Forum Moderators: open
apologies for putting the specifics. That one was outrageous:(
[edited by: ciml at 7:23 pm (utc) on Dec. 10, 2003]
[edit reason] No specifics please. [/edit]
Like I said before, Danny Sullivan described the status quo as "Google madness."
Same happens when I search for "mycountry real estate."
Only one actually pulled up an real information about "<innocuous phrase>"
[edited by: ciml at 7:27 pm (utc) on Dec. 10, 2003]
[edit reason] Please check ToS regarding adult searches. [/edit]
[edited by: zafile at 7:14 pm (utc) on Dec. 10, 2003]
talk about spam..this one beats em by a mile. I wanted to get some calling cards, so i put calling cards india in google. And the second result blew my mind :)
We have a similiar site listed #1 for our keyword phrases now, but it is on topic. As soon as Florida hit, the number 1 site for our keywords had absolutely NOTHING to do with the search terms being used. It is now gone and some of the commercial sites have come back.
I dont think that 100% commercial sites are what general users are looking for. At least not all of the time. (i have a commercial site). I am just glad to see some coming back.
For us, the serps are getting better, but I feel for those that are still hurting from all this.
"Hey, I've been looking over the filey feedback. Most of the comments are about results in both normal data centers and www-in. Please use filey only to refer to results that are different between www-in.google.com and other data centers when giving feedback. The keyword floridaupdate is good for all other feedback."
If you have constructive feedback (negative of positive), I encourage you to write to webmaster@google.com with the keyword filey in the subject field according to GGs remarks.
GG wrote "I'd be interested about feedback people have about www-in. If you want to send email to webmaster [at] google.com with the keyword "filey" (or fill out a spam report) with the keyword filey somewhere in the comments, I'd be happy to see any feedback (positive or negative) about www-in.google.com. Most users wouldn't notice much difference, but I'm happy to hear comments from folks."
The Google team is pretty good on responding back to constructive feedback.
what i think another problem is is this:
A PR6 of mine which seems to be penelized as well as other domains of mine rarely gets a good position on the keywords i optimized it for.
i assume this is because the incoming anchor text was the same on 90% of the links plus i think google thought i was crosslinking between my sites.
because of this is removed ALL links to my other sites although they are relevant and let my trading partners change the anchor texts.
a week later I added 2 new html pages and linked them from the index (supposed to be a normal update)
now (it has been 2 weeks now) google still ignores those 2 files. toolbar stays gray - not indexed although it generally takes a day for googlebot to spider and index new urls
can anyone explain this? why doesnt google give penelized webmasters a chance to make changes?
my site is one of the best sites in its subject. it had no H1 tags and was only optimized on incoming link text which i changed now
can anyone confirm this?
A pr 6 doen't mean much these days.Its all about unreciprocated relevant links from relevant sites.Putting up a few pages of keywords and swapping links and buying a few expired domains doesn't cut it with google anymore.
And I should know!;)
There are only 2 kinds of sites at the TOP in www-IN.
1. established site (at least 2 to 3 years), quality sites. Many people link to them in the OLD days when link popularity is not a HOT TOPIC.
2. new sites that bought A LOT OF links from A LOT OF sites.
WHO DROPPED?
Sites that have a large portion of the backlinks from reciprocating. I believe google devalue all of them. So if you got 90% reciprocal links, you only have 10% left to help you rank.
TO GOOGLE!
Since everyone are talking about link popularity today, it is really hard to GET links without reciprocating. People always want you to link to them before they link to you because they know you (GOOGLE) like links to their site. Yeah, they can probably add a link to you without reciprocating. But they did funny things like placing it with a redirect script, or javascript.
Build a quality site and hope to rank well = nonsense.
Since everyone are talking about link popularity today, it is really hard to GET links without reciprocating. People always want you to link to them before they link to you because they know you (GOOGLE) like links to their site.
Agreed. As it seems that Google is valuing outbound links now, I am going through my 180K page site and adding best in class, on topic, outbound links. Why would I ever link to some nicely-made, but little known site, when I can link to the 800 pound gorillas?
Maybe another example of how the rich seem to be getting richer in the post-florida world?
And how do you know Google doesn't value links to nicely-made but little known sites? If Google values outbound links (which is possible, but I am skeptical) it may be all outbound links are considered equal.
And how do you know Google doesn't value links to nicely-made but little known sites? If Google values outbound links (which is possible, but I am skeptical) it may be all outbound links are considered equal.
You're right - I don't know. But if I had to choose (and I do, because time is limited), I'm inclined to bet on big, high PR, industry leading sites/pages as being weighted more heavily.
Proof of this assertion?
keywords in outbound links has a slightly higher weight for keywords in links. Just like people saying, keywords in bold or H1 has more weight than other text.
It has nothing to do with where you link it to.
Just use the old algo..it was better than what is on -in now. My main site been #1 since 1999 or something has just been blasted into 50th position.
In other words, you are blowing smoke and lack a clue. Point noted.
Unsolicited, and unreturned links, tend to be the most honest votes.
(Don't jump on me. I know some of the serps are very spammy, and I'm not an apologist, I'm just noting a reality.)
Unsolicited, and unreturned links, tend to be the most honest votes.
In the land of the guestbook, this is not true.
Theoretically it would be obviously true, but in the real world it is definitely not. By far, by a degree of maybe 100 to one, unreciprocated links are not "honest votes". They are merely links from one domain controlled by an entity to another of the entity's domains, or something like guestbooks.
Some reciprical links are "honest votes"; some aren't. Some unreciprocated links are "honest votes"; some aren't.
I'm wondering, though, if Google is looking for patterns of linking. If a site has a decent number of "authority" sites linking to it, and links out to other pages/sites that are seen as authorities, and there is no large SEO constructed pattern, then it likes it. If it sees networks of linked sites that are artificial, it nails them. Pure speculation, but I still don't buy the anchor text, it's the linking doing it somehow.
Unsolicited, and unreturned links, tend to be the most honest votes.
this is definietly true, but how do you get these links if you are not a big player may I ask? I have some excellent information sites with high pr and are in dmoz etc but no one links to them unsolicited or unreturned. If these sites have no chance then commercial sites have absolutely no chance of gaining these links.
In an ideal world Google's plan may work, but what will happen is the big players will get bigger. The reason being that the only place people find sites to link too unsolicited or unreturned is from the serps. And the only sites in the serps will be the big players.
