Forum Moderators: open
The same programme also commented on the irrelevance of results returned by just typing in keywords. Pointing out most sites returned for their search of "shelving" were comparison shopping sites, plus an educational site.
They also encouraged viewers to use the advanced search facility or to put search terms in quotes, which I have noticed also obviates the new filter.
The item was accompanied by sob stories from small co's and an expert from a UK Internet magazine stating the purpose was to reduce the amount of spam in searches.
IMHO, I think that, while Google's efforts are valiant, the results are a miserable failure - at least in the areas I monitor. In trying to kick out the spam, which wasn't such a problem anyway, they just got rid of all the most relevant matches! And the pages from certain top price comparison sites are still there - even when they only say "your search for widgets didn't return any matches.... are you interested in oozamewotsits instead?"!
Regards,
Suggy
All the things they suggest, and all seo within the rules is still the road to success.
True.
I hate getting sucked into these algo threads...
The torches and pitchforks crew, who are in some cases very savvy SEO people, are working the wires like there's no tomorrow. I'm sure a lot of us who read the Google News forum often have noticed the fingerprint of some stated intentions in the threads now showing up in the press. It's remarkable seeing it at work...
It's gone a little overboard.
Do any of you actually want to kill Google and end up with MSN, instead?
A lot of members here have observed that some info serps are better than ever. The commercial sites that got hammered will figure it out and recover. Let's not try to drive a stake through Google's heart, man.... we'll have M$ running the show.
The -waffle phenomenon has been on the boards for a couple of weeks, but everyone seems tired of it (like too much turkey at Christmas!)
I still think it's wierd, it points to only specific searches being relevant, but no-one knows exactly why.
To be honest, I think a lot of people are now very tired and have lost focusssssss......
I know it has been discussed since the update but we still have no official explanation.
You're right, didn't mean to condescend, there's been no mention of it from GG, only from the BBC!
I still think it's wierd, it points to only specific searches being relevant, but no-one knows exactly why.
It just turns a flagged phrase into a non-flagged phrase that google can't anticipate.
Take any of your lost page keywords and add one random word from your page. Does the same thing.
eg Blue Widgets Hello
(If hello was on your page somewhere).
Sorry - a bit OT
With regard to it 'though, our one site is .org, (they mentioned .org .edu et al), and I can't find any real changes through florida for us other than slightly up with some serps, (our best is #5 in 1,200,00 in a very comptetive one... most kw's that people come in on, about 50 different phrases a day, are under 100,000 and we're #1 or close).
I have done that search refinement, "-whatevergibberish", on every kw combination I can think of, that we get traffic on, and there is no difference...
It's like the twilight zone reading about how a lot of serps suddenly went missing unless you do a -whatever. The ones I check, there is virtually no change except that we're doing slightly better.
Google's search under the microscope
Author: Bambi Francisco, CBS Marketwatch columnist
Date: December 4, 2003
Excellant article sums it up perfectly.
More articles like this on the way, maybe when the stock is not selling things will change.
Can you tell me why, all that are here saying Google is no longer the best SE, are frantically trying to get back up in the SERP's of Google? If the Google SERP's are as bad as most here say (perhaps a vocal minority) it will only take a few months and another SE, or 3, will take over as the most used SE. So, why aren't all here focusing on getting good positions with the other SE? If they already have good positions in all the others, then they need not worry if the *truly* believe Google will fall.
I would also *really* like to know whay most do not have their URL in their profile?
Dave
I only have dot-org sites, completely unaffected by Florida. But I can nevertheless project outside my little brain and empathize with Mom and Pop ecommerce sites that are just trying to run a small business.
The point of the thousands of posts on various forums, in case you missed it, is that in the area of ecommerce, huge numbers of innocent victims who don't use SEO were wiped out alongside of those who do use SEO. If you can't figure this out, then you haven't done your homework.
I would also *really* like to know whay most do not have their URL in their profile?
Why don't you ask yourself that? ;)
Lets all go back to the Dark Ages. If anyone dares to raise any serious issues, we will just accuse them of witchcraft and devil worship.
It is a shame that you choose to ignore the serious issues being raised by so many.
Man, you need to think outside your little box.
We are earning more money after Florida than pre-florida, but that doesn't stop me from saying the serps suck.
Actually, to be frank, our sites with the least content and most off topic links are the ones that have improved, while a FREEWARE product site and a huge content site have vanished - only for their relevant terms.
Implying that only sites that are in some way "cheating more than you" have been affected is so absurd and shortsighted it's laughable. How many sites have you looked at that have been deemed irrelevant as of last week?
Try to lok across a WIDE RANGE of commercial SERPS and think with an open mind about what has occured.
BTW, dave, do you think Google is good enough to create an algo/filter that weeds out seo/spammy sites only? You have to be kidding me. Crud still exists everywhere, and as with any filter, many, many inncocent sites were crushed for no apparent reason.
[edited by: mfishy at 3:09 am (utc) on Dec. 5, 2003]
It's interesting, I always have a quick scan through the logs with Wordpad everyday, anyway, (there's only 100-150 non-bot, real visitors a day, so it's easy), and I spot the WW refers. They never go very deep... the fieldnotes never get found, and that's the best reading. So it goes.
Ahem, Dave, did I miss a URL in your profile somewhere? ;-)
I'm still befuddled by that, actually. I've gone shopping online three times since the update. I've found a good store to buy from on the first page of every search. I'm sorry if some people are losing money over this, but how could this possibly be causing economic crisis snce other e-commerce sellers are clearly the beneficiaries?
