Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Forum Moderators: open
joined:Nov 9, 2003
What really puzzles me are the SERPs relating to particular searches. Imagine my site sells Blue Furry Widgets, and I am based in the UK, PR 7.
(For 'nowhere', please read: it is definitely somewhere in the results, but I'm unlikely to live long enough to find it!)
Blue furry widgets - nowhere
Blue furry red dwarf widgets - No 1
(a more precise search, as recommended)
Blue furry red dwarf widgets UK - nowhere
(even more precise)
Widgets UK - No 1
(the least precise, but back at the top)
This is the major puzzle for me GG - there doesn't appear to be much logic to it at the moment.
[edited by: superscript at 11:19 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2003]
So, here we go again, but only on "-in" sofar, or? Well, i'll get some sleep... please keep the noise down...
[edited by: claus at 11:24 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2003]
Let me try - in the serps I watch yes top are some good info sites bit boring but they do merit top - do you mean to give these sites double listings?
Then a very strange site sort of on topic but really nothing to do with the subject in any depth other than mentioning the keyword in passing.
Then it begins to improve.
Funny really I see a site that is probably the only real authority on a subject being beaten by a site that has ripped of some of the copyright material.
As for –in it is better than raw Florida now this is the tough one I do worse with –in but I have to say it is better than www. But If would be even better if you got rid of double listings for the same sites in the results.
OK that’s my take.
What do you want to see?
Which do you think is better?
joined:Nov 9, 2003
[edited by: superscript at 11:29 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2003]
The results on -in are the weakest serps I have ever seen Google produce. For some spaces I monitor, "atrocious" is not to strong a word to describe them.
[edited by: pmac at 11:46 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2003]
maybe you ought top READ THE TOS
Man... now look what I've started, sorry... :-)
On-topic: -in seems to like what I'm doing. Maybe I know why, maybe I'm just lucky. My theory, the definition of link-farming has been extended; the anchor text thing was a red-herring. Pure speculation, of course, and probably wrong.
joined:Nov 9, 2003
This brings up a dedicated 'k1 k2 k3' site here in the UK at No 1 - the most relevant shopping result I've seen for ages. I'm not contradicting you mate - what are you seeing? Could be good news!
(Mods - if I'm off topic again please delete)
[edited by: heini at 11:56 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2003]
[edit reason] no specifics here, please / thanks! [/edit]
I am sure from our experience that they are changing how they value the links .... but are you suggesting there may be a penalty for the existence of links, aside from for example not counting them? If so, do you have any clues on what they may be penalizing?
Are these for you even worse than Florida?
I see a bit of an improvement on Florida but I do agree that results have been weak ever since this debacle started, in the serps I watch only a couple of sites are left, the competition have gone and they were good.
What for me is better about the –in is that at least the directories or at least most of them are gone.
That said, I still think it might be dodgy recip-link schemes that have done a lot of damage to people. I don't know that recip-links are valued as they once were.
In my case, I seem to be being rewarded for outgoing links to external pages that don't link back. I also seem to be being rewarded for incoming links from sites that I don't link to.
This is pure speculation.
thanks for the scoop ... in the first few terms i looked at on this -in, the results remind me of INFOSEEK .... does anyone remember them ....
BTW ...on one term i searched i found 5 links to the DMOZ/Google dirtectory in the top 20 .... that is 25% ... man that is really helpful for the users ....
personally ... i hope this -in does get published .... it will surely do google in for good .... everyone will be using alta vista soon ....
has anyone used alta vista lately ... it is much improved ...
I think the comments above say most of it. -In contains lots of generic sites which cover a lot of topics. These listings dominate the SERPs. Obviously niche sites cover their ground more thoroughly than these, and the beauty of the internet is that the small niche sites are possible to find. If I want to read preprocessed dross I can look on page 10 of the SERPs right? So why serve it up at the top of the menu?
Obviously I am only thinking about the money, so maybe you'd better take someone else's word for it :)
we believe that google is basically cancelling out recriprocal links in SOME cases ... and we have a test in place to conclusively determine that in a few days, what we do not know is the definition of WHICH cases, and i am also very suspicious that they may be going further and penalizing a site for some links ... rather than just forget them .... so that is why i am really curious if you see any indication of that ..
it is difficult to set up a test to isolate that penalty factor possibility
does anyone happen to know if it would be legal for google to use the whois database for purposes of evaluating links?
Agreed. Regarding niche sites, seemingly all niche sites in my industry have vanished completely. Not just on page 5-20. Gone completely. That's what I really don't get. In many cases *the* most relevant sites are gone not to be found.?
[edited by: hazardtomyself at 12:24 am (utc) on Dec. 10, 2003]
more review of this -in shows an increase in the kind of spam which is trhiving with the new google ... example
this page ranks in the top 15 on a 6 million page search ...
the entire page has 49 words on it
8 of those words were the keyword itself ... nothing but the keywork for a title and no metatags for discription or keywords ...
this is what google wants ... so if you want to rank at the top again, you need to get rid of all your useful content and get a page with less than 50 words on it and make sure 25% is your keyword ...
also, lots of links to the "popularity" affiliate sites (aka spam directory sites) ... these are link farms in their purest sense, i can't see why google can't get that picture ....
for those of you guys in the know about such things ... does this -in migrate to google or is it some beta thing they just let yall look at?
Hey GoogleGuy, let's make a plea bargain. We'll drop all our trashy sites in exchange for you letting us keep our one top site at the top for ever! Wouldn't that just save EVERYONE so much work. We could concentrate on building a great site and Google could call off the dogs!
Are .govs and .edus ranked higher? Yes. Craig Silverstein, one of the original Google developers, says, "Google leans towards .edu and .gov sites, because it was developed by college students, and is therefore non-profit centric." That's definitely something to keep in mind..
Here is a post i just ran across...
If this goes to www, my customers will have to use other search engines to find the products they want to buy.