a_chameleon
#:3614963
| 10:52 pm on Mar. 30, 2008 (utc 0) |
| It would appear we are in for an old style Google shake up |
|
I'd have to agree. Although I've said it before,
the changes I see in SERP's, at least in my
industry, are quite radical. Sites formerly at no. 9 and 10 are now no. 1 and 2, and vice versa! .
|
willybfriendly
#:3614989
| 11:47 pm on Mar. 30, 2008 (utc 0) |
I am seeing a 2003 CNN story at #10 on a two word term. This follows several days of seeing a 1997 text file showing up in the top ten on two different, but related, single word terms. I haven't seen stuff like this since Florida... Buckle up!
|
annej
#:3615062
| 4:58 am on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
Wow! Wouldn't it be fun to have an old fashioned Google dance. What a high that was. A lot of the old stuff like from a year ago is coming back to the top and some of the junky stuff is sinking. There's hope for good things.
|
santapaws
#:3615169
| 9:29 am on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
yeah wots up? didnt they say a while back they are filtering subs from the same domain? im seeing multi subdomains in the top 10 all over the place.
|
HuskyPup
#:3615196
| 10:14 am on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
Just to confirm my sector is doing the same: | im seeing multi subdomains in the top 10 all over the place. |
|
| Sites formerly at no. 9 and 10 are now no. 1 and 2, and vice versa! |
|
| I've had one site online since 1997 that had a lock on the top spot for my keywords on and off for four years on Google just go "poof", |
|
Most of my competitors have been hit the same and my SERPs are generally an irrelevant mess of shopping sites or single pages with absolutely no information on them apart from maybe an image and a couple of keywords...mess, a total mess.
|
misterjinx
#:3615215
| 10:54 am on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
My 2 cents to this conversation. 1) Plurals: ok Google Phrase Rank is active and in production at 100%. 2) Click-through/bounce back and what results show or hide in SERPs is well explained in this patent [edited by: tedster at 3:08 pm (utc) on Mar. 31, 2008]
[edit reason] fix side scroll [/edit]
|
Lovejoy
#:3615269
| 12:02 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
I guess we could call this the "Ulysses update", it's just one trial of the Google gods after another. Get your shiny shield out, Medusa gets one close look at you, and your site is dead..... Lovejoy
|
Adamderick
#:3615113
| 7:18 am on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
< moved from another location > My website is not coming on first page on my primary keywords, 15 days it was on first page on 5th and 6th positions on my primary keywords, but suddenly it come down on second page but i m doing effrot for this from last 15 days, so please help me out. Regards,
Adam [edited by: tedster at 2:43 pm (utc) on Mar. 31, 2008]
[edit reason] No URLs, thanks [/edit]
|
reseller
#:3615396
| 3:18 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
Adamderick, Welcome to WebmasterWorld. Several of us have noticed reshuffling and possible tweaking on Google data centers during the last two weeks or so. That might have caused the "instability" of your site ranking for your primary keywords. I would just wait and see ;-)
|
Lovejoy
#:3615411
| 3:39 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
A lot depends now on when the datacenters have cached your page, I've got half of the C-Blocks with a cache of my site dating March 20 ( lower rank)the other half dating from the 23rd + with a higher ranking for my site. I'd reccomend sitting tight as well until until "Ulysses" sails home ;~) Lovejoy
|
reseller
#:3615443
| 4:02 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
In the good old days of "Google Updates", most of the time http://72.14.207.104 shows to which direction things are moving ;-)
|
Widestrides
#:3615447
| 4:09 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
To bring closure to my problem I mentioned earlier, it turned out it was our host server's fault. It appears their bot blocked Googlebot. Or something they have in place on guard for DoS attacks was triggered by the Googlebot. You would think Googlebot would have carte blanche, but maybe it just reached some threshold of traffic flood and triggered the security response.
Here's what my host server said. "We were having a problem with the Google spiderbot flooding our server with traffic. It appeared to be a DoS attack so it was blocked for a few days. It has since been unblocked and should now be able to crawl the site as normal. Please let us know if you need additional assistance." We and who knows how many other sites were out of the Google index for over a week!
|
Lovejoy
#:3615565
| 6:20 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
It doesn't appear to be the case this time, at least for my site http://72.14.207.104 is still showing a cache from March 20th. Lovejoy
|
internetheaven
#:3615612
| 7:36 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
I hope you're right ... we are currently 194 & 213 for our top two phrases. On 72.14.207.104 we are 4 & 5. BUT, I just checked Google.com and we are already 4 & 5 there. How long do you think before this information spreads to UK searches? i.e. a "web" or "UK only" search on Google.co.uk?
|
reseller
#:3615652
| 8:44 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
internetheaven | How long do you think before this information spreads to UK searches? i.e. a "web" or "UK only" search on Google.co.uk? |
|
Only Google can answer that ;-)
|
reseller
#:3615668
| 9:17 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
Our good friend Barry Schwartz (RustyBrick) has posted an interesting article on SEL with reference to this thread:
|
reseller
#:3615707
| 10:06 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
Folks, Data Centers Entertainment Hour :-) Especially if you have a large site! Try site: operator (site:yoursite.com) on these two DCs. What do you see ;-) http://72.14.207.104 http://64.233.183.104 Bed time for the old reseller :-)
|
SEOPTI
#:3615759
| 11:15 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
I'm seeing less supplementals and more URLs in the main index, the trend has been going on for the last few days for all of my sites.
|
tedster
#:3615767
| 11:23 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
I "think" I'm seeing the same thing - but when I go to AOL for confirmation, the total number of URLs is lower than on Google. I always thought Google sent AOL the regular index. Makes me wonder if they are now using many partitions and not just two.
|
maximillianos
#:3615776
| 11:32 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
I just violated my rule #1 to survival on the web. I read this thread ... ;-) I try to avoid any data center analysis or SERPS change reports as much as I can. I find I sleep better at night...
|
soxos
#:3615777
| 11:35 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
SERPS still all over the place looking at a dozen of so datacenters. For my most competitive phrase im anywhere from 30 to 4... For less competitive phrases they show the same results on (give or take 1/2) all the DC ive checked. [edited by: tedster at 4:10 am (utc) on April 1, 2008]
|
gawnd
#:3615794
| 11:56 pm on Mar. 31, 2008 (utc 0) |
Oh boy - we've spent the last two weeks on a total redesign after not being able to crack the top 50 for even 3 phrase short tail (if you can call them that) terms in our extremely competitive niche. Almost pulled the trigger to put the redesign live today, just checked the datacenters above and we rank #4 for our most targeted term - up from #54 on google.com Sure hope this rolls out - maybe we can use the redesign on our next project. Are we seeing less weight given to age here and more to inbound anchor text?
|
Bentler
#:3615819
| 12:49 am on April 1, 2008 (utc 0) |
I wonder if the change has anything to do with this now that winter is over and spring has sprung. | 41. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more types of history data includes information relating to a prior ranking history of documents; and wherein the generating a score includes: determining a prior ranking history of the document, and scoring the document based, at least in part, on the prior ranking history of the document. 42. The method of claim 41, wherein the scoring the document includes: determining a quantity or rate that the document moves in rankings over a time period, and scoring the document based, at least in part, on the quantity or rate that the document moves in the rankings. 43. The method of claim 41, wherein the prior ranking history is based on at least one of a number of queries for which the document is selected as a search result over time, a rate at which the document is selected as a search result over time, seasonality, burstiness, and changes in scores over time for a URL-query pair. 44. The method of claim 41, wherein the determining a prior ranking history of the document includes monitoring a rank of the document over time for spikes in the rank. Google's Historical and Age Data Patent |
|
[edited by: tedster at 6:00 pm (utc) on April 1, 2008]
|
rise2it
#:3615823
| 1:00 am on April 1, 2008 (utc 0) |
Weststrides, I'd be finding a new hosting company.
|
steveb
#:3615832
| 1:12 am on April 1, 2008 (utc 0) |
It does seem to be the largest shakeup in some time. (On the other hand why anybody looks at datacenters anymore is beyond me; they mean zero/zilch/nothing, except to check if a page is indexed on some datacenters but not on others.)
|
netmeg
#:3615849
| 1:36 am on April 1, 2008 (utc 0) |
Heh. My personal site has come up first for my nickname since about 1995. But in one set of results I've seen today, my Webmasterworld profile comes up first, just ahead of my own site!
|
JS_Harris
#:3615858
| 1:47 am on April 1, 2008 (utc 0) |
I said about 6 months ago that one main keyword I watch jumped from having 20+ million results up to 70+ million in short order. It just reverted back to 55 million this past weekend. Changes are ongoing imo.
|
drewnick
#:3615869
| 2:12 am on April 1, 2008 (utc 0) |
We are shaking up too - page 5 one second, page 32 another. Page 1 on the IP addresses.
|
Lovejoy
#:3615875
| 2:16 am on April 1, 2008 (utc 0) |
Strange stuff, My site that I mentioned that completely went poof and removed from the index around the 16th of March is back at number 8 on page one. Over at the Google webmaster groups I got all kinds of grief when I asked why my page had been removed ( page rank 5-7, online since 1997,on first page for keywords over four years) I should have expected to be removed after all I had the nerve to use a java script menu,an old style links page and do it all on a free page from My ISP! I feel so ashamed....... ;~) So hang in guys, there maybe nothing bad about your site, even if it's old, crappy it might be still well loved after Ulysse's beach's the boat. Lovejoy Lovejoy
|
| This 157 message thread spans 6 pages: 157 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ) > > |
