| 8:20 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Coincidentally I just saw, that G means that the sites of my link partners are related to one of mine, even if they don't link to their sites! I have an other site, which is a very small link portal, from where I link to some of them (in different categories) - and to that site that is 'related' to the others, too.
These two sites haven't wether the same IP-adress, nor the same class-c.net. One of my link partners, who is an ODP editor, appears in this list as 'dmoz.org/profiles/hisnick.html'? These two sites are not listed in DMOZ anyway, so what?
Funny, the site from who I link to doesn't seem to be related...
What will this mean for future links exchange? If I link to a panlized site and G thinks it's related to mine?
Does anybody see something like this?
| 8:29 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
try2, it's been like that a long time. You are related to sites that are linked to by a site that links to you. Likewise if you link to yahoo and cnn from a page of yours, that makes them related... not enough usually to make them appear as related, but they could.
Notice those webmasterworld pages that are supplemental have caches, and Brett is rather enthusiastic about preventing WebmasterWorld pages from being cached. Another bit of strangeness.
|More Traffic Please|
| 8:35 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|This update has been very good to our 4 mega authority sites and very bad to our 20 smaller more niche type sites. |
That's the one overriding trend I see. This update is about rewarding sheer size and content be damned.
| 9:01 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|This update is about rewarding sheer size and content be damned. |
From where I am standing this is just not true. I have both large and small niche sites and none of them has been hurt by this update. You'd think it would be universal if your claim was true. If what happened to you is not happening to everyone then it's probably not fair to say something like that. It's not going to help you find the real answers if you fixate on something so obviously wrong. If you are sure you are right then you could probably show how every search term has eliminated niche sites from the results. But that hasn't happened has it? Sure some niche sites have taken a hit but to conclude that if some have taken a hit then all have taken a hit makes no sense.
| 9:15 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>Notice those webmasterworld pages that are supplemental have caches, and Brett is rather enthusiastic about preventing WebmasterWorld pages from being cached. Another bit of strangeness. <<
Would you be kind to tell us, why those pages went supplementals. They are unique contents and not duplicates at all. And I can't imagine that somebody else has copied the said pages and added them to his/her site so that Google think that WebmasterWorld pages are the copies and not the original ones.
| 9:45 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just a thought. Using G toolbar (for vieuwing PR) and visiting SEO sites hurts your SERPS.
G is implementing all data info now in jagger update the have received by the TB?
| 10:05 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I sure hope so since I don't run a toolbar.
That is one thing I can cross off my list ;-).
| 10:13 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Naturally I wish I knew why sometimes Google made things supplementals...
but in this case it's easy. Notice the format of those URLs that are supplememtal. Webmasterworld allows people to show 10, 15, 20 or 30 messages per page. Obviously if at least two of those four are crawled, there would be a considerable amount of duplication, especially for the 15 message view which would be similar to both the 10 and 20.
Notice webmasterworld.com/forum30/29782-1-15.htm is supplemental, while webmasterworld.com/forum30/29782-1-10.htm and webmasterworld.com/forum30/29782-1-20.htm each have (different) pagerank.
| 10:28 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing tweaking of the way the bl's are calculated as well as where they are grabbing the titles/descriptions.
| 10:37 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just checked my stats for the week before Jagger 10-9-05 through 10-15-5 and compared them with my stats from 10-16-05 through 10-22-05 (post Jagger). You're not going to believe this. I lost traffic from Google (as most of us did) - but I made it up on Yahoo! My search traffic from Yahoo doubled during the week after Jagger even though my rankings on Yahoo never changed. The unique IP address visits for my main website (not the one in my sig) showed 3,361 unique IPs for the week pre-Jagger and 3,241 unique IPs for the week post-Jagger. As far as MSN traffic goes, mine stayed about the same for both weeks.
This says a lot. It says that web surfers are not finding what they are looking for on Google in the post-Jagger results, so they are switching to Yahoo to see what comes up there. I find myself doing this more and more often lately too. If I don't like what comes up on Google, Yahoo is my next stop.
Once people start switching their default home page to Yahoo, look out. Could Jagger be the dagger in Google's back?
| 10:38 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
reseller - I dont think any have dublicated webmasterworld pages, its simle a few scrapers and maybe a few 302 links, thats enohgh, if this stays, ww should begin to check those scrapers and 302 links.
makoi - I have a simple rule, NEVER get involved with anything related to your site and a SE, like removal tool, hosting, domain, sitemap ..., not because those are bad service, but I dont think its wise as search engines also dont tell how to rank.
| 10:40 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Maybe this has been talked about before, but it seems strange to me. I noticed that I was in my "normal" (pre-update) spot for the query:
But still rank horribly for the term
I do use hyphens in my URLs but I would think the results would be very much the same.
| 10:44 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
By the way, good job to reseller for making his point about Bacon Polenta. Before I realized what you were trying to do, I thought it quite annoying.
