| 6:40 am on Feb 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Google has been doing this for quite a while, but at a very low degree.
In recent weeks we've had a number of questions about it here on the forum, so I can only conclude that Google must be giving backlink keywords more weight than they used to.
| 3:39 pm on Mar 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I am getting a major difference in results shown between .com dc's and .co.uk dc's. Is any one in th UK getting this?
Which algo is right?
[edited by: tedster at 5:45 pm (utc) on Mar. 2, 2009]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]
| 6:40 pm on Mar 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Not sure what you mean by "right", eljacko. Each set of results is "right" for their intended audience.
| 10:02 am on Mar 3, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Getting a few reports of root pages disappearing from index. May be nothing, but I thought some folk here might be interested in keeping an eye on this.
| 6:07 pm on Mar 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I see a global drop of traffic on 5 different websites since March 3rd. About 15% decrease without any major changes on any of the sites. These sites are usually top stable since many years, always positive or neutral traffic trends from Google. 75% is from SEs.
I don't think is this connected to the last updates for major brands, it must be some new algo change.
| 7:28 pm on Mar 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Getting a few reports of root pages disappearing from index. |
Same here. Nothing as widespread as back in November but it does feel similar.
| 10:17 pm on Mar 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Our root pages have been bumping up and down lately, one time position 8-14, the next time 40-70.
We were thinking this has to do with some geo location and data center down time maintenance though because we can almost time it to the T and tell you what day we rank where.
Not like the yo yo we saw a while back where it was unpredictable.
| 1:04 am on Mar 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
My site has jumped WAY up from a -50 penalty situation. Good news for me.
| 4:21 pm on Mar 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
johnnie - any insights you can give about how you may have jumped out of it?
| 8:40 pm on Mar 6, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Teenwolf, chcek out my previous thread [webmasterworld.com] on this matter. Bottom-line is: I had problems on other domains, that were hosted on the same IP. I cleared these up and filed a reconsideration request.
| 10:17 pm on Mar 7, 2009 (gmt 0)|
< moved from another location >
One of my sites is back after being penalised for 15 months. (reincusion requests didn't help)
Also other sites in the same cluster seem to be back.
I am a very happy camper!
Anyone else got the same experience?
is it just me, or did G. release more sites?
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 11:01 pm (utc) on Mar. 7, 2009]
| 11:52 pm on Mar 7, 2009 (gmt 0)|
mirrornl, were these sites that are now back totally banned for 15 months, or hit by a -950 penalty, or something else?
| 3:03 pm on Mar 8, 2009 (gmt 0)|
they were swinging between -30 -50 and -950
and the main site back at #1 now, where it belonged..:)
Probably hit because of to much interlinking,
We de-optimised during the first 8 months orso, but it didn't help
| 5:55 pm on Mar 8, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|We de-optimised during the first 8 months orso, but it didn't help |
That seems to be a relatively common experience at this point in time. Even if you fix all the right things, some penalties are only removed on a certain date.
| 7:19 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)|
it's gone to end of results again.....
| 8:07 pm on Mar 9, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'd suggest watching the Google IP address when you check this ranking. There may be a new data-set with a change that is not yet active on all centers, but is being slowly rolled out or integrated.
The fact that you popped up for even a short bit is most likely a good sign. Remembr how changeable Google is these days and keep the anxiety level down. There's something new going on with rankings daily or even more frequently.
| 8:22 am on Mar 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|The fact that you popped up for even a short bit is most likely a good sign. |
This is what i was telling myself...
Thanks for the heads up Tedster!
| 12:07 pm on Mar 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Maybe you re-optimized a bit after disovering you back in the game? It's very tempting to 'repair' your site once you get re-approved.
Glad my site's still live and kicking. But then again, I was certain I was in a penalty situation, whereas you might well be caught in an algorithmic trap. Do you rank for your own domain name minus the tld?
| 2:23 am on Mar 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
< moved from another location >
Here is something that has blown up today. Millions of 301 redirect spam pages working its way into Google.
