| 3:37 pm on May 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Im not sure i agree because the fact is that a good alternative is not known or used. people go to google because "Its what they know" Google have the critical mass.
if the serps for every search request produced junk sites every time tehy would still get high levels of visitors and thats because we dont have a simple alternative
Should MSN ever get its act together and start making an impact then google will have to up its game, but meanwhile i would go as far as to say that google can deliver absoluetly anything and users will still keep going back.
Googles serps are poor, so are msns, yahoos about the best for what i search for but at teh end of the day Google have the critical mass and cant go wrong
| 4:19 pm on May 6, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Google's SERPs are poor? That hasn't been my experience. I usually find what I want in the top 10 results--whether I'm looking for tourist-office sites in Elbonia, information on zoom lenses for a DSLR, metric-to-English conversion tools, or the text of Mark Twain's A TRAMP ABROAD.
Of course, how you define "good" or "bad" is going to impact your perception of what search results should be. If you're really looking for a hotel-booking site when you search for tourist information on Widgetville, the results aren't as good as they were a couple of years ago. And if you're looking for product pages with prices, you'll probably be happier with Froogle (or whatever Google is calling it these days).
| 11:58 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I revisited some search queries from late last year today, and I see that results on gfe-eh are still quite different to those on gfe-gv for example.
Back then I was investigating removal of duplicate content from the SERPs. I see that some has been almost completely fixed, while other bits of the site still have problems.
What surprised me most is that there are still marked differences between various datacentres. They are still not all running on the same data.
| 12:45 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I certainly see some changes in the serps ...
Looks like some of our old pages have finally been removed from the index..... about time too .. they've been gone for over a year.
| 12:45 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|What surprised me most is that there are still marked differences between various datacentres. They are still not all running on the same data. |
| 7:30 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
lets hope so I'm 70% down on my main site but fortunately others have held onto the traffic. I've been bitten many times with G and its flaky updates so I no longer keep all my eggs in one basket! - thanks G you've turned me into a spammer
| 9:10 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Tigger same here. Safety in numbers. We have an arsenal of trusted domains ready and have had to use some over the last month.
| 9:57 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
As of today I have contracted some new programmers to help me spread my risk, I guess my hand has been forced now and I have to match what the others on our main vertical are doing.
| 10:20 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There where some problems world wide that I have seen. Amazingly they came back to life on a world wide level in totally different industries. Just an observation, but there where a few sizable changes this month.
| 10:20 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|lets hope so I'm 70% down on my main site but fortunately others have held onto the traffic. I've been bitten many times with G and its flaky updates so I no longer keep all my eggs in one basket! - thanks G you've turned me into a spammer |
tigger, crush and kidder...
YOu know... there's always these threads in the ADsense forum about whethere it's better to have more sites or one BIG site. I learnt the hard way...
Before I could start marketing my other 2 new sites, google went and killed my main site in the serps. Traffic is down to 20% and I don't even look at my earnings since May 2. It really hurts big time and it's frightening to think I was considering making my catering biz play second fiddle to my websites. Phew.
I realize that I simply don't have the time to work on my sites as much as I'd like to. I suppose the lack of building links and the devaluing of IBLs have probably hurt me more than I imagine.
My personal opinion now : If I have one BIG site and it gets killed by the search engines, I'm dead, even if I have 10 steams of income coming from that site. I'd rather have 10 sites bringing in smaller amounts - spreading my risks a.k.a putting my eggs in many baskets.
Lesson learned... now down to work.
| 10:36 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Maybe not completely.
Don't compound your problems by having multiple sites in the same niche; you could still lose everything.
Much better to have REALLY separate baskets; different kinds of site in different niches.
All, of course, following SE guidelines.
Works for me. In fact, they ALL work for me ;)
| 10:43 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Im not sure i agree because the fact is that a good alternative is not known or used. people go to google because "Its what they know" Google have the critical mass. |
Yes, I'm sure that's part of it. Once upon a time, Altavista had critical mass, and Google came along ...
If Y!, M$ or Ask? were genuinely, significantly better, it may take a while, but they'd overcome Google's critical mass.
Fact is, they are not, and so they won't; most would agree that they are marginally worse, but all are pretty close in most areas.
Google isn't perfect, but as a SE, it's still the best, and as a company, it has charisma. In spades.
Look how Hotmail copied gmail - every main feature BUT - they just couldn't resist a splash page of ads and cr*p, where Google takes you straight to the inbox. It's little non-search features like that, which make Google a cut above the rest (and there's hundreds of similar examples).
| 10:45 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Much better to have REALLY separate baskets; different kinds of site in different niches. |
yes... that's what I meant... but I suppose it's better to have learnt the hard lesson now rather than when I've invested toooo much in my main site. At least I already have my 2 other sites up and running. Just haven't driven traffic to them yet.
Question Quadrille and others... how do you find the time to create content? I hardly have time to take care of one site... I can't imagine 3!
| 11:07 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Content is not much of a problem to overcome if your talking about investing in your sites content can be had pretty cheap. I am going to go wide and hit a few new areas as insurance but I am lucky enough to have a good base to work from.
| 11:57 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|how do you find the time to create content? |
I have 'more than three' sites, and it's a headache.
I realised long ago, before MFA and scrapers hit the web, that there's two kinds of content; 'unique, original' and that other stuff.
I also decided - correctly, as it turns out - that it was much better to be consistent than go where the wind blows.
So I've got a rota; necessarily flexible, but it reminds me to add something new to a small, quiet site maybe once a month; to a busier site more often.
It's also good, of course, to let and encourage people to write for you, a lesson taken to ludicrous extremes by article farms; I only accept articles that are unique, original, and exclusive (as well as being relevant to my site and interesting for readers).
I've also come to believe that forums (at domain.com/forum) are not only good for visitor loyalty and development, they also provide a stream of new and original content.
But your mileage may vary; I work in small niches, where I can build up some expertise. My visitors don't come daily, but they know there'll be something new every so often. Similarly, the SEs make an effort to keep up to date with my content.
For the 'little man', I believe that 'lack of ambition' is the key to success; plan to grow slowly, rather than kill yourself trying to compete with bigger, better resourced sites.
That way, no visitor ever feels cheated - they may or may not like your site; but they'll never arrive expecting something else.
The joy of setting yourself a ridiculously high standard with content, is that it gives you the best excuse for not adding as much new content as you ought. :)
[edited by: Quadrille at 11:59 am (utc) on May 8, 2007]
| 12:04 pm on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
In my niche there are some companies with multiple sites.. They are not doing well and indeed most appear to be 950 penalised. Isn't many sites, similar content called duplicate content?
Personally I would not recommend doing this as a way of spreading risk. You're laying yourself open to someone spam-reporting you. #*$! does happen!
The only safe strategy now is to have one site and not give a dam about Google. One site in my niche has never seemed to care about SEO and are now at #2 and climbing for the major keyword. Not loads, but steadily obtained backlinks, nothing special about the site. It's very simple.
The acres of spam clogging up the serps below them is however a problem!
Regarding critical mass, the moment a new search engine delivers better results than Google people will start to shift. The problem we have right now is that Google's main competitors have been blinded by Google's success and are simply poor imitations. What is needed is a new direction. See my posts above!
| 12:20 pm on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
We have an affiliation program now. Also some cities we do business in 70% of sales are from other sources. I prefer to give a slice to everyone than go solo and pray we stay in google.
The other side is learning to spam serps. Our main site is in 18 languages and it cost a fortune to get the translations. We cannot replicate that again, it is just too expensive. So we have learned to munge things to avoid dupe. If you know how, dupe is easier to avoid than one would think.
| 5:46 pm on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Following statements and the results that Google engeneers create for many kws. .. snitches and tricksters are pretty popular at Mountain View in these days.
| 1:37 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|snitches and tricksters are pretty popular at Mountain View in these days. |
Interesting that people all want to tell google how to do their job ... and when Google invites people to help, suddenly the rude words come out!
As it happens, Google have always encouraged people to report spammy stuff; Matt Cutts' latest request is really no different. If you trouble to read it, they want the reports to hep them hone the algo to give better search results. I'm all for that!
And even without requests, many spammers have made a career out of snitching and trickstering their rivals ... sorry, reporting bad practice to Google. ;) Let's face it, for some spammers, the only way to the top is by reporting other spammers.
And, of course, they ALL blame Google if they fail to get #1
| 2:47 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|to give better search results. I'm all for that! |
Me too, strictly!
That`s why it smells fishy if a $1 billion prof per quarter company doesn`t throw in a few dimes for some staff to weed out all these MFA link collections at least manualy if their algo permanently dumps quality sites to make way for all sorts of spammers who ride on top of many keywords since ages.
If the head of Googles webspam squad is asking webmasters to play snitch it does look unreal, at least to me. It is their product and they should be able to display the very best content based on their own abilities.
However, they fail since a while and enough examples provide proof for that.
Certainly it is beyond my range to judge wether this is desired or not, but obviously very much contradicting to their own "ethics" and "policy".
It just smells bad even for someone, who does respect the Google story a lot.
| 4:58 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes something is a brewing in mountain spew.
My site has been in and out of serps for days now and completely dissapearing for very comeptitive keywords. Was #1 for 1 a year and some terms 2 years and some just 6 months.
I am wondering if I should add a google sitemap/anayltics which I have been hesitant to do because of the "horror stories"
My number ranking is being replaced witha site thats unsing it, no inbound links, not that well optimized.
Also did Dc check and my site shows well on other DC but not on our in the Boston area. Any suggestions? HEELPPPPPP!
| 5:40 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Much better to have REALLY separate baskets; different kinds of site in different niches. |
Sure but on how many topics can one produce something useful? It's another drive against quality.
But a new Google excluded page went up. I need to spead now too. More to come. Will need a while though. Grand dads drawing collection, daddies picture archive.. mabye also a trip to the library Google style to get all them old books in.
| 5:42 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I am wondering if I should add a google sitemap/anayltics which I have been hesitant to do because of the "horror stories" |
Forget I just deleted all my sitemaps. ;)
| 5:48 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|It is their product and they should be able to display the very best content based on their own abilities. |
Yes. You may consider that it is their ability to make webmasters to dance to their tunes ;)
If you don't like their music build traffic from other sources.
| 6:22 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)|
SO what your saying is no help? ALso are your drops thru all DC or just the one your at?
| 6:44 am on May 11, 2007 (gmt 0)|
In these days I am observing more and more domain spamming with MFA link collections ruling on top whilst real industry sites with original content are getting pushed down.
| 12:32 am on May 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Has onyone else seen this? A number of my sites (both with and without AdSense) went strongly up on the 11th of May, and back down on the 18th of May...
[edited by: tedster at 2:15 am (utc) on May 21, 2007]
| 7:14 am on May 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing the organic serps dominated by sites operating backlink networks and with 1000's of obviously bought links.
And yes, these are pretty awful sites.. the kind that find it very difficult to get organic backlinks so buy them en mass..
Go Team Google.
| 7:56 am on May 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This time I even saw Directory Sites who lost there PR drastically....
What will you call this update of Google...
My website have got few grey bar PR...
I don't know what to do I am real worried... I want that to becomes at least a PR... help me webmasters.
| 8:13 am on May 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
So what's this about Google and Matt Cutts wanting new leads to target spam when they still haven't dealt with the old problem of article site spam?!
Hint to Matt:
1) If the domain name includes the word "article," count it as a red flag.
2) Program investigation of these flagged sites to check duplicated content on many other copy sites.
3) Program link checks on the flagged article sites, focusing on the number of links to the same site.
4) Program check of other copy sites to see if there is dupe content AND links from the article sites to the same site.
5) Upon algo conclusion any site is using an article site as a spam link farm, give -950 penalty.
6) Cue to recheck found article link farms monthly. When all backlinks are removed, lift the -950.
7) Strip the actual article sites themselves of all link authority with PR to zero and -950 penalty.
Ok, I have to add one thing having just visited mattcutts.com, wherein, get this, two years ago, this exact issue was raised, and it still hasn't be dealt with:
|December 12, 2005 @ 6:40 am |
Iíll second that question ó if Google is discounting links from press release sites like PRWeb, are they doing the same on article distribution sites such as EzineArticles?
In the case of EzineArticles, they have a manual review process that rejects far more articles than it accepts (its articles often even rank highly for Google queries). But the principle seems to mirror that of PRWeb, which you just outed as a site which doesnít pass link reputation.
Has/will Google taken steps to discount links from article sites such as EzineArticles (as it obviously has from press release sites)?
The answer of course is no. The question is why.
| 9:59 am on May 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I don't know what to do I am real worried... I want that to becomes at least a PR... help me webmasters. |
My homepage and all subsections are PR6 since ages, still got 950ed. The PR 5 site didn't get 950ed, hence forget PR.
[edited by: mattg3 at 10:07 am (utc) on May 21, 2007]
| This 167 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 167 ( 1 2 3  5 6 ) > > |