homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.148.189
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Microsoft / Bing Search Engine News
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: mack

Bing Search Engine News Forum

This 121 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 121 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 > >     
New MSN Algo Having Problems
Fish_Texas




msg:3039402
 12:25 am on Aug 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

Like many, 80% of my pages went from top 10 on MSN to page 3.
Like many I scrambled to see WHAT I WAS DOING WRONG.

Until I stopped looking for my pages and really started looking at the results I was getting for my keywords...NOT EVEN CLOSE. Little to No relevance.
Looking for blue widgets in North Shores Florida...getting used car lots in North Chicago, or pet grooming in North Carolina.

So, if you've lost pages or placement...relax (it's probably not your site) and wait for the bugs to get worked out.

Surely MSN is working on this...

If you are experiencing the same or have comments, please post.
I'd like to know it's not just me... :-) Fish

 

honestman




msg:3051913
 5:49 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

"spam is often about excess."

I agree, but what constitutes excess when one has a very content-heavy site and wishes to reinforce certain keywords for purposes of brand identity?

If hundreds of major sites have reviewed a particular site and found it to be of incredible use despite what might be seen in normal discourse as a redundant use of language, why should a site be totally banned? If it is good enough to be listed by all the Ivy League schools, and by most major portals and newspaper/magazines why is it not good enough for MSN?

I understand deducting points, but a total ban for an excellent resource due to "keyword density?" That seems really excessive. Just as with all research (and the Internet shines most as a research tool), any prejudice against core information in favor or "new information" would seem counter-intuitive. Newton and Einstein's respective theories are just as relevant today (no matter how shaky some of their data was)...

Thanks,

- Greg

msndude




msg:3052194
 10:07 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

No one is talking about a "total ban" here -- just some recent changes that tend to demote (but not remove) "spammy-looking" pages. If your site has disappeared completely, it's not because of any recent update of ours. There is a blacklist, of course, but that process hasn't changed lately.

If you think your site has been blacklisted, send e-mail to webspam at microsoft.com. Be sure to do a "url:" query first though -- just to make sure your page really is gone.

[edited by: engine at 3:36 pm (utc) on Aug. 21, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] obfuscated e-mail [/edit]
[/edit][/1]

godspeed




msg:3053556
 4:04 pm on Aug 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

msndude, Where is the best place to report multiple spam sites?

I see some of the problems have been fixed msndude, and now I want to report some spam sites that are showing up.

zeus




msg:3055148
 1:03 am on Aug 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

One thing I would like to know, if a american site is placed good on A LOT of foreign MSN results, like in Asia, should I let everything as it is or should I change stuff, to get ranking back on msn.com

Carnak




msg:3062197
 5:03 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have followed this discussion closely and made some slight changes in KW density, revised some content, etc. based on posted suggestions.

You guys were right on the money - rankings getting back to norm.

Fish, twebdonny, RichTC and msndude - thanks for the guidance.

msndude




msg:3062307
 7:42 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Carnak: Very glad to hear it. Many people have reported this to me privately as well. A few folks, though, have had a harder time with it, and we're studying a couple of those.

Zeus: If you want to do well in the US, I suggest you focus on the US. I'm not sure why you think a site that ranks well in Japan should also rank well in the US.

godspeed: Send reports to webspam at microsoft.com. It's one-stop-shopping to complain about how we have unfairly blacklisted your site as well as to complain about all the spam sites we didn't blacklist. In fact, it's pretty common to see both in the same message. :-)

Fish_Texas




msg:3062332
 8:22 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)
Carnak...Glad it worked for you. After a little KW tweek ALL our pages are back to normal. :-)

MSNDude...Thanks for the tips you were able to give. I for one appreciate it.
Fish Texas

msndude




msg:3062355
 8:49 pm on Aug 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

Fish: I'm glad to hear that. We had believed that most "false positives" (good pages that the net thought were bad) would be very close to the border and thus easily fixed with a few tweaks, while the genuinely bad pages are so bad that small tweaks wouldn't help them.

quotations




msg:3064563
 4:55 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

msndude.

