rfgdxm1
msg:222964 | 12:31 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0) |
>ATW is not intended nor promoted as search destination. It's a testbed and showcase only. The question is where do they plan on going with this? Start promoting ATW directly? Try and woo AOL away from Google?
|
Brad
msg:222965 | 1:11 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Put ATW results on AV?
|
mincklerstraat
msg:222966 | 7:08 am on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Alltheweb uses redirects for their results, so they can generate more click-thru stats on user behavior, which may help them clean up their SERPS. Google does this only occasionally with users, but also gains info for its algorithm in this way. It's possible that this greater quantity of click-thru info helps Alltheweb to produce its quality results. But if big-time comes to Alltheweb, it will have to change or it won't be able to keep up with traffic, things will slow down enormously. Then, like Google, it will have to do with limited click-thru stats.
|
Spica
msg:222967 | 3:43 pm on Jun 3, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Like many others here, I have recently started paying more and more attention to ATW, and have been pleasantly surprised. Here is what I noticed this morning for my favorite keywords: 1) VERY GOOD: the site that is staying rock steady at #1 and #2 in Google despite the fact that it is entirely based on hidden links and hidden text attached to 1 x 1 pixel images is now nowhere to be found in ATW (if I remember right, that site was #2 there until recently). Thus, I say: Yeah! Go Fast! 2) BAD: why are some pages listed twice among the first 100 results (e.g., my site is # 4 and about # 60, with the exact same description). Does that have something to do with the way they update or is it some sort of a glitch? Note: As a user (SEO is only a hobby for me), I now routinely use both Google and ATW. Yes, I am only one person, but I have friends who value my opinion. I think that Google should put their major priority into updating their main index very, very soon. Results based on the status of the web back in February are not what I am looking for.
|
mincklerstraat
msg:222968 | 10:23 am on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Spica, I've noticed with alltheweb and other non-Google engines that they sometimes have a problem with duplicates when it comes to standard redirects - like, your front page www.mysite.com could also show as mysite.com, or www.mysite.com/ , or www.mysite.com/index.html. And then all these possibilities without the www. This is one contributor to page duplicates. It's also a good reason to try to keep links inside you site, and people referring to your site, to the identical url's -uri's -- stupid search engines could have the links to your site subdivided between the different variant url's. Or even worse, very stupid search engines could think these are mirror pages. This is probably more likely to happen if you have dynamic pages which change constantly - i.e., more than once an hour. If you have a page showing the time with seconds, 2:41:36, if the spider crawls www.mysite.com and later gets referred to www.mysite.com/index.php, the page will be different (a few seconds ahead) and not identified as the same page. This is also the case if your page displays the number of reads or referrers. (removed http's, was making actual links)
|
Patrick Taylor
msg:222969 | 5:07 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
ATW can read text inside a Flash file, and that's a big plus for me. Google can't yet do this. Patrick
|
trying to improve
msg:222970 | 6:34 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I put of year of effort into my web site to move it from the 22nd google serp page to the top of the second. Before this last dance, I was confident that I'd finally move on to the first page. Then, bam! Smacked right down to the bottom of the third page with many sites ahead of me that lacked my PR and links. I read the banter here about ATW and thought I'd check its SERPs for my keyword: First page, fourth listing! I could very easily become a ATW convert!
|
Greg_Molloy
msg:222971 | 11:16 pm on Jun 4, 2003 (gmt 0) |
All the web Ever heard of the tipping point? I think its just about to happen for you. Lots of people abandoning google right now looking for a new answer. Start building your directory
|
przero2
msg:222972 | 1:59 am on Jun 7, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Then you really are missing BIG from Google and its partners.
|
pjamescowie
msg:222973 | 4:13 pm on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Hi, Just like "trying to improve" above, I was gradually working my way up the Google serps - not by any tricks - just by adding good content. (Mine is a no profit, no ad, completely altruistic offering). Then - bam! - dropped on Google from 9th position 1st page on my key search words, down to bottom of the 2nd page. This, despite the fact that I have at least triple the number of links coming in than many sites well above me. Doesn't make any sense! On ATW? - 3rd position on 1st page - a position I humbly consider a much better reflection of the hard work I've put in (many sites above me haven't been updated for years!) and the utility of my site. Losing faith in Google big-time!
|
woop01
msg:222974 | 3:43 pm on Jun 12, 2003 (gmt 0) |
przero2, I still know who pays the bills. I mean I use ATW for my personal searches when I'm trying to find something, not trying to be found.
|
danielm
msg:222975 | 6:18 am on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Woot! I know it's merely coincidence, but ATW has "freshed" my index page (in less than 8 hours after making the change) and incorporated it into searches faster than I've ever seen Google do it.
|
Rumbas
msg:222976 | 11:06 am on Jun 14, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Hi daniel, welcome to the board :) 8 hours? That's really fast and good news! Let us know if it brings you any traffic?
|
Lovejoy
msg:222977 | 1:38 am on Jun 15, 2003 (gmt 0) |
I just checked ATW and I'm on the first page, but not as high as I'd like. Anyone have any tips for optimizing for ATW?
|
chairwars
msg:222978 | 5:46 pm on Jun 15, 2003 (gmt 0) |
Look through the other posts in the alltheweb forum for tips. How fast ranks has been discussed here [webmasterworld.com ]
|
| This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 45 ( 1 [2] ) |
|
|
