| 9:35 am on Jan 25, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Seeing new pages, looks good
| 9:51 am on Jan 25, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Ya, i see one of my page moving from #4 to #1, updating the results from dmoz.org
| 2:52 pm on Jan 25, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Increased links, gaining positions.
| 1:04 am on Jan 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
good news for me - site no1 still in #1 position on serps and now has all pages listed with the more pages link (what took them so long???)
but, strange things happening ....
site no2 is also partially listed .... when i search for site2.co.uk, only 2 links to site2 are displayed - no pages from site2 are shown. however, there is a multimedia results box on the right hand side showing "1 picture found", and this is a .gif shown on site2 (if they can list a picture then why can't they list the pages?)
even more strange is that when i click the back button, 25 pages of the 79 pages on that site are now listed (why don't they show the first time?)
and even more strange is that site2 is listed without the www ...... it had it a few months ago, has it in dmoz, google and all links that i know of also have the www .... any cure for this other than ban fast for a couple of months and then let them back in?
| 1:36 am on Jan 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
spotted it a couple of days ago, got some good no.1's, still need to keep at it though.
| 7:03 am on Jan 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Suffered strangely in this update!
I monitored the update for first 36-48 hours and watched as:-
1. Site homepage (that had been re-titled since last update - slight re-arrangement of words to ensure keywords appeared first in the title - and had some cosmetic changes made) slipped from #1 to #8 still showing old title - :( ... then ...
2. Homepage, using new title, listed as #1 - :) ... then ...
3. Homepage dropped altogether - nowhere to be found - :o.
The latter is the status quo, in what appears to be the final version of this late-January update.
Also, in the top ten sites, 3 links are dead links and 3 are hijacks by a totally non-related ecommerce site that appears to be able to create a title from the keywords entered by the searcher, utilise a 'phantom' domain, append a bogus .html file using the searcher's keywords and, when the searcher clicks on the title, take the searcher off to a quite different domain with a webpage completely unrelated to the searcher's keywords.
Anyone got any clues about these conundrums?
| 4:16 pm on Jan 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well, after doing great in the last update. They seemed to have dropped my site. Not too worried about it though. Traffic from alltheweb was minimal.
As to why they dropped it I dont know. Although I did update the sites design with css. No tricks though(if this is considered a trick then half the internet is in trouble), just controlling font size for <h1> tags and tables for arrangement of content. Guess I'll have to see what happens in the next update
| 5:54 pm on Jan 27, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Why is alltheweb never index my dynamic pages. I ask you this q because they alwayd deep crawl my dynamic pages.
| 9:23 am on Jan 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I am not sure what is going on here but something is wrong from my point of view. Over the past 2-3 weeks my link count has been decreasing consistently and I am moving down the serps slowly but surely. I started with over 150 links and now i am down to 92....
| 9:50 am on Jan 28, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>link count decreased
I see a good listing for a new site, which I'm sure comes from some important links. Those links don't show.
I suspect it's like in Google updates: links are counted but not immeadiately displayed.
| 3:51 pm on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
has anyone else noticed the mechanism for links for the serps? Now...if I were to making a nice system for monitoring clicks I'd be doing that way.
For each click on a link, make a new directory if not found, and either increment a value or set it to zero. In the meantime, redirect the browser on their happy way. Any else have any opinions on this?
| 11:30 pm on Jan 30, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Looks like they've finally added many of the pages they've been behind with. Still lot's of spam needs to be cut, at least the the categories I deal with.
Different searches with the same terms return different results. The same sites come up but in a different order each time, except for the top few - hmmm.
| 2:46 am on Jan 31, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I don't see anything on my keywords. This particlular search engine is still showing content from nearly 4 months ago on my site.
I'm not thrilled with this search engine.
My 2 cents
| 5:45 pm on Feb 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
they give me the worst ranking out of everybody. they list me on the 3rd page at 29 for my no1 keyword.but list me 2 for my second most important keyword.google ranks me 3 and 2 respectively.like someone said there traffic was minimal for me anyhow.but it would be nice to be listed higher next update
| 6:15 pm on Feb 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
There are engines on the web that let SEOs feed cloaked content to their db. There are engines on the web that let the $ decide the ranking.
There are two major engine that are still free. Both are subject to massive spamming.
Google has on this very forum admitted more than once there is massive amounts of spam rolling at them.
Same goes for Fast.
Study Fast. They rank differently than Google. Sometimes it works better, sometimes worse. Don't expect to have identical rankings on both. They are not the same.
If you want good rankings undertake the effort to understand them.
Don't expect getting lots of traffic from Alltheweb. It's a showcase. Fast sells websearch to Portals, mainly the worldwide Lycos nework. If you don't need the traffic from Lycos, or T-online, or Tiscali - good for you. It's not comparable to Google. Nothing is at the moment. If you are not worried about that - think again.
I saw some delays in update cycles myself. However Fast has in this update taken in everything new I had. It's not always the SE's fault when a page does not get refreshed.
Still - it's about time Fast takes up speed again in this particular area.
Hey knoplix - welcome to the board!