| 9:51 am on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
No - since 4 weeks everything is changing up and down twice a day, looks like a rollercoaster to me. Would be good if google would come to a (temporary) rest in a few days.
| 10:00 am on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I don't normally feel it's good to discuss rumors, but this may well be part of what we just saw rolling out over the past weekend - lots of discussion about the change in the second part of the June thread [webmasterworld.com].
If less value for off-topic links is indeed what the root of the change is, I'll be a happy camper. I already am, because I've seen lots of positive improvements for sites I work with. I'll do some analysis of all the changes I'm seeing and get back to the thread.
[edited by: tedster at 11:26 am (utc) on July 1, 2009]
| 10:49 am on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
If Google starts to give less weight to off-topic links, it would be great.
|Pass the Dutchie|
| 12:42 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I am seeing subtle movements and individual sites poping up for the first time onto page 1 on an almost hourly rate. Most of these sites are established, of high PR, faily low link base, and are suddenly gone the next min.
One site which has held top position for the single most competative term in the industry for 2 years had droped a single place for the past 72 hours - they have many of thier links from somewhat unrelated sites.
| 1:45 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
something is happening right at this very moment for my site.
#1 for my main target phrase on google.com, NOWHERE for it on .co.uk. this happened just in the last 30 minutes.
this is after being nowhere for anything on any google site for 2 weeks.
so maybe they are rolling back the june changes? or maybe what tedster says is happening already.
| 2:10 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
After seeing a big drop in google rankings and traffic on 26th June for my site, my original rankings seem to have been restored from google mobile search (on iPhone) but not in regular search. Anyone else seen anything similar?
| 2:14 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I just wish google's SERPs would just settle. Even if its for the bad..with my site going from page 1 to page 9 every day I dont know what to do..all I can do is wait...ill be happy with a permanent page 9 position at this point so I at least know where I stand and can move forward.
I would welcome less weight on non relevant pages. However...how will they go about that? Lets say I have a website that is about michael jackson. And lets say a lot of my backlinks come from general music websites and pop music websites...these websites wont be about michael jackson, but are related because they are related to music...how will google see this?
[edited by: brinked at 2:29 pm (utc) on July 1, 2009]
| 2:26 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
That means that social links are going to be toast. I heard this rumor a while ago and was nixed from discussing it on the board because the board does not discuss rumors ;)
| 3:22 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
social links, forum links, directory links BLOG links all should be toast as they make it to easy to out rank more qualified sites thus polluting the net with spammers being paid to post in forums with anchor text.
I see this ALL the time and have been wondering when they would be disqualified or devalued to allow the sites that don't participate in this type of spamming to come back up.
We are having a positive flux right now so Tedester's info last night might just be on spot as I have always sought relevant within the nitch links for all our sites.
| 3:37 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I think some directories actually have value. Not every website topic can find enough sites on the same topic willing to give them thinks. If the directory actually reviews sites and places them in topic related areas, I don't see a problem.
Google being Google is once again going to throw the baby out with the bath water only this time there is something to actually fill it's place. I won't name it because it causes the Google fanboys heads to explode when they talk about it.
I'm already seeing some really horrible search results in Google.
Google likes to think about money yet they are trying kill the affilaite industry, even though I'm quite sure a major portion of their adwords revenue is from affiliates. If they kill off affiliates, their earnings is going to drastically drop.
Google has PHD vapor lock. To many PHDs in the same room causes everybodys brain in that room to lockup as they all discuss why everybodies brain is locking up. I don't care how smart somebody is, some of the smartest people do the dumbest things.
| 3:45 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I noticed a major change about 12 hours ago with respect to Usenet postings. I searched Google Groups using my online handle and got around 30 posts--half an hour later, zero. Still get nothing. It looks like nothing is coming up except posts that have been archived at forums. Anyone know if this change will be permanent?
| 4:15 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
We haven't seen any movement. Our situation is the same as it was here: [webmasterworld.com...] (to paraphrase, we were hit mid-May, went from ranking 1 & 2 to 50+... submitted for reconsideration June 12th).
We are working on a more detailed reconsideration request now and hope to submit it in the next several days.
We have combed through our sites.. we did have some duplicate content issues but don't think that is the problem. We are beginning to be sure that it is the devaluation of backlinks... there are too many coincidences.
| 5:41 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I just read that the mass penalties on the adult sites a few days ago has been corrected (at least for some). I believe when the first sites were hit in May, Google was testing a new link/penalty filter that has been spreading slowing. Once they have fine tuned it they could roll it out to the entire web. The testing of this on adult sites had a huge impact on many business, and given the nature of adult SEO, it's likely most could not submit re-inclusions request so Google had to take a proactive stance on lifting the penalty.
| 5:48 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm.... nasty update but not worth worrying about just yet :-)
| 7:42 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Hm, strange thing: I got Domains coming back - but only for some hours, then they are gone again. Today I got a domain back from 350 to 6 - now 350 again. One domain I got back 5 days ago for 3 hours on 6, now 32 again (looks funny in stats...). Something seem to happen - the question in these times is: Will it last?
| 7:37 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
< moved from another location >
well, since June 1st or maybe a little before, the keyword/phrase that had the highest % of click through and usually had my site on page one; got dropped and put me a few pages back, traffic dropped by about 75%! so, i re-started my adwords campaign, and now my site is back on the on the 1st page.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 8:03 pm (utc) on July 1, 2009]
| 8:08 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
"social links, forum links, directory links BLOG links all should be toast as they make it to easy to out rank more qualified sites thus polluting the net with spammers being paid to post in forums with anchor text."
