| 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.
| 3:04 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One question about the sandbox:
Isn't it a clear demonstration that Google is so unsure of their algorithm that they have to put up a penalty on new sites.
If they knew how to filter good vs bad/spammy sites they would not have to do hat right? It would not make any sense.
| 3:07 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>>We're #3 for our term on MSN and #10 on Yahoo, and 17th on Google<<<<
And you are complaining? Sheesh Robin...17th I would be very happy with 17th. I can't get into the top 100..heck...can't get in the top 300. Complete white hat. Web site for commercial business. No adwords type stuff. Likewise top 3 in yahoo and msn.
| 3:13 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Isn't it a clear demonstration that Google is so unsure of their algorithm that they have to put up a penalty on new sites."
I think that's one reason they started it, but along the way they realized, hey, this has some advantages, first of all, spammers have to wait to get results on new domains, hurts innocent bystanders too of course, but what's 6-8 months in the greater scheme of things?
But second, they learned this pre ipo, ipo, and post ipo, that adwords income, it just keeps going up, it's really not hurting all that many people, the new sites will come out eventually, so it's not like we've killed them or anything.
Then the stock went way too high, that's not google's fault, that's retarded investors, irrational stock market etc, any significant income drop would make it plummet to where it actually should be, maybe 20, 25 to 1 P/E. That's several billion dollars down the toilet. I'd like to see just one of you guys throw away, deliberately, several billion dollars. For real, not rhetoric, I mean you make a decision, one way you get to keep several billion, the other way you lose 3/4 of it. Google guys aren't saints, they are people just like anyone else, they make the same decisions most of you would make.
[edited by: 2by4 at 3:16 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]
| 3:14 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I keep typing and deleting, typing and deleting, typing and deleting. I need a gun. Where you at GG?
| 3:17 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Slow down on the stock quotes here 2by4... None of us here own stock in that BS bloated company. They live on a cloud no one has heard of.
I need to go to bed before I waste someone in real life. Damn I'm hot. I can't even focus on my Sopranos DVD...
[edited by: Yippee at 3:36 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]
| 3:20 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Latest goog [finance.yahoo.com]. 88 P/E. Income must have gone up significantly in the last 6 months, they have only one real source of income, the last time I checked a few months ago they had over 100 to 1 p/e. What they are doing is working re their bottom line.
| 3:21 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Why not make sites that don't rely 100% on google to succesful? |
Most of us do that, but Google is the 800 pound gorilla of search and therefore has the BIGGEST responsibility to the webmaster community. They come through in many respects ("meet the engineers" at WebmasterWorld and SES, conference parties, Google Dance, Matt's Blog, great free software.
However, the could and I think will soon provide much better and more specific guidance when sites are filtered heavily as is happening with increasingly frequency to many excellent sites.
It's in EVERYBODY'S interest to advise good sites where they went wrong. The game is fun but it's not as productive as a strong, cooperative relationship that Google (and Yahoo and MSN) still shun.
| 3:28 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>they have only one real source of income
True, then relying on one single source is dangerous as dangerous as relying solely on Google traffic.
If their marketing dpt believe that branding and past glorious times can save their business of a leak in their audience they might be wrong.
I just feel the whole google stuff so dishonest: they make things for the opensource community because it's one hell of a way to market their brand and get young audience used to their engine, they even said Yahoo can't have a larger index than us because WE could not make it so nobody can. I even read somewhere that no-one at Google (unlike at MS and Y!) is using another engine ...
All of this doesn't sound right to my ears, and most of us have understood by now that Google is not better than Microsoft, all about money. But since Google keeps on trying to show off like the good guys who don't care about $$$ it makes it very dishonest.
| 3:33 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Only if you believe the marketing hype, slogans etc, they are just a company, they are like other companies, they have certain very large debts to the open source community, they use a lot of open source technology, it runs almost all their systems, top to bottom. So they can't ignore that connection, it's a good investment long term, you want those little whiz kids to join your company, MS has never figured that out.
