Forum Moderators: open
Google can spot the cheap links, guestbooks, whatever. If they count post-florida, they won't for long.
If every external link on a site matches with a return link from another site, it's dodgy. If an authority site links to other authority sites that don't directly link back, (perhaps they do through a chain of several other authority sites), then Google loves it. If there's a large obvious network of recip-links, it nails you.
Anyway, probably wrong... I'll bail from florida before I lead anyone astray.
Stefan, I hope you are right. Have you seen any evidence of this lately? I am seeing networks dominating to 10 positions with blog links in particular.
Google serps like all the other SE's have always been spammy and still are. I'm hoping that florida is a step in the right direction. It almost looks like the intention is there but it's not working yet. There is a recognition of authority sites that I'm seeing on academic/research serps. Wrt biology, geomorphology and a whole lot of other ologies, the serps are better than ever. Blog, message board spammers don't go after those terms, of course...
The small guys just can't compete. I have seen for certain keywords that if there aren't enough big sites, to fill in the serps, you start to see duplicates from the same domain. And once those run out the serps start to show really poor results of high powered sites whose returned page is really off topic. The results that are way off topic may just have the keyphrase listed only once on the page.
Hope google doesnt plan on lifting our hopes (this past weekend) only to slam us back down again.
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.
It takes time, but it can be done (at least for information sites). If your site is genuinely useful, you may find that it gets links from all kinds of unexpected places--from personal sites to libraries, academic institutions, and media sites like BBCi and FORBES that link to third-party sites. (I've got a travel site, and I even found a link to my site from a luggage manufacturer that maintains a directory of links for travelers.) Just don't expect the linking to happen overnight. It may take a year or two before the links start to add up.
I can only speak on the category I know well which is adult.
Whenever I have linked out to a nice site on the same or similar topic as mine I have seen benefits from google.
The more I have linked out and given nice options to my surfer the better google have treated me.
I have 3 sites that have been online since April this year that have become no#1 in very competitive fields.These sites have withstood every Google storm since then including florida and now -in.In fact My sites are the only ones still standing since then and a large part of it is because I link out without questioning nor do I ask for 1 in return.
If I see a nice site in the serps with me I link to it and I have over 60 to 70 links a page and it seems google has rewarded me with authority status.Of course this may be oh so temporary but it wont be because I linked out if I fall.
Now when I look at the sites that have joined me now post Florida,what do I see?Sites that have pr4 or not much better beating the pants of pr7's.Why?
Because theses sites are made up of outbound links.In fact many of them are just pages of anchor text linking out.
google is rewarding the sites built for the surfer and if people wish to hoard their links or barter them be it on their heads when google hoards their serps.
Most of the sites at the top that i see now whether they be on topic,relevant or not, are "channels" for the surfer.They aren't trying to keep the surfer locked in their own web bringing them to a dead end.
So I say "link out and make out"
:)
Regardless of where we rank or do not rank, these are very, very irrelavant results. I don't think anyone can ligimately argue that current SERPS are relavent.
I don't think anyone can ligimately argue that current SERPS are relavent.
It depends on the search terms. If you search for certain species of invertebrates right now, the serps are better than ever. That makes no difference to someone trying to sell widgets, but the serps are fine if you're looking for onychophora.
I am fairly new at this SEO thing I am truly hoping you VETS can help me - I was layed off - started a mens clothing accesories website and off I went...
It is now a year and I am still trying to figure out from reading all thease threads ....
What is the sequence of udates to G, meaning www2 ww3 and then www or is it www3 then www2 and then www?
Also, I have done a ton of research on what got us from page 1 postion 8 to NOWHERE...
Yes - I had overoptimized my KW - KW density was HIGH and now is below 1%
Yes - I had a ton of KW under my pics....- now corrected
None of these things I thought were No No's but I pay for my crimes....
Post Florida I was nowhere - then moved to 725 then 500 and now 175.... moving in the right direction...
However, having read the Hilltop Paper and re-read it to understand it - it seems to me to be exactly what G is doing...
Hilltop provides for first establishing an authority source then following the spidery web to see where it ends...
If the authority source is for a KW you have on your site, then you get a partial score relative to others and their scores - then the results are produced.
I have researched all my links and find that the authority source G looks for is ANY in line text link with KW
It assumes that you can say anything on the page - but will not misdirect a user through the link.
Having said that - I noticed that all my links - especially the Y directory link and G directory link atually conflict. That is to say Y is for KW2 - G is for KW1
Additionally, I have one inbound link utilizing KW1 and KW2 and guess where I end up? Page 1 Pos 4 for KW1 + KW2
This proves to me I think that G is counting very heavily on:
Identifying authority sources
Connecting authority sources
Producing results based on the KW it finds in authority sources.
Naturally - trip the spam filter which is KW density and youre out regardless.
What do you VETS think?
How have I done with my theory?
Thanks so much in advance...
cabbie, correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation. I can think of a number of cases of sites with few outbound links doing well. And, one thing occurs to me here. The very fact that you know enough to consider the idea that linking out to other sites may help your Google rankings suggests that you likely know about SEO basics. It may be that you are doing these basic SEO techniques well that accounts for your success.
If you search for certain species of invertebrates right now, the serps are better than ever.