I gave a detailed analysis of a specific e-commerce search (one I'm not affiliated with except as a consumer) in one of the many earlier threads. The new search was much better. It gave me six good stores, two good directories of extremely relevant stores, and one deeplink from one of the already-listed stores. When I appended -humbug -humbug I got six stores, three affiliate portals to already-listed stores, and one piece-of-cr*p spam site with no relevant content but lots of keyword stuffing. Why would anyone think the old search was better, unless they were one of the top six stores from pre-Florida who was replaced by one of the top six stores from post-Florida?
I honestly have yet to see these horrific SERPs everyone is talking about. The New-Google searches I've seen that have been spammy and gross were spammy and gross with the -humbug attached, too.
I'm not just smirking because my site went up, either; I don't make money off of any websites and the educational website I volunteer at has gone down a few notches (though traffic is up lately, who knows if that's related). But I can honestly say that *everything* above it in the results is a real quality site, which I couldn't have said before.
I'm still just not seeing the horror here. There's still room for improvement, but from somebody who's as non-personally-involved as anyone reading this board could be, the Google results I've been seeing lately have been just as good as they ever were for shopping trips, and significantly better for informational stuff.
Do any of you actually want to kill Google and end up with MSN, instead?
why not. in their big picture the IPO is already
done, and they are just part of something much
bigger with more experienced management.
and ..
they are quite used to criticism
oh, they also tend to use *real* hardware
[edited by: plumsauce at 3:13 am (utc) on Dec. 5, 2003]
also, just noticed fresh tags are back.
When you sample ten thousand a day, then get back to me and tell me that the SERPs are as pure as driven snow. But I'll ask to see your data. My data is online for everyone to peruse, and has been for over a week.
And to those who are saying that Google is still providing great results, I kind of agree...if you search for Widgettown hotel you will find plenty of directories with listings for hotels in Widgettown. You will *not* find, however, specific websites for hotels, spammy or otherwise. Unless of course you look at the right hand side of the page.
If Google thinks that (eg) accommodations directories should be higher placed than the individual sites, then as BB says, that's their prerogative. What does not make sense is that the individual sites have *vanished* from the top few hundred listings altogether.
That's not a problem for the user, though. Or for the economy for that matter. As long as users can find good information and stores selling what they're looking for, we don't really care if dozens of old sites are out and dozens of new ones are in... and *some* nice e-commerce site still gets the benefit of our purchases, and the economy doesn't care which one it is.
I do understand how it could be personally crushing for your site to lose more than 100 places in rank, but really, why would that upset the user? The issue for searchers is whether there *are* relevant sites on the first couple pages, not whether site X, Y, Z and Q have dropped off them.
Every individual webmaster's loss is another one's gain, after all.
If they have half of a brain they are.
Google, you should be ever more ashamed having done this at this time a year, that is really low, sure you gonna post that happy Xmass logo of yours, just like you posted that happy turkey of yours.
Your directories compilations are no use to me or to any one I know, and I know plenty of people.
All this because you were defeated by a bunch of bloggers, it really shows that you will never ever reach the sky with your money.
Google may you have a bad Xmass and a very, very bad new year.
Every individual webmaster's loss is another one's gain, after all.
And I assumed that Social Darwinism was rejected as ethically undesirable 100 years ago. Sorry about that! I'll read some more books.
I guess...if you consider Amazon a webmaster.
However, in my clearly pro-Google bias, I am still asking why real estate returns directories and backpacking gear delivers spot on great results.
Simply put, I dont understand why city and town specific real estate results now return more directory type sites than not. Where are the niche sites that are filled with great, pertinent information (that would be content) that can only be provided by the individual site owners who live there could provide, like the lists of local schools, churches, sales and current inventory info?
Why does one of my site's links pages do better for 'termites' than the termite sites themselves? I am finding pages show up for every minor related aspect of real estate, but not for the primary topic - real estate. It may mean unexpected traffic from varied sources, but this traffic resembles more the 'accidental tourist' than someone on a business trip.
Is it really relevant for the one searching for 'owner financing' to be given top 3 results for pages that have the words 'owner' and 'financing' on the same page, but different pararaphs? Come on, Dave. Is it really that
simple?
<Kirby edited for typos>
I'm sorry if I'm coming across as draconian, here, but I really don't see any reason why it's a disaster for the economy (as so many have claimed) if instead of the SAME store that's been at #1 for the past six months, Google now returns a DIFFERENT store as #1. Why assume the new store is any less good, any less hardworking, or any less deserving of a merry Christmas?
Nor do I see why it's any kind of a disaster for Google users if 20 sites drop out of the top 100 in a search, as long as the first two pages are full of good relevant information, why should we the users care if some sites moved down and others moved up?
I understand this may be a disaster -for you-, but it's just as much a windfall for some other, equally useful, equally hardworking webmaster. What you call "Social Darwinism" has always played its role in business... when one company does well, it's often at the expense of others. That's really just part of capitalism.
If what this is really boiling down to is "many of the e-commerce sites that were previously enjoying really excellent free advertising have now lost that advertising to some of their competitors," it's hard for me as a user to get too up in arms about that. For every site that fell, one rose, right? Revenue is not being lost here, it's just going to a different vendor.
If the issue is "Google's results are now worse than they were before," that is a different issue, but "I looked at 10,000 searches and in each of them 10-20% of the previous top 100 sites are no longer top 100 sites" doesn't say *anything* about result quality one way or the other. That's all I'm saying.
