Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: open
My observation for this update: More of the same old, same old. No dramatic changes from last month. Inbound anchor text in particular seems to be very important. However, I rarely look at spammy SERPs, so those who are familiar with those would be better able to evaluate whether Google is doing better or worse on squishing spam.
301 redirects from index.html to index.htm
Even though there had not previously been a
problem with having both index.htm and index.html
online, I decided in March it was time to get past the lazies I had caught myself in and take the site down to only one index page instead of two options existing.
I guess of the two, I shoulda elected to keep the .html instead of .htm
a link to the index page at the bottom of other
Most site pages end with the tag of:
This [name of NFP] [2-3 word summary of page topic]
page was last revised on: [date]
The [name of NFP] was linked back to the index page on the long pages (most site pages are long as opposed to being broke into 2-4 pages to icnrease page count) mainly so there could be some form of navigation available without scrolling back up and without using a TOP link (Those are ufly to me).
Other than mild content revision and some new pages, the above were the only big change related to the index page. but with the index page totally removed from the index, it seems apparent (now) that these were not sound ideas.
Oh well, another fun life lesson.
If this is in the wrong thread, don't hesitate to delete or move.
So did everyone else. 27th this update.
No real change to algorithm except that PRs seemed to be dinged on all sites in the category. If there were big changes in the algorithm then I missed it.
This shouldn't be a problem if they had identical content. Just yesterday I cleaned up the awkwardness of having some of my internal pages pointing to index.htm instead of root, and corrected that. Hopefully Google realizes this is really no change at all.
If it happened in a single industry i will say this is due to some big directory/Hub/vortal losing PR , but as it noticed in many industries i suspect some change in the PR calculating algo.
I wonder if Google's algo gives heavy weight to DMOZ's unbiases vote... perhaps works into the 'site-theme' aspects of Google's algo too.
Any others see similar things once a DMOZ listing appears in Google's SERPs?
Another of my sites with only a PR of 3 managed to get two #2 positions (not highly competitive terms, but one of the #2's is out of 145,000 and is 4 positions above a PR8 site!)
So, it looks like on page factors are having more impact than in recent updates.
<edit>Wow, I see this post elevated me to a Junior Member :-)<edit>
joined:Feb 25, 2003
Don't chew me out for posting this please.
I have a new site that I didn't even think would rank. The site is basically, a navigational shell with zero content. Basically, there are text links on every page to each category (or section) and that's it. I'm already ranking for keywords and the site isn't even ready for prime time!
So I say these are important factors:
1. Link Text
2. Navigational Structure (utilizing link text)
3. Page Title
Heck this new site is nothing but...the above.
joined:Feb 25, 2003
However, this has not (substantially) changed the SERPS as it was done across the board for all sites in the category. I can only assume that Google are fine tuning PR and making it much harder to reach PR 7, 8 or 9.
It seems (to me) that they are trying to make authoritative hubs even more authoritative by way of putting a greater distance between the "everysite" with hundreds or even thousands of links and "authoritative sites" with hundreds of thousands of links. Considering the daily growth of the web, which offers sites many more opportunities for links, this makes sense to me.
PS. Thanks for this thread rfgdxm1! :)
Just thought I'd add that to counter all the comments about keyword-stuffing being so much more important.
Also my sites have not dropped in PR or backlinks, despite not having very many (or in fact any) links from "authoritative" sites.