Update Dominic - Part 2 - (deprecated) Google News Archive forum at WebmasterWorld

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Update Dominic - Part 2

teeceo

11:22 pm on May 2, 2003 (gmt 0)

Continued from Part 1: [webmasterworld.com...]

Thanks to google for letting us peek into there database( they could very easy close that door to us)and a thanks to googleguy for "DONATING" his time to answer question(that he don't have to) and for keeping thing here (somewhat) calm. Also, thanks to all that work so hard to keep this forum going strong(I for one don't know how I would get along without it:). I could go on and on but, thats all I will say. Later.

teeceo.

soapystar

5:41 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

#2 on fast...#80 on google-sj from #5...(but internal crap page is #20)..LONG LIVE FAST....

THE KING IS DEAD..LONG LIVE THE KING!

Critter

5:42 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm sure that GG can only say so much at this point...and he's definately NOT going to be in this forum trashing Google's index--even if it was crap--because he, like every employee, is going to have a boss breathing down his neck to put the spin on.

It's infuriating, to say the least.

trillianjedi

5:43 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Anyone know if the SJ server has calculated new backlinks?

fathom

5:44 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Canary GG's msg #178 was for you as well.

skipfactor

5:45 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>I am totally confident I will come back because I have great links and no spam.

Well said. I'm showing 1 backlink and it's not even Yahoo or DMOZ but I'm remaining calm. I have total faith. :)

Critter

5:46 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm not so concerned with PR...

I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU CRAWLED 10,000 OF MY FRICKIN' PAGES AND NOT ONE IS IN YOUR FRICKEN' INDEX. (Said like Dr. Evil).

Peter

chrisnrae

5:46 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

No comment on my question googleguy? Am not whining about losing my spot... am seriously trying to understand how I dropped so far on two, but went up on the third. The ONLY thing that happened last month was that a competitor stole my site, word for word, and published it on his domain with his logo and services. He immediately took it down upon a C&D, but google DID index the site. BUT, that still doesn't explain how I moved up for the most comeptitive string.

GoogleGuy

5:46 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Canary, your post regarding the site map would make sense to me.

adsoft13

5:47 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

-sj updaote seems to be OK, ONLY if it uses some kind of old link structure ...

As I said - I see really junk web sites on the top, and I see several very good web sites, very old, well established ... - went from #2 to #500. It is not mine web site, but I think this is not very good idea to move them to #500 and to move junk web sites from #500 to #1 ;)

Canary

5:47 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Fathom

My question is more to do with missing pages.

The site I am talking about has an 2*ODP listings (No guestbook listing at all - work would kill me if I tried that plan) and has gone through a redesign but most of the pages post re-design have gone missing :(

renee

5:47 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy,

I love the SJ serps! You folks did a good job with the new algo. Keep up the good work.

GoogleGuy

5:47 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

chrisnrae, without knowing the terms involved, it would be pretty hard to speculate. Sorry to hear that someone stole the text from your site, but I'm glad that you got them to stop it.

Canary

5:48 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

GG,

Thanks - you posted while I was typing my last post :)

OK - Soon I will have to sit down and look at this new algo :)

Dolemite

5:48 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

You can't polish a turd...and I'd even take a shiny turd over the SJ index.

It makes me glad that I'm getting nearly as much traffic from Ink/MSN. If they didn't camouflage PPC as actual results I'd even start recommending it to people over google.

panos

5:48 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

there is no hidden text filter on sj:

i just searched for "kwd"

and i found a site ranking #4 with hidden text:


<BODY bgColor=#000000 topMargin=0>
<H1>kwd1 kw2</H1>
<H2>kw3 kw4</H2>
<span class=keyword>
<div align=center><A href="http://www.kwd1-kw2.cc/">kw1</A> kw1 kw1 Kw1 KW1 KW2 kw2 Kw2 kw3 Kw3 Kw4 Kw4</div></span>

so what is the algo filtering?

no spam sites?

GoogleGuy

5:49 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just to follow up, Canary, sound like you've done the right thing by building a site map, and I would expect that to work in your favor over time as we gradually bring in more backlinks.

Yidaki

5:49 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Much more likely that those guestbook links just aren't given weight now, rfgdxm1.

