Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
...we used our standard evaluation system that we've developed, where we basically sent out documents to outside testers. Then we asked the raters questions like: "Would you be comfortable giving this site your credit card? Would you be comfortable giving medicine prescribed by this site to your kids?"
There was an engineer who came up with a rigorous set of questions, everything from. "Do you consider this site to be authoritative? Would it be okay if this was in a magazine? Does this site have excessive ads?"
...we actually came up with a classifier to say, okay, IRS or Wikipedia or New York Times is over on this side, and the low-quality sites are over on this side. And you can really see mathematical reasons.
Sounds like they are looking at the word count to ad ratio.
In My Opinion: If you're looking for 'the one thing' that's the cause of the drop, it's the web page ... Don't worry too much about the source code, look at the page in the browser window ... The answer is right in front of you...
I wish I could see it.
and also had 100 commenters offering theirs
They have a cleaner aesthetic than site 3 or mine
My page has flaws; it could be made more useful;
The two domains and site 3 that overtook me have a more classy aesthetic, fewer ads, more white space.
[edited by: TheMadScientist at 6:06 am (utc) on Mar 4, 2011]
It doesn't matter if you like Yelp or not, that's not the point.
[edited by: TheMadScientist at 6:52 am (utc) on Mar 4, 2011]
The thing is, as far as know, google isn't doing anything illegal. If yelp doesn't like it, then the brain trust at yelp should build a better search engine than google.
It has brought alot of money to small time publishers so although you can disagree with what they are doing, do remember the fact Google has done webmasters many favors.
The part that roasts my rump is Google itself is aggressive with ads.
By the nature and intent of this update, shouldn't they just go offline?
[edited by: Richie0x at 2:15 pm (utc) on Mar 4, 2011]