Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Guys, have you noticed or already discussed this way of how google do the search?
Assuming you searched for "word1+word2+word3" (without quotes), usually, we thought that all of the pages that appear in the SERP should contain all of the keywords. However, there are pages in the result which contain only "word1" and "word2" but "word3" is not there, instead, it is on one of the pages that that particular page in the SERP is linking to.
[edited by: tedster at 5:50 pm (utc) on Mar. 2, 2009]
We were thinking this has to do with some geo location and data center down time maintenance though because we can almost time it to the T and tell you what day we rank where.
Not like the yo yo we saw a while back where it was unpredictable.
One of my sites is back after being penalised for 15 months. (reincusion requests didn't help)
Also other sites in the same cluster seem to be back.
I am a very happy camper!
Anyone else got the same experience?
is it just me, or did G. release more sites?
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 11:01 pm (utc) on Mar. 7, 2009]
The fact that you popped up for even a short bit is most likely a good sign. Remembr how changeable Google is these days and keep the anxiety level down. There's something new going on with rankings daily or even more frequently.
Glad my site's still live and kicking. But then again, I was certain I was in a penalty situation, whereas you might well be caught in an algorithmic trap. Do you rank for your own domain name minus the tld?
Here is something that has blown up today. Millions of 301 redirect spam pages working its way into Google.
Look at the results with a .us
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 3:24 am (utc) on Mar. 14, 2009]
[edit reason] removed specifics [/edit]
If you uncover spam that you want Google to know about, report it directly to them through one of the mechanisms listed in our Google Forum Charter [webmasterworld.com].
Don't expect spam you report to vanish right away. Google may decide that they'll improve their algorithms more by watching it for a while. This is particularly so because today's spam tends to go after the really long tail query. It's a rare occurence today when a short search term of any real consequence shows a spam result on the first page.
by RC Robinson - 1992 - Cited by 3 - Related articles - All 2 versions
Cited by 12 - Related articles - Web Search - All 6 versions
Is this new? Maybe it's time to flood a patent office so we can gain authority! :>
[edited by: tedster at 7:23 am (utc) on Mar. 16, 2009]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]
quite literally every KW the site is about, apart from the name of the project can now be found between 109 - 195.
all pages still indexed, no errors showing in WMT.
strangest thing I ever saw.
Remember, upstream effects may be two or more 'hops' away (i.e. not the behaviour of the site you're monitoring, but maybe a high-PR backlink).
Tedster, I haven't noticed it either but the scholar search is heavily related to books, best write a book and cite it yourself to get much use from it.
Gotta love the line "Stand on the shoulders of giants" on scholar search too, we're all trying to use Google like that but she keeps smacking us down 100 pages!
Even if you fix all the right things, some penalties are only removed on a certain date
New sites face such a filter in my opinion but I think it's simply a warning flag. A system that flags any new site managing to get page one results before enough time has elapsed. Sites that have been flagged get reviewed and with this particular flag you had better have some amazing quality to stick so early on.
Buying old domains doesn't work well either, in some cases a change of owners causes the same reset. I wonder how many flag types Google has to monitor with humans... we'll never know.
Both these threads highlight recent anomalies in search results. #1 mentions a url that shows "No Results" when entered directly into the search box, but it still shows up as an info: result. #2 there's some odd fluctuations in numbers of urls being returned by the site: operator. In my research the past few days I've seen similar inconsistencies.
My guess is that these anomalies are the sign of some back-end changes at Google. Not sure what yet, but I'm leaning toward some kind of database partitioning such as the supplemental index of the old days.