Update Dominic - Part 3

[Napoleon]

Continued from part 2: [webmasterworld.com...]

---

I'm back... just browsing, but feel I should re-cap what many people are missing (because it is buried well back in the thread now).

There are two phenomena

a) Algo/filter changes. These are being played out on SJ, and of course: if you are testing a change you use older tried and tested data, which is what Google has done (with a dash of Fresh). Hence all the missing links, strangely dropping sites, etc.

b) The update, with the application of the latest data and links.

It was spelled out earlier that the results on SJ will change when newer data, and this months crawl data, is brought in. However, the SJ effect may replicate at other centers before that data upgrade is applied.

I think that's an accurate reflection of reality, and the message is therefore don't panic. For those who have suffered on SJ, it might get worse before it gets better, but wait until the new data is in there before you throw a wobbler.

[GoogleGuy]

KevinC, it's definitely something that we weighed carefully before making the choice. I do think SEOs are more apt to notice things like a slightly different dump of DMOZ much more than users (or at least some SEOs--not even all SEOs may notice the difference), whereas users are much much more likely to value fresher results for queries. I think we're making the right choice, but as you mention we'll be bringing newer data into play for the next iteration.

[rfgdxm1]

>Sounded like you were speculating on a single secret ingredient and an algo change. I'm just guessing based on what I know, but if you want to put the guess in a spam report with your nick, I'd be curious what you think. (I was posting about the secret ingredient)

I'll send one in. Although, I can't imagine if I was was right you would tell me, and would deny it, as that would reveal an ingredient in the secret sauce to someone outside of Google. ;) Look for a spam report on www.google.com from me. THAT should stand out.

[Critter]

Argh..."next iteration"

Great...I'm gonna be completely outta the SERPs for a month.

Bleah.

Peter

[aek]

If I'm reading this correctly then google is going to put this index out on www then slowly add more data to factor in additional information.

If this is the case then that seems odd as some results I have seen so far are full of pages that haven't been properly crawled yet so all you see is the URL and no snippets.

[JudgeJeffries]

Isnt the iteration the very last part of the dance where all the new PR values are calculated, so the final additions should take place a few days from when it starts ie not so long from now and not one month away.

[mfishy]

Actually GG said a week or two but did not want to put a date to it. Translation sj=new index

[steveb]

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

Not on this planet. Guestbook links are one of the keys to ranking well on -sj, as are free for all link exchanges.

Google should be embarrased at the -sj index.

The other search engines are smiling today. Google fumbles badly.

[pixel_juice]

Can I please get clarifcation of a couple of points? I'm wading through the other threads (which I posted in ;)) but I'm finding it very hard to get clear info:

www-sj shows the new algo as applied to old data.

If I see changes in the sj results, then the only difference when this comes to the main index will be with new sites/new links/new pr?

Thanks if someone can just spell this out for me :)

[Krapulator]

GG, I understand if you can't discuss it