Sorry, but they are. I just dropped a report about a network of sites that live from guesbook links and hidden stuff only. I see a improvement specially for these sites. Not saying the whole sj index is messed, i just checked my field and what some other unrelated fields.

May be it's a good idea for all of us who use google to drop a report if we see something strange. Not only to report what we call spam but what we think isn't "normal at google".

chrisnrae

5:50 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

well, I can't post them here... but:

discount blue widgets
blue widgets online
blue widgets

would be the three equivalents... take out blue widget and insert the real keyphrase. Dropped on the first two from top spots to not in the top 500, yet, on blue widgets, I remain first page and even bumped up a spot. Very confusing and doesn't make much sense. Sigh.

rfgdxm1

5:50 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Much more likely that those guestbook links just aren't given weight now, rfgdxm1.

This is what I would hope. I've yet to have someone show me an example of a site that appears to be penalized just on account of guestbook links. Of examples of the ones I have seen, the site just dropped way down because they had few worthwhile non-guestbook links.

GoogleGuy

5:50 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

panos, we're starting slowly on hidden text by taking sites that have been mentioned in a spam report. Do you know if anyone has reported the site in question yet? If not, feel free to drop us a quick line with your nickname..

webdev

5:51 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

well, I can't post them here... but:
discount blue widgets
blue widgets online
blue widgets

Simple you haven't spammed enough :)

[edited by: webdev at 5:52 pm (utc) on May 5, 2003]

olias

5:52 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Much more likely that those guestbook links just aren't given weight now

The funny thing is that I am seeing very few differences in sj- on my normal keywords - except for one site that has just leapt to the top of my main serp from nowhere (never seen them before anyway) with 300 guestbook links and nothing more reputable. I've actually been contemplating some signing. ;)

Canary

5:52 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

GG - Thanks again :)

BTW - Not just a GG question here - is it a bank holiday in the states like the UK?

Just wondering how many people care about their website even when they are not at work :)

mfishy

5:53 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

I guess what's confusing is Google Guy is saying "add pending backlinks over time" when we are used to the backlinks being updated monthly (during the update).

Also, GG says that new backlinks are to be added but is already answering questions about why backlinks are not showing?

GoogleGuy

5:53 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Same viewpoint here, rfgdxm1. Okay, juggling the conversations, let me get back to webdev. Webdev, I read the other thread about your site. Sounds like your site is relatively new (~3 months) and so far didn't have many incoming links. That could explain things for your site, and I would say that with some time, those incoming links should be brought back in to get your site.

chrisnrae

5:54 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Canary... this my full time living, so I am at work. :)

[edited by: chrisnrae at 5:55 pm (utc) on May 5, 2003]

Napoleon

5:55 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

This seems to be getting a little hectic. However, it really is a little too early to panic.

The facts:

a) The SJ index is certainly weaker than what we have at present. I tried various terms, and with some, industry leading sites were sunk. I'm not talking about my sites.

b) HOWEVER... it has been pointed out that not everything is factored in to that index. There is more to come, so maybe the extra will restore the quality sites, and repair the damage. I would assume that will happen, BUT, it's all speculation until we actually see the final version.

The problem here has been stoked up by the appearence of SJ on mainline searches. I don't think that was a great idea by Google. If the index is incomplete (surely it must be) then flaunting it in public is bound to cause a fuss.

I must admit though, I can't understand that one.

I think we are very much into 'wait and see'... and I know... it's hard to do.

worker

5:55 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Everyone take a breath. Stop worrying and just double down on cleaning up your sites, and building new content worthy of links.

Build it and they will come!

Make a good site and play by the rules. It IS in Google's interest to build processes to remove spammy sites from their index.

I'm pretty confident that good links from good sites will be counted by Google, even if they aren't showing up for everyone right now.

Give it a little time. Good sites with good links will rise to the top.

= )

d_fused

5:55 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Too many :) Count me in :)

Guys, Relax! everything happens for a reason, an at the end of the day everything is going to be just fine. If we all have done the right thing, we should not worry, should we?

Relax!

d_fused

5:55 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Too many :) Count me in :)

Guys, Relax! everything happens for a reason, an at the end of the day everything is going to be just fine. If we all have done the right thing, we should not worry, should we?

Relax!

This 349 message thread spans 12 pages: 349