| 9:10 pm on Mar 30, 2007 (gmt 0)|
After a couple of weeks of stability we got hit again today. I noticed some shifting in rankings last night with a couple of the other players moving around and then today it's our turn...
| 7:49 am on Mar 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yeah I noticed too that Google has regressed back. The last regression lasted 4 days beginning of March.
| 8:34 am on Mar 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
turned the dial again and lost some of the relevancy factor again.
If this is their way of trying to get more PPC revenue off authority sites frankly its a poor show.
| 10:05 am on Mar 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
yes they are on it again, that was quick, just a few weeks after last update, but I think this is a quick one.
| 4:43 pm on Mar 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm throwing my vote in for a dup content filter problem.
My take is that Google's algorith for allocating the original author of content is a little off at the moment.
Here are the tests that I've been doing and I'd be interested to see if others are seeing the same.
1) using the old "&filter=0" at the end of my google query url puts my site back at number one, compared to the current >1000 for the target terms.
2) Another thing I've done is started looking for an exact match in google for some unique text (using my company name). 7 sites show up and mine is not one of them. (it is important to use content that appears in the google serp description)
3) If I "filter=0" this search I get 18,000+ results
(very flattering) but that is a lot of sites being filtered out for my content of which, unfortunately mine is one.
4) out of the 7 sites above, one is scraping sites and using nofollow tags on the links to my site.
5) looking at the current top 20 sites that have 'survived' this latest change I noted that none of them have cached content from this scraping nofollow tag, or any other scraping/nofollow sites.
so again, I think this is a dup content filter problem but I also suspect that nofollow is playing a part here.
| 10:46 pm on Mar 31, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I see this as beig a datacentre property. When I search and it defaults me to one set of DC,s everything shows as normal.
Another set shows this newer set which seems to be more lively.
Could it be more testing based on user clickthrus?
| 12:57 am on Apr 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I am afraid i think you got it right on the nail there....
| 1:09 am on Apr 1, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Results 1 - 10 of about 0 for
Results 11 - 20 of about 0 for
Did you also noticed that?Is it broken?
< continued here: [webmasterworld.com...] >
[edited by: tedster at 5:40 pm (utc) on April 1, 2007]
| This 98 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 98 ( 1 2 3  ) |