Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
This does seem true. To be perfectly honest, standing back and looking at the quality of each result without bias still seems the DC showing the older sites has more relevant content for our niche. Obviously this may not be true for all.
[edited by: TammyJo at 4:44 pm (utc) on Nov. 6, 2005]
66.102.7.104 looks more accurate.
we are ranked the same on both.
Why is all this "canonical" and "supplemental" debate completely irrelevant to MSN and Yahoo, who seem to have intelligent products?
Could it be that Google is just no good any more?
Could it be that Google is just no good any more?Like Microsoft, G are the 500 lb gorilla of search. They account for 2/3 of all referrals to our sites...
So, good or not (MS not!), you have to pay attention.
For those of us that have had canonicals fixed, can we still expect (or hope) to see some rankings fixed as well?
--Tony
Google stop playing around with the YoYo -DC's!
And get back to business!
66.102.7.104 looks more accurate.
we are ranked the same on both.
...but how does your competition do on the other ;)
I have been tracking a particular 3 word search term and closely monitoring results for top 15 positions since last july. I have been monitoring the PR of each page, the keyword density of all 3 words and backlinks (according to Google), checking the code on each site looking for hidden text (i.e., spam) and essentially looking for a pattern to the results.
The same high ranking sites have consistently been in existence these last 4 months with very little change except for ever flux (sites moving down a few positions one week and back up the next). Keyword Denity has not changed. The same two sites have consistently ranked #1 and #2 (their PR/Backlinks/KW density are drastically different). I have seen no evidence of serious spam in this search result.
With Jagger 3, on 66.102.9.104 the main players are still there and top 5 are still on top but now I'm seeing several new sites interspersed in the rest of the results with previously high ranking sites being pushed down a few notches because ot it.
I checked the date of creation on the domain of each one with Jagger3 and they do not follow a pattern inspite of a rumor that old sites have gained prominence.
The only major change I see with Jagger3 is that several new sites were added to the top listing. I haven't checked the other data on the new sites yet. Maybe that will show why they suddenly rose in the results.
later....
These results, 66.102.7.104, are currently showing as my default google.
<edit- oops, after a little more searching, I do see some minor differences under certain keywords>
This looks (for us) almost identical to the pre-Jagger1 listings.
Are you sure that there are significant differences?
We have four different websites which end up in almost identical positions in 66.102.7.104 as before...
shows that anyone can get caught. I doubt yankeecandle bought links
>> This looks (for us) almost identical to the pre-Jagger1 listings.
Not pre jagger1, but very similar to pre-september 22 listings, which is a VERY good thing!
Google obviously has very smart engineers who have created a staggeringly complex system and maybe they have more tricks up their sleeves to straighten this mess out, but if this is it, I think they are in trouble and here's why:
As an Adwords advertiser we could care less how many eyeballs see our pages - we only care about paying customers. Someone from Yahoo said (I'm paraphrasing), "If your looking for information on 18th century Spanish art, then Google's your engine. But if your looking for furniture for your deck, then come to Yahoo."
With this update Google seems to be trying to provide a little something for everyone on searches that are not extremely specific. The effect is that the serps are a hodge-podge. I'm assuming that they figure that if you want to sell something, you'll just buy Adwords.
But people don't search that way. If paying customers don't find good choices in the organics, they will eventually find a search engine that does, say Yahoo for example. That leaves the "empty pockets" searchers on Google, which makes Google a lot less valuable to me as an advertiser.
We are seeing evidence that this has already begun with this update. Our Overture traffic has been climbing dramatically in relation to the Adwords traffic in the last few weeks.
Google may feel they are providing better results overall, but as one of the many who butters Google's bread, we certainly don't think so and I would guess that we are not alone.
My son made a great suggestion - he said that Google ought to have two radio buttons on their interface - one for commercial and one for information. I'm afraid if they leave things the way they are, they will find that when you try to be all things to all people, you end up being nothing to everyone.
when you try to be all things to all people, you end up being nothing to everyoneYes. And more to the point, if G mess up the listings, they will KILL their own revenues as well!
Once things settle down, if revenues fall, expect a sudden return to the old system!
66.102.7.104 = Research/Information
66.102.9.104 = Shopping/eCommerce
66.102.11.104 = Neutral/Median
Y! is already got something like that in beta called Mindset...
[edited by: Yippee at 7:02 pm (utc) on Nov. 6, 2005]
Type "virtual travel" into Google.com -
I get three sets of listings.
If I type "overseas travel", I only get one set.
What's this about?!
Personally I would be more likely to abandon a search engine where everything I search for is a blatant sales pitch. I know how to use froogle and the hundreds of other sites out there to buy stuff. if I am doing a normal search engine result, I am looking for information first. Perhaps I am the exception, but I doubt it.
Perhaps you are willing to sacrifice all the people who might buy tomorrow for the fraction who wants to buy today, but I suspect many advertisers are not.
My son made a great suggestion - he said that Google ought to have two radio buttons on their interface - one for commercial and one for information.
That was a good idea a few years ago, but with the explosion of machine-generated "made-for-AdSense" sites, the differences between information sites and e-commerce or affiliate sites have become less clearcut. Many of today's so-called "information sites" are basically ad platforms with trace amounts of content (or blank spaces for user-submitted content) tucked in between the ads.
If Google ever were to go the radio-button route, one way to handle it would be to simply weight the SERPs slightly toward "information" or "commerce" instead of creating a wall between the two. This would be less radical (and far easier to implement) than an either-or approach.
66.102.7.104 = Research/Information
66.102.9.104 = Shopping/eCommerce
66.102.11.104 = Neutral/Median
Yep...right on the money!
The neutral and the research are slightly different, but the shopping/eCommerce is vastly different than the other two for our sector.
IMO i really doubt that will happen. This is an update unlike any before, there is more going on than we have figured out yet, to unstable at the moment to make any concrete conclusions.
At the end of it all I will study and alter my sites as necessary, as will others (except those who sit top - who can count their cash til I work out what they done to get there and improve on it - lol)
Perhaps it is showing something else? Our sites do not do well at all int the 11.
< Once things settle down, if revenues fall, expect a sudden return to the old system! >I disagree. Just like companies everywhere, if the Gnurds mess up, the Admin will come down like a ton of bricks.
IMO i really doubt that will happen.
Don't mess with the Golden Goose.
If revenues increase, there'll be Google celebrations all around.
If it goes the other way, regardless of "how accurate" any new system is, Heads Will Roll.
Google belongs to its shareholders, and they want Profits, not excuses.