Right on bwn! For the past two years I've focused on relevant links only from reputable sites. Despite that I haven't been able to get past the second page as link spam sites pass me by. Suddenly, these past few days my site keeps showing up low page one for my primary term.
I hope this lasts...
| 8:19 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|If less value for off-topic links is indeed what the root of the change is, I'll be a happy camper. |
Don't hold your breath.
|I see this ALL the time and have been wondering when they would be disqualified or devalued |
Again, this update doesn't show that "relevancy" has been increased.
that "off-topic-ism" has been decreased.
|For the past two years I've focused on relevant links... |
I hope this lasts....
It's nothing more than "wishful thinking" and ultimately detrimental to your SEO efforts.
Just calming down the "chicken bone throwing" before I have to spend 6 months debunking the "Google-is-ranking-based-on click-thru" type arguments again.
Let's see the update finish and then make conclusions.
Until then, one is just pigeon-holing oneself with incomplete information.
| 8:37 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
"give less weight to less relevant linkage"
Interesting, I wonder what criteria might be used in that assessment (if this is indeed what we are seeing)
I know that for most of the sites I watch traffic and rankings have been on a steep curve upwards in the last week to two, and most of these websites only have relevant inbounds (no resources, recips, paid etc)
| 9:30 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm giving up with Google. The more I do, the worse things get for me. Not true with Yahoo or Bing though. My rankings there are directly proportional to my efforts, and are always measureable.
Google is entangled in their own land of spaghetti code. I'm sure they have a few summer interns trying to sort out the mess, as we speak....
| 9:56 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|"give less weight to less relevant linkage" |
Aren't all irrelevant links artificial? How could white hats complain about a stricter algo on backlink relevancy?
If Google does make its algo more strict, it won't surprise anyone. It will be keeping with its core principle. In fact it may simply be an implementation of an old major Update a few years ago with higher standards.
What was that one called? Big Daddy? This could be the 2.0 version.
| 10:03 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
i feel a thread discussing what defines "relevancy" coming...
Either way, this updates isn't particularly tackling that issue from what I can see.
(Of course, this depends on how "I" define "relevant") lol
| 10:26 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The timing is good with a site I made changes to recently. Because of the previous changes (removed link sculpting) I decided to focus on other projects for the time being to let the changes take effect, the site is more informative than social.
Result: traffic increase of roughly 15% over the past 2 days when compared to the average for the same days over the past 3 months. Primary keyword ranking dropped 30 odd places in the serps but secondary keywords raised significantly accross the board.
Something changed with Google starting Monday, Yahoo and other engines show no change.
| 10:54 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|"social links, forum links, directory links BLOG links all should be toast as they make it to easy to out rank more qualified sites thus polluting the net with spammers being paid to post in forums with anchor text." |
I would add PR news sites and 'article news' sites to this list.
| 11:25 pm on Jul 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Again, this update doesn't show that "relevancy" has been increased. or that "off-topic-ism" has been decreased. |
Agreed. I posted that original idea for discussion and brainstorming purposes, since it was being rumored as a kind of insider "leak". Sorry for any confusion that I created -- I never intended to say that it IS reality. And as I look at the changes I've collected so far, the idea does not hold up. If such a shift is in the works, then it's not yet live - from what I see.
Again, the only factor I see that appears to be active is changed approach to user intention - more SERPs showing diversity. This could result from a re-categorization of frequent query terms, with more of them now being tagged as ambiguous intention.
We often tend to focus on the on-page, off-page and off-site factors, but give very little attention to Google's growing taxonomy for query types. The minus fifty thing is also showing up for another batch of site and that still seems quite curious to me. So far, I don't get the point for many of those.
| 12:17 am on Jul 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Now it seems to me the left/right margins on Google search result pages have increased; that could be the real change ;).
| 6:16 am on Jul 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I see improvement of ranking when I develop back-links from related directory (same topic) which is really improved ranking very fast , only few days.
| 8:33 am on Jul 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I don't think that Google has a fixed algo between updates like it did in the past. It is more likely that all of the data that is being mined across it's data empire is being dynamically updated to the algo in real time. If you want to experience stability, you go for the adwords.
| 8:39 am on Jul 2, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|If you want to experience stability, you go for the adwords. |
Well that really would explain the intention behind the everlasting flux of positions in the last weeks...
| This 185 message thread spans 7 pages: 185 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 ) > > |