| 8:50 pm on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|it would probably be the best MSN update ever |
|Our website is finally showing #1 |
| 9:43 pm on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
| 9:44 pm on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing a few changes ( for the better ), but nothing earth-shattering.
| 11:22 pm on Mar 18, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I already explained why, but for the slow students, here goes again:
if what I see stays, it would probably be the best MSN update ever. And not just because of our ranking, but the top 10 seem like the credible sites in our industry, and the spam is now on page 2+...
Now that I am looking at some secondary terms, I would revoke the "best update" and just give it "a good update". Where I keep track, it seems that a big chunk of spam results has been pushed back, and more credible websites are showing in the top 10.
If it's stays like that, at least they are going in the right direction, although many results look like copied from Google. Still better than it was, IMO.
| 5:11 am on Mar 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
i was wondering when someone else would notice.
i'm seeing signficant changes as well, looks like an algo shift to me...for the better...
and for the record...some of mine went up while others went down...and for good reasons :)
| 10:50 am on Mar 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
And the winner is: Wikipedia!
| 11:37 am on Mar 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
There is something seriously wrong with Windows live search's ranking algorithm. If you do a search on <my keyword> it puts my site at number 31. On Yahoo it is number 6 and on Google is number 2!
[edited by: jatar_k at 2:01 pm (utc) on Mar. 19, 2007]
[edit reason] specifics [/edit]
| 12:46 pm on Mar 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I should be interested to know how many people agree with me that live.com seems to perform very badly on relevance, at any rate for non-commercial "educational"-type searches.
[edited by: jatar_k at 2:00 pm (utc) on Mar. 19, 2007]
| 3:42 pm on Mar 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
We are generally on page 1 for Google and Yahoo, and have been nowhere to be seen on MSN, since they went with the new search engine a few years back.
Now we are on the second to forth page in MSN, and MSN is finally indexing our home page, after refusing to for years.
Things were so bad at first with MSN, we were actually buried for our company name. Now we are #1 for our company name.
Well, at least this is a step in the right direction for MSN.
| 9:00 pm on Mar 19, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>I should be interested to know how many people agree with me that live.com seems to perform very badly on relevance, at any rate for non-commercial "educational"-type searches.
For some searches, live.com is pitiful. I'm talking not even close.
| 2:35 pm on Mar 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
In the hospitality space, I have noticed what seems to be an adjustment in favor of keywords in the domain name. Keyword phrases that we used to rank #1 for, we are now pushed down a few positions by keyword loaded urls.
| 4:41 pm on Mar 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
We added the no odp tag to our site and went from page 1 to no where.
The ODP listing was 7+years old and didn't even accurately reflect our product offerings. Why would this happen MSN? Are you really placing that much importance on our stupid outdated DMOZ listing?
| 2:57 pm on Mar 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I am also seeing large shifts, which have been a very big improvement in recent days.
| 8:59 pm on Mar 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
All I see is a rollback.
| 12:46 am on Mar 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|ALTRUS - if what I see stays, it would probably be the best MSN update ever. And not just because of our ranking, but the top 10 seem like the credible sites in our industry, and the spam is now on page 2+... |
boy .. that's NOT the case in our industry ... nothing but spammy, subdomain garbage sites. really bad... we're on page 5, and the big top 3 are no where to be found.
Looking at our site: results, it's definately a roll back.
[edited by: Bewenched at 12:48 am (utc) on Mar. 27, 2007]
| 5:53 pm on Mar 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Looks like a huge improvement to me on .com, .co.uk is still hopeless though.
| 8:53 pm on Mar 27, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Still overal extremely poor...
cacheing "moved permanently" pages
losing entire quality domains, presumably for a similar 301 problem
and some utterly bizarre choices in terms of ranking... in some cases the page from a domain of mine that ranks is for a term is about the 40th ot 50th most appropriate page to rank from that domain (perhaps because it has no 301 associated with it).
MSN need to stop being so pigheaded and start over. They launched prematurely and now have a pathetic product that no one uses after they sample it. It's barely worth even looking at anymore.
| 12:45 am on Mar 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
>>MSN need to stop being so pigheaded and start over.
I agree. If Microsoft is really taking a hard look at their results (I'm assuming they do). They have to admit to themselves something's not right. Time to retrench, learn from their mistakes and start over.
| 11:41 pm on Mar 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
On the face of it, it looks like they dont see the problem - That i just dont get at all, its so obvious the serps are dire a five year old can spot it.
I so want msn to be a contender in search but it just isnt likey at the current rate of progress. They are currently trying to get a pig to win a horse race!
Until someone holds their hands up at msn and says "we have created a pile of junk, the filtering has been a waste of time it cant tell quality from junk or spam, the search bot technolgy isnt up to the job as we cant collate the data to even start to produce half quality serps and we can do a lot better" nothing is going to change.
I would agree that they should scrap it and start again, the only learning they are doing is how to create a mess and produce more of the same.
| 9:00 pm on Mar 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The spam network that I've been watching is off the first page of results today, but it still dominates around 20% of the results on the 2 page and on...