| 7:59 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Seems like Beta is fluxxing in and out of Msn search today. Our tracking shows Msn search, of which we are not
listed because of Yahoo, yet we are getting hits which
implies results are from beta.
| 8:07 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've been tracking this for the last few hours, and the frequency of beta intrusions has increased by about a factor of 3 over that period of time (based upon our log file...beta-based hits were averaging 1 every 11 minutes, now its 1 every 3 minutes)
| 8:10 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Let the games begin! :>~
Bring the heat MSN! Google deserves it!
| 8:19 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Bring the Heat on Yahoo, they really
| 8:54 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Who’s that hot new se that thoroughly crawls the entire web and appropriately ranks unique new content?
OMG its msnbot!
| 10:24 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For firefox users, get the web developer toolbar, switch off cookies for msn, see what happens. I'm curious. The difference between IE and firefox really does sound like a cookie thing, not a browser thing.
good that they are finally doing real testing though, that's a positive.
| 10:51 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|For firefox users, get the web developer toolbar, switch off cookies for msn, see what happens. |
Done, and you're right. It's a cookie thing.
| 10:55 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, last time this came up it was a cookie thing too. Same exact thing, presence of a beta cookie triggered msn to use beta results. Maybe they are using the same cookie on both systems, hard to say. My guess is that every visit will be tracked extensively, by cookie.
I guess to really check out what's happening you'd have to delete all your search.msn and beta.search.msn cookies, then go back to the site with cookies on. My suspicion is that only users with cookies on will see the beta results, since they need to track everything you do to get meaningful data back.
That would be educational, a test: if you see beta results on msn, delete all msn, search.msn, and beta.search.msn cookies, close the browser to dump any session cookies, open it, reload the page, which should set a brand new cookie. Are you still getting msn beta results?
| 11:11 pm on Jan 13, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I guess to really check out what's happening you'd have to delete all your search.msn and beta.search.msn cookies, then go back to the site with cookies on. My suspicion is that only users with cookies on will see the beta results, since they need to track everything you do to get meaningful data back |
I had cookies turned off in IE and was getting the regular search.msn.com results - all cookies deleted from my machine. When I turned cookies on, in IE, I then got the beta.search.msn.com results.
| 12:49 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, that's what I'd expect, there is no reason for them to serve beta results with cookies turned off, they need to collect user data, through cookies, so if cookies are disabled I doubt they would deliver beta results, maybe later on.
| 1:11 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google is in big trouble - and they can only blame themselves.
| 1:33 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am a fan of competition, but it's too early to make any call on where you will be ranking on the new MSN engine. I see certain things that make no sense in the current set of results.
For example, I have optimized a page around a keyphrase and a page that references that page is outranking it right now. Makes no sense at all.
| 1:36 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<< I have optimized a page around a keyphrase and a page that references that page is outranking it right now >>
I had the exact same thing happen when they modified their algo this week, exactly that. The main page is an authority type document, easy to find, linked to by authority sites. The secondary page has a single link to the other page, using the keywords in the link text. The keywords only occur in that combination in the link to the real page. There are about 4 pages that could be considered as decent responses, none as accurate as the main one. The top 10 page that is currently being returned is not one of them.
| 1:57 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|For example, I have optimized a page around a keyphrase and a page that references that page is outranking it right now. Makes no sense at all. |
I have the same on google SERPS for my keywords - except the pages that refernce my home page are just keywords, in the link text, on the links page of another site! Incidently, that other site's home page has less PR than mysite's smallest PR page and its not on topic!
How would that make you feel? Talk about rubbing your nose in it.
That makes no sense! - welcome to the sandbox!
| 2:54 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm starting to think that the Google sandbox is going to be the making or breaking of Google. Either learn how to detect spam in more intelligent ways, or they make room for a search engine that can. The reason Google became number one is because they had the best and freshest results. All it takes is a new group of phd kids who learn how to detect spam, not how to turn off the web for 6 to 9 months because their algos can't detect the spam, have run out of room, or need to boost adwords income.
I thought google would have these issues worked out at least 6 months ago, the fact that they haven't suggests that they made a pretty big mistake, 10 to 1 that mistake was related to something they did for their IPO, like boosting their income artificially.
| 4:27 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The google sandbox is definitely the breaking of Google! I too have sites that link to mine on google that outrank my site for the keyword on their 1 page. It's an utter joke just like Google! I can't wait till the new msn search is deployed not only for myself but for the thousand of other webmasters that have been sandboxed by google! I have too many negative thoughts about google to post on this board as I'm sure many webmasters do. Google should have put some thought into what they did with sandboxing sites. Their SERP's IMHO are a complete joke anymore. You search for products in my industry and the top 10 has .org, .edu, adsense or some other dumb content site making money off of pay per click advertising. Out of the top 10 results only 2 have what I'm looking for or for that matter what my customers look for. MSN on the other hand...9 out of 10 sites in top 10 all have exactly what I search for. Now this may just be my industry but I have found that many other searches that I have done it is exactly the same way.
Bring the heat MSN! Google deserves it!
| 4:54 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
there are 2 flavors of new sites
1) sites created for adsense: somewhat of a negative affect on google's bottom line, so the Sandbox effect helps to counter this
2) sites created to sell products or services: if they are sanboxed, they are forced to spend on Adwords to get noticed, since they won't be in the free results
MSN's strategy is very strategic...
1) They will be showing more sites created for adsense
2) They will be decreasing people's dependancy on Adwords
These two things combined will definitely cut into Google's profit model.
To some extent, Yahoo is doing the same thing, but to a lesser degree.
Folks, 2005 is going to see a major upheaval, and I think it will be good for the Webmaster. No longer will one engine decide who ranks and who doesn't. And the biggest player is seeing some major competition, thereby diversifying the playing field.
I am looking forward to my best year ever!
Thanks MSN! (for the new sites)
Thanks Google! (for the old sites)
Thanks Yahoo! (for the in between sites)
| 5:56 am on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Google should have put some thought into what they did with sandboxing sites."
I don't think the sandbox was created FOR a purpose, I think it came about BECAUSE of something else. It's simply too stupid to have been anything other than a reaction to concrete circumstances. The fact that it's still in place suggests strongly to me that those other circumstances are still not fixed.
dvduval, that's a very interesting interpretation of msn's strategy, very interesting. And it would fit exactly with how MS does business. Attack your opponent, destroy their profit center. That's exactly how they beat netscape.
| 12:04 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
dvduval - interesting point . Always try to cut into the profit model of your "enemy"...errr competitor. Especially when they were monopolistic and dictate market conditions.
MS has (rightfully) had this treatment thrown at them; one presumes they know how to return the favour :-D
| This 79 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 79 ( 1 2  ) |