| 6:22 am on Aug 12, 2009 (gmt 0)|
k - thanks
| 3:37 am on Aug 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
So I spoke with Rajesh Srivastava, Principal Group Program Manager, Bing today, a few hours ago about a few issues.
The geo stuff, he didn't seem to think was a wide issue. He wanted the URL. I am not convinced it isn't a larger issue with how Bing figures out the location of a site. But he did say, they have the targeting feature for their webmaster tools on their to do list, so that might come eventually.
On other fronts, they know msnbot 2.0b does sometimes crawl too aggressively, they are working on fixing that.
The single word query referrers people are seeing in their logs is still being investigated... He promised to let me know if it is their cloaking tests or not, when they know.
Finally, he admitted that MSNBot does click on their own Bing (adCenter) ads, but none of those clicks are costing advertisers money. Yet, it does mess up analytics and I expressed that, the analytics issue is big and this needs to be resolved. He agreed...
Hope this helps...
| 7:24 am on Aug 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
>The geo stuff, he didn't seem to think was a wide issue. He wanted the URL. I am not convinced it isn't a larger issue with how Bing figures out the location of a site. But he did say, they have the targeting feature for their webmaster tools on their to do list, so that might come eventually
ummmm nope, if he wants to contact me directly (via PM) I'll be more than happy to show him the Bing ( Mexico ) results ranking my .co.uk number one - where as the bing.co.uk its no where to be found
| 8:54 pm on Aug 13, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Geo targeting is a big problem, Many of my sites all based in the US come up #1 or 2 on most searches outside the US and in the US search 2 or 3rd page.
Also the 301 's do not work very well I was #1 for my keyphrase did a 301 to a new domain, and disapeered its been a month now.
| 3:13 pm on Aug 14, 2009 (gmt 0)|
After many frustrating experiences with Live, and now Bing online support, we wrote MS corporate recently. We're not asking for a landslide of traffic from MS - we're only looking for a level playing field.
When we don't show up for our own trademarked name, something is very wrong. The site has been online for over 5 years now and has many quality links. The website has been talked about on several television shows, we've got a couple of syndicated radio talk personalities that mention us frequently too. Recently we were mentioned in the WSJ. Nothing big time, but something that makes us proud.
I mention this because our focus is on quality, there is no reason we should be excluded from Bing results. Something is not right.
| 6:19 am on Aug 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
"When we don't show up for our own trademarked name, something is very wrong"
It is possible that there is some type of penalty applied. I assisted a company out of this type of problem recently. It turns out that the website in fact advertised their own affiliate program too aggressively on their own website. A support person (after 6 total support redirects) mentioned to me that they do not like websites that advertise their own affiliate programs.
Not that this is your particular issue BillyS, but certainly Bing has their own set of guidelines to work in.
| 3:08 pm on Aug 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Noticed that competitor sites get into the SERP for brand searches. Wonder which part of the algo decides how competitors get in there.
Search for Google and you get IBM as No. 3 in the "Google Investor Relations" category.
| 6:01 pm on Aug 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I think he might change his mind on that as I did a search for x jobs. US Ip address and the top search is a .au domain name. Might add this is the top search for this job area.
|The geo stuff, he didn't seem to think was a wide issue |
This is a serious issue if Bing sends me results for another country were the top spots should be US and only US spots unless the site does carry US based jobs. Same goes for any country a US based domain name should never be in the top spots if I were looking for jobs in AU.
This .au domain does not have jobs for the US population.
I am not so sure Bing has the weight of the domain in URL figured out just yet as the .au site has the search I did as the domain name. I looked at the site and can't see how in the world it could be in any search. It is a total mess. 900 pages with only one page with a title the home page the rest have the urls as the title shown like this.
There is no page description either. There are many more problems other than this but just trying to understand why it is even listed as a top spot is what I am trying to discover.
After doing a look the only thing I can see is in the domain name being the search.
| 11:37 pm on Aug 19, 2009 (gmt 0)|
>>It is possible that there is some type of penalty applied.
We've asked this on a number of occassions and only get canned responses. The only thing we can possibly think of is that we're an adsense publisher. But that's being paranoid, so we're at a loss.
| 5:56 pm on Aug 20, 2009 (gmt 0)|
"The only thing we can possibly think of is that we're an adsense publisher. But that's being paranoid, so we're at a loss"
I don't think being an Adsense publisher is the problem. The biggest spammer in my industry is an MFA site with very little content and lots of Adsense on each webpage. Their position in the SERPS on Bing is getting better and better. Conclusion: Bing was very good a while ago but is going the wrong direction these days. For a while Bing was actuatlly better than Google, but not anymore.
| 9:33 pm on Aug 20, 2009 (gmt 0)|
"Conclusion: Bing was very good a while ago but is going the wrong direction these days. For a while Bing was actuatlly better than Google, but not anymore."
The most recent update I have noticed (as of last day or two) is very, very disappointing. The results are all domain-name-centric and many major sites dominate the results with some of their subordinate and inferior pages in terms of content. This is a huge step backwards and I don't see any connection with Google results or even Yahoo results. For some that may be fine, but most results are very discouraging.
| 10:03 pm on Aug 20, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Whoops! Must have been a hiccup here, as less than an hour later the results are back to what they have been for several weeks, though still favoring the major domains even with their subordinate pages, and definitely favoring subdomains which use the search keywords. One site dominates the first 50+ results through their subdomains, even though they are just one of many major players.
I guess the way to go is to use subdomains for Bing for now (that is if you start a major site from scratch).
| 2:23 pm on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Bing needs to work on indexing new sites faster. With Google, a new site can be indexed the same day it's launched or a few days later.
With Bing, it can take months to get a new site indexed.
| 9:38 pm on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I just discovered my disaster recover site in bing's search results even with this in my header
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="NOINDEX, NOFOLLOW">
why is Bing refusing to follow proper indexing?
| 4:33 am on Aug 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Good question. Along the same lines, why is Bing's spider continuing to hammer my executables directory even though it is specifically blocked in the robots.txt?
| 4:12 pm on Aug 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Does bing have manual review of websites [like google] and how important are back links for ranking in bing.
| 4:31 pm on Aug 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Still seeing a site that went under 6-8 months ago and is no longer online ranking in the top 5 for a single word query with over 97,000,000 results. Certainly one of those other sites could provide a better experience for the end user!
Must be all those links they purchased that is keeping them up there even with their site not available.
| 7:35 pm on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Bing seems to be getting worse, My site is #3 for a very competitive phrase.
I don't use the site anymore and it has 1 backlink and a few pages 1 year old.
| 5:24 pm on Aug 31, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Bing rankings tend to be more based on content than backlinks (as compared to Google rankings)
| This 49 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 49 ( 1  ) |