Forum Moderators: open
----
I'm starting this thread because another member suggested such would be a good idea because the main Google update thread is cluttered with posts like "OMG, I've been dropped in the new index!" and "Yippee, I'm now #1 on a key SERP". This thread is ONLY for serious, generic discussion of changes that you are observing with the new algo in this update. As in things like "Looks to me like PR is less important this month, and anchor text of inbound links counts more.", etc. How your site is doing has no relevance here unless you can explain why you think so in terms of a general algo update.
While it looks like anchor text and links still play a role,
based on what I'm seeing, how does one go about getting links with anchor text that will stick?
I would almost accept the theory that your own links don't count, except I'm seeing some of them.
Many links, not just mine have been depleted worse than a depleted uranium shell casing!
I think this is going to be a tough algo to figure out and that actually is a good thing!
don't see any of my inbound links as backlinks :( also my DMOZ and Yahoo directory listings are missing in the backlinks..anyone?
Many old banned site has been appearing. They might have release their penalty or they are using the old index. Dead fish came alive, they must be very happy with google.
Or should I say, pages in the index are NEW, but new links in these NEW pages is not used to count the PRs. Those site apearing in the backlinks are site that have link to you 2 months ago. All my new links added last 2 month is not appearing in the backlinks, but they do appear in the cache page of my partner site.
[edited by: AthlonInside at 6:48 am (utc) on May 6, 2003]
Guess you are right mrguy.
My opinion is that the worry over discounted importance to back links is unfounded. It may be just that the sj server doesn't have as many sites in its index that naturally the no. of back links shown are less. To substantiate this, a site of mine listed in Google over last 4 months isn't there in sj server. There might many more such sites not there in sj server that we see less no. of back links.
Hey this opinion is purely subjective!
Mc
[edited by: McMohan at 6:49 am (utc) on May 6, 2003]
That's the first thing that might actually make sense to me ;)
Does anyone else share this view? - Personally I have several hundred pages crawled that are just 'not there' across 2 sites crawled in the last 'deep'.
Are they still 'factoring in' or are we seeing something else?
Nick
I found that thread in here a while ago and changed it and never changed it back.
For my site, and other sites in my area I'm not seeing any PR change.
So, it either hasn't been factored in yet, or the sites I'm looking at just haven't changed in PR which I find hard to believe since some of them dropped to less than 10 links.
I bet it has not been factored in yet and probably won't until we see the update move across the other datacenters. Right now, it seems to bouncing between www, www2, www3, and SJ.
The way this one rolled out is really different and I think we may see some more changes as it goes on.
I see my internal backlinks, along with my DMOZ and Google directory listing. My Yahoo listing is gone as expected, as they redid the cats and it is now in a <PR4 cat.
It seems they are much more selective in what links they count, the changes in allinanchor: are huge.
Unfortunately the way they did it seems totally insane. They have more or less given away the top results to those using several one page domains which are crosslinked.
Wander through the top results for allinanchor:somelargekeywod and check the links of a few top sites, it's basically all one page sites.
Someone suggested that they no longer counted links from subpages, that might be it. But i think its more likely that they no longer count similar links. Or only count them once.
So if you have a template you use for all subpages which links to something those pages will only be counted once, or perhaps not at all.
I think its a mistake to believe all pages in link: as giving PR to the things they link to, I believe GG actually confirmed this is not the case in some Guestbook discussion.
I still get links from my own site in link: it seems they might have raised the PR requirement for a site to show up in link: though.
If you did it through your hosts file, you are pointing to the IP of -sj, 216.239.35.100, right?
This would tend to explain, at least partly, why people are seeing lower backlinks in general. How else do you explain the huge Yahoo backlink drop otherwise? Either that, or Google is also now not showing backlinks for reasons other than <PR4.
I'm still seeing a PR2 and a PR3 backlink. Both of these links were listed last month as well. What I'm not seeing are the new links.
I've not seen those for ages
The cache & title are definately at least 2 weeks old. It can't be showing the last crawl.
I think it will be a while before we can tell much.
If you have a long DMOZ description that didn't fit in Google, now it might fit because they include a few more words in the DMOZ description.
This would tend to explain, at least partly, why people are seeing lower backlinks in general. How else do you explain the huge Yahoo backlink drop otherwise? Either that, or Google is also now not showing backlinks for reasons other than <PR4.
And I see less external backlinks. This might be due to some old index. - Those external backlinks are no guestbook stuff. They're all 'good' backlinks, from sites with nameable PR.
The same goes for spam filters - yet to be factored in.
I imagine this could take a week or more.
Analysis of something that hasn't happened yet!
LOL.
Fans of pro american football often have a mock draft prior to the actual draft. It gives the prognostacators a chance to flex their muscles and the casual fan to learn from the self proclaimed experts. While they rarely hold up to the reality of a real draft, the education for the casual fan is invaluable for gaining a real insite into the hows and whys of the draft.
