Nice observation g1smd.
It seems to be a bug in the supplemental index query parser which doesn't recognize the -inurl: statement. It is a good way to see which URLs are in the supplemental index.
Yeah a bug, time to take advantage of it.
Pretty dramatic changes in the "new" results in the past hour or so.
An awful lot of very poor sites added, and niche relevance of course lowered again.
It's remarkable how well expired domains are doing again.
|It's remarkable how well expired domains are doing again. |
I moved my peronal site a year ago and for my main keywords the old site, which has been defunct since the move, is now ranking significantly higher than the identical site at its real location.
"personal" not "peronal"
is there a way to edit your posted messages?
>>is there a way to edit your posted messages?
You can for a short time after posting...
Look for the "owner edit" icon between your "user profile" icon and the "sticky mail" icon.
Interesting - getting the 'new' results on the 72's now.
I am now getting the new results on 48 of the DCs the rollout could now be happening and the "new" results could be here to stay!
Next time have a little faith... I said these would propagate for months :-)
So the question remains..
what were they tweaking the FIRST time these rolled out and then retreated just as quickly?
Good knows, but something was obviously not right. It certainly wasn't apparent to me on the searches I watch but that means nothing.
Well it's kinda too early here in the States to open the champagne :) So have two or three for me, will ya?
I'll catch up later today
"what were they tweaking the FIRST time"
Don't know, but I did notice that, despite how horrible the results were, they were effective at curbing certain types of spam (while letting in loads of other types of spam).
I'm seeing strong indications that some 6-12 month old (aka "sandboxed") information-intensive sites are suddenly appearing in the SERPs on a large number of data centers. Some other posts also mention more "sandboxed" sites are now being displayed.
Are others seeing this specific pattern?
Are there other indications that Google is reducing their emphasis on "longevity" or "aging" of links?
Are there other indications that Google is increasing the visibility of informational sites at the expense of ecommerce sites?
I guess it depends on the selected keywords that are searched for.
ECommerce sites will innevitably show up if the keywords are orientated towards them [ such as buy, sell, shop etc.] I haven't seen any priority given to information sites generally, unless you seek a keyword such as 'Statue of Liberty'.
There are two distinctive things about the group of sites that has suddenly jumped into some visible positions: they are relatively young, (a.k.a. suffering from the so-called "sandbox" effect), and they are information-intensive. That's why I'm curious whether one of these factors might be shifting in this new algo mix.
Earlier in the thread, I noticed this comment about information vs. ecommerce sites:
"...One of my observations in my areas is the increased ranking of wikipedia pages on the updated DCs. ..It seems that the new knob settings favor informational sites above commercial ..."
Hence, the hypothesis. Of course, there could be other factors at play, as well. For instance, wikipedia has an extremely intensive, and diverse, pattern of internal links. So, for example, the observed boost to visibility of wikipedia documents could be due to changes in the way Google is evaluating internal links.
My 2 cents (probably not worth that much),
I have an informational site about an individual, "John Smith".
Site is almost 2 months old (no pr of course)
I have been watching 69 servers for about 4 days now.
doing a search for "John Smith" (without the quoutes), the results seemed to be divided into two groups.
Group 1 - was anywhere between # 91 and #95
Group 2 - was anywhere between #37 and #53
As of today, a few servers have flipped from one group to the other, but here's what I see:
Group 1 (33 servers) -
All but one datacenter (5 servers) have settled in at #100, the errant 5 servers are #95
Group 2 (36 servers) -
17 servers at #40
19 servers at #47
I'm not smart enought to draw any conclusions. I'm just offering this FWIW
any suggetions, insights?
This morning I am seeing some ugly changes in the OLD SERPs for my competitive keywords. This includes some MFA/PPC pages, keyword stuffing, duplicate ebay guides, and DMOZ pages getting into the top 20. They are creeping up and pushing more relevant sites down.
Also, it looks like the NEW SERPs have retreated somewhat.
Yes, on the way back but for how long?
>> "what were they tweaking the FIRST time" <<
They were refreshing old Supplemental Results, older than 2005 June that is, among several other things.
|They were refreshing old Supplemental Results, older than 2005 June that is, among several other things. |
Aha! Give that man a prize!
Ok, so what's it all mean?
I'm still of the mind that G had to dump or lost (for lack of a better term) it's data at some point.
Should we be expecting yet another "refresh/update" soon?
Ya wanna amuse yourself this minute, start clicking refresh on some of those "new" datacenters now... wildly different results, dmoz titles popping in and out, pages appearing at #17 and also #22, lots of expired domain doodoo being added in.
new results seem to be retreating now :(
"new results seem to be retreating now :( "
Why did you expecting them to stay?
dunno still on 36 DCs! lets not jump to conclusions probably wont be done for sure until monday or tuesday
I wonder what the problem is? There must be black hat sites getting through - need to look at those industries - financial, poker, stop words for this forum's post etc etc......
"dunno still on 36 DCs! lets not jump to conclusions probably wont be done for sure until monday or tuesday"
IMO, it wont be done for sure until August 2006 :-)
"IMO, it wont be done for sure until August 2006 "
agree to that.-
| This 284 message thread spans 10 pages: 284 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 10 ) > > |