Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Here's a list. They are all working from at least one of two locations that I tried today. Anyone got any that I missed?
I checked up each one of them and here's a list of the unique IP addresses where the results aren't similar in terms of number of results found.
I picked them up after comparing the number of results found and not the serp changes. Maybe this might be helpful in comparing your keywords position across various datacenters.
This update ain't done yet
I have noticed my pages creeping back up again on my key terms - with no change to the cache.
From page 4...to page 2.... to no.10.... to no.7....
Slowly the inexorable rise of quality through the ranks of dross begins...(at least until someone at Google twiddles with that knob again....LEAVE IT!)
You can't keep a good man down (I hope).
So I like this update, and (knock on wood) have been happy with Google over the past year, during which referrals from Google have been steadily if gradually increasing (probably partly due to gradual addition of content to what remains a smallish content site.)
Could it be that those people who weren't hurt have huge sites and numbers of internal backlinks?
My site isn't huge, but it does have a large number of internal links. It's an editorial site of about 4,200 pages, a few dozen of which might be termed "affiliate pages" (mostly annotated hotel listings). And it hasn't been hurt by Allegra. On the contrary: Traffic has climbed by about 25% in the last several days, and the ratio of Google referrals to Yahoo and MSN referrals has also climbed back to where it was until a couple of months ago (when the Google:Yahoo/MSN ratio began to erode slightly).
In examining my server logs, I haven't noticed any surprises; as far as I can tell, the same pages are in the top few dozen spots. My rankings for the keyphrases that I track have hardly budged, and most of my neighbors in the SERPs are the same ones that I usually see. I assume that much of the additional Google traffic is coming from upward "ranking creep" on hundreds or even thousands of minor searches.
The one slight oddity that I've noticed in the SERPs is the displacement of my #1 ranking for "[ship name] photos" by a self-described "personal site" that I'd never heard of. The page that knocked my [ship name] photo gallery to #2 for that keyphrase is a directory page consisting of unannotated links. The directory page's PR is 2, the personal site's home page has a PR of only 3 and an Alexa traffic ranking of 206,378. The entire site, which came out of nowhere, consists of virtually nothing but unannotated links, which makes me wonder if outbound links are now a scoring factor. (FWIW, I have plenty of outbound links myself, so maybe that's helping me in Allegra.)
I had three sites I was looking at. One is an old one I did about three years ago when I was learning - a geocities free URL, 10 pages, crosslinking of every single page, long obnoxious hyphenated URLs, by far the weakest information of the three sites. It's actually just a test site thrown up, and of low and even amateurish quality. It has plenty of inbound links, but I haven't messed with it since putting it up.
Then I have two other sites ranging from 50 to more than 2000 pages of original content and photos. Top of the line, really, and sites people interested the topics and subtopics would want to find. The big site has lots of subtopics, going with the standard advice to add lots of good content.
Guess which site is still #1, and which two have been crushed in this update.
I'm wondering if it is a mistake to put everything into a single domain with lots of subtopics. I know many of those do well. And mine did before yesterday. But it seems one has to be so careful with cross linking within the site itself, that it's easy and even probable that one will cross whatever line Google has set up. I think I will seriously consider just building large numbers of very focused sites. The big sites with many topics connected internally by links appear just too risky at the moment.
[edited by: Vespasian at 5:14 pm (utc) on Feb. 4, 2005]
What's the general concensus on what factors Google is changing this time?
To me it looks kind of like a "Florida Lite" update. Top serp's loaded with big directory/affiliate/hub/authority pages that have the keyword mentioned once or twice on the page.
One interesting thing I have noticed for the first time are peoples mapquest address searches showing up. For example, if I do a search for "Anytown real estate", I'm seeing results for somebodys mapquest search for 4521 Main St. Anytown, California.
[edited by: More_Traffic_Please at 5:42 pm (utc) on Feb. 4, 2005]
In a few cases where I was knocked down a few notches, it seems that Google moved up sites that were at least deserving of higher rank. So in the two fields where I have sites, the results seem to be fine.
But last night I was doing some shopping and there were some very entertaining sites mixed in with what were otherwise good SERPs.
Shouldn't that be the natural way things work with quality informational sites that add content and links regularly?
It should be for an information site--or any site--that consists mostly of "evergreen" content (as opposed to news or other time-sensitive material) and adds new pages regularly.
Thats what I see MoreTraffic, Epinions, Amazon, Bizrate and such major sites are at the top. Have been seeing this trend more and more for the past year. Soon the little guy will be lost forever.
Honestly, I don't see those sites being much of a threat. Sure it's going to take a little work for the mom and pop to get recognized by the engines as being deserving of higher rankings but they mainly rank well for fairly uncompetitive shopping products. Any serious serps wont have those sites listed in the top.
Mom and pop or not, if you want free valuable traffic you're going to have to put effort into it or pay someone to.