| 9:34 am on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>excuse? Too many affiliate links
So you did talk to somebody at ATW?
| 9:55 am on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
that can't be correct I've got sites ranking well with more affiliate links than that
| 1:31 pm on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>my site is full of content and good information
Sorry Dave, but says who? You? :)
>too many aff links
I doubt it. Why should they ban your site because of that?
Imo there must be other reasons why it's not in. Dynamic content, redirects, frames, links etc.
I must also ask - have you talked to them?
| 1:47 pm on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Are you using dynamic pages from a content management system? If so you may be having a problem with session variables.
| 11:23 pm on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your replies guys. I guess I was a bit jaded yesterday when I posted that! My apologies. But it does perplex me. No, I have pure content pages written by myself. And who thinks they're decent/good? Well, Google for one. I'm in their index AND have been accepted into the Adsense program. And one would assume that I would not have been accepted if my site was just full of affiliates links or had no content. And yes, I have emailed them, but with no luck (no response back). I have also talked to an individual in here who I assumed was somehow involved with ATW and he said:
"I think your site may have been penalized. Please refer to our content guidelines available on ATW. Many of the techniques you use are not over the top but it may be the nature of the content (affiliate) which draws your site for closer inspection.
I am obviously willing to discuss this with you if need be."
Not sure what to think?
| 11:47 pm on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Not sure what to think?
If you think it is bona fide then focus on the last sentance.
| 11:54 pm on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well then that's a whole different ball game. Interesting nevertheless.
Aff links were not the reason for a possible penalty/no indexing, but a kind of flag, which caused closer inspection.
If indeed the site was dropped/not spidered only you can answer what may have caused that.
Obviously there are millions of pages in Google's index which may be viewed as being slightly or totally spammy, so being in Google I'm afraid is not an argument for other engines to index a site.
| 2:18 am on Aug 29, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm no SEO expert, but I know for a fact that I have done nothing spammy (hidden text, redirects etc). Unless one of Brett's 26 steps is spammy, then I have done nothing wrong. I wrote that person back (the one who wrote me) and he never got back. I suppose I should try again. I'm not crying foul here, I am seriously just curious what the problem might be? :) Ok, Google may not be the end all SE in terms of whether a site is spammy or not, but when ATW is the only SE that doesn't index/spider me, I start to wonder!
| 12:30 pm on Aug 31, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've also been waiting in vain to get a site in ATW.
2 1/2 months and counting.
What is the typical time after submission?
| 12:13 am on Sep 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
As far as I can make out ATW has not updated their index in 3-4 months, though they do show more recent backlinks. Go figure...
I would suggest patience.
| 1:49 am on Sep 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
ATW Algo = 5/10
ATW Referrals = 1/month
ATW Marketing = (empty set)
ATW = WHO CARES?
| 7:47 am on Sep 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Whoaa guys, now wait a second:
- WBF: I'm sorry to hear your site didn't get refreshed, but stating the index is not updated in months is of course not true at all.
- Skipfactor: in a world where you have virtually one first tier engine and perhaps 2 or three second tier engines to care about we could of course close down all other than the Google forums. Let me tell you though the index ATW represents is not only in many people's experience equal if not better than Google's, it also delivers good traffic to many people.
Like we said probably a thousand times before: The traffic is from the portals running the ATW index, not from ATW directly.
| 3:08 am on Sep 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Whoaa guys, now wait a second: - WBF: I'm sorry to hear your site didn't get refreshed, but stating the index is not updated in months is of course not true at all. |
Well, ATW still shows good SERPS for a site of mine that hasn't existed since May, and it has failed to add somewhere around 120 pages from another site of mine that have been added since May.
Spider has been there - shows in my logs.
Looks like a stale index to me!
On the other hand, ATW has done a better job of updating backlinks. Go figure...
| 4:09 am on Sep 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Skipfactor: in a world where you have virtually one first tier engine and perhaps 2 or three second tier engines to care about |
Believe me, I'd love to rake in some convrertble off of ATW. I'm just not seeing it.
| 4:43 am on Sep 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have a site with dozens of amazon aff. links per page, adsense banners and ranks #1 for its target term for every page of the site in ATW.
On the other hand in 2 years ATW has only sent that site 92 visitors; lycos (which uses, in part ATW) has sent 3,661.
In contrast, G has sent me 166,491 in the same time span.
I am not knocking ATW - it actually has what I would consider generally very comparable results to G - but it doesn't have traffic.
Another thing is that I think that a few days after a major player (like Yahoo) started using a "raw" version of ATW algo - you would see a *sharp* decrease in the quality of the ATW index. No one has bothered to spam it because it doesn't pull in enough traffic to make it worthwhile.
