Garya
msg:3966519 | 11:18 pm on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Yep looks a lot like google now, just what we need similar results to google
|
roseberry
msg:3966602 | 1:51 am on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
yeah - results are certainly better. do bad that has to mean that they are the same. I'd like to see some more diversity, but at least the junk's out
|
mrguy
msg:3966662 | 4:42 am on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
At this point in time, I don't think producing SERPs like Google is a good thing. They are very unstable, solid aged sites getting tossed to the back to make room for junk. If they produce the same results as Google, then there is no point in using Bing. I have not noticed the keyword domain pruning. I have several keyword domains that are unique content rich that are doing fine.
|
Marcia
msg:3966704 | 6:38 am on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Yes, looks like an update - and Bing traffic converts well with certain demographics. Now I've gotta scramble to do some long over-due site updates because some pages popped up out of nowhere. I haven't checked enough to come up with any observations, but considering the quality of Bing traffic, it's worth putting some time into it - especially with the Yahoo deal forthcoming.
|
2clean
msg:3967027 | 2:37 pm on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I don't think the results are being produced to match Google, rather that the results are evolving into something similar because the better and more clicked on website's are the ones that are coming through. For my record it bings been updating for the past 7 days at least. Would have been nice to see something other than Wikipedia getting the favoured treament but that's life.
|
creative craig
msg:3967046 | 2:43 pm on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Seeing some real junk coming up in the search results at the moment and a big dip in quality across several sectors I watch but don't participate in!
|
randle
msg:3967157 | 4:34 pm on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Big changes for sure, they look to be following Google's lead to me. Big brand sites moved up, wiki on the rise and an overall demotion of key word rich domains that traditionally had ranked very well. They need to separate themselves, not mimic the very entity their trying to take market share from. I just don’t see how that strategy makes sense.
|
nomis5
msg:3967159 | 4:41 pm on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
The Bing SERPS certainly look better. For one of my sites though, they are often featuring two of its pages in the top 5 results at the same time. I don't mind myself but it's a bit silly.
|
trakkerguy
msg:3967178 | 5:11 pm on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I'm not seeing any keyword in domain shift. Seems more like a partial dataset load that is being corrected to me. My #1 ranked site that has keyword in domain name dropped to #17. The new #1 also has keyword in domain name and moved up from #9. But over the last 24 hours, my former #1 has been gradually moving up and is now back at #6. Will post again if it continues back to the former #1.
|
CainIV
msg:3967182 | 5:28 pm on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I see a big change in how authority websites are treated, and interestingly enough, what appears to be some strong semantic logic being applied to queries. I like what I see so far....
|
Lts95
msg:3967201 | 5:49 pm on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
It's as bad as ever in the areas I check. A fairly big phrase still has pages 2 - 4 mostly being subdomains from the same site.
|
piatkow
msg:3967229 | 6:14 pm on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Looks good to me for one key phrase. A quick comparison suggests that frequency of update may help.
|
weeks
msg:3967291 | 7:49 pm on Aug 6, 2009 (gmt 0) |
For the middle and small US market geo-keyword/sites I watch, nothing. Still very poor as compared to G and Y. Topix, Wikipedia ranking tops, for example.
|
mrguy
msg:3967432 | 1:21 am on Aug 7, 2009 (gmt 0) |
| Wikipedia ranking tops, for example |
|
As if there are no wikipedia sites ranking tops in Google.
|
Garya
msg:3967571 | 8:30 am on Aug 7, 2009 (gmt 0) |
What does it mean when many of my site come up top 5 when you search from most countries outside the US. but in the US 2nd or 3 rd. page. all sites are based in the US. This happen also on Google.
|
Reno
msg:3967841 | 4:29 pm on Aug 7, 2009 (gmt 0) |
| This happen also on Google. |
|
Don't know whether this will significantly change anything, but if you haven't done so already, be sure to select United States as your "Geographic target" in the Google Webmaster Tools "settings". At this point, I cannot find a similar option in Bing tools. ...............................
|
lionstail
msg:3967855 | 5:03 pm on Aug 7, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I am very curious what tools you are using to check your bing SERP results. Thanks!
|
weeks
msg:3967914 | 5:54 pm on Aug 7, 2009 (gmt 0) |
| As if there are no wikipedia sites ranking tops in Google. |
|
No, not as if. As compared to G and Y in the markets that I watch where I understand the quality competition. Bing is not providing the highest quality results. Wikipedia often earns its high rank in many spaces. I do not appreciate being misquoted, mrguy.
Earlier, in another thread, you've said:
| I now understand after all these years whey black hats do what they do. |
|
I am beginning to understand your ability to understand.
|
roseberry
msg:3967926 | 6:02 pm on Aug 7, 2009 (gmt 0) |
"I am very curious what tools you are using to check your bing SERP results. Thanks! " Well, there are any number of rank tracking software available. If you just do a search on Google (or Bing:)) you'll find plenty. Most have free/trial versions, but if you're looking to buy, just go with the cheapest option - they all do basically the same thing.
|
mrguy
msg:3967939 | 6:12 pm on Aug 7, 2009 (gmt 0) |
| For the middle and small US market geo-keyword/sites I watch, nothing. Still very poor as compared to G and Y. Topix, Wikipedia ranking tops, for example. |
|
You are correct, I missed the part about SITES YOU WATCH. I took your quote to mean in general which is not the case. I can find MANY wikipedia listings in Google ranking #1 for many different things. For the terms I'M WATCHING, Bing is providing far superior results to Googles. For instance, a specific term on Google shows a geocities site with NOTHING BUT LINKS and ADSENSE as the number one result over numerous other real authority sites. Bing shows only the authority sites, so for that query, Google fails miserably. As far as the Blackhats quote, what don't you understand? If Google wants junk spam with adsense, I can certainly deliver that or I can deliver quality sites depending on what flavor of the month their algo is using. I've not done that in the past, but if the results I'M SEEING in Google are the new reality, then that's what I'll do. My ability to understand is just fine, I just misread your quote.
|
Marcia
msg:3968315 | 6:08 am on Aug 8, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Prominentum, it's looking more and more like well written content is becoming even more important than ever. Bing seems to have a really good handle on semantics (including use of synonyms) - so a rich site taxonomy isn't a bad idea at all. Another thing is that what's generally good page construction for eye tracking, conversion and usability seems to coincide with what makes for good old fashioned basic on-page SEO. >>search for this on amazon.com Or take a good free look at Google Books; even the table of contents makes a good read. :P
|
Marcia
msg:3968636 | 12:14 am on Aug 9, 2009 (gmt 0) |
For things I search on, Bing results are over-all looking pretty good to me. In comparing, it looks like Google is giving far too much weight to a few ranking factors right now, while with Bing it isn't all that obvious what's carrying a lot of weight, since the results (that I've seen so far) look like a good mix.
|
stephen186
msg:3969094 | 9:53 am on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0) |
I am really looking forward to this update and see if my website can get some higher ranks. they are on the second page in google but was expecting first page in Bing..
|
tigger
msg:3969110 | 11:23 am on Aug 10, 2009 (gmt 0) |
maybe someone can help me as I'm having some REAL FUN with MSN as I have a problems with geo targeting I think My website is a UK based site that is hosted & run in the UK and was previously ranking very well for the index for its main search term When I now search for the index page on bing via MSN.co.uk it’s not coming up but internal pages are still ranking well, also traffic is coming in from Bing Mexico where the index is showing and has the old ranking that I used to have on .co.uk any ideas what I need to do to fix this - ta
|
tigger
msg:3969608 | 6:22 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0) |
anyone have ideas how to resolve this?
|
rustybrick
msg:3969693 | 11:47 am on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Tigger, I think this is an ongoing Microsoft issue that they likely know about. I meet with them today, I'll try to bring it up and see what they say.
|
BillyS
msg:3969719 | 12:37 pm on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0) |
We have the same issue on Bing too. We rank well on U.S. Espanola, but not in English. We also rank well in Australia (English). Unfortunately, our topics are aimed at the US audience.
|
tigger
msg:3969738 | 1:17 pm on Aug 11, 2009 (gmt 0) |
cheers rustybrick its very frustrating that I'm number one in Mexico but no where to be found on .co.uk - hopefully this will get sorted but its been 2 weeks so far and was hoping after this recent update would resolve it
|
rustybrick
msg:3970233 | 1:27 am on Aug 12, 2009 (gmt 0) |
Well, that meeting didnt have the right person to answer that Q. Hope to meet with the right person this week. Stay tuned.
|
| This 49 message thread spans 2 pages: 49 ( [1] 2 ) > > |
|
|
