| 5:35 am on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Related" is interesting and offers another tinted window into how G perceives your site. Beyond that, though, is it of any use? I can't imagine very many searchers using it in its present form.
| 6:17 am on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This change is usefull from GoogleToolbar.
| 8:09 am on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
They broke the related command at least a couple weeks ago. It's as worthless as the backlink command now.
Before you could find meaningful, similar type pages and sites. Now they are usually not related, and you see a lot of "6 of 9" or no results at all.
Why they make useful things then turn them to poop is pretty weird. Why they even spend any resources on the link command now is even weirder, since it is a deliberate act of misinformation.
| 8:18 am on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It looks to me that the related command is more accuratre now than what was before. Before was showing related in the sence of website structure layout etc, now it shows related to the topic.
| 9:04 am on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree with Steveb.
Now It has no sense at all......
Try the search with www.webmasterworld.com
| 9:16 am on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just checked for one of my sites and related: showed a couple of similiarly themed sites, but with no links between them and my site.
| 10:18 am on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
related: command seems really improved.
I checked one of my sites, and I saw 100% "related" sites. All esults are really related to my niche.
A few months ago, the related: command was yielding bizzare results (for example, it showed sites where there is a link to my site on the footer area.)
| 10:27 am on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Maybe google is offering different results in different countries...
I do not see an improvement searching:
| 1:48 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
related:www.webmasterworld.com I'm seeing no results at all.
mattcutts.com is showing a strange result to, 1 listing, not in english.
| 3:06 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This data center 22.214.171.124 shows new "related" sites correctly.
| 8:31 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
126.96.36.199 does show decent related results like in previous years.
| 8:43 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The other thing I notice on that DC is that the #1 related is no longer the site in the query.
Before I'd usually seen related:example.com, example.com #1 unless the site had a filter or penalty of sorts.
| 9:49 pm on Aug 25, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Really interesting results at that IP address.
Among the sites which are "related:" to the company I work for are:
I've never seen anything like it in related results. It looks as though they are using Alexa's results for "... Also Visit ..."
| 1:12 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm a couple of days late noticing this one. Yup, related: command finally makese sense.
| 11:08 pm on Aug 28, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I cant see the point of the related option - can someone explain?
using the related option for My site it returns 31 other sites that are indeed related - well done google spot on, cant fault they are other sites on a similar theme. (related in so much that they carry content of a similar theme and if it was a directory you would expect these sites to be in the same cat.)
However, if i go to relatedsite1 and try the search, my own site is not returned in the list - so am i to assume that google thinks that a) is related to b) but b) is not related to a)? - My point being that a surely if a site is related in Googles view, it should be related full stop both ways!
Meanwhile, i notice that on some sites Google returns sites that are related to them in so much that they are from the same owner - Could this be googles way of discounting links from own sites?
Finally, i lost backlinks in this update 30% for one site 8000 down to 5000 - Ouch!, yet more sites are linking to the site, so dont get it!. I have noticed however that Google has dropped some pages since the infastructure rolled out in Jan due to cannonicals and other issues, so do you think this loss of links is as a result of the lost pages that would have had internal links on them?
Any thoughts appreciated
| 6:49 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The old related command only based on the linking structure. Page A and page B were related if there were several other pages which link the both of them.
It seems that this has changed. My impression is that the new related command is (also) content based.
| 10:19 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The DC at [188.8.131.52...] a.k.a. [gfe-jc.google.com...] is being used by one engineeer who is experimenting with things.
Matt Cutts and GoogleGuy have already confirmed this multiple times in the last few days. See
[webmasterworld.com...] and several others.
| 10:22 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I haven't recently looked at the related searches on Google, but some while ago, I looked at the related list for Site A and saw listed Sites, B, C, D, E, and F.
I instantly recognised that list of sites (A to F inclusive) as being the complete list of outgoing links recently seen on site Z, which I had browsed just a few days before.
| 11:13 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It might be an engineer playing around, but I just saw these results on Hotbot.