The day they put it on Yahoo guaranteed that the first 100 results for everything from "dog biscuits" to "mother teresa" are going to be the same porn site's spam page one after another.
| 9:55 am on Sep 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>No one has bothered to spam it
You are sure? ;)..... The thing is however that all engines pick up the same amount of spammy pages, atleast if they really crawl extensively. If someone autogenerates a couple of thousand pages with the intention to flood Google - the same stuff is going to be picked up by ATW. Not surprisingly there are real life examples for this.
ATW has received the same share of praise and the same share of abuse for their spam filters as Google. They do filter, but as with Google the filters are far from being perfect.
| 3:18 pm on Sep 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> They do filter, but as with Google the filters are far from being perfect.
I see a lot of stuff in ATW that was probably *intended* for G that doesn't show there, but is in ATW.
I am not saying that there isn't spam in ATW, I am just saying that I doubt someone said - "Okay fellows, let's launch our massive site optimized for ATW!"
Granted a good content site that performs well in Google generally performs well in ATW - and certain schemes that have worked in G (guestbook spamming) don't work with ATW - but like I said, the day ATW's traffic is put someplace where traffic will access it, that's the day that you will see ATW optimized site, pages and subdomains, just like you see for inktomi and G, etc.
| 4:36 am on Sep 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If you ask me (IMHO) Google brings 100 times the traffic that Alltheweb.com does. Google even refreshes my site every 2-4 days. Alltheweb? It has a copy of my site that was indexed about 3-4 month's ago.
| 4:42 am on Sep 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|If you ask me (IMHO) Google brings 100 times the traffic that Alltheweb.com does. Google even refreshes my site every 2-4 days. Alltheweb? It has a copy of my site that was indexed about 3-4 month's ago. |
Yep, me too, though there are some in this forum that insist that the ATW DB is fresh and up to date.
| 6:02 am on Sep 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
That can't be. Because , I have 1 good example of Alltheweb.com's freshness:
Search in ATW for "MSN" , The results are from Sep 1, with the following summary at the start:
"MSN Home My MSN Monday, Sep 1"
that's about 8 days ago.
Now try the same query in Google, at the bottom in Green it is clearly written:
"www.msn.com/ - 28k - 4 Sep 2003 - Cached - Similar pages "
That's a 4 day difference and I see that I can understand more in Google's summary than ATW's summary.
| 7:49 am on Sep 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google used to have one big update once a month but recently they do much beter. Especially for home pages or other pages that are often changing with a reasonable PageRank. ATW updates in a different way.
Where's the update then? I'm still waiting [webmasterworld.com]
|It's quite hard to follow when FAST updates their index, they do it quite often and they don't always refresh the whole database, often they update 25% of the index every week, but usualy you will see a "BIG" update once a month. |
FAST / ATW update cycles every 7 - 11 days? [webmasterworld.com]
|A new press release claims a complete update every 7 - 11 days. If FAST could meet that, it surely would put them ahead significantly of the competition. |
| 1:35 pm on Sep 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yeah , If FAST has the fastest server's and install somemore Web crawler's , they can focus on re-indexing the whole database every Saturday and Sunday , I think 2 day's are enough to re-index all about 3.1 billion sites with somemore crawler's and Fast server's...
| 5:36 am on Sep 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Id have to agree with WBF.
* Recent links added
* Only the homepage indexed on ATW
* Top keywords on Google provide thousands of hits
* Same keywords on ATW provide.. nuthin.
| 5:43 am on Sep 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My experience is that one of our sites is showing ATW queries with as part of the search term '2002'. That only appears in the footer (current year, was changed on Jan 1st 2003).
Given that we are 9 months into 2003, I'd say they have some updating to do.
| 5:52 am on Sep 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|* Top keywords on Google provide thousands of hits |
* Same keywords on ATW provide.. nuthin.
We've been saying this a 1,000 times:
ATW is NOT Google. ATW is NOT a search destination. Look for traffic that comes from portals using the FAST technology.
Spend your time on something else ;)
| 4:27 am on Sep 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|ATW is NOT Google. ATW is NOT a search destination. Look for traffic that comes from portals using the FAST technology. |
If its not Google and its not a search destination , then what is it? And when ATW/FAST beat Google , Why was there a BIG chaos in the press? When ATW is not a search destination?
| 1:22 pm on Sep 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>then what is it?
|FAST develops revolutionary search solutions that transform search from a powerful, yet narrowly perceived operational function, to a strategic and tactical organizational capability |
A search technology company.
| 1:41 pm on Sep 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Rumbas, you are talking about FAST.
|AlltheWeb combines one of the largest and freshest indices with the most powerful search features that allow anyone to find anything faster than with any other search engine. |
All the Web is clearly meant to be a "search destination".
| 2:05 pm on Sep 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
WBF, I seriously hope you are right and ATW lives up to that claim. Which depends mostly on the plans the future owners, Yahoo, have.
Up to now what Rumbas says is 100% on target. ATW has been the showcase for Fast. Fast operated exactly like INK, who don't have a direct outlet at all.
Then came Overture, plans were made..., now here's Yahoo, and new plans are made...