|Update Jagger, Google Update Oct 18th, 2005|
When can we expect a new PR update?
| 5:33 pm on Oct 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Continued from here:
Anyone have any guesses as to when we can expect a new systemwide PR update?
| 1:09 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
New site(4 months old), 2k static pages, white hat SEO, PR5, was ranked #31 for targeted keywords, uploaded 5k pics & pages(all static pages, before that site was all content and no pics), now site is MIA in #398.
Bad news for us.
| 1:09 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I believe that there is a new binary wending its way out from the group of data centers that included 66.102.7.x . Most people won't notice much difference between data centers, but I believe that those searches are likely to be closer to what to expect. |
There ya have it, what we should all start getting accustomed to, it would seem?
| 1:12 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for stopping by, setting up a way to pass feedback, what good is it if we get the usual cut and paste reply, the tide is turning, 2006 will be the year of different statistics IMO!
| 1:12 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
On With The Show, let's see what happens next. Should be interesting.
| 1:16 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well I am seeing movement across these ones I think. Looks pretty good for us from a few searches I tried. Though I might just have missed them before since we don't really track keywords much since cover lot of ground...and was nothing major. Though having said that on a few of these we were sitting at number 11 so going to front page might be interesting.
From what GG (thanks for posting the info) says it sounds like time to batten down for a few days and await the results. So I would not panic just yet...though for us been a tough 3 weeks and I cannot see it getting any worse than it is.
We actually had a huge traffic spike today and I thought traffic was back, but was a site linking to an article. Still traffic is traffic :-)
| 1:18 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just checked one of my sandbox sites on 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52 and I am seeing my allinanchor almost returning to where it used to be... I am all seeing some lower rankings for previously unranked keywords.. Not sure if it is part of the ongoing upheaval or not..
Definately different than I had been seeing for last several days where my allinanchor ranks were totally gone. I checked against a regular google search and I was not getting the same results as .104 and .99
| 1:43 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I really feel for you webmasters out there... empathy. I've got over 25 articles dedicated to a single topic that is only used between now and the middle of January. I know it's too early, but based on what I'm seeing, something is penalizing my website. Personally, I think it might be related to inflated page counts ( [webmasterworld.com...] ) which have grown from 999 to 9150 and today stand at 9,530.
My web life:
- In the Google wine bin for 13 months before the cork was popped
- Yahoo penalty kicks in for no reason
- MSN building traffic
- Yahoo reinclusion request works (after being shunned for 3 months)
- Google stops sending visitors on September 22nd
I've got online edu's using my work and a mention on National Public Radio - but Google No way.
Oh well, time to write another article... Best of luck guys and gals!
| 1:58 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
for people who lost traffic as of last few days...
here is my situation:
1) google traffic down 40-50%, but for same key words.. meaning, I'm getting traffic for the same key words, just less. (weird?)
2) msn and yahoo have slacked off as well (weird?)
3) I manage lots of sites AND this is the only one effected negatively (really weird?)
so my question... sites with traffic loss...
IS it because the keywords are COMPLETELY gone.. or you get traffic for the same terms... just much less traffic?
PS. i know I should not change anything on the site... BUT I have been working long/hard on a complete redesign for the past several months (EVERYTHING is changing, minus the main content)... LOOKS like perfect time to implement it... Thought?
| 1:58 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing new movement here:
No sites getting back, just a flux of the top results.
| 2:04 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yep think I have it now. Confused why you think his update would improve result but feel comfortable about what should be done next.
I'm outta here thanks folks
| 2:11 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My Observations on about the 12 sites that I monitor is that the three that I have done a bit of work with reciprocal links have been hammered. I can understand Google needs to present the best results that they can and my guess is that they have given less weight to reciprocals. I am always approached for 3 way links and have not been keen on the idea as one site is building which has the links going to it and the other is not. The thing with reciprocal links is that there is an element of peer review, which does help maintain a certain amount of quality.
My main site has dropped about 10 places average which had a lot of number one results for ** Niche product Country ** Now there are sites that IMO are not relevant to the searches.
Another old site I have which is a really poor excuse for a site is now cleaning up on a heap of searches out of the blue ones that my main site had a few days ago. No Reciprocal links one incoming link maybe 2? But one page with about 20 out going links into each of the main pages of my top site. Meant as a crude way to redirect traffic to the new URL . The one thing that I do not understand about that is how can this be considered an authority site when the site it is linking to is not one?
I hope google has a few more tweaks to do on this one.
[edited by: Interent_Yogi at 2:24 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]
| 2:16 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Looks like G-Bot been busy respidering old urls, observation is based on actual data. URIs have not been spidered for the past 4 month.
Please confirm if you see the same.
| 2:17 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I told you people...
We should have called it "Matt Cutts a Stinky One"
| 2:19 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, I feel lucky compared to many of you when it comes to rank, I lost just a few spots for my most prized phrase, so while it is not what I hoped, it is far from devastating.
