Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Maybe they have started weekly data refreshes, as was written or said somewhere else.
It's weird to see backlinks from adult sites helping to rank SEO companies / text link brokers (same thing if I consider Google rankings for the former)....
I am trying to take it well but it still bothers me somehow to see our best site nowhere for a term it is one of the market leaders on.
Will be looking for a real seo expert soon I think...:)
I deleted history, cookies etc half a dozen times and then went back to google.co.uk to find a different data centre serving me in my local area.
The data centre 220.127.116.11 is currently showing absolute Cr@p full of spam and has had a real mix up.
Meanwhile 18.104.22.168 and 22.214.171.124 were showing far better results imo but dont know if they were the results as previously served or not.
All three of these data centres are showing wide variations but 126.96.36.199 was even cleaner and looked the best set imo.
What i dont understand is that, love or hate the data centres results, Google is currently as i see it serving totally different data on its data centres depending on which data centre is serving you at that time in the UK.
So, is it a case that the spam data from 188.8.131.52 is going to move over to the others OR is the data on 66.102.104 or 184.108.40.206 going to win the day.
Alternatively, is it likely that googles current policy is in fact to now serve different data in the UK depending on where you are and depending on which data centre you get - that way more sites buy in adwords to make up for the fall?
On another board, a reliable contributor stated that he believes the 7/27 update (that is when this all began) may be a total re-indexing effort, where they are:
- Dropping indices
- Re-spidering sites
- Re-building indices
No one for sure knows, unless they are "inside", but this may be responsible for all the fluctuations and variations that we are seeing.
Regardless, GG must do something about this SPAMMING.
We did so some site clean-up over the last couple of weeks.. mainly code clean-up to make the page size smaller and image file sizes smaller and basic site maintenance.
However our rankings on our main key phrases are doing much better, but our traffic is still down between 20-30% over what we normally do this time of year. But the top sites appear to have very little real content, use mainly style sheets (little or no HTML) and lots of links that just link to pages with a single drop down menu for selecting what they are looking for. They all did have at least one keyword in the url somewhere.
Sad really for the customer point of view since some of the top sites are really the same company.. just different layout. Does seem funny to see the top site are also adwords sponsors on the same page.. not that it means anything.
He made an observation: if you see problems, check your site for overoptimization, ... and a few more which I forget. But they are old hat. Overoptimization, now thats a touchy one. White hat sites could face a problem here. especially as it is difficult to understand exactly where overoptimization begins. Does the SERP drop for it affect pages, or entire sites? The large number of white hat sites - including mine - which were affected by the June 27 refresh makes me think we might have a clue here.
If there's a new DR on the way it will be a good test as I've done some changes to the internal linking structure. However, I am not optimistic. It always seems to take at least 6 months to get out of any Google filter.
Overoptimization, now thats a touchy one.
Indeed. Best I can tell, by "over-optimised" Google mean "too-relevant". Presumably this is why, since June 27th, Google will often prefer an unrelated page from a site over the related one. The related page is often just too relevant to count. Much better to return one of the other pages that is much less relevant to the query, or in other words "optimally-optimised".
This is definately a good direction to be going in in my opinion. Finding stuff on the web was getting waaaay too easy.
It really is hard to imagine how people can be paid there to go from their best results in three years to their second worst results, ever, in the space of six weeks.
There are billions to be made in search if some company came along with a product that did more than stink to high heaven.
"Google will often prefer an unrelated page from a site over the related one. The related page is often just too relevant to count"
You hit the nail on the head and what a load of tosh from google. All this is about is pushing pages that are on topic and highly relevent down in the serps in the hope that webmasters buy more adwords.
And as for spam the changed data centre is full of it. Rather than a page about "blue widgets" with the same title ranking for the keywords you now see page titles that say "Your bluey white widgets" ie the keywords broken up and pages with the keywords spread over them ie very low density.
As a result of this stupid policy they are ending up with serps that are weak and non relevent but on the basis that they have, lets face it Zero competition, they can do what the hell they like. The laugh of this policy is however that its similar to that of Yahoos - the data set looks similar with low density pages etc however, Yahoos earnings have been massively down recently, so lets hope Google get their fingers burnt this time - enoughs enough of this google greed
I see a massive chance now for msn to come into play now if they can get their act together .
Is it asking too much that search results actualy show relevant websites? I just searched using a popular term for a local location in Asia, after finding all kinds of sites nothing to do with this local location I find in the 400's to 500's suddenly whole bunches of good webistes, all of these 'local' hosted websites, sometimes in groups as many as 8 together, all good 'local' websites.
I just searched using a popular term for a local location in Asia, after finding all kinds of sites nothing to do with this local location
I tried to conduct a search a while ago and found the results on Googles first page to be useless. Nearly all the results pointed to differnt websites showing the same article. So much for duplicate content filters.