| 8:56 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
flyboy do you have a IP
| 9:03 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
on 126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11 using site:domain.com
| 9:12 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thought we were slowly getting back on track and then big G jiggled it's jagger and a whole lot of keywords fell through the holes. Since Jagger started we must have lost 80% traffic from around 2000 pages. For a minority of terms we are listed in top 10, for a majority we are > 100. Even for the title of our home page (not a competitive phrase) we appear > 150. Google may have implemented their algo, but there is still a helluva lot of data gathering going on with googlebot busier than a one-legged man in a tap dancing contest. It all feels half cooked to me, we're all over the place, which is why I'm not losing heart just yet - my gut feeling is that all will come right in the end (belief in my product perhaps). For others in a similar position, hang on!
| 9:15 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"That sounds a lot closer to a library, than to the other media examples you gave."
Google is not a publically funded library, it is a publically held for profit corporation whose media product is the serps, which are in turn generated from the data you refered to. Think of it this way: The New York Times does not own the news it reports on, but it is nevertheless able to report on that news.
It's much more useful to think of Google as a media company than as a library in terms of its rights and supposed obligations. A public library has obligations to serve the public, that's what it's for. A for profit media corporation has an obligation to return a profit to its investors. In google's case, that means keeping income high enough to return such a profit, and they keep that income high enough by ensuring that for the average user, the serps are what those users were more or less looking for. Fewer users equal a drop in revenue.
When google does an update they are always taking a chance of losing users. However, historically, their position has remained remarkably stable, update after update. WebmasterWorld members have suggested hundreds, if not thousands, of times, that Google would lose users and fail, and this has not happened. So let's make the obvious conclusion: google knows its target market better than WebmasterWorld members. That's why all these posts about google failing are so pointless, how many times can we be wrong before we finally realize we are wrong?
Having gotten to that point, maybe we can start working on doing the analysis that webfusion mentioned earlier
[edited by: 2by4 at 9:23 pm (utc) on Nov. 10, 2005]
| 9:21 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Enjoyed your posts Legal Alien.
>"Our site receives over 4000 NON-SEARCH ENGINE free visitors per day, from articles, press releases, inbound links, etc. etc. All that traffic converts as well, if not better, than search engine traffic." <
I dare say everything mentioned in the above is right smack in the middle of Google so a divestiture of dependence on Google is not firmly established to me. The intent of the message is good but the plain fact is you and I wouldn’t be in these forums if we had cut the ties that bind. Google wouldn't even be crossing our minds.
Webmasters constitute a large percentage of buyers. They are the established and proven purchasers on the Internet not these mythical “users” I hear Google should devote so much time to. When webmasters are happy they’re spending time buying (from me) and they aren’t in these forums endlessly watching Google tinker and paw with their incomes.
| 9:22 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm still puzzled by a site that was hit Sept22 having a recovery for everything except two /sections/ of the site. All pages in those sections are pinned to the bottom of an allinurl search for the domain, and they rank ludicrously. The rest of the site was more or less "fixed" by the tweak/fix/refinement, but not these two site sections... all the more strangely because the sections have nothing in common. One has a single page; the other has a hundred pages with pages focused on many different things.
Anyone else see a recovery of most but not all of a domain hit Sept22? Even if you think you recovered from Sept22, if you have a domain under 1000 pages, how do the last pages listed at the bottom of a allinurl:example.com site:example.com search rank?
| 9:25 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm warming up the keyword generator right now BillyS.
| 9:31 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
BillyS, glad you posted some specifics, talking about this stuff generally is a pain.
In both cases, simply checking backlink counts shows the real source of the ranking, over 7000 in each case.
As is usually the case when I check on a site like this, the seo is all over the place, so people assume the stuff like keyword spamming is the cause of the ranking, when it almost never is. You're much better off ranking for high end keyword phrases having a small amount of relevant text than a huge mountain of every combination. That's what I find anyway.
This backlink inflation is what I always find for seoed sites beating ours. Not the true authority .gov, .edu stuff, but the commercial stuff.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the absolute highest priority for google currently is figuring out a way to start easing these sites out of the serps, one by one. But not as a block, I think it's going to happen slowly.
The main problem of course is learning how to tell the difference between a scraper/directory type backlink and a true contextual backlink. Not as easy as it sounds, that's my guess for the request for more and more spam reports.
| 9:52 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Anyone else see a recovery of most but not all of a domain hit Sept22? |
This is exactly what I am seeing. Most of my sites have recovered to about July serp levels, but some of the older ranks I had on page are gone. A search using the method you described shows many of these pages are either listed as supps or have no Title and snippet...