Obviously you and Dayo_UK are onto something. As GG mentioned, the best set of results is yet to come.
| 11:02 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
a LOT and I mean a LOT of totally spam sites have come back on this update, at least so far. I mean the sites with keyword--one-keyword-two-three.com, all interlinked and with 90+% similar content (all same theme). Google had eliminated them 16 or so months ago. I'm done guessing..just need to wait and see.
| 11:05 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
walkman just wait until late this week and the next, then such site will be gone again, they just adding new "filters" functions.
| 11:08 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
has anyone come back since the October 7-8th update?
| 11:18 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"has anyone come back since the October 7-8th update?"
Not all the way back. I was page 2 for most of my keyword phrases, disappeared on the update, reappeared page 20, and slowly made my way up to page 8 currently.
I haven't changed anything of note.
| 11:21 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I did notice some activity on the datacenters this morning, as a matter of fact, one of them was local to me. I regained the top spot that I had lost, and the DC checker confirmed the top spot.
However, this afternoon, I was back to page 12.
| 11:31 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
define disappeared :)
from some reason, google has dropped most of my pages in the past week or so. Gbot visits daily (200+ visits) but only really gets a few pages. It checks the rest by getting the gzipped version (about 7K instead of the around 30K normal size). There is NO dupe issue, and all the content was entered by hand (on a database), and pages are about 60% - 65% similar (much less than many ranking #1 right now).
Inside pages are linked very well, and most have a PR3
| 11:38 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|has anyone come back since the October 7-8th update? |
We did not experience any changes on that date, for us it was Sunday October 16th when things changed dramatically. Once those new results appeared, we have not seen anything change other than very minor fluctuations. The talk is the second phase is coming up, but so far for us itís the same as the 16th.
As far as the results themselves, I certainly donít mean to be critical of the Google master plan, (and I have every confidence there is one!) the results right now are a bit bizarre, not what I would describe as any sort of an improvement. There have been past updates that were a bit painful, but you could objectively step back and say with some degree of confidence it was an overall improvement in what the user experiences. What you see right now, personally I just donít really get it, (but perhaps Iím missing something).
| 11:40 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I haven't been following the SEO news much lately but I gather that there has just been another PR update. Does anyone have an idea when the next one is due?
I ask because I need to rename a number of pages and I would like to do it just before a PR update so that there is minimim downtime (from my pages going to PR 0 after the name change).
Thanks for any estimates,
| 11:42 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
October 7th 8th update?
I missed that one.
It's the one about a week ago that has killed us.
| 11:46 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This update has really hit us hard, it's the first time ever and for the moment I'm not changing anything because I don't think we've done anything wrong and a lot of people I trust on this forum are saying pretty much the same thing.
Being completely objective, could this update seriously actually stick?
| 11:52 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Most things are possible. Too early to tell what is what.
| 11:57 pm on Oct 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google's offline right now, interesting...
It's back, seems like a DNS problem.
[edited by: BillyS at 12:01 am (utc) on Oct. 26, 2005]
| 12:00 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Being completely objective, could this update seriously actually stick? |
Most likely in some form, what you see will stick. I donít recall an update that resulted in a full and total retreat. Whatever phase two, and three bring, itís going to be along these lines, not something radically different.
With that said, I remember Florida, so many of our sites we couldnít even find, never mind ranking for anything. Eventually almost all came back, took a long time, but they did in fact recover. As long as your site has not been technically penalized, the odds are very good you will return. (Doesnít solve todayís traffic problem, but the point is donít scrap the site and chase a radical solution)
| 12:00 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|SERPS show these two types of urls (In serps view of listings) |
Why is there a space in the url sometimes and sometimes not?
The spaces are added so that the URL will wrap and look okay when displayed.
| 12:00 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> October 7th 8th update?
I looked at the logs...I guess it could've been the one on the 3rd or so, as it takes a while to propagate to all DCs.
This week I did change a few things, mostly on the conservative side (made even whiter hat onpage).
Whether it sticks or not, you never know; it may stick for months too. It has happened before
| 12:45 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i'have really enjoyed the forum especially about 'bacon polenta'?) not a bad dish actually ...
does anyone disagree with the notion that this update is heavily skewed in favor of content sites vs e-commerce driven?
top ten serps are almost always review sites when they are not PR 7 + ...
[edited by: jatar_k at 8:36 pm (utc) on Oct. 26, 2005]
[edit reason] removed email notification [/edit]
| 12:59 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
First update that I have to say, I'm unable to see a clear pattern, or reason for anything.
I've got a few sites up, a few sites down, but more where I can say AHA! This site went down, and it differs from these others sites in this or that way.
Very frustrating. I have my ideas, but nothing which is totlaly concrete.
| 1:10 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Getting more referrals from AskJeeves lately. They are advertising a lot