Stefan, TELL me that you don't actually track keywords in these categories... if you do, I'll be forced to pin you down and strip you of your newly acquired senior member status! ;)
jk
Mods... delete. LOL Couldn't resist
My observation is that it doesn't have to be this obscure of a topic. Across the board, Google seems to be doing well when searching on using terms that SERP perps aren't targeting. And, it depends on what you consider relevant. Random testing when I enter "buy widgets", replacing widgets with anything that people tend to purchase over the Net, returns mostly widget sellers. An irrelevant SERP is if I entered "buy widgets" and got a bunch of sites about penguin breeding or such. If I totally ignore Adwords, I have no trouble finding merchants in the regular SERPs.
Dunno about Stefan, but I in fact DO monitor keywords in such categories. I rarely actually search the Internet to buy things. Which makes me typical of most folks on the Internet.
I have noticed this too. Sites who link out do well with the current Google aglo. However, linking out doesn't necessarily make sense in every business. Google shouldn't punish those who don't link out. Google is like the yellow pages. If you look under real estate in the yellow pages you would expect to find companies listed which are real estate agents or brokers, not companies who might know an agent, but actually sell newspapers. This example is what Google has done. The serps are dominated by directories and affiliate sites. Junk really! When I search using whatever search engine, I want to find what I'm looking for in one step and I do not want to find a bunch of sites who may link to the site I'm trying to get to.
Google has lost its sense of how people search and why they at one time used Google. I imagine those who run so called authority sites are pleased, but these sites steal their authority by linking to sites that are the actual authorities on subject.
Really? Can you cite the data that people who used Google are now using something else? My sites have done well on Google for many months. I recently had to contact my website host for additional bandwidth because of all the traffic from Google and partners. Seems to me Google is still quite popular.
I run quite a few just plain information sites with good information which is not biased or aimed commercially in anyway. The only place to get links to these sites is from Dmoz, Zeal etc, other sites don't want to know about linking without recip.
My experience is quite the opposite here. If your site has high quality information it is pretty easy to get backlinks. Commercial aspects of the site will only get in the way!
Try .gov and .edu sites. The seldom want a link in return. They will often reject a site for *any* commercial content, but will freely link to sites with solid information. And, they often boast pretty good PR along with fewer outbound links than a recip links page might.
WBF
I speak from personal experience and from speaking to hundreds of people who do searches. The goal has always been to find what you are looking for in the few steps. This is why people click the first results and generally don't go to page three of the serps. The goal is to get to the goal as quickly as possible. By forcing searchers to go through additional steps this is demonstrates a loss of understanding. If people preferred directories more searches would happen on DMOZ or Looksmart. People prefer to search and find the relevant site in one step. Google's past success only gives credit to my past statements. Google rose above other search engines because others focused on building directories and adding unnecessary steps to the search process.
pre florida 2
post florida 170
3 weeks post florida 15
1 month post flroida 170
only on ww2 and ww3
are we dancing again?
Seems to me Google is still quite popular
Couldn't agree more. Whether Webmasters like the current SERP's or not makes no difference. Google is still # 1 by a mile and *is likley to stay that way for some time IMO*.
I 've never been happy with the results from Adwords so I won't bother doing anything I don't think.
This is the problem when one company dominates any market - when they change it catches a lot of people out and sometimes there's nowhere else to go, as it seems in this case.
Google dominate and there's no one to turn to when they aren't your friend anymore.
If the search results continue to be inferior to what was delivered in the past people will turn away and I guess that's happening now - what Google gain in ad revenue will be more than lost in brand loss of value.
Florida results have been in place for a month now and yet my stats, for traffic from Google, continue to grow. From where I sit Google is still ever increasing in popularity.
And, they often boast pretty good PR along with fewer outbound links than a recip links page might.
Don't forget they often have a lot links coming in without asking for a link back. Have you seen any such page without a lot links?
rfgdxm1, that is one of the best statements in this thread - "Post hoc ergo propter hoc".
Now where is our beloved GoogleGuy. Can we "drum" up a response to some of the -in issues raised? In particular I would like to know what Google thinks about the cross-linked/sub-domain issues....which seem to bother others also.
Hehehe. As well documented though, that is because they are rigging them for so-called commercial terms only.
>> Seems to me Google is still quite popular <<
Obviously. It is going to take months (conveniently post IPO) for the effect of poor SERPS to filter through sufficiently for the wider public to move, and an obvious refuge to emerge (looking more like AV by the day). These things don't happen overnight, but the route has been plotted and we are on the way.
>> Whether Webmasters like the current SERP's or not makes no difference <<
No true at all. Webmasters are opinion formers, and a constituency that Google played very well indeed during its early days. Why do you imagine GG posts here?
It has certainly lost the bulk of webmasters, and there will inevitably be a price to pay for that.
Back to the point of the thread though: "Sites are Coming back."
It is important not to miss the main points here. The decision to reduce the quality of the SERPS... hardly accidental (IMHO). I read these threads and it appears that some people still think that Google were somehow unaware of what the SERPS would look like when released.
They decide to zap commercial small business sites (generally of course). Don't you think they will have searched the new index, with 'filter' in place, prior to launch? Don't you think they will have seen the mess in so many areas? I won't bother to repeat the countless examples of bottom notch results quoted elsewhere, but surely they will have been well aware of the significant drop in quality.
Think about it. Then think about the motives that might have driven them to take these decisions, in the context that Google is a big business.
