Forum Moderators: mack
Example: I have a page about TV's and with some decent inbound link text, I can move this page to the top 10 for modems all day long.
you contradicted your premise. hence the reliance on off page factors BEFORE or totally ignoring on page content is a major mistake gives you serps for modems instead of the search results for TV's.
for the reading comprehension challenged...
i am not saying off page factors should be out of the equation. what I AM saying is that both should be used, but on page content should come first then weigh off page factors second. the general consensus is that at least msn and google have lost ground in terms of relevant serps. roscoe just eloquently pointed out the reason why.
It is by design that there will be differences between the US and UK results and by extension between any two countries.If you type in "bicycles" in the UK and you would expect to learn about bicycles relevant to the UK and maybe stores online that sell bicycles in the UK.
If you are in the US you likely would not want to see stores that are selling bikes in the UK.
The differences will vary based on the term you search for. For certain terms the country you are searching from does not really matter.
Do people find that the differences are too extreme or off base?
Msndude,
Why don't you let the algo decide what is the most relevant/authoritative search result within any given language, and leave the option of wanting (country)local or only-local results to the searcher? Best of both worlds if your algo and localisation are right.
It is not only a point of finding that the differences are too extreme or off base (I do), I find it unclear/frustrating that I will never know what would have been the best result if geotargetting had not played a role.
I would like a option to push a link so I would get to a specific country, like google, instead of just showing country related results, because if you would like to learn more about math I dont care if the site is from USA or england and if I want to look for new boxing gloves, I could push a link if I only want results from england.
Also I would like a real count of pages found not a bunch of numbers.
I still say a good job this time and its nice that also static pages get a full spidering and listing.
I like the results...its great they dont focus so much on off site factors like google...its nice that also static pages get a full spidering and listing.
Dont take the bait and walk away people! (I hope he taking the Mickey)
Lot of sites that deserve to rank, RANK.
and the ones that didnt deserve to rank dont.
Not saying its perfect mind you, but its 10 times better than it was.
Im not sure what you mean here.
On the basis that you are saying that you have no intention of rolling back this current algo change may i suggest you at least look at the new results.
Search the word "Jobs" uk for example and look at the first 20. Look at the way the results are displayed, the text from the sites you are using, the quality of the sites you show, then do the same with say "Travel" and "Cars".
Anyone can see the results are in a mess. They dont even display right because you take bits of text here and there. You have cloaked pages ranking high, you have non relevent results listing. Your SERPs are currently a junk yard.
If your collegues think these results are an improvement your new search facility will lose visitors not gain them. The results are your worst yet to date.
Action to improve your serps or roll them back needs taking PDQ imo.
Dude... Quality wise I think the old results were alot better. Im seeing lots of spam everywhere. Type in "<snip>" number one is a spammy site. Type in "<snip snip>" and you get a PR 0 low quality <snip snip snip> site. Type in "<snip snip snip snip>" and it just looks bad let alone the quality of the sites are pathetic.
[edited by: Woz at 4:20 am (utc) on June 27, 2005]
[edit reason] No Specifics please, see Tos#13 [/edit]
I see lots of spam too. Type for example, <snip> and look at the number 5 result.
It shows search engine results from all the major search engine. No content, no work. This is a joke.
[edited by: Woz at 4:20 am (utc) on June 27, 2005]
[edit reason] No Specifics please, see Tos#13 [/edit]
[edited by: Woz at 4:21 am (utc) on June 27, 2005]
[edit reason] No Specifics please, see Tos#13 [/edit]
There are a few areas that look like they have improved, but for the most part, many, many areas appear a bit junkier than normal.
That's too bad, I was starting to use MSNSearch more and more.
Translation:
'I can't see myspammysite'
..and all of those on the Google thread are saying MSN is better and to start using MSN! ;) These days they are BOTH screwed up. Checking some of my search phrases in MSN shows sites above me with dozens of duplicate pages, and the only differences is one different word in the <title> tag and one different targeted sentence on each page! Each of these pages has a nav menu at left with more than a dozen links, all going to these identical pages with the changed <title> and one phrase on each page!
Trey, I don't think MSN has anything to do with Google PR nor even cares about it.
What has happened to MSN UK msndude?
When I search all I'm seeing are .co.uk domains. On further examination the only site we lost positions on is a .com domain.
Please don't say that UK .com domains are now considered to be less valuable than a .co.uk. Many leading UK sites are .com.
This is now what looks like the problem to me...
But if you click on the 'only from United Kingdom' option it is only showing .co.uk.
Not picking up IP address location then. That could be a bad flaw
hehe, usually I'd agree with you, but, in my case, my "spammy" sites did just fine, it's one of my "white hat" sites that got its ass kicked.
The same sites are listed TWICE.
Not an internal page, not a sub-domain but the EXACT SAME listing twice in the results.
Example
site #2 is also listed at #23
site #8 is also listed at #15
site #11 is also listed at #28
site #36 is also listed at #41
site #39 is also listed at #47
There are a TON more of double listed sites those are just a few examples.
What the heck is going on? I actually started using MSN to do a lot more searches and now it's confusing and junky.
I'm a little disappointed. MSNDude, you guys need to roll back this change until you get it figured out. Giving these types of results just makes you look unstable....
Our UK based .com used to ride high on MSN UK and get qualified traffic. Now we're nowhere on UK but doing great on MSN.com and getting plenty of traffic from non-UK MSN regional sites which is a complete waste for all concerned.
I just find it amazing that msn are letting this mess continue, its like they want to make sure no one is going to use the new search!
You have to laugh, this is such a farse.
I cant understand why they havent rolled the results back, looked at where they have gone wrong with the new algo, adjusted it and tried again. Why run with results that are plain useless i just dont get it?
On our main site they have ranked pages that are less relevent to the search term ahead of pages that are content rich.
We have websites with pages now ranking high that shouldnt and some of our best sites falling back against some real dross sites.
The top 20 for a number of search results is currently just plain junk. Im also amazed at the number of spam pages with re-directs that have slipped in.
Cant see us using msn at the moment thats for certain whilst its in this state of flux
Trey, I don't think MSN has anything to do with Google PR nor even cares about it.
Clint dude. I never said it did. By saying the site that is ranking #1 for a keyword that gets searched 374,248 times a month (according to the overture keyword selector tool) to be PR 0 (new site), I was making the argument that there are serious problems with the new msn algo.
Anyways... After reading the threads about the update, Im sure they are going to do some more tweaking :)
Trey
Wordy:
Our UK based .com used to ride high on MSN UK and get qualified traffic. Now we're nowhere on UK but doing great on MSN.com and getting plenty of traffic from non-UK MSN regional sites which is a complete waste for all concerned.
Exactly the same scenario we are faced with. Our UK .com site still ranks highly on MSN.com.
Luckily Google and returning users are the major source of incoming traffic on that site.
It's still a shame to lose MSN though as all the visitors count at the end of the day!
-George
One of my domain names for sale just got TOTALLY REMOVED from the MSN index! Doesn't even show up for the title tag IN QUOTES! Yesterday it was FIRST on the FIRST PAGE for its field!
Good.
Vitaplease said:
It is not only a point of finding that the differences are too extreme or off base (I do), I find it unclear/frustrating that I will never know what would have been the best result if geotargetting had not played a role.
A couple of things here. Firstly, since you asked the question about geovariance (A new word I just made up) earlier in the thread, I asked about it on the stand at WebmasterWorld and I actually got a different reply to MSNDude's post here, namely that they had noticed some bugs in this area!
But that aside, I think that on balance I disagree with your premise about Geotargetting. I appreciate that with geotargetting in play, it becomes harder to see the rewards of our labours, but from a user perspective (which is how an engine needs to see it) Geotargeting as standard makes real sense I think - if it can better results to the user consistently. It ruins any SEO business model that rewards the SEO based on rankings - but at least the guy typing in bicycles in the UK has more chance of finding UK manufacturers/resellers.
Our UK based .com used to ride high on MSN UK and get qualified traffic. Now we're nowhere on UK but doing great on MSN.com and getting plenty of traffic from non-UK MSN regional sites which is a complete waste for all concerned.
Same for me