Are you finding that (above - "easily fixed with a few tweaks") not true in some cases?

The example I provided had to have all of the main page content ripped out and went from 32K to 6K before it came back into search.MSN.com results.

It was always there in the foreign results, just filtered out of US results.

I had to cut another page down from 25K to 3K before it got listed back in US msn results.

twebdonny




msg:3064672
 6:11 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Question, anyone been fresh cached lately? Our last cache
date shows Aug 21, and is completely blank for our
index page.

msndude




msg:3064835
 7:39 pm on Aug 29, 2006 (gmt 0)

Quotations: Nothing works in all cases. We're looking at the example you sent us. That's the most I can say right now. Wish I had something better to tell you.

crobb305




msg:3066133
 4:54 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Question, anyone been fresh cached lately? Our last cache
date shows Aug 21, and is completely blank for our
index page.

I, too, am very hopeful that increased crawling/caching will begin soon. This is very big concern for many folks.

quotations




msg:3066192
 5:33 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

We are mostly seeing August 19 today.

quotations




msg:3066195
 5:35 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

msndude,

Thanks for what you do tell us and the fixes that do get put in place.

I was tired of only getting msn traffic in the middle of the night from India and Singapore and it is nice to be getting some of the sites back in the US index.

(edit) - [You know what I mean. They were in the index, just filtered out of US results. Our State is a bit different but is is still in the United States.]

ashear




msg:3066338
 7:26 pm on Aug 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

MSNdude, can you give us an idea on when the crawling problems will be addressed?

All of my sites have less than 5% of the content indexed. As well as my parent company. With 3 totally different code bases and platforms.

old_expat




msg:3066752
 1:37 am on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

... but it was their association (the fact they were all owned by one entitiy) that made them spam.

I honestly can't see how that if a group of sites that are engaged in a certain linking/pointing arrangement can be SPAM just because they have common ownership.

If the owner sells one of the sites, but the relationship continues, are the sites "less spammy".

IMHO, these sorts of statements simply add to the confusion of what is so very difficult to define.

old_expat




msg:3066770
 2:11 am on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

godspeed: review the page that dropped, optimize it with customer benefit in mind, and remember that "excess is bad." Then wait for us to recrawl you.

I'll do a dangerous thing here .. make an assumption about an underlying issue then relate it to this comment.

Several posts have talked about pages with [paraphrased] "many links to other domains", "high density of links to content"

I have a page that is predominantly a map. It's also an image map with links to other domains that describe "properties". It has very little text because it doesn't need text.

The key issue: It does what users expect it to do.

So assuming the metatags are not packed with keywords, is that page SPAM? If you say anything except an unequivocal NO, then you have rocks in your head.

Yet by many suggestions I have read in this post, it is SPAM.

If a SE algo says that page is SPAM, then the SE should stop and think about their SE, not tell me that my page is SPAM.

crobb305




msg:3066896
 4:48 am on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

MSNdude, can you give us an idea on when the crawling problems will be addressed?
All of my sites have less than 5% of the content indexed.

Wow, I am seeing some pages with cache from Aug 12, some from Aug 8; it is now nearly September. That is a very long time, but I imagine the crawling is a high priority for them.

piatkow




msg:3067080
 9:04 am on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have never noticed any problems with placement in MSN on key search arguements. Positioning tends to be better than G for both pages and images.

Trouble is that most of my customers seem to prefer G.

texasville




msg:3067324
 1:37 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

I hadn't really noticed much difference in my MSN traffic but started looking at what was returning in my search strings. Kind of funny how I have fallen for some terms and risen for others. M has always liked sites I have built. Always had decent traffic from M. The only puzzlement for me is why so much disparity for terms in singular and plural? If search engines are trying to move from density to concept, why is this such a glaring difference still.

ashear




msg:3067989
 8:59 pm on Aug 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

If they are so busy with spam releases, it must not be a high priority.

