Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: open
Seems broadly to be between 19th-23rd... at least as far as the first iteration is concerned(usually www2).
>> i believe dmoz is more important to google than yahoo! <<
My experience is that there is not much in it... but if I had to call one or the other, however, I would probably agree with you.
The Google update occurrs on every new moon. (19th is the new moon).
Every month for a year.
Google Reindexes 2001 (Also a chart of New Moons)
Yes... we are still seeing changes in this area.
By a "get-lost" penalty, I assume you mean that the 'offending' page(s) have been removed from the index entirely.
This is exactly what has happened to those of my pages that were still penalised with +20 with the current index.
In the last few weeks I have seen recovery for some of the sites originally hit on the 7th July and the total removal of others.
For some of the removed pages the high level url of the same name has been simultaneously recovered!
This indicates that the penalty (removal) is at least sub-directory by sub-directory rather than URL by URL.
I have yet to establish what exactly is different about the removed pages (and no, I have not employed any 'funny business' on them). This is the real mystery for me... the apparent inconsistency.
The sites (actually sub-sites) that have been chopped are those for which the +20 penalty remained after the relaxation a couple of weeks ago.
It's as though instead of +20, they are now applying removal from the index instead.
Fine on one level, because in my markets +20 is effectively a killer. On another level though I cannot be certain why the sites they have hit have been hit.
We theorised in some detail in previous threads, and I took the actions necessary to protect against this problem (eg: IP address links, orphans, etc).
This, or something, had a positive effect in some cases, but not in others. It is this difference that surprises me... especially as I was anticipating total recovery this time.
As far as I can see, the remaining problematic sites are totally clean on all previously discussed criteria for a penalty (and indeed are relatively new). Maybe some residue damage counter is retained? Don't know.
I'll now have to think about all the theories again (my head aches!).
>As far as I can see, the remaining problematic sites are totally clean on all previously discussed criteria for a penalty
So are mine. Iīm right back at the beginning. The only thing preventing me from getting really angry is that I`m forced to go through all aspects of SEO for Google again and again. Canīt hurt.
Thank you forums for the advice!!!
What is the +20 penalty spoken of above?
Alta Vista has been notorius for this too ... banning sites with reckless abandon. I believe part of their demise was a result of an adversarial relationship with this webmaster community. Now it looks like Google is following suite. So I say don't turn your back to Google.
also any ideas on when www will stabilize with the new database and when yahoo will start using the new database?