Look at the results with a .us
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 3:24 am (utc) on Mar. 14, 2009]
[edit reason] removed specifics [/edit]
| 12:49 am on Mar 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Google search is still very good, I like to use.
| 5:43 am on Mar 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
There certainly are some spam attacks in recent days - the loopholes still exist and spam is never completely cleaned up. For example, I see new spam domains built of scraped, autogenerated snippets. It gets served on a subdomain scheme. Then it js redirects only the Google Search traffic to an already banned domain, and that's where it gets monetized.
If you uncover spam that you want Google to know about, report it directly to them through one of the mechanisms listed in our Google Forum Charter [webmasterworld.com].
Don't expect spam you report to vanish right away. Google may decide that they'll improve their algorithms more by watching it for a while. This is particularly so because today's spam tends to go after the really long tail query. It's a rare occurence today when a short search term of any real consequence shows a spam result on the first page.
| 7:05 am on Mar 16, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Just noticing today Google Scholar links noting registered patents under various sites SERP's listings like such:
by RC Robinson - 1992 - Cited by 3 - Related articles - All 2 versions
Cited by 12 - Related articles - Web Search - All 6 versions
Is this new? Maybe it's time to flood a patent office so we can gain authority! :>
[edited by: tedster at 7:23 am (utc) on Mar. 16, 2009]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]
| 7:22 am on Mar 16, 2009 (gmt 0)|
We had a Google Scholar sighting in the regular results back in 2005: [webmasterworld.com...]
Not to say that this isn't an increased presence, but I haven't noticed it so far.
| 8:06 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
wierd one last night, a small 5 page site just suddenly bombed out of multiple first page rankings off the radar for everything else but it's name, for which it's still #1.
quite literally every KW the site is about, apart from the name of the project can now be found between 109 - 195.
all pages still indexed, no errors showing in WMT.
strangest thing I ever saw.
| 9:53 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Sounds alot like a major contibuting source of its backlink power got nuked. Could be G perceived:
- Link purchasing
- Manipulative link exchange
- Intranet from newly designated 'bad neighbourhood'
Remember, upstream effects may be two or more 'hops' away (i.e. not the behaviour of the site you're monitoring, but maybe a high-PR backlink).
| 10:37 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
One of our sites had a record traffic day this time last week, traffic doubled and we were ranking for lots of long tail terms. Now traffic has dropped way down and from one hour to the next its up and then down, its a wild looking graph and not at all "normal". Almost like a "bad data push" is impacting on some of the results. I hope.
| 11:42 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
kevsta - that sounds like a human implemented filter. Algorithms do the bulk of the work but humans still watch page one according to Matt Cutts, a G spam team employee.
Tedster, I haven't noticed it either but the scholar search is heavily related to books, best write a book and cite it yourself to get much use from it.
Gotta love the line "Stand on the shoulders of giants" on scholar search too, we're all trying to use Google like that but she keeps smacking us down 100 pages!
| 11:50 am on Mar 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
sorry for the double post, I was reading back further and further.
|Even if you fix all the right things, some penalties are only removed on a certain date |
New sites face such a filter in my opinion but I think it's simply a warning flag. A system that flags any new site managing to get page one results before enough time has elapsed. Sites that have been flagged get reviewed and with this particular flag you had better have some amazing quality to stick so early on.
Buying old domains doesn't work well either, in some cases a change of owners causes the same reset. I wonder how many flag types Google has to monitor with humans... we'll never know.
| 1:00 am on Mar 19, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Thought I'd throw in a reference to two other current threads:
1. Indexing problem? - pages gone from rankings [webmasterworld.com]
2. Supplemental index questions revisited [webmasterworld.com]
Both these threads highlight recent anomalies in search results. #1 mentions a url that shows "No Results" when entered directly into the search box, but it still shows up as an info: result. #2 there's some odd fluctuations in numbers of urls being returned by the site: operator. In my research the past few days I've seen similar inconsistencies.
My guess is that these anomalies are the sign of some back-end changes at Google. Not sure what yet, but I'm leaning toward some kind of database partitioning such as the supplemental index of the old days.
| This 69 message thread spans 3 pages: 69 (  2 3 ) > > |