Wow, I am seeing some pages with cache from Aug 12, some from Aug 8; it is now nearly September. That is a very long time, but I imagine the crawling is a high priority for them.

crobb305




msg:3068302
 1:41 am on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

If they are so busy with spam releases, it must not be a high priority.

I think the term "spam releases" is a bit bitter. It takes work to build a search engine. There have been drastic improvements this quarter, especially with regard to subdomain spam and "junk" pages. Further, they have been very open to our feedback; have you sent them any constructive feedback?

marketingmagic




msg:3068790
 1:37 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Still way too much emphasis on sites with the keyword in the domain, as this is such an easy way to spot spam, why does MSN continue to place so much importance on this? It's frustrating to see countless directory sites (that don't even offer a product of their own), outranking real manufacturers with quality websites. I think they need to take a closer look at what G is doing here and copy it. :-)

JackR




msg:3068794
 1:41 pm on Sep 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have the same 'problem' as piatkow - I've never had any problems with the MSN SERPs and my main keyword has been #1 since day one. That said, in my industry (london escort agency), the SERPs are remarkably spammy and in no way reflect the hard work that many webmasters have put into creating user-friendly sites.

Moreover, my #1 position is not for the homepage - even though it should be. If both Google and Yahoo have got it right, why can't MSN?

Bewenched




msg:3071907
 4:50 am on Sep 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

In our biz it's amazing the sites that are coming up very high for some of the main or hot keywords/phrases in the industry. I hadn't really looked at the msn or live.com results as our site was never crawled very well by the msn bots since our site is dynamic.

Anyhow .. huge empasis on domain name and tons of spammy or amature looking sites ... spam blogs, tripod.com websites, domain.info sites, descrptions that are keyword stuffed, pages with 200-400 links on them. Wowsers .. some of the pages that came up on top can't even be found within the first 100 pages on google.

zeus




msg:3072025
 9:18 am on Sep 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Still like the msn.co.id results better then msn.com and still dont know why those results are beter then .com version.

cleanup




msg:3072057
 9:57 am on Sep 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

"Wowsers .. some of the pages that came up on top can't even be found within the first 100 pages on google. "

Id take that as a completment for MSN ;)

asusplay




msg:3072263
 2:01 pm on Sep 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I agree there is far too much emphasis on the keyword being in the domain. Fow example doing a search for widgets will produce results like widgetwidget.com or widgetwidgetwidget.info with virtually no relevant content.

Before these last few updates in June my sites did very well on MSN as I think they ranked for relevancy in the content itself. These days I don't get much traffic at all from MSN.

Bewenched




msg:3072326
 3:07 pm on Sep 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Id take that as a completment for MSN ;)

Then I guess I should take it as a compliment that our site doesn't come up ...

cleanup




msg:3072366
 3:44 pm on Sep 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

I would not wish a 100th page placement on anyone that did not deserve it. What I meant is that Google has been artrbritrarily banishing far more sites in its spam wars than MSN. So comparing MSN to Google these days is not as far as I am concerned particularly usefull.

Normally if you don't rank on MSN the solution is at least possible to take a stab at.

Google is so erratic now that cause finding is virtually imposible IMO.

BTW have you looked at your placement on MSN live. Despite what is said here the results look very different for some searches to me.

That might provide a glimmer of hope.

Bewenched




msg:3072401
 4:18 pm on Sep 5, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, live.com is showing some promise for us .. and we too were slammed in the last google deployment. Mainly due to dupe content because they spidered us under SSL. I honestly think a competitor did something to make that happen, we have been struggling since March, but we are getting spidered again and 301's in place so it cannot happen again.

Goog appears to be running multiple algos and switching from hour to hour... maybe it's their way of giving some sites a chance... not really sure.

MSN has never really given us much traffic and we've been around since 1997.. but we are trying .. but without some sort of way to give MSN urls it's really out of our control.

This 121 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 121 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Microsoft / Bing Search Engine News
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved