Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
We need to keep this thread focused on the followings:
- Changes on your own site ranking on the serps (lost & gained positions or disappearance of the site).
- Changes you have noticed on the new serps (both google.com and your local google site) especially in regards to the nature of the top 10 or 20 ranking sites.
- Stability of the serps. I.e do you get the same serps when you run the same query within the same day or 2-3 successive days (both google.com and your local google site).
- Effective ethical measures to deal with the above mentioned changes.
Thanks.
Yeah, I see that today as well from images.google.com. They are all old images that I removed some time back, but some of them are VALID CURRENT images! Seems to be a problem with their bot. This looks like yet another G issue, this is going to remove our valid images from their index. I also see it trying to access images that never existed! Like www.MyDomain.com/jpg , what's up with that? G is not correctly linking to the images!
The bot is also doing it with PDF files I also removed some time back. I also see a lot of "302" codes from images.google.in, .de, .be, .se, and other overseas G image servers.
“Adam Smith is even now knotting his Invisible Hand into a gigantic Invisible Fist which will smash Google flatter than AltaVista”.
Is’nt Adam smith dead?
If you are an economist, you know that there is a market solution and a real solution. If there are indirect effects in production and / or consumption, there is a difference between the market and the real solution. Example, pollution: The polluting company should be taxed to bring the market solution closer to the real solution. That means, that there is a difference between the company optimal solution and the public optimal solution.
Do you want to tax Google for not supplying the public optimal solution? Does any other company (search engine) supply a solution closer to the public optimal solution?
In the preindustrial community of Adam Smith, indirect effects in production were perhaps a lesser problem than in todays digital (“post” industrial) world.
g1smd 11:20 pm on June 17, 2005
“I have watched one search phrase climb from 8 million results in the Summer of 2003 to 18 million results in late 2004. Just a few days before Google announced that their index had increased to 8 billion pages the search phrase jumped to 40 million results. However what has happened after that is even more interesting. A month or so later it jumped to 60 million, then 80 million, and then carried on climbing to 140 million, where it has stayed for 3 months or so.
A few days ago it suddenly dropped back to 37 million, just as it was last Autumn.
This is the wierd bit. For a few days it reported 37 million if you did a normal search, but then reported 140 million if you did a search with &num=100&filter=0 on the end of the Google search URL”.
1.On the same datacenter?
2.Can it have something to do with duplicate listings, that Google tries to do better?
Trawler 12:18 am on June 18
“Such playing around and testing as they've been doing for 3+ weeks now should occur OFFLINE not at the expense of the public and stress of webmasters”.
I agree if that is the problem. The XP concept with writing the tests and testing before factoring is sound. But I am uncertain if that is the problem.
Oldpro :14 am on June 18, 2005
In spite of the cynical favor of the overall post, this is a plausible possilbity. Google has a market valuation of around $80 billion. In their SEC filing, Adwords is the only source of income declared.
Compare...Time/Warner $77 billion, Merck $70 billion, Berkshire Hathaway $104 billion. These are corporations with long histories and very diverse income streams. Even consider Exxon/Mobil $380 billion...hard to digest adwords are worth 20% of all that oil.
My point with dealing with the consequences of bourbon...Google will never be what we are accustom to in the past. Pagerank, LSI, Hilltop, or whatever...there is bigtime pressure for them to perform financially. Only the naive would believe that from now on financial considerations would not factor into the equation of the algo formulations.
The irrational exuberance of wall street has been the worst thing that could ever happened to google. I predict a future thread on WW will be entitled "dealing with the consequences of the google bubble".
First of all I think Warren Buffett would not invest a single dollar in Google, since his philosophy is to invest in things he understands. Why do you not mention Coca Cola, the strongest Brand in the world? They produce coloured water with sugar etc. Google with enormous hardware resources, produce search results. Meta searchengines like Mamma live on top of these searchengines. Google do not produce the content of the web. Google does note own a single site aside their own. Even if Google is a great digital branding / Ad machine, their main production is SERPs to customers / surfers. The Ad results are shown along the right edge of the SERP. The day these results get more important than the free SERPs, I think Google will have problems. I noted that the two founders of Google reduced their pay to USD 1 per year. That gives a strong signal, even if they can live well by selling shares (their fortune).
If you use Miller Modigliani, you have to estimate how long Google will live. I think Google will live for years, even if the stock price may fluctuate. It is natural that the price of a stock like Google is volatile. Benjamin Graham would perhaps have said. “High valuation entails high risk.” This was a comment and not an investment advice.
Back to Burbon Update. I think, as mentioned before. This is much about hardware. I will not speculate in
1. Whether Google have changed their algorithms. Will never find out that before Goolge tells / indicates it.
2. They have had unforeseen problems.
Clint 12:52 pm on June 18, 2005
“Google is not involved in "Free advertising", they are a SEARCH ENGINE, and it is the obligation by their own definition, nomenclature, and charter that they INDEX ALL WEBSITES of RELEVANCY to the performed search (unless sites are in violation of something, but which doesn't seem to have affected those type sites)”.
Never the less, there is a big industry living on “manipulating” these “free” searches? What is your point?
Petrocelli 1:15 pm on June 18, 2005
“My conclusion is that we are still in the middle of a big rebuild of G's index. In fact it would do Google (and all webmaster) much better if they'd build their index "behind the scenes" and simply switch over to the new one once it's finished - but facing the really huuuuge amount of data they are dealing with this probably is not possible.
So what happens when searching a half baked index? It's not that a RELEVANT site suddenly has dropped in serps or is missing - it's that LESS RELEVANT (but already processed) sites temporarily have more relevance and are outranking others. Temporarily”.
You may have hit the nail on its head. How many computers would a testing and simulation before going online require? Difficult to write a good enough test? There may even have been a test, but a simulation is not the same as a real implementation. The web is increasing exponentially, and there may be a large (not a minor) reshuffeling going on.
Private conclusion: Agree with trawler, that Google if possible, should test and test before implementing an algorithmic update or other new technical solutions. But I am unsure. Is that the real problem? Which information can the public require from Google? You veterans at Webmaster World may know better than anybody else.
Yes, secure your servers with UPC and diesel driven Pc’s located in different regions.
To repeat:
WebFusion 6:11 pm on June 17, 2 wrote:
“Make your traffic multi-dimensional, and you'll be able to sleep at night.”
Exactly! That is the problem in a nutshell.
Still agree to that.
KBleivik
“In the long run we are all dead.”
John Maynard Keynes.
[edited by: kgun at 2:18 pm (utc) on June 18, 2005]
“Google is not involved in "Free advertising", they are a SEARCH ENGINE, and it is the obligation by their own definition, nomenclature, and charter that they INDEX ALL WEBSITES of RELEVANCY to the performed search (unless sites are in violation of something, but which doesn't seem to have affected those type sites)”.
Never the less, there is a big industry living on “manipulating” these “free” searches? What is your point?
My "point" was replying to someone else's post with that statement. You would have to refer to it. ;)
1. None of mine comments have been written with
the concious goal of supporting Google.
2. I give my private judgements. They are in now way
related to my business, other than I am the
owner of some websites.
3. In other connections and on other forums, I may
have written posts, that may be regarded as
opposing what I have written here.
4. The posts must be interpreted in the light of
the subject discussed.
Kjell Gunnar Bleivik
Its not even part of:
[google.com...]
[google.com...]
IF it was on their I would have removed it or excluded it!
It not exactly duplicate as the products categories had been chosen for the type of website through its legit affiliate program. Custom ASP was used to integrate it slickly into the site. The Bourbon update is unfair.
[edited by: Johan007 at 2:41 pm (utc) on June 18, 2005]
With this update I think I'm in the kitchen and the chef is very hairy.
KGB, could I get you to write some content for my site - you're the best BSer I've seen in a while (that's meant to be a compliment).
<added>
Since japanese
</>
I dont know if Google evaluates on a site or page by page basis for that type of thing - there is no doubt I have pages with thin content - but I have pages with very thick content - and if that is what the searcher is looking for then it would be a shame if it was not included in the G results.
It is all about adding added value.
However, although I think duplicate content is always going to be an ongoing issue (which is why whenever I get the chance I make my content thicker and more unique.:)) - I dont think this update is about that in particular (Yes G always experiments with dup content filters) - but the complete drop of the range of sites in question is something different.
IMO - of course.
"You know the saying
'Don't sit near the kitchen when you go to a restaurant'
With this update I think I'm in the kitchen and the chef is very hairy.
KGB, could I get you to write some content for my site - you're the best BSer I've seen in a while (that's meant to be a compliment).
<added>
Since japanese
</>"
But it may be a secular bear market.
KBleivik
Dayo-UK: but the complete drop of the range of sites in question is something different.
By observation, I tend to agree. I was thinking that my site had been penalized for dup content (reprinting free articles), but I also have a lot of original content, and that can't be found either. Either Google is finding enough wrong with a site (in their eyes), and penalizing the whole thing, or it has more to do with their algos and indexing, and it's hopefully temporary. I'm hoping for the latter, otherwise, my site and livlihood will be permanently decimated by this latest Google change.
I have, in some cases, started re-writing content rather than attempt to chase down all the content thieves... some are simply impossible to get hold of and the DMCA thing is a bit of a pain in the butt and can backfire.
