Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

July Update?

         

Heywood_J

12:59 am on Jul 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Is it me or does it look like a significant update is going on at google. I am noticing a number of SERP changes for a few of my sites and they've been fluctuating for the past few days.

Anyone else noticing any major changes?

shri

2:35 am on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



>> But if no one is noticing any significant change in the SERPs despite the change in the backlink reporting, then I must be barking up the wrong tree.

There is a change, but I cant seem to figure out what it is.

Only thing I can think of is some retroactive sandboxing of link value.

1) My number of pages in Google has not dropped
2) The number of backlinks being show is consistent with what I'd expect
3) My traffic has dropped to May levels
4) My day on day traffic dropped 40% on Monday with whatever tweak they implemented

I have a feeling this may be a tweak on dupe content filters thats causing it, or a slight degradation of PR.

Another theory that I have is that they're algorithmically catching similar links and using those as dup filters. i.e If 500 unrelated sites have links that are either inbound or outbound with the anchor "My Life by Bill Clinton" there may be some filter that trips to remove Amazon and other datafeed type affiliates.

steveb

7:06 am on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Some people mentioned significant shakeups in their niches.

There was easily the biggest shakeup in months in my areas. The results are still basically good, but lots of sites moved around, with several clean-but-mediocre sites advancing while some equally clean but more authoritative ones dropping a bit. If I didn't know better, it would seem to be easily attributable to a devaluing of the much better linking of the more authoritative sites. The more lightweight sites show a gain in links from trivial sources like their own message boards, while the more solid sites don't show top of line links. An alternative idea would be that we had a knob turn back toward "a link is a link" from last year. I doubt the backlink display actually reveals anything useful, but it does appear that sites with well-crawled message boards benefited, which could mean raw number of links became more important while quality linking became less so.

Your niche mileage may vary.

Marcia

7:08 am on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Scarecrow, it sounds to me like what you're talking about relates in part to Inverse Document Frequency.

Powdork

8:57 am on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



All I see that's different is what they're allowing webmasters & SEOs to see.
So this would be 'Update Seopatra', if it existed. Keep in mind WW has not attached an official name, which should say something. For my part, I saw nothing significant in the serps I follow. I haven't given any credence to the special searches (link:, allinurl, allintitle, allintext) since since back in July '03 when index pages dropped out and allinanchor rankings were apparently high for a lot of those pages. This was something brought to a head during Florida. These rankings (special searches) seem to have become different things for G to target and/or manipulate since then. The less I know about them the better.

karmov

12:12 pm on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I'm another vote for "half my backlinks disapeared but SERPs haven't budged so it doesn't really matter".

There was a lot of shuffling in my SERPs last week, but in the end everything settled exactly the way it had been before the shuffling began. Then this new backlink stuff.

Full of sound and fury signifying nothing this time around it seems from my perspective.

surfgatinho

1:42 pm on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Maybe the Google bar showing wierd (or possibly useless) information is a plan to clean things up a bit. If not it may still have that side effect.

If we can't tell the PR of a site accurately or we don't know who links to what and who's linking to us maybe webmasters will just start linking to sites that they want to (or that are even relevant).

rivi2k

1:49 pm on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



My site has had a significant number of pages dropped, and has not shown any increase/decrease in backlinks, although i have gotten several pr 7 and 8 links in the last few weeks.

A strange phenomenon im seeing is that for example, although my site ranks #1 for "widgets forums", the cached version of the page is from yesterday at 6 am, when usually it is around 12:45 am, however the description associated with the listing in on google page is from 3 weeks ago.

Any idea why this would be happening? seems to me lik the update is far from over.

planit

5:49 pm on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



A few people have noticed a change in backlink reporting, but my backlinks just went from 8 to 1030.

Is this the same for everyone?

Scarecrow

5:51 pm on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I have more information on how Google bombed my Google bomb, based on experimentation. I think this is definitive, and puts the issue to rest.

The searches below are without quotation marks, and the number is the ranking of Google's corporate page for that search. I invite all of you to verify these searches, because it's a bigger embarrassment to Google than the initial Google bomb they were trying to fix. It would not surprise me if something changed rather rapidly.

touch executives google = 379
touch google executives = 1
google touch executives = 379
touch larry executives = 1
touch executives = not in top 1000
executives touch = not in top 1000

These experiments show that Google put the fix in so that all links to Google's page, if they contain anchor text that includes the word "touch" adjacent to the word "executives," are discounted in whatever formula is used to credit a page with anchor text from links.

It was a Googleplex bomb implemented to wipe out my specific Google bomb. Google did it to protect their page at www.google.com/corporate/execs.html from cheap shots by amused journalists. They probably put this fix in before the out-of-touch management issue came up in the New York Times on June 22, and that's why they neglected to include the collateral forms of the bomb in their fix. The NYT piece probably appeared too late for the current update cycle.

Using the old filter tool that some of you may remember from last November, the tool shows no evidence that this is done on the fly. Instead, I believe that this Googleplex fix was precomputed. That's why it kicked in about the same time that we're seeing all these backlink changes.

If asked by the press, I will say that Google is fully prepared to change their algorithmic results when it is done to protect their own pages, but they are on record as refusing to do the exact same thing to prevent an anti-Semitic page from appearing at the number one spot.

I'm confident that the results of the searches shown above mean that Google will have a hard time denying what they've done.

crankin

6:25 pm on Jul 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Oh man, that is funny. G is busted cold on this one.
This 271 message thread spans 28 pages: 271