While I know many of you want your rank back, I would like it if Google would provide us with a tried and true way though to help ourselves by really removing pages that we have attempted to remove via the removal tool. I also tried to remove some dynamic duplicate content pages through the removal tool the other day, but it said that using the "*" as a wildcard as in /*? was not valid, even though Google's site tells you to do this to remove dynamic pages. I put in a help request via the online forum, but have not gotten any kind of response yet, not even a confirmation that they received the e-mail.
Of course it would also be nice if 301's worked as they should as well.
| 2:20 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> Confused why you think his update would improve result .
its the oposit >>> shopping season + stock dropped
I dont mean to sarcastic...........
| 2:22 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Just don't assume the sky is falling from first impressions..."
Well, the first impression of an old page on my site that was deleted in March 2004 outranking my current pages, that is not a good first impression. Sort of like opening the front door and a guest setting fire to you. As long as the guest doesn't set off a thermonuclear device in the bathroom the update should not be worse...
Still GG, it would be great if Google did something positive for a change. We can hope for that. It would be nice to see that. So far the first impressions are an utter disaster.
Please now impress us instead. I'd like that.
(I'd also like you to obey 301s for supplemental pages... and only rank pages that actually exist...)
| 2:22 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ahhhh, I see. So this update has everything to do with geo-location. Good luck Google in picking up if searchers want local or global/Internet resources.
Geo-location stuff is useless on the web (reference to an earlier comment on this thread from GG). I can go to any drug store website and find the nearest pharmacy. Geo-location crap/strategy is out. I guess I ruined the opportunity of GG quoting me huh :p
PS. Our IP is registered in Jersey and we are in DC... LOL all the luck to you man.
[edited by: Yippee at 2:31 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]
| 2:25 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
WHY DO I CREATE WEBSITES?
I can't stand this, we are content, that's it, no affiliate, no ecomerce. We create about 50 pages of totally original, researched, content each day. I've spend hundreds of thousands of dollars paying the salaries of a very talented editorial staff. We smoke our competition on quality and amounts of content. This past week we had reviews of two of the new products in our space, full reviews, one 6,000 words and one 12,000 words, and these are hot products, will be some of the biggest sellers of the holiday season. We have the first reviews on the web. And no movement. none.
This is all BS. I work so hard to create good informative websites that really help people. I'm in virtually every national news organization, praised for our quality content and ethics, but Google won't put any of the new sites we've launched this past year and a half anywhere on or near the first 15 results.
The main site I'm upset about has been up for 13 months. It's 17th for the term that defines what we do. 0 movement with this update. The term is the name of our profession if you will. Major corporations, in fact, most of them fortune 100s, trust us with their products to review and consider us in the top 5 sites. We've been featured in the Boston Globe, New York Times, USA Today, CBS, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC. I was on CNN because of our ethics regarding publishing! Is there anything more white hat?
Our sites are in Google News. They're in Froogle. Next week we're going to be the next AdSense case study! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT ORGANIC LISTINGS? Any and every department at the Googleplex that has humans involved in reviewing sites loves us, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, it says something about the organic results if we can't rank or get any respectable amount of traffic?
I'm young. I can find a new career. Why should I make websites if it's impossible to get them traffic because Google is afraid of new sites. Why should I spend my own hard earned money to contribute information and knowledge to the web when no one reads it.
Right now I'm half on the verge of tears and half ready to pull out my hair in anger. I think this may be a sign that I need a new career, because my plan of creating niche content to help people won't work.
[edited by: RobinL at 2:45 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]
| 2:31 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
.... Take a chance on me.....if roll along ... let me shine, thats all I ask of you.. so much that I want to do.... you want me to leave the dance?.. My love is srtong .... I am still free, why cant you see?....
Sorry, i got 70's on.
edit: gotta have a sence of humor.
| 2:33 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
G__gle doesn't give a da_n about webmasters, the only thing they care about is lining their pockets, greed will topple them, you heard it here first! IMO
| 2:36 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|WHY DO I CREATE WEBSITES? |
Wow Robin looks like the pressure cooker is getting the best of you. It's still a wild west out there/here.
The French Philospher Rene Descartes suggested some time ago "I create websites, therefore I am", so be careful quitting since you may find you no longer exist.
OK, he really said "Je Pense donc Je Suis" but I had to translate since French is no longer in fashion in the USA
| 2:38 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo ( opps ) almost 3 years and I Finally past new user . I think everyone needs to Breathe and Relax.
| 2:42 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, we heard it here first. About 3 years ago, yet, they are still lining their pockets.
|G__gle doesn't give a da_n about webmasters, the only thing they care about is lining their pockets, greed will topple them, you heard it here first! |
| 2:43 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why not make sites that don't rely 100% on google to be succesful?
| 2:43 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"but Google won't put any of the new sites we've launched this past year and a half anywhere on or near the first 15 results."