I have to spend money now each month with copyscape in an attempt to track down some of them on a timely basis. I probably lose 1/2 hour everyday of the week on this issue.
And why is this all happening? Booble penalizing the wrong page. Booble indexing links as though they were pages - 8 billion pages? Ya Right, 2 billion are made up by Booble.
a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Come on guys, stop ranting and deal with it. Big business is tough and noone owes you a living. The reality of this update and many more to come is that you are either lucky or you are not. Luck now plays a big part and you have to accept that as part of your google strategy.
Another genius has joined us.
At this point, I'd recommend two possible ways to contact us if people have feedback or are unhappy with a search (feel free to use both, by the way). Option 1 is to contact user support at www.google.com/support. That will initially get you an autoreply (just to let you know that we received the email), and then someone from user support will read your email and respond after a few days. However, user support doesn't really have the tools to provide site-specific recommendations or SEO advice for individual domains. So I'd go with option #2: send an email to jun05feedback [at] googlegroups.com. I created a specific list before in February and it was pretty helpful for getting feedback. In fact, what I said in February still applies. Here's what I said back then:
Some things to bear in mind:
- Anyone can send in feedback. I'm on the group and I'll gather some other engineers to read messages on it as well.
- This will let anyone send comments directly to engineers who read the messages--it's not going through an extra step of user support processing it. The flip side is that although we'll read all the comments we get, and see if we can use the feedback to improve our quality, we won't be able to reply to individual messages. If you're especially happy or unhappy with something in our search results right now, this is the best way to tell us. You'll want to include a concrete search phrase and the exact url that you think is spam or high-quality content. :)
- With any change, there are going to be some sites that move into the first search page and some sites that move out. That's the reality of any change in search engine results--but I do want to hear feedback.
It helps if you include a specific search or a specific site, and if you have a WebmasterWorld nickname I'd include that too. I just created that list, but I sent a test email to it, and it looks like the mailing list is live. If you want the engineers to read about specific good or bad searches, please drop us a line at jun05feedback [at] googlegroups.com.
If you've ever searched Google News, you'll likely find the same AP or Reuters article posted on many news sites. Are we to believe that the NY Times, Wash. Post, LA Times, etc., are all suffering dup content penalties along with the likes of the Duluth Register and the Albany Times-Union?
My point is they all carry some AP or Reuters or UPI stories, so to be consistent, Google shoudl be penalizing them all. Another befuddling flaw in Boofle's famous fun-bag.
This also might apply.
Those that live in glass houses ....
Do the first 10 people to send emails win a t-shirt? ;-)
On the subject of appreciation, a public thanks to helleborine for private help with my post-Bourbon disappearing act, which seems connected to other sites linking to me with 302 temporary redirects, an issue I hope gets resolved soon...
Oh well - thanks for your help anyway. Always appreciated.
I am wondering if it makes any sense for me or anyone else to send email to the address you specified when all we have to say is that our sites can't be found for any keyword phrases and we don't have a clue why?
Can this type of question/request be acted upon?
Joe
Excellent site, I linked to it before your last post, I think two places. Tell me if you want the link deleted.
Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare translated to (bad norwegian) english.
"My loyalty is like the shape of my hat. It changes with the seasons."
In relation to this subject:
"My loyalty to the searchengines is like the shape of my hat. It changes with the seasons."
KBleivik
There is nothing new under the sun.
GG
I am wondering if it makes any sense for me or anyone else to send email to the address you specified when all we have to say is that our sites can't be found for any keyword phrases and we don't have a clue why?Can this type of question/request be acted upon?
Joe I think that pretty much sums up what most are going to ask I believe. That is after all a very logical question that I think to which those of us that were affected need to know the answer. If you ask it, you should state your G SERP's position prior to this update.
That is EXACTLY what happened to me. Although not as high I was, I'm now back in the G-SERPs (and again, thank God, "St. Googliani", and whomever else I need to thank), but I was TOTALLY REMOVED from the G index for ALL search phrases, even my biz name. I still don't have a clue why, nor what I can do to prevent it from ever happening again.
The Ad results are shown along the right edge of the SERP. The day these results get more important than the free SERPs, I think Google will have problems.
Haven't you noticed the fact that the adwords results are more relevant than the organic serps. This has been the trend for google over the past several months. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I myself have found that when I do use google for research I almost always have to click on adwords to find the information I am looking for rather than going 5 to 10 pages deep. So...as it stands now in terms of relevancy, the ad results are more important than the free serps.
As for my business I have no problem budgeting for adwords should I need to. On the financial front, google does have a weak undefended flank in that Yahoo or MSN could pull the google feeds...or all the search engines could cooperate and trash the free results and boost the relevancy of paid ad placements altogether.
