| 11:36 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I think something has been changed in the algo |
| 11:47 pm on Feb 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I think something has been changed in the algo |
Care to share why/how/where/what evidence you have for an additional algo change?
| 12:04 am on Feb 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing 2 different set of results being flipped back and forth. In one set of results I am #5 for my major keyword (was once ranked #1) and the other I am nowhere to be found.
| 1:29 am on Feb 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yapp I can see Google's obsessive compulsive fiddling again .. too, doubtlessly also this update will bring world peace and find a cure for every illness on the planet. Until 5 days later where everything was wrong again and it starts all over again..
Let's call it the Sisyphus update...
| 1:50 am on Feb 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Already has a name, Everflux [webmasterworld.com].
| 12:45 pm on Feb 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
synergy, I see the exact same things as you do. We have really good positions in one of the indexes and in the other one we are nowhere to be found (except for a few key terms).
I would like to suggest a more in depth co-operations with you here that share the exact same factors as we do (see below). If your problems match ours, please send me an email (via webmasterworld) and I will set up a phone conference in a day or two.
1. Been an authority in the segment (high competitive) for years.
2. Going back and forth from the index, with a few key terms still in the first position.
3. First time to really have problems with Google (November last year).
| 2:33 pm on Feb 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Already has a name, Everflux. |
Nah Sisyphus is more accurate...
| 12:15 am on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Is everyone seeing a lot of pages going supplemental? I've noticed quite a few over the past two weeks....
| 3:31 am on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Anyone noticing serp changes, today, I am seeing a massive difference for some of my keywords.
[edited by: tedster at 4:00 am (utc) on Feb. 20, 2007]
[edit reason] moved the post from another spot [/edit]
| 4:07 am on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
They let in several dump truck loads of hijack/redirect/blogspam crap today. One of their more pathetic days.
| 4:15 am on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Looks like u are right, I see a lot of crappy sites ranking high for some very competitive keywords.
Dunno when this going to end.
| 4:44 am on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm noticing the same thing -- there are a lot of results showing up with very little useful content. Is it just me, or has Google filtered out so many websites, there are just not a whole lot of good sites left in the results?
I understand what Google is trying to do by limiting spam and duplicate content, but during the last year or so, it seems like the results for a lot of searches have gradually gotten worse, not better.
Admittedly, I am a bit biased since a few of my sites have fallen off the map and have been replaced by other pages that have directly copied my original content. I don't know how Google is scoring pages these days, but it does not seem especially fair. The more work I do, the lower my ranking goes and the better my competitors rank.
Am I the only one who feels this way or have others experienced the same thing?
| 3:03 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
optimum nutrition protein
Search this Good God Google has completely lost it. I get sick of this from a search engine that prides itself on showing useful ads.
I see a couple of websites other than that nothing but shopping sites and I wonder what the
#1 spot has "This IS the placeholder for domain" A parked domain #1 wonderful useful glad I wasted my time.....
what qualifies it in all our vast SEO knowledge to be #1... I am beginning to wonder if allot of the results are being manipulated by human hands as some of the shopping sites are doing searchs so how does Google spider perform a search?
| 3:45 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|optimum nutrition protein |
I don't get a parked domain on .co.uk
| 3:47 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I understand what Google is trying to do by limiting spam and duplicate content |
Google wants to make money, so do we.. mortgages and so on aren't free yet, unless someone finally installs wikimortgage.org
| 4:56 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It seems as though G is spending more time on one of my target industries, evidenced by all of the little helper widgets that now dispaly along with your searches.
The results are getting better - not to mention that MY site is doing better. I don't deserve 1st page yet, but I didn't previously deserve to be in oblivion eirther. I would say I NOW have a spot that makes sense considering the time I spend linking.
My other industry is about the same. One big money term is doing a little better, the other a little worse, but in the same realm of existance.
| 5:14 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
From 1500+ daily visitors from google, now getting under 50 visitors per day from google.
All pages are still indexed.
Site disappeared in serps.
Any idea if this ranking thing is going to permanent or temporary?
If it takes too long for my site's rankings to improve, i am going to be really sick.
| 5:38 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|You don't need the "best" product to win - you need the "Impression" of the best product. |
Coolio. It's only half true, but the "impression" is done so badly in general, that it seems totally true.
|New auction sites appear monthly, all claiming to be better than ebay; very one I've seen is cr*p. |
Well....what I think I'm seeing is local auction sites replacing ebay.
|So masses of money + appealing even more to human laziness and a way to channel traffic. I can only see Microsoft being able to do that. |
Microsoft is solid and will get there some time (but when?). There are thousands of business groups that have the means to start a search engine. Easiest would be to buy search results from Google and with original marketing they would be able to get in. But these days originality is the bottleneck.
|Google fast, uncluttered. People want results yesterday, they don't give a damn about beauty design. |
Oh, they do, but not at the expense of usability.
| 6:23 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
For the past week I am seeing what appears to be an over emphasis on links, without regard to quality, kick in. Blogspam is ruling the roost.
| 7:00 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It looks like this recent change was in fact a roll-back to mid-January. I am noticing very similar results to around the 20th of January. Is anyone else seeing this?
| 8:59 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
yes, this is about when our site fell from the rankings around mid January. I am seeing very similar results to that time. Wonder what's up.
I haven't the slightest clue why our sight fell, we don't spam, our site has been on the web since 2001 and always has been on page 1 in the top 5 results (on all search engines, not just google). I hope we come back soon, this is so frustrating.
| 9:51 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes, movement in the serps again. Could be a roll back to mid january, brought my sites back to 30's from the 70's.
Just keep rolling it back google a few more months would be fine!
| 10:03 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't see this as a true rollback - some of the SERPs I monitor have a whole new configuration.
| 10:37 pm on Feb 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Any movement for us at the moment is good.
| 12:12 am on Feb 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
yes, it would be great if they would roll back to December 2006. :) I won't hold my breath though. As I said before I don't know why we fell off the "google world" by looking at our site why we would've been dropped?
[edited by: tedster at 1:34 am (utc) on Feb. 21, 2007]
| 1:10 am on Feb 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Prior to late January I was getting 150+ orders from Goo gle now I am getting 25, I never cite Goo gle by its full name since I know they read everything with their "goo gle" in it. I am now tired of playing the game and will now sell my multi million dollar business and retire.
| 1:12 am on Feb 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Sorry I forgot to say that I spend $20,000 on ad words per month with Goo gle.
| 1:35 am on Feb 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I see a lot of crappy sites ranking high for some very competitive keywords. |
I see those sites in and out all day. I think Google is trying hard but the guys on the other side know what they are doing. Hard to believe but seems like those guys beating Google in their own game because i see those sites in the results for awhile
| 2:06 am on Feb 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Lord Henry - I'm right there with you, only I got you beat by about 20k.
| 5:18 am on Feb 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Not a rollback.
| 7:02 am on Feb 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I agree, this is not a rollback. This is a tweak or loosening of a filter, penalty, whatever you want to call it.
Unless my changes were spot on...
| This 172 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 172 ( 1 2 3 4  6 ) > > |