But I'm more interested in this update, what people are seeing, how their sites have been affected, what commonalities you see, what differences, that's the point of these threads, though it's fun to drift offtopic now and then.
The thing I'm especially interested in is if anyone can see any connections between bourbon activity and this new change.
| 3:37 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I wish Brett had called this the "Rolling" update. Taken so long .. just when you thought it was over, something new happens.
| 3:38 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Matt Cutts a Stinky One"
| 3:43 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well...here's a little something...there is a site that is always #1 or #2 in my sector. They are an old site. In dmoz for quite a while.
They have hidden text...white lettering on white background via css. They have their outgoing links on front page all pointing to a 1x1 pixel transparent gif. They have their products display and listings and pics and then several pages of use and safety of the product scraped directly from a canadian gov't site.
I have reported them three times by googles webmaster spam report. Last time with the gilligan update in subject as GG asked.
I figured that google is living up to their saying they don't do hand to hand spam or blackhat fighting. I figured they might just get hammered in the next update.
Well..BINGO! They have dropped all the way to #3. Way to go Google! That's filters at their best!
| 3:45 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I hear a lot of people talking about one-way linking, creating new content, proper internal linking, whitehat SEO as opposed to blackhat tactics, etc. We all spend a lot of time learning what it takes to get up the ranks in Google. These are strategies that webmasters have figured out the hard way. Then, once we figure them out - we get deranked by an update like Jagger that is supposed to be curbing spam. Yet, most of the spam remains.
The fact is, Google doesn't want anyone to be able to "manipulate" the search engine listings - so they don't make it very clear what it takes to get to the top. Unfortunately, there are not really any legitimate ways to make it to the top of very profitable and popular phrases without first figuring out how to climb the ranks and then second - doing it (which is "manipulation" any way you look at it). Here's the first definition that comes up when you lookup "manipulate":
|To move, arrange, operate, or control by the hands or by mechanical means, especially in a skillful manner. |
Can anyone name one webmaster who hasn't achieved a number-one ranking under a high-traffic search phrase without doing this? I can't. As a matter of fact, this is the way you can climb to the top in any business or organization. Those who don't learn the system end up stuck at the bottom where there is less risk involved.
Guys like me don't have the big corporate bank accounts, so we have to learn the system the hard way and then try to compete with millions of other webmasters along with the big corporate websites. Without learning the tricks of the trade, I would still be lost at the bottom of the search results. Did Google tell me how to get there? No. But when I did finally get there, now I get bumped by the big corporations that don't even know what the term SEO means.
I know that Google needs to curb spam. But a lot of the sites that lost out so far in Jagger were not spammers. They were the hardworking webmasters who frequent these forums. They are the developers who live and breathe to hear the next words that come out of GoogleGuy's mouth, and then they act on them. For the most part they are willing to offer content, whitehat linking, and great-looking sites that comply with Google's guidelines. I can only hope that when the sky that *didn't fall yet* is lifted back off of them that we can find some kind of recovery from this catastrophe.
If Google wants to start curbing spam, they should start with those crappy sites that are created solely for the purpose of making money off of AdSense ads. Most of them are filled with useless links and worthless content, and they fill pages and pages of search results on tens of thousands of phrases. Google has created this spammy nuisance and allowed it to thrive. Whatever happened to cleaning out your own house first? Removing these sites would clear out at least 25% of the spam in the Google index (but would also put a dent in Google's wallet).
Let's just hope that this update reverses itself at least in part. If not, this place will become like a nest of mad hornets.
[edited by: Webmeister at 3:52 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]
| 3:46 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree with followgreg
"One question about the sandbox:
Isn't it a clear demonstration that Google is so unsure of their algorithm that they have to put up a penalty on new sites.
If they knew how to filter good vs bad/spammy sites they would not have to do hat right? It would not make any sense. "
100% Agree, if this sticks (new algo change) then Google has trouble, I know this is said many times during changes to the Algo but I have been in the SEO buis for a long while (Since Google first became a steadily used SE).. these results are bad...