If you buckled down, picked one, max two sites, and put this amount of work into them, I don't know, you might be surprised what happened. But this spewing out of multiple websites, I don't know, I know what I can produce, how much, and how often, and I simply do not believe that most people really have all that much new or valuable thinking, not many websites worth, maby a few, 2, 3 at the very most. After that it's just more stuff out there for search engines to filter out.
Stick to the oldest best established domain, or the one you like the most, you can create a resource, but very few people out there can produce multiple resources that are actually truly valuable, plus the sandbox makes that too frustrating in the first place.
I know some kids, early 20's, they had a passion, they followed it, their one website gets about 1/2 a million hits a day, they don't do other stuff, that's what they do. And they make a lot of mistakes, it's really funny to watch, but the basic idea is there, it works, if an 18 year old kid can figure this out, I think we can too.
"greed will topple them"
LOL, that's funny, just like greed has toppled MS, right? What greed does is enable you to create larger and more powerful bankrolls, that give you the ability to resist other big greedy companies, like MS.
People say this type of thing every update, if there were even an iota of truth to this statement, google would be long gone, but last I checked, stock is still trading at ridiculously inflated rates. But each update my google/yahoo/msn percentages that I track stay pretty much steady, goes a little up, a little down, I actually get some yahoo searches now on one site, that's new, last 6 months or so, but it's not a lot.
[edited by: 2by4 at 2:49 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]
| 2:44 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>>Just don't assume the sky is falling from first impressions, patc. :) If the PR/backlink update is delayed, I'll let people know.
Seeing how the Pagerank and Backlinks is really just an export how come you call it a update. I know there is an algo update happening at the same time but really the PR and BL is just an export.
Oh yes how do you feel about Matt Cutts and his blog, I have yet to see you post there. He is kind of taken your glory away?
| 2:45 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am soooo hot right now... GG, your boys got a big turn around to make your "it's not over" theory happen. Dog nab it, I am hot right about now.
| 2:48 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The ironic thing is that the people who profited from this update live in ivory towers. They don't post here. They don't bump elbows with GoogleGuy. They will notice an increase in their fourth quarter profits and say "Hey, look what we did!"
It's the hardworking webmasters like us who have lost out on this update. It's the little guy who found a decent way to earn a living thanks to SE's like Google. I hope GG is right and the sky that *looks* like it has fallen will be lifted back up off of us over the next week. If not, the rich will get richer, and many of us will have to apply to go to work for them (not me - I'll never go back to that - I've been my own boss for too long now).
Just when many of us thought we missed out on all of the horrible disasters as of late - now this. Well, I'm at least thankful that I only dropped nine places on my most popular search phrase. That will be easier to recover from as opposed to 100 or 1000 places. I guess I am luckier than most who have posted their losses here.
| 2:52 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why not create sites that rely on google? Well, when you create a site that has a greater purpose than just making $$$, that is creating good content and good information, you can't pay for traffic. The economics of it just don't work out guys.
2by4, you're telling me not to create new sites. But I have an editorial staff of 15 people, all with diverse knowledge. With groups of them dedicated to each site, not just duplications. This isn't SEO Spammy junk, these are niche publications with thousands of original articles. I started doing this 9 years ago on a site with a limited scope. When I expanded and used the knowledge and resources I'd gained from that first site to create more helpful resources it made 0 sense to put new content, with a new editorial team, on a totally new topic on that old site. You're right, it's not just the knowledge of 1 person, it's a whole editorial team with expertise in specialized areas.
The issue here is that this site we've created, is so clearly a content site. With what is so clearly great content, and it's practically invisible on Google. We're #3 for our term on MSN and #10 on Yahoo, and 17th on Google, and I believe it's because of this age factor. Even though we have more and better content than our competitors, because we're an upstart no one can see us.
| 2:57 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, the age thing is reality, that's what google works with, that's been the case for at least 2 years now, maybe more.
If you enter the market not realizing how much this delay is going to affect you, it's going to be pretty annoying. I sat through it recently too, it was very frustrating.
But given the current environment, and seeing what's happened to client's sites, I would not be working on creating large networks of new sites, I'd go back to basics, make one utterly great megasite, a brand, something that people will refer to in the same way they refer to php.net, amazon, google, or whatever. There's a reason those guys succeeded, it was tight, focused actions, for years. That's how you succeed long term, we drifted, lost our focus the last 6 months, and it has really hurt us. If we had kept focused, and not drifted off on all these new schemes, sites, etc, we would not have dropped, that's my belief anyway.
I would much rather have a single successful site, maybe with a few satellites, than have 10 average sites. Think of the names you know, they are single focused sites, all of them. experts exchange, WebmasterWorld, whatever, these sites do well because they've been building for years, out and out, larger and larger, just look at the forums on WebmasterWorld, there's way more this year than last year.
| 3:03 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Pretty sure I didn't say anything about paying for traffic. The are other ways to get traffic for sites, depending on what your site is, besides search engine traffic and paying for ads. In fact I imagine if your pages were as useful as you think they are they would generate traffic all on their own.