Dayo - I can completely understand your issue as it is happening to two of my own sites. However, I do see that the non--www version of both sites has not been cached since late October, and the www has todays cache dates. Let us only hope that this helps...as I do have 301 redirects in place...
| 9:56 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|.... responsibility to its users, authors and publishers |
Nicely put. Google lives up to this in many respects, but IMHO needs a better system to communicate with sites killed as collateral damage in the SPAM WARS XXIV.
| 9:58 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
2x4 ..pigs and singing ..;)
if no one gets it after #500 ...it would need atomics ~~:o
| 10:04 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think I've really hit on something ... finally.
My recent posts regarding the appearance of onerailway when searching for 'norwich web designers'. I have now found there pr7 site listed under unrelated subjects as 'Engineering work' - 291 million + & 'world record attempt' 41 million +.
These phrases are obviously nothing to do with their core business and yet the phrases are mentioned textually on their front page.
I leave it to you experts to analyse.
| 10:11 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Somebody tell me I'm good ;-)
| 10:12 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
leosghost, what can I say, I felt the faintest ray of hope rise with webfusion's comments.... but you're right. It's hard to give up though, some pearls still pop in now and then.
| 10:17 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Although I can't see the anomoly accross the DC's, my local G.co.uk in Norwich shows all railways for 'Engineering work' for the whole top 10!
| 10:19 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Anyone want a copy of the listing ... I've saved the page.
| 10:21 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have noticed something odd with this update...
If I search for 'blue widgets' my site is returned in the top 2 positions, say /littlebluewidgets.html and /bigbluewidgets.html. While the main blue widgets page /bluewidgets.html is nowhere to be found.
Then, I search 'site:mysite blue widgets', and #1 result is /bluewidgets.html, followed by /littlebluewidgets.html and /bigbluewidgets.html.
Does this make any sense?
This is across all datacenters, including jagger3.
| 10:22 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
colin_h, just taken a lookg myself and saw that too - i also see it on all other DCs - something must be wrong with the serps at present?!? Maybe that gives people hope who have recently seen their site hit...well, we can hope :-)
| 10:23 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So then I took a link from one of the parallel railway sites and tried an unrelated phrase that they use in a link within the listed page.
'Better Policies' gets Translink listed Number 2 out of 166 million
| 10:30 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So then I take a page from the top ten which no longer exists and try an unrelated term from a link within the Google cache of that page and low and behold ...
"Discovery Guide" gets firstgreatwestern listed in top ten
| 10:30 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Please someone tell me I'm good. God knows I'm no longer doing it for money since Google banned me.
| 10:41 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Please stop posting specifics. It is against the rules of this forum.
| 10:41 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google.UK is showing odd results for our sector. For pages from the UK, 'big blue widgets' and 'big blue' both put our site at #1, but doing same for pages from the web lists at #130 and #260 respectively, buried way behind the pages we're in front of for UK results. This is when google.uk is resolving to an IP with jagger3.
Sheesh, now I'm confused!
Does Google love our site, or hate it?
| 10:45 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
How the heck are we supposed to get anything done without talking about specific anomolies. I bet you've checked them out. I've had it with this forum ... It's just a viral marketing campaign.
| 10:51 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
They are leading us down the garden path.
They have 2 or 3 sets of results, testing them live in different regions, different data centres and different ISP's.
They are probably having a good laugh at us.
Hopefully they are trying to fix the sand box problem they created.....
| 11:06 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Hopefully they are trying to fix the sand box problem they created..... |
fix - created?
Dunno if this is still on, but if you buy adwords for that domain you are suddenly there.
| 11:10 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|How the heck are we supposed to get anything done... |
I suppose it depends on what we mean by "get anything done". The Jagger threads have been way outside of the forum's TOS ever since they began.
| 11:13 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My only point is that over the past 60mins I think we've done more towards understanding the update than over the past few days. I think we need to talk specifics to get specifics. Anyone agree?
| 11:14 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ankhenaton - what do you mean?
| 11:20 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
| 11:22 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think the point that was being made is that URL's specifying examples aren't allowed in this forum.[see the rules]The examples you gave were excellent, but don't take it personally....its just the rules of WebmasterWorld.
Regarding input, I guess the reality of it is that many comments have been of value, over the past weeks, and some maybe not so useful. However, it is good for the guys to express opinions and state their point. It also helps them to know they are not alone, whether they are doing well or badly.
To reiterrate, this post is a personal opinion, which I am glad to be living in a free society, to express.