I have researched some recent polls and it does not look good for the future of Google as far as good results for people searching the last 12 months... looks very bad actually. Google has created its own monster thanks to AdSense and they know it.
The worst part is the way the new Google staff (Now, IMO not the real ole Google boys/gals, Brin Etc, real minds) is trying to pinch the pockets of the world using the Adwords routine.. it is now all about pleasing the investors and messing with the numbers, figures etc and joining the country club, the BS buss, etc.
Google is now an official overpriced stock IMO, Google is now a Corp. waste with a confusion of leadership and how to really provide a value for the people that use it. It just aint there anymore the way I see it and the research and stats I look at. It be a mess folks in the making, investors should really do their homework.
Note: for those investor/management bigwigs that understand TA (technical Analysis) well GOOG just did a double top head and shoulders formation IMO, now it be time to come down to earth. If people also do not like the SERPS well... it be time to get the ball rolling in the wrong direction fast.
Time to see how they will survive against the real Algo team Yahoo has created.. so far it looks like Yahoo has a big spurt soon in activity from what I hear and see. Google stock will soon balance itself in reality, you heard it here first. (Smiling)
PS - I hope they get this cleaned up and this is a test of something that wont be stikin' (For a lot of us)
| 3:49 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just thinking about the name of update "Jagger" and how appropriate his songs are:
Jumping Jack Flash = This Update
Time is on my side = Patient content seo's
19th Nervous Breakdown = Seo still recovering florida.
Back to Zero = Seo's just got penalised
Can I get a witness = Seo suspects hijacking
Can't you hear me knocking = Frustrated Seo in Sandbox
Casino Boogie = A link X you got paid for
Chantily Lace = Every seo dream
| 3:54 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Just thinking about the name of update "Jagger" and how appropriate his songs are. |
You forgot the song that most aptly depicts what this update has done to thousands of hard-working webmasters with legitimate websites:
| 3:59 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
To tell truth I am bored of this game now. If google want to appoint authority links I am tired of arguing.
So google you won won't defend any listings. Well done.
[edited by: Pirates at 4:08 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]
| 4:05 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Posted by RobinL
>> 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.
You've NOT been hit by this update. 17 is a pretty decent position to build on -- it definately implies that you've not been filtered or had an algorithmic penalty applied to you. It just implies that you need a little bit more on page, on site and off site clean up / actions to do.
| 4:12 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Hollywood. Google needs to clean it's own house. But that takes an honest business. Won't happen. They need cash flow too much. Been spending money like a drunken sailor in port for the first time in six months.
| 4:17 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Here is one good theory to why people were dumped in the SERPs:
You were RE-Sandboxed if your site was registered pre late 2003. Read on..
I understand that this won't be the only reason people were dumped as I'm sure there are many deciding factors. However I think one of the main reasons is that the length of the sandbox was increased for popular terms.
Want to find out for yourself? Here's what yo do.
1. visit your favourite whois portal, or use whois from your command prompt if you're running linux or have a windows whois.exe. A good website portal is "www (dot) whois (dot) sc" if you don't have the command.
2. type in "www.yoursite.com"
3. Look at the creaton date and the first record date and record it.
4. visit google.com
5. type in your search term that you used to be ranked for.
6. take the first page of rankings (1-10 or so) and type in the web site domains in www.#*$! and record the date and first record date for each website.
I'm betting that most of the websites still ranking are pre 2003 or early 2003 if it is for moderate to hard search terms. I'm betting (if you were dropped) that your website is late 2003 to now.
Answer these questions in this thread:
1. What is the creation date and first record date of your website?
2. How about some of the competitors in the 1-10 spots in google?
3. How many results does google report for your search terms?
I'll start with one of my websites:
1. My creation date was Jan 2004.
2. My competitors are anywhere from 1996 to 2002.
3. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680,000
The others which are pre-early 2003 are not dropped.
ps - this is my first post here, but I've been around for years and years on other forums and as an seo professional.
| 4:19 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Can anyone name one webmaster who hasn't achieved a number-one ranking under a high-traffic search phrase without doing this? |
| 4:29 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Let's be fair to G. It is impossible to make everyone happy. There are probably just as many folks unaffected (or doing better) as there are affected and doing worse. Statistically this is how it has to be. Even if they spent all their money to try and make every webmaster happy, they would still probably end up 50/50.
IMO... The best we can do is focus on building our online communities, growing our user-base and focus on accommodating our existing users instead of the search engines. Remember the old cliche, it costs twice as much to get a new customer as it does to keep an existing one.
| 4:31 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hexed, that's a good attempt, at least you're thinking and studying, but that doesn't correspond to the sites I'm looking at, older, some quite old. Dropped. Some, newer, new domain name, haven't dropped. But you never know, I saw a similar thing in a category we'd dropped for, I went in, and almost none of the surviving sites used rewrite to www., but again, it wasn't universal, some sites, 2 or 3 did, that might just reflect general sloppiness in that category, chance that is.
maximillianos, let's compare the tone of this new thread to the old one, where usually sharp posters claimed they didn't even see an update, and I believe them, in the areas they were looking at, no real update. I would have said the same if I only ran 3 or 4 sites in certain areas, and didn't have access to more in other areas. Right now we're hearing from the people who have realized they've dropped. Time to share insights I'd say, complaining will not correct the issues, same thing I saw in Bourbon threads, lots of complaining, but a core of what turned out to be totally correct observations, followed them, and the sites returned. Save your energy, complaining won't get your site higher. Close examination of the problem may.
[edited by: 2by4 at 4:35 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]
| 4:34 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Without adding content, acquiring links, creating proper internal links, etc.?
When I say #1 on a high-traffic phrase, I'm talking a phrase that has 250,000,000 or more pages competing for that phrase.
| 4:39 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, what's the search phrase?
| 4:44 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
O boy as expected this thread is about to get real interesting... and yah I will join in, nothing like having an authority site and loosing 70% of the traffic overnight.
PS - what a dumb image link add on the top right of WebmasterWorld, the clear background of the image does not work on a black header choice. Just had to get that out.....
| 4:45 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to the forums!
I see sites created in 2004 ranking well for top keywords. The so called Sandbox Effect is also very similar to sites having penalties so I see where your coming from.
This is a penalty, most likely an auto penalty that you may have to submit a reinclusion form to G (Think I read that on Matt Cutts' blog) if you ever want to see rankings again.
Why do you think a PR update is in progress? and GG and Matt Cutts are telling everyone that there's a PR update relating to this update. It will more than likely drop and/or 0 many sites that -->probably do not deserve it, of course some may.
Following G's webmaster guidelines will not matter on this update. I believe it will require a manual removal if I am reading into all thats being said properly. I prefer to be wrong about this!
As for GG's comments on the DCs 66.102.#*$! they are exactly the same as G right now, so I am not feeling very Optimistic on this one.
GG a little Help Please!
| 4:50 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Im with Hexed,
one of My sites created nov 2003, and what I'm seeing is a Re-Sandbox affect.
| 4:52 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Penalties have the same effect on rankings.
The only other explaination is a new algorithm, which is generally the case on all Updates, but penalties are also the case on all updates.
| 5:06 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This absolutely amazing to me what is going on with Google. I have a real estate client that had #1 listing for most building in the Miami area. As of Sunday they dropped to the bottom of the page or the second page. What amazes me is that Google is replacing a very informative sites with directories, non-relevant sites, and sites using deceptive seo techniques.
Example: Sunny Isles real estate [google.com...]
We use to be #1 for this term and now the bottom of the page. The second place sites uses hidden text and yahoo got third place. How is this an improvement on their search engine?
Sorry just needed to vent!