The point of my post is that google will do whatever it needs to do perserve market value which is what they should do. It is our responsibility to adjust and perserve the value and profitability of our own businesses. The cost of doing business will go up and we will just pass this cost along to the consumer.
===
URL:
Supporting Bourbon Stats:
"Spam" Pages: (old Google URL's of removed pages using "site:" command)
Good pages: (URL's with searches?!)
Explanation:
Action taken:
Required Google Action:
===
What do you think? Also can people PM those people who have had a sad story I read about in the forum :'( and let them know about GoogleGuy's post.
>Reseller is there a public copy of this Google Evaluation Lab document?
You can follow links mentioned in this thread which shall redirect you to the document.
[webmasterworld.com...]
>These shops running of the same db may not add value in Googles eyes but Google should have made this public before Bourbon hit us. The shop looked good and our visitors used it. To penalise a the whole site rather than just those pages is very unfair.<
Agreed. However I don´t think that Google operation or algos are based on terms like "fair" "unfair" ;-)
You may wish to view GoogleGuy post msg #:69
[webmasterworld.com...]
obviously.
If you sell Green Widgets, you'll only want your ad to show only for "Green Widgets" searches or something very relevant to it. You can't compare the normal results with adwords.
"kgun,
The Ad results are shown along the right edge of the SERP. The day these results get more important than the free SERPs, I think Google will have problems.
Haven't you noticed the fact that the adwords results are more relevant than the organic serps. This has been the trend for google over the past several months. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I myself have found that when I do use google for research I almost always have to click on adwords to find the information I am looking for rather than going 5 to 10 pages deep. So...as it stands now in terms of relevancy, the ad results are more important than the free serps.
As for my business I have no problem budgeting for adwords should I need to. On the financial front, google does have a weak undefended flank in that Yahoo or MSN could pull the google feeds...or all the search engines could cooperate and trash the free results and boost the relevancy of paid ad placements altogether.
The point of my post is that google will do whatever it needs to do perserve market value which is what they should do. It is our responsibility to adjust and perserve the value and profitability of our own businesses. The cost of doing business will go up and we will just pass this cost along to the consumer".
1. Personal experience. Sometimes, the ad results
are useful. Sometimes not at all. E.G.
My impression: "The large institutional investors,
Banks, Companies delivering trading platforms
and investor resources" does not use Ad Words.
There are som exceptions, especially on companies
offering trading platforms.
2. There may be correlation beween bid per click
and content.
3. Google have to make money, and it is good that
they make a lot of money, to upgrade their
datacenters to meet the needs of an
increasing web.
4. For a long time I have been looking for the
Yahoo, search box. I found the link here today.
5. I wish the MSN searh engine welcome. Now
there are at least three great players. I think
economists like myself like that.
6. In theory, there are an infinite number of
searchengines. The practical number is up to you.
KBleivik
"The strongest force in the universe is compounding".
Einstein.
I think this is an interesting point.
Beyond the fairness issue is the issue of how it relates to search quality. Does the presence of a "thin" page on a domain affect the quality of a "thick" page on that same domain? Of course not.
So would the searchers benefit from the exclusion of a quality page because Googlebot has detected the presence of a thin page on that same domain? In the short term, definitely not. The searcher would be left without a quality resource, and would have to go to some other search engine to find it.
It seems to me this would be a dangerous tactic for Google - to knowingly exclude quality pages, because of the presence of lower quality pages on the domain.
You could argue, however, that longer term that G could possibly incentivize higher quality pages on the Web by penalizing sites for launching thin pages. Seems risky to me though.
Conclusion - I don't know why we tanked following Bourbon, and I don't know why we've (somewhat) recovered. Could be the presence of some thin pages (addressed by removing them), could be www/non-www (addressed by 301'ing to www), could be some dupe content (addressed by 410'ing those pages), or it could just be a massive mulligan by Google making all of our "fixes" were meaningless. Damned if I know.
>GoogleGuy
option #2: send an email to jun05feedback [at] googlegroups.com. I created a specific list before in February and it was pretty helpful for getting feedback. <
Ok GoogleGuy..here is the deal.
- Fellow members shall email you qualified feedback about search quality and spam, free of charge and without the need to pay them $10-$20 an hour ;-)
- Google agree to handle emails from innocent publishers whom sites have been dumped by Google through Allegra or Bourbon updates, keeping in mind that those sites have been following Google´s Webmaster Guidelines.
[google.com...]
Do we have a deal?
Except what has been suggested endless times. Why do you *choose* to have a PR2 site.com, a PR4 site.com/index.shtml, a PR1 www.site.com/index.shtml and a PR4 www.site.com? Three of these have different cache.
Why *choose* to do that, and then blame someone else for ranking problems?
It's not society's fault when you commit suicide.
