Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 34.204.169.76

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Update Dominic - Part 3

     
9:31 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Nov 20, 2000
posts:1336
votes: 0


Continued from part 2: [webmasterworld.com...]


I'm back... just browsing, but feel I should re-cap what many people are missing (because it is buried well back in the thread now).

There are two phenomena

a) Algo/filter changes. These are being played out on SJ, and of course: if you are testing a change you use older tried and tested data, which is what Google has done (with a dash of Fresh). Hence all the missing links, strangely dropping sites, etc.

b) The update, with the application of the latest data and links.

It was spelled out earlier that the results on SJ will change when newer data, and this months crawl data, is brought in. However, the SJ effect may replicate at other centers before that data upgrade is applied.

I think that's an accurate reflection of reality, and the message is therefore don't panic. For those who have suffered on SJ, it might get worse before it gets better, but wait until the new data is in there before you throw a wobbler.

12:41 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 3, 2003
posts:24
votes: 0


Ok,

Since this is such a short thread, I see no reason not to post another stupid question. :)

GG - Could you give a better definition of 'next iteration'?

I honestly have tried not to use 'questionable' tactics in the design of my site. I have less pages in the -sj index than I had in the April update and yet I had many, many, more pages crawled.

Why would Google bother crawling my site over a multiple day period if it was not destined for inclusion in the update?

I have waited many months for the results I had hoped to see in the coming index. I don't mind waiting another month if that is what's going to happen. I just like to see a little light at the end of the tunnel. I also am still not clear on if this is the 'new data' or if that may be applied this month after -sj is included?

Sign me - Dazed and Confused

12:43 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 8, 2001
posts:2882
votes: 0


Glad you like your results, Jesse_Smith. :) I'm looking forward to when everyone agrees with you..
12:43 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

joined:Feb 26, 2003
posts:484
votes: 0


Jesse_Smith

"If you don't like it, then you call the site above you, SPAM, even if it's a quality site. Every one does that."

Rubbish. I will happily give the search phrase I used here and point out the replicated sites (not that you need much help) and tell you the authoritive sites (which have now effectively gone). If Google can justify these, they can put Saddam back in office.

12:45 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 4, 2002
posts:1687
votes: 0


Jesse, I'm trying to just read and not post but... I'm doing well in sj, lost one important page inexplicably, but doing searches in my field I can see that crap commercial sites have gone up.
12:46 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 3, 2002
posts:2586
votes: 2


Googleguy...There seems to be some ambiguity regarding the purpose of the -sj index. On one hand, it seems it is just a testing ground for a new algo. On the other hand, some are suggesting that this index may become the update. The pervasive feeling is that this is a spammy/bad index. So, why rush it to www? Why not examine it, taking many of these comments into consideration, and tweak the algo before making the index public? Most of my rankings are the same, but I do see a lot of sites with only guestbook backlinks. One site in particular has a total of 33 backlinks, all from guestbooks, in the top 3 of major search terms. That doesnt sound right.

[edited by: crobb305 at 12:48 am (utc) on May 6, 2003]

12:46 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 8, 2001
posts:2882
votes: 0


Google is a great search engine, but I don't think we could find Saddam right now. But GrinningGordon, if you send in a spam report I'll be happy to say whether those sites would be covered by rolling in new spam snapshots.
12:50 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 6, 2003
posts:2523
votes: 0


Googleguy -

two more sj results spam reports - site using domain and subdomains to mirror results, and has duplicate pages listed in the SERPs.

flagged it with my nick and your name.

[edited by: PatrickDeese at 12:50 am (utc) on May 6, 2003]

12:50 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 30, 2002
posts:437
votes: 0


GoogleGuy

I just submitted a spamreport starting with: For "GoogleGuy" on webmasterworld from "peterdaly".

It regards a site filled with keyword stuffed alt tags, that dissapeared after the last "dance." (Good thing) You mentioned something about a hidden text filter in response to a posting of mine. The site is now back in the listings, including on sj. How long it's been back, I don't know.

The filter was good based on my small interactions of it. I think it should go back on, or if it still is there, be tweaked at least enough to filter out my example.

Thanks for an time you put into this, and other reports like this. Most of us really appreciate it.

-Pete

12:52 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 25, 2003
posts:323
votes: 0


www = www-sj

anyone same results?

12:52 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:May 5, 2003
posts:31
votes: 0


my question is if we changed are sites based on the new, obvious factors, seen on SJ; will freshbot pick them up and move are sites up again or we'll have to wait for the full update next month?
12:53 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 21, 2003
posts:29
votes: 0


Want to add:
I have 5 sites
1) old one since november on current google (except sj) #1 on very competitive word - 1400 backlinks (no guest books) PR6, on sj also PR6 is only 200 links, and I can't find it on first 10 pages.

2) 4 new sites, 2 months old, PR7 on current google, placed on pages 4..6, on SJ all of them has PR0 and placed on first page 1, on positions 2-5 for very competitive keywords.

12:53 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from ES 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 11, 2003
posts:1381
votes: 0


From my perspective, I like what I see. It also helps that I know what direction things are going though.

Thanks for this little bit GoogleGuy. I get what you are saying, and as you, like me, don't like people who violate the Google TOS, I'm gonna sit back and look forward to that new spam filter.

and thanks for coming here and dealing with all of us mr.greengoogle, I mean mr. googlespam, uh, I mean mr.googlespan ;-]

12:56 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member steveb is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:June 20, 2002
posts:4652
votes: 0


I created a page (partly as a joke) a couple weeks ago, and have changed it a few times. It now ranks #1 over established sites. Fresher does not equal better quality. It... just... means... new.

Near as I can tell Google has abandoned the concept of pagerank and replaced it with speedy html creation.

Forget Bret's one year plan. Now it can be done in a week:
Make a lot of disposable pages;
make a lot of link exchanges for no other purpose than to exchange links;
sign guestbooks everywhere.
Repeat.

Ugh.

<edit forgot domain name in URL, even bigger than before>

[edited by: steveb at 1:05 am (utc) on May 6, 2003]

12:56 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 6, 2003
posts:2523
votes: 0


I don't know if this counts as spam but I just noticed that money.cnn.com is writing the current date on titles of archived articles.

for instance, an article that came out in 2002 -

url'd as:

[money.cnn.com...]

is shown as ARTICLE TITLE April 8, 2003 in Google, and following the link the title tag has today's date and the dateline is now today's date.

this appears to be an attempt to manipulate google news and or freshbot.

I didn't file a spam report for this, but I am sure it is easy to check, but sticky me or what ever if you need a "real" URL.

12:59 am on May 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 8, 2001
posts:2882
votes: 0


crobb305, we definitely take all the feedback from WebmasterWorld into account, but we also bear in mind that anecdotal or emotional posts can sway the crowd here a little more than in our testing. Some of the best feedback we get from here comes via spam reports, because those can mention more specifics. We do comprehensive testing (including spam testing), and the results from those tests are positive--especially given that not every filter has been applied at SJ yet. We take quality at least as seriously as the webmasters on WebmasterWorld, so you can be sure that we feel this will be an improvement for users overall.
This 189 message thread spans 13 pages: 189
 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members