homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.73.52.98
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 218 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 218 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 > >     
Big Daddy Part 6
jdancing




msg:710327
 5:33 pm on Mar 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

< continued from [webmasterworld.com...] >

It seems nearly all the data centers are showing some form of bigdaddy results now. I am not sure if there is a 100% bigdaddy/not bigdaddy distinction anymore.

The only two DCs I see that are showing different results are 216.239.59.104 and 66.249.87.104 and those results seem to be from late December, early January, at least in the sectors I monitor.

[edited by: tedster at 5:31 am (utc) on Mar. 25, 2006]

 

Seo1




msg:710477
 4:10 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Jr

One more time

The site is not mine

I did a search for a crappy site....

that is what I found as an example.

You can chill with trying to teach me SEO 101

Thanks

Seo1




msg:710478
 4:11 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

What is phantom traffic junior?

bufferzone




msg:710479
 4:21 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Anyone knows how to formulate a search in Google that will present only/exclusively supplemental results for a site in the SERP. This could be practical when trying to change the title and META descriptions on pages where this is not yet done

JuniorOptimizer




msg:710480
 4:30 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Phantom traffic meaning I can't see it in my version of Google, but somewhere out there on some data center is seeing it.

mfishy




msg:710481
 5:19 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

1) Same title on all pages (as mentioned)
2) Same meta description text on all pages

I guess the moral of the story here is before crying wolf... read the google webmaster guidelines

Can you point me to the part in Google's "webmaster guidelines" where they talk about meta descriptions?

Seo1




msg:710482
 5:44 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

[google.com...]

Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages that clearly and accurately describe your content.

Make sure that your TITLE and ALT tags are descriptive and accurate.

Check for broken links and correct HTML.

Seems pretty clear but others may need to read between the lines.

g1smd




msg:710483
 5:52 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

There is no <alt> tag.

It's an attribute. :-)

JuniorOptimizer




msg:710484
 5:55 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Semantical pedantics fireworks.

nohllywd




msg:710485
 5:58 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

has anyone else noticed when u do a search on g__gle and hit one of the results it sends you to a site of Their Choice?

g1smd




msg:710486
 6:05 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yeah but, when the discussion moves on to talk about <title> tags and title="" attributes, people are going to get left behind if someone uses the wrong name...

Seo1




msg:710487
 6:06 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

There is no <alt> tag.

It's an attribute. :-)

I took zee line from Googles webpage...

and to think the person who wrote it is probably a millionaire now ;-¦

Peace

bobmark




msg:710488
 6:47 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages that clearly and accurately describe your content.
Make sure that your TITLE and ALT tags are descriptive and accurate.
Check for broken links and correct HTML.
Seems pretty clear but others may need to read between the lines. "

Maybe we should have a contest to find the least information rich site with the least original content and the most duplicate content lifted from other sites and that ranks top 10. Can't be more than a few thousand.

JuniorOptimizer




msg:710489
 6:54 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

All of my beloved lost traffic is back on [216.239.53.99...]

Does this mean I'm getting a payraise?

Seo1




msg:710490
 7:07 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

All of my beloved lost traffic is back on [216.239.53.99...]

Does this mean I'm getting a payraise?

Well...only if you make sure you get other targeted traffic so the next time Google flexes...your boss doesn't lose money.

scenpro




msg:710491
 7:42 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Are you sure this is the 'ONE' because if it is ( it's been flickering all day). I've been getting hits and when I check my pages are gone. I'll be very happy for the first time in a while

mahoogle




msg:710492
 7:52 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Something is going on big today....Are traffic has just about dried up.

bobmark




msg:710493
 7:57 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

" Something is going on big today....Are traffic has just about dried up. "

If you look at the pattern across dc's, this mess is a long way from fixed (unless Google thinks the BD index SHOULD contain hundreds of thousands of pages deleted in the past 6 months). If Google was a ship it would be taking on water and drifting aimlessly without power.

kamikaze Optimizer




msg:710494
 8:03 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

I do not know JO, but that DC which is showing 100,000,000 results for my KW has a news article Posted Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2002 in the top 10.

You figure it out.

Seo1




msg:710495
 8:18 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

My clients websites are still ranked after a couple years on the front pages for highly competitive terms..whats with the date being an issue kamikazee?

gcc_llc




msg:710496
 8:20 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Traffic dried up today for me as well and that DC shows old supp results that were gone yesterday. Now they are back.

tebrino




msg:710497
 8:20 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm not sure will it stay this way, but I see plenty of spam on first pages on some datacenters.

300m




msg:710498
 8:21 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am starting to see a shift on various data centers. My fingers are crossed as I have been toiling away all winter making back up plan upon back up plan, just in case.

Edit*
Additional Info

I am going to assume this is only isolated to a couple of DC's as I am running kw tracker and i am actually doing well on that DC (which i have been doing all month long)

[edited by: 300m at 8:35 pm (utc) on Mar. 29, 2006]

kamikaze Optimizer




msg:710499
 8:29 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Seo1:

The date of the article is an issue because USA Today, CNN, Fox..., blah, blah, all write about this KW at least once a week, for an example, right now Google News has 1080 fresh news articles for this KW, and that DC is showing one from Dec 2002, thats my point.

It is old, very old content to be on page one of a KW with 100,000,000 results.

scenpro




msg:710500
 8:37 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

I just did a cache check and one of my pages was from Dec 2005 BUT the rest of the pages around it were from March 26,27 2006
what than means I don't know. Another page I have was ranked so high on a very very competitive keywords it's ridiculous (for how long I don't know) Fool me once, shame...ect

smokeybarnable




msg:710501
 8:38 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

so what do you think? Is it time to redesign the web site based on the recent changes or wait it out?

kamikaze Optimizer




msg:710502
 8:55 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

SEO1:

yeah, the more I look at DC: [216.239.53.99...] I can just tell it will not stick, it certainly will not rollout to the other DC's.

I have seen this before, G has not added all the filters and/or brought in other factors, i.e. back links.

That DC is a carbon copy (with a few minor exceptions) of the live Google from three years ago.

Seo1




msg:710503
 8:57 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)


Seo1:

The date of the article is an issue because USA Today, CNN, Fox..., blah, blah, all write about this KW at least once a week, for an example, right now Google News has 1080 fresh news articles for this KW, and that DC is showing one from Dec 2002, thats my point.

It is old, very old content to be on page one of a KW with 100,000,000 results.

------------------------------------------------------------

It may be old however it may be very very relevant and cited very well by Authority sites.

unfortunately you need to look past yourself and your feelings when loooking at things with Google if that makes sense...

kamikaze Optimizer




msg:710504
 9:03 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

SEO1, please trust me..., I am not caught up in emotions, my site has never moved once, it just stays put right up top of the serps and does very well.

I know this KW better than anyone, I remember the day this article came out over 3 years ago, it is nothing special. It is not SEO-ed, in fact it is a PR0. It has zero back links.

I does not belong in the top 10.

300m




msg:710505
 9:08 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

I can beleive KO's statement. I have seen several instances of old crusty pages that may have had some kind of relevance a few years ago, but is no longer relevant. Especially old news articles.

Seo1




msg:710506
 9:26 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well after KOs description it and seeing others issues seems old black hat spam is back?

at a 100mil competing with no backlinks showing it wouldn't make front page without black hat bolstering it somehow..

kamikaze Optimizer




msg:710507
 9:36 pm on Mar 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Na, no black hat with the article that I am discussing, it is a major news corp article, but it is not linked to from this news site anywheres.

this is just Google being Google.

This 218 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 218 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved