| 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!
| 5:08 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thank you for your kind replies.
Now before we go smashing the Re-Sandboxing theory down, lets consider for a second that these rolling updates or rolling serps, may not just be an implementation of only one factor. Google has been silent for quite some time now. I would find it highly unlikely that Google's search engine engineers would sit back for 3 or 4 months and just say, okay, "I got it.. lets just resandbox people.. roll the box back for 4 months until xmas passes. Think of all the $$ in adwords!"
I think there is a bit more to it, but I do happen to think that re-sandboxing is one of the primary things going on here.
Remember, sandboxes are applied to the search term or phrase, not to the site. Some sites could slip pass the sandbox IF they are already considered authority sites in the eyes of Google.
| 5:11 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I mean authority sites for those keywords.
| 5:13 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Sorry just needed to vent! |
So are you saying the Colombian Yellow Pages is not a good result for that search?;)
It always seems the real estate industry is among the hardest hit in these updates. BTW, you're post may get edited as we aren't supposed to post links to Google searches. It is a shame though, as these often help to illustrate the changes brought about when the dials are twitched. There are very good reasons, however.
| 5:13 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I thought the updates were named after hurricanes, like Wilma.
| 5:14 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sympathy for the Devil
My Google referrals are up 100% over the last two weeks, a very large part over the last two days.
People who do well in an update typically don't post to threads like this, we go shopping.
But FYI, my site has been in the G index since early '02, was banned inexplicably (still don't know why) 7/28/05, reincluded 9/22 for no apparent reason (to my relief) and is now back where it was pre-7/28.
There are no reasons, just updates.
But 99% of my IBL are natural and unsolicited, I discard exchange requests. I like to think that's why I'm doing well now, but more likely it's just random **** like every update seems to be--especially if you read these forums.
[edited by: andrea99 at 5:16 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]
| 5:15 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
re rolled back sandbox, Interesting idea in some ways, there's some connections to what others have said on that subject, possible, just barely possible.
However, it's not a sufficient explanation, I have a site that came out of the sandbox 6 months ago, and it didn't roll back, it seems to be quite happy at the moment. An overall rollback would mean all of it's rolled back, but a partial rollback, could be part of it, maybe. However, there's no guarantee here, the sites I'm looking at are most definitely not sandboxed, never have been, they are older than the sandbox, and they dropped. So there's at least more to it than that.
[edited by: 2by4 at 5:17 am (utc) on Oct. 19, 2005]
| 5:15 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have to admit, I didn't even know there was an update going on. To answer the webmaster who asked whether there was anyone ranked #1 for a competitive search term, I'm #1 for a term that returns 48,600,000 results. I'm also #1, 2, 3 for many other related terms.
I've made mistakes, but I've also continued to expand my site and I've made many many changes since 1998.
This brings up some interesting questions. I NEVER ask anyone to link to my site, though I have received links from some high profile sites because of the quality of my content (I guess).
My question is this: could G be penalizing sites which display a pattern of pandering for inbound links?
Since I don't, and haven't been touched by this update, maybe they're saying links should be a totally organic, hands-off affair.
That said, I still am not making what I'd like to from my site, but I am self-employed and that is its own reward.
| 5:18 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The Adwords theory has been mentioned here numerous times relating to Christmas Mula.
The fact is the adwords money is there regardless, and even more so in the holiday season regardless. I do not believe this is about money. They simply do not need money.
Your dealing with mathematical theorists here, people that are hip on the term Eigenvector. These guys are looking at it from a different perspective.
Maybe G can make me a spokesman for you now. I have kids to feed can use a new career now.
That should be a HUGE smile above.
| 5:18 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For what it's worth,
One of our sites, created in 2001 is an online directory for a specific niche. The site had top rankings in many popular two keyword searches. Everything done was good SEO, and the last time it was optimized was one year ago. Now, we only worry about adding and deleting links.
As of this update, the site is gone, tanked. Few grand down the tubes. It's amazing how much power G has on the income for so many people. I am still trying to understand why it was hit so hard. However, search traffic from G began to decline the 16th, not the 18th.
| 5:20 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"could G be penalizing sites which display a pattern of pandering for inbound links?
Since I don't, and haven't been touched by this update, maybe they're saying links should be a totally organic, hands-off affair."
Sounds like we may be running the same site ;-)
My first guess was some type of inbound link pattern, coupled with lack of outbound links. A clear signature, something very easy to track down, plus many links on link farms, directory pages etc. Not natural links, no site I do with only natural links has dropped at all. However, others here seem to report otherwise, although sometimes people tend to be slightly self delusional about their own innocent seo activities.
| 5:23 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes they do need money. Remember Google is now a publically shared company with Shareholders. I'm sure it's tough even for a company like Google to sustain profit growth.
It doesn't take mathematical geniuses to hear a Shareholder say, 'Well this is dissapointing. We were promised xx% in the last quarter. Yahoo is promosing..'
| 5:26 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Look at you trying to undermine my job application.
| 5:27 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|sometimes people tend to be slightly self delusional about their own innocent seo activities |
How tactfully phrased ;-))
| 5:28 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have seen amazing unnatural linking working very well for many companies in this update.
| 5:29 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google is changing, and so you bend with the wind. For the last year my website (4 years old) has been getting busier by the day thanks to Google. I felt that I needed to add new content 5 to 6 times a day (weekend too!) to my website. Yes I made a lot of money, more then I needed, most of it's in the bank. For the last few weeks my website traffic has fallen by half and I'm not making as much money, but I'm still making more then I need. I'm taking it a little easier now (updates once a day), and you should too! We will survive this "Google none update!"
I must say that Google should let webmaster know why their website are penalized. After all Google is making it's millions off the sweat and hard labor of all of our website. That is, without our websites Google would have nothing to sell!
Remember: "A chicken doesn't stop scratching just because the worms are scarce."
| 5:33 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"They" in this instance are not those who are fiddling with the algo that produces these updates. Sure algo engineers are aware of the pressure but it can't possibly come in the form of suggestions or orders from above mandating, "downgrade class x site so we can get more ad dollars."
It just doesn't work that way. It makes a good conspiracy theory but I don't buy it.
| 5:35 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|unnatural linking working very well for many companies |
I have a perl script that creates thousands of links to a site (which is unnatural) however, no two links are identical and the URL, anchor text and title text are created randomly from a list of potential keywords and the links are created/changed/removed over time.
So although generated by mechanical (or unnatural methods) they are not easy to spot or categorize.
| 5:39 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As long as you buy adwords, they don't care what you buy =)
| 5:43 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Was your site hit by this update?
| 5:47 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"It makes a good conspiracy theory but I don't buy it. "
The google forums here are probably one of the only places on the planet where suggesting a business is watching out for its bottom line is a conspiracy theory.
I see this every time money is mentioned. Google is a business, businesses look at income, maximize income, watch profits, expenses. What is it that is so hard to understand about that?
Anyway, you can drop some people, raise income, and have good serps all at once, they aren't mutually exclusive. Why do you think google adwords income is rising? Magic?
| 5:51 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Nope! In fact, I have seen google traffic double since late September. Hope this holds and I get a nice holiday season out of it.
Then maybe I can eat. I got hit hard by Katrina so the extra bucks will come in handy.
| 6:00 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sounds like an interesting application. Surprised you would mention it here.
| 6:07 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Matt Cutts wrote on August 19th:
| 6:16 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This update has placed my good ol' content site above the spam and so I'm happy. Keep up the good work Google --- you're getting better all the time!
| 6:19 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"This update has placed my good ol' content site above the spam and so I'm happy. Keep up the good work Google --- you're getting better all the time! "
Good for you, please provide us with your URL, so far for regular searches I can't find interesting content so I will start using bookmarks.
i would sincerely be happy to see a good content site like you seem to have...
| 6:22 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have a good ol' content site too. Oddly, I see no movement at all in my niche,
not for the 2 keyword combos I look at. -Larry
| 6:30 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The google forums here are probably one of the only places on the planet where suggesting a business is watching out for its bottom line is a conspiracy theory. |
There's a difference between suggesting that a business is "watching out for its bottom line" and suggesting that it's intentionally sabotaging its core product in order to do so.
Not everyone is as shortsighted as the conspiracy enthusiasts seem to be.
| 6:45 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My directory site got hammered too, pretty much taken out of any results even though PR 6 for years. Haven't had any SEO done to it, missing titles tags and all the rest you guys talk about.
I won't change anything after this update either, either it returns or it burns as is.
| 6:47 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just hope Google quits listing the pages I've taken down and the ones I have a noindex on before they are through with this update. I'm tired of these pages showing up as supplimental.
It's not good for the searcher either. Today I was looking for a specific (and seldom written about) item from history. I'd swear that half of the search results showed pages that no longer exist.
| 6:49 am on Oct 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|...intentionally sabotaging its core product in order to do so. |
This type of thing does happen, we hear of auto companies building cars less safe to increase profits, or food companies adulterating their recipies, etc.
But typically this will happen when they want to rest on their laurels and milk the good name quickly, often this will happen after a company passes to the next generation or is sold to a new owner.
But Google is at an entirely different stage of its development and less than a year ago had a VERY unconventional IPO, do no evil etc...
They just now pocketed $4B in a secondary stock offering. Yes those new investors want to see profits but to think that a company this new has degraded so far to risk its core product in so little time is just lunacy.
If you think that I suspect it must be a result of those alterations made when you were abducted to that spaceship...