| 2:49 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see them at 26 currently... definitely no retreat:
| 3:15 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I really hope these results will stay.
Looking at the other results with all them two page listings they do not give me the reults I would like to see from a search engine.
And that's not because my sites list at better positions with the "new".
Personally I love a two page position in the serps for my site but when looking at a users point of view who cares if a site also has other pages that match the search criteria. He will find that page anyway if a site has a good linking structure.
And isnt that what google wants? sites with good interlinking structures. User friendly sites...
I really hope these new results are here to stay.
I use google to search for things I would like to get information from. I really don't want to see the same site over and over again.
| 3:26 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I will second that dedoo. I think these results are more accurate to what you are searching for so hopefully they are here to stay.
| 3:35 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I like this algo. ;)
It looks like they did exactly what I would do if I got my hands on the knobs. ie keep tweaking them until I had one of my own pages on the top of SERPS for all of my main target keywords and then tweak a bit more until my secondary terms got in the top 10. ;)
The only trouble is that all of my serious competitors have all now got into the top 20. ;)
Time will only tell if being a bit lower amongst a load of old dross is better than leading the field amongst major players in our niche. ;)
I'm off to make some hay while the sun is shinning.
| 3:50 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This algo sucks!
Guess I'll have to break out the check book and buy up a bunch of sitewides because that's who is reaping big rewards.
I only dropped a few spots but the algo is heavily rewarding paid for links. After MC's big log post about how buying links was bad, blah, blah, yeah right.
I'm loosing faith in Google.
| 4:06 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Our site has no paid links so thats that theory out the window. Not saying its not a slim posibility but I doubt it very much.
| 4:14 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Maybe for your sector it's out the window.
For mine it's spot on.
This whole board is nothing but theories anyway.
| 4:39 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Still not sure how Google can tell if a link is purchased...
| 4:53 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 4:54 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
hmmm. I was very happy with these new SERPs over the past few days, but overnight my site's rankings have fallen fairly significantly on many secondary keywords. Several of my competitiors have also dropped to one degree or another.
More review and how-to pages seem to be popping up at the top of the list.
| 5:01 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This algo definately likes links from forums, unreated sites and high pr pages! Sweet!
I've put the work in and got the benefits - 3 months of intensive labour pays off. Once these results stick - we'll get a Page Rank by next week - right?
| 5:04 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
you already have a pagerank
| 5:05 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One of my observations in my areas is the increased ranking of wikipedia pages on the updated DCs. For many of my queries they have entered the first page in the SERPS and often at position 2 to 5.
It seems that the new knob settings favor informational sites above commercial (I am not unhappy with that) but a monopoly for wikipedia doesn't help the searcher necessarily. It leaves only 9 slots on the first page for other unique sites to compete.
| 5:11 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
yes...this algo favours paid links..spammed links..network interlinks...automated links...all at the expense of reciprocals...if thats good or bad you decide...but the idea that quality links count or ontopic count is pretty far fetched....i often listen to government broadcats on the radio warning that welfare/benefit cheats are being targeted by the authorities and to give up their bad ways now before they get caught...when i hear that i know the problem is so big the authorities dont have the rescources to actually make an impact into actually catching the cheats so they play mind games...
and yes the wiki results are totally out of control...
| 5:22 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
sandpetra :: PR updates typically happen the first weekend after the beginning of the new quarter, in this case July 1/2, or maybe 8/9. Not saying it will, but that's the pattern.
Soapystar :: if the value of recips goes down, I guess the rest of the options goes up relatively. They have to value some type of links or get a new algo. Is the quality of links that bad? Unfortunately SEO is only a small part of the job and rely upon y'all to do the real digging :-)
petehall :: thanks for the update.
| 5:25 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I am happy with the new algo on these DC's as we are now ranking #10 on my keyword. However, I notice some unusual features with all of the home pages on the listed DC's:
1. "English" appears beneath the Google logo.
2. When I click on preferences, there is a notice that Cookies are disabled and I cannot save any changes to my default preferences.
I don't have these issues at my "normal" DC that I get from google.com.
Does anyone have any comment on this?
| 5:52 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>quality of links that bad<<<
blogs?....made-for-the-purpose one page sites....webdesigners placing 100's of links on their clients sites to their own....etc...the question is what does quality have to do with it at all?....its not true that if recips go down then these relatively go up because 18 months ago google was able to recognise these type of links and devalue them..they seem to have totally lost the ability to do this..
| 7:05 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What Im wondering, is when are the Datacenters going to stabilize on one set of results, or at least have a vast majority of datacenters, agree on a set of results.
It feels like its been 8 months since we have had a stable Google.
| 8:11 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Tracking these results on mcdar, I'm seeing a lot of duplicate returns, such as page one of website, with page 2 of website listed below etc for the first 5 pages of some of the data centres.
Anyone else seeing this?
| 8:35 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Canít get over how fast the movement is going on right now between these data centers.
| 9:13 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
soapystar, what I meant was that part of google algo is made up of the value of IBLs
Rough equation when looking at link types
Value of IBLs in Ranking = a*LinkType1/n+...+n*LinkType1/n
If one of the Linktypes is removed then the others have to pick up slack. And there are a lot of types of links, but very few that google would consider "good", and fewer still that they can clearly track.
Presumes of course the value of IBLs in Ranking stays stable.
| 9:27 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i said it before and say it again, i see clear signs that the new serps are "in retreat mode"
I forecast that by sunday they'll be totally gone
| 9:29 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well - I'm top for my very competitive keyword in a lot of the new datacentres - and have been for a couple of weeks.
But guess what - even though Google rates the link right above me for £15-20 a click - and Yahoo £7 - there's absolutely no traffic!
What's happening there?
I feel as if I've climbed a mountain and guess hwat - there was nothing there! How come I spent all that cash on Adwords + Y! to position myself in this position using ppc, only to find when I get there through SEO there's no traffic?
I thought the organic top 3 got 70% of the traffic. Something is very ammiss.
i feel conned.
| 9:39 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"I feel as if I've climbed a mountain and guess hwat - there was nothing there! How come I spent all that cash on Adwords + Y! to position myself in this position using ppc, only to find when I get there through SEO there's no traffic?"
Now thats interesting.
Tell me were you getting a lot more traffic from the ppc for that particular keyword(s)?
Or where you getting plenty of clicks but no real traffic?
| 9:55 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You guessed it - a fair amount of clicks when i was on PPC. For example - I blew £1,500 in one week using this among avery few other keywords to position myself where I am now (using SEO) - but I'm not seeing a lot of traffic referals from Google.
I got one, purely seo, lead on Friday - from MSN!
Would you adam and eve it? Is PPC the biggest marketing scam in history?
I'm now moving on my 'golden' keywords - I wonder what will happen if I make it to the top of this mountain. According to all the keyword selector tools this keyword combination gets a ton of traffic - we'll see.
I'm 30th out of 60 million a golden keyword, so not far to go (hopefully)!
| 10:03 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Now isn't that just weird.
Lets go over it again.
When you get to a top spot in the organic results the traffic never quite measures up to the traffic you receive (well clicks at least ) if you acheive the same with PPC.
Now everyone knows that organic results get way more traffic, surfers seem to "trust" it more.
SO hey, where oh where do all these clicks that lead to nothing come from in PPC?
A competitor in our field actually folded at the beginning of the week due to this very problem.
They shelled out a tonne of cash over the first quarter of this year, didn't get the return in sales and went belly up. Admittedly they didn't keep as close an eye on it as they should and considering how big they were this was very foolish, but hey it happens.
| 10:29 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you want some good reading about click fraud, check out this thread I started....
| 10:33 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The answer is simple
When you PPC for say "Blue Wigets" your ad will feature for the following:-
Your Blue Widgets
My Blue Widgets
Everyones Blue Widgets etc etc etc
When you rank for the keyword chances are your site is only in the top for one blue widget keyword variation. Not to mention the fact that your PPC adverts may feature on various adwords sites that your own natural position would not gain traffic from
| 10:52 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The conspiratorial in me was taking over there for a bit!
| 10:55 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone not seen an adsense site not indexed or cached? Just a thought if you are having dropped pages.
| 11:18 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Has this ever in the past reached a determination? All we can do is make observations. |
Similar to rolling dice... no? :)
| This 160 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 160 ( 1 2 3  5 6 ) > > |