| 12:33 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
IMO, there should be some incentives for the Ethical SEO firms.
Maybe something like a Google "Etical SEO Firm" Seal or certificate.
| 12:39 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
policing something like that would be very hard - if not next to impossible
| 5:58 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I suggest you all look at Matt Cutts latest post, as it answers lots of questions:-)
| 6:31 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Dayo, will be very interested to see how your site is doing on the test DC. Almost all DCs I checked are showing Canonicals right. Check www.dmoz.org, beauty :)
| 6:47 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The site:www.dmoz.org test is NOT a valid test.
At the beginning of this year, that search returned 20 or 30 miilion results none of which were from dmoz.org itself. The URLs were all 302 redirect hijackings.
It was like this for many months.
Less than 24 hours after that example was quoted in one of the "Google 302 redirect hijack" threads here at WebmasterWorld, the search magically returned zero results (as did several other related searches). Can you say "hand edited result"?
Other sites with exactly the same problem were not fixed at that time, and remain unfixed right now, many more than 6 months later - even on the test DC that you are all talking about.
| 6:52 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<I don't report these violations and most would consider my company ethical. >
Would you if you found that your site (and nobody else's) could compete in the Serps because one competitors spam was so effective the 8 out of 10 results (half of them irrelevent) on one page all redirected to the same site?
This is the reason I've given up trying to compete on MSN - they don't seem interested in spam reports at all.
| 6:54 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
seems to be beginning to join the dots up for me...
| 6:57 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
g1smd, I was referring to Google returning the right canonical ht*p://dmoz.org when you search for ht*p://www.dmoz.org. Not the Site: search.
The test Dc as Matt says is about fixing 301 and Canonical issues. I see it working perfectly in the last 20 minutes of testing I am doing on various sites.
| 7:24 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree with mcmohan, Test DC works best compared to all previous google results for www and non-www version of a site,
Also from reading matt's post it seems we can see the results of "Big Daddy" to be live right after newyear, That looks like good news for many sites which lost their rankings in jagger.
G1SMD I agree with your frustration but when you are dealing with an index of more than 15 billion pages you need to be careful what ever changes you make, I feel google is moving in the right direction, the new test DC is a major improvement over all previous datas when it comes to 301s and Canonicals.
So why dont you see the same problem with yahoo and MSN? Simple fact yahoo still has more trouble with redirects than google,
Is it just because google handles more than 80% traffic?
| 7:27 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am referring to the fact that you can never get to see any of the www.dmoz.org or www.dmoz.com pages in Google's index for any searches whatsoever because they have been specifically filtered from all results many months ago. Previously those searches were one of the best at showing the "302 URL hijack problem".
| 8:30 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good evening Folks
Very nice encouraging update from Matt "Inigo" Cutts. Thanks Matt. Much appreciated.
And it seems we are approaching the point which many webmasters have been waiting for. Especially those kind fellow emembers who lost much of their revenues because of the canonicals and redirect issues.
Lets wish our friends at the plex a Merry X-Mas and all the luck they need to resolve the said issues.
| 9:26 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Whatever might have been there is gone again. Zip changes on canonical and supplemental stuff. Would be great to finally see some progress.
| 10:00 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't see anything different on 184.108.40.206
| 10:05 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
it seems that jagger thing is over streched by all of us in all the forums, isnt it the right time to close all jagger related threads?
| 11:12 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>it seems that jagger thing is over streched by all of us in all the forums, isnt it the right time to close all jagger related threads? <<
Jagger update is over, and I can't see any thread discussing the progress of Jagger for obvious reasons.
At present we talk mostly about post-Jagger and/or the consequeces of Jagger update in addition to the test DC which is very relevant at present, as pr Matt Cutts for example.
Fact is that many of our kind fellow members have been affected by Jagger update and either seeking solutions or looking for the test DC to bring them good news.
I'm sure if your own site and business were affected by Jagger, you wouldn't ask to close the current threads ;-)
| 11:21 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<I don't see anything different on 220.127.116.11 >
It seems to be coming and going - the changes I saw when I posted have gone back again!
| 11:33 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Theres a post on www and non www URL's on Matts blog, that you may want to see.
| 11:37 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Maybe I'm just missing it here, but everytime I look at this test DC, the results are exactly the same for the search terms I follow. I don't see any difference at all.
I do agree that some of the odd site: results I've seen are gone on the DC (from time to time), but the SERPs accross all DCs seem to be pretty consistent.
Is anyone making a big leap in SERPs on this DC?
| 11:45 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<Is anyone making a big leap in SERPs on this DC? >
Yes - where pages are now being returned for a search term which accurately reflects their content, we have for example shot up from 140 to 4. Before that, G didn't seem certain which terms were on which page and was throwing up vaguely similar pages rather than the actual page, with a natural fall in the rankings as a consequence.
| 11:52 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What I'm seeing on the test DC is a huge jump in page counts. In one case where I'm #1 out of 11,000,000 on Google.com, I'm #2 out of 36,000,000 on the test DC.
On another search the number went from 67,000,000, wich is nuts in its own right, to 164,000,000... with only minor shyffling on the first 2 pages... lol. Geeze, I wonder just how relevant that 164,000,000th listing is?
At least on my searches I'm doing ok.
But this is pretty early to be taking that DC seriously.
[At this rate rate, this post Jagger thread is going to merge right into the next update thread. :) ]
| 12:07 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It seems Google finaly has decided to deal with the canonicals issue. GREAT!
Matt has just posted something interesting on his blog
Sitemaps with www vs. non-www
And Google support has something too.
Why does my site have two different listings in Google: [site.com...] and [site.com?[...]
If your site is appearing as two different listings in our search results, we suggest consolidating these listings so we can more accurately determine your site's PageRank. The easiest way to do so is to redirect your http URL to your www URL using a 301 redirect. This should resolve the situation after our crawler discovers the change. For more information about 301 HTTP redirects, please see [ietf.org...]
Please note: using a robots.txt file and our automatic URL removal system to remove just the http or www version of your site will not work. This will remove both versions for 180 days, and we cannot manually add your site back to our index.
| 12:09 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
< This will remove both versions for 180 days>
| 12:12 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"< This will remove both versions for 180 days>
I recall GoogleGuy warnings about the same.
Bed time for the old reseller :-)
Good night and God bless..
| 5:14 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
ken_b, huge increase in no. of pages indexed. I rank at 5 for a search that gives 2.3 billion results!
| 5:24 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In the future ... a niche market will be any search phrase that returns less than a billion results.
If this were any other industry, showing such huge numbers of ruthless and creative competition, prepared to 'mug a nun' to get ahead ... we would have accepted it was saturated and found another industry to work in.
I declare the internet FULL!
| 7:20 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Do you suggest that affliate site contents should be repalced with websites own content?
I have four websites dealing in different areas two in phone cards, one in debt consolidation and other in mortgage. But all these are an affiliate program site the content of which is derived from affiliate site. Now all these sites has about 300 to 1000 pages, do do you suggest to take out all the contents and develop my own contents? with simply link to affiliate site for buying process? Please advice.
| 8:08 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
the problem you have is if you have that content on your site so does a 1000 other webmasters! unique content is the only way forward
| 8:54 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Good morning Folks
Two days left for you to buy those lovely X-Mas for yours. And don't forget the gifts for your dog, cat etc.. they should have someting for X-Mas too, you know :-)
That test DC is showing more relevant search results within the sectors I watch. Maybe its just an incident ;-)
How about your sector(s)? what do you see?
| 9:27 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone here noticed that sites with dynamically generated pages now seem to be ranking higher?
I've been #1 for a three word term for the last few years, with a two month holiday while Google got over Florida. I now have 2 pages listed for this term with the site's home page at #2 and a page on the subject of the three word term as a suplemental at #3.
OK this is just a sample of one but it shows some interesting features.
The page which has gone in at #1 is the home page of a site which has all the rest of its URLs like this www.competitor.com/index.cfm?bob=bill&id=1&pagetype=page
When I search link:siteurl there are only seven linking pages listed and these are not on topics close to the search term.
The page has the term in its title, keywords, description, twice in strong tags and once in comments like this.
<!-- search term other terms -->
It does not appear in <h> tags.
The only outlink from the page is to the site designer which is an SEO orientated company.
I can't figure why the page is ranking at all never mind above my own pages.
| 9:32 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>The only outlink from the page is to the site designer which is an SEO orientated company.<<
You may wish to be careful on that one.
"You should never have to link to an SEO.
Avoid SEOs that talk about the power of "free-for-all" links, link popularity schemes, or submitting your site to thousands of search engines. These are typically useless exercises that don't affect your ranking in the results of the major search engines -- at least, not in a way you would likely consider to be positive."
| 9:50 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hmmmz - missed a bit of fun when I was watching Santa Claus 2 the movie last night (not that good btw - kids playing elfs :( - should be short people playing elves)
Anyway - the most encouraging thing about MC comments is that the infastructure is in place - there does seem to be a way to go - and as McMahon commented on MC blog although some of the canonical issues seem in a better shape the ranking for the problem sites has not improved yet.
Virtually (well everyone so far) everytime on the test dc when I query domain.com it returns www.domain.com, site domain.com -www still returns non-www results - including the non-www homepage (even when querying the non-www homepage returns the www homepage)
As I also commented on MC blog - the site ordering for sites that have the problem remain.
But this is clearly/hopefully an early stage of the fix.