing? Repeat after me: google will fail, google will lose all its eyeballs, google has no idea what they are doing, google is messing up, google operates by a different, and morally, and spiritually, higher set of laws than any other media company, google's quarter to quarter record income and profit rise is sheer coincidence and comes as a unexpected bonus to the gplex, who simply would not have expected anything so nice to happen.
But one thing remains constant, the serps have to be what the searches are looking for, if the results aren't there, the eyeballs aren't there, and the income goes away. Google knows this, that's what will keep their searches quality.
[edited by: 2by4 at 6:13 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
| 6:13 pm on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>jd01: The *relevance* of a page has everything to do >with the text on the page...
That hits the nail on the head and is definitely the only thing one can do to get more visitors from Google and other engines: increasing the relevance of a page.
And how good - the users will also benefit from this :-)
Btw: I like to mention that I am quiet happy with this update so far. My traffic went up significantly during phase I, went down a little with phase II and I hope it will go up again with phase III. I have found more URL - only pages after phase II. Hope they will be read from Gbot and dissappear with phase III.