Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
I have recovered from may 21 disaster most likely thanks to some help from people here to "clean" things up server side - so not going the heavy seo has an adverse effect route.
The point I was trying to make was whether the links in to your "affected" sites all go to the index page, and links in to "unaffected" sites are spread around to other pages within the site and these are being given a heavier weight by Mr and Mrs Google (and all the little googliers )
Only those with a mix of effected and uneffected sites will know the answer.
On the other hand as so many variables are at play - who really knows...
Goodnight...
However, what you are seeing is exactly what I saw on the first run throughs of this update in the data centers, and this was being discussed fairly coherently in a previous thread, but unfortunately that discussion ended when everyone started looking at what was dropping instead of looking at what wasn't. To paraphrase an old wise man: if you want to know what an update is, it's much more useful to look at something that is not updated than something that is.
Unfortunately, this update is so hard to pinpoint that any single factor cannot be seen as the unique determining cause of a failure or success.
[edited by: 2by4 at 11:19 pm (utc) on Oct. 26, 2005]
Good night and good luck.
The point I was trying to make was whether the links in to your "affected" sites all go to the index page, and links in to "unaffected" sites are spread around to other pages within the site and these are being given a heavier weight by Mr and Mrs Google (and all the little googliers )
Traffic today has not only increased but sales are up. Maybe it's luck but I can only hope that the quality of traffic is improving. PPC traffic is better than none at all but I've always preferred organic traffic when it comes to conversion.
Is this just for these sites or across the board right now?
If you do a spam report, please include your nick (texasville); I'd be curious to see which site you're talking about.
edd1, we definitely are paying a lot of attention to the Jagger spam reports.
And the main thing I can see that differentiates them from the others is a higher proportion of perciptible reciprocal links - approaching half of non-reciprocals in both cases.
Anyone else?
==Sample==
Select and Go
This page has moved. Please go to:. [11.111.111.1...]
home.sample.de/sample/dir/ - 1k - Cached - Similar pages
==End==
Hollywood
This case is different, as googleguy has said, google wants feedback because they need eyeballs, they are actively testing a new way to do this stuff, this isn't your generic spam report, at least it doesn't look like it from where I sit, they want to determine as quickly as possible what other methods might be succeeding right now, with these updates in place. But again, it doesn't mean that they will drop the site, it means they want to build up enough examples to be able to automate the detection process, that's my guess anyway.
If I were you I'd rereport the spam stuff you're seeing, I think it might be worth it, if it's actually real spam.
<added>oh, you saw googleguy's post, nevermind</added>
I'm not even sure I understand my post, I hope you do. ;)
"it means they want to build up enough examples to be able to automate the detection process, that's my guess anyway."
Yea but this is really simple stuff. I can't understand why the simplest algo doesn't pick it up.
Hidden text? Using a 1x1 trans gif to point hidden links at?
But the one that really chaps me is one that google let back in without cleaning up. Google indexes 111 pages and they have about 9. All the rest are just js redirects to the index page. plus several bogus site maps. a two word query brings them #1.
I really wondered why Matt didn't use his home page for his blog - it seemed strange when I first saw it but maybe there is a good reason for this?
Looks like Google just wiped out everything when doing the SERP calcs because it detected something fishy (all fixed now). Robots can't tell intent as someone said.
[edited by: walkman at 1:01 am (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
I seriously doubt he's worried about the PR of his blog.
I'm in the same boat, Walkman. There are a few sites in my market I could report. But I can't help but feel petty in doing it. None of them are wearing midnight black hats, but their tactic are outside Google guidelines.
You guys are arguing good points, but they are fruitless until old hag Jagger is over (DNS, get it?).
Some day I hope you or the guidelines will clarify to a greater degree what types of NON deceptive practices Google still considers spam, and also why severe downranking is not considered a penalty by support.
In a recent thread somebody was complaining that the "top listing is spam" when in fact it was an excellent user review site.
One person's spam is another's caviar. It's not an objective measure so the guidelines should elaborate more about good vs poor content. I think this would push people here to create better sites more than thwart the process.
I doubt they ever will, and I don't blame thems since no two sites are equal. For better sites they will allow more, for bad sites, you just gave them an excuse to nuke you. I'm pretty confident that counters with
2 0 2 0 5 4 5
keyword here
cloaking, hiding text, and hiding links are black hat.
[edited by: walkman at 2:59 am (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
