Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
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?"!
And occasionally it carries out a fairly major overhaul. The latest happened in November and is known as the Florida Update. It's this which has caused the anger and bewilderment among web users
Woohoo, the Florida Update and Google Dance - I wonder where they got those phrases from? WebmasterWorld maybe? ;)
To discover the extent of the problem, search engine specialist Barry Lloyd carried out some tests
You know who that is right?
[edited by: Rumbas at 2:42 pm (utc) on Dec. 4, 2003]
especially for sites like mine that are banned from keyword# keyword# which was 50% of our Google traffic (still works fine on all the other SEs) just because our domain name has the same keyword# keyword# which is what we are, and what we do, and what we sell.
Why get banned for that?
Lets hope the more high profile Google Florida update gets and the continued negative press we should be seeing some big changes soon.
Forwards or Backwards only Google knows!
I then went on to explain what google had done over the last couple of weeks and she thought it was as crazy as i do.
Features The Victim, the Search Expert, and Specific Search Data.
The BBC article is top notch, and Barry Lloyd rocked it with his evidence- Good job!
I was disappointed by the NY Post article, the SEO Dude they featured was so full of self-promotional posturing he failed to contribute a meaningful explanation about what was going on. Thumbs down to you, SEO Dude.
[edited by: martinibuster at 3:43 pm (utc) on Dec. 4, 2003]
With a monopoly comes responsibility. Google was an excellent engine and I hope they manage to maintain their position in the market by listening to what *almost* everyone is saying about the serps since Florida.
Google's strength was it's loyal user base. This user base is NOT locked in. Without looking after their user base Google's business will suffer.
On the other hand, if Google are totally confident that they know what they are doing, then please explain to me how the lowering of quality in the serps will secure user confidence?
But they do point out that the intention was probably good- intentioned, and not connected with the IPO.
Usually, the fact they refer to something like that at all is enough to have many people thinking the opposite.
Will we have millions of people typing in -waffle, if so wouldn't it be simpler to remove the algo!
Bit worrying for sites that sell waffles though :)
[edited by: superscript at 5:05 pm (utc) on Dec. 4, 2003]
They were obviously too scared to ask where the Emperor's clothes were!
Absolutely spot on!
I wonder if any of them realise exactly what is going on or are they so completely brain washed that they actually believe the BS they are putting out.
I've now written to firstname.lastname@example.org, adwords as a client, named people I found on the web @google.com and every time I get very similar replies. Either they know that they are misguiding me by suggesting that nothing is wrong and if I follow guidelines my site will get the ranking that it deserves or they don't know that they are misguiding me. Either way they are misguiding me.
I would really appreciate someone at Google saying "yes it does seem a bit odd that you are #1 for those more specific terms but have been completely dropped for the more general term. And yes it is very strange that when you use any of the advanced filter search techniques your site returns to the top 3. We will get someone to look into it and will get back to you within the next 5 days to explain".
Sorry I've got to go now, a low flying pig just smacked me on the back of the head and I'm seeing stars.
superscript, I don't think you're quite understanding what is really going on here.
Nicola, I really didn't think I would need to put a ;) at the end. But if I must...
Here's another negative article that appeared today in a real estate journal, of all things.
I'm not trying to take credit for the BBC report, but I *did* have a letter published in this morning's Guardian asking why the mainstream media had not yet picked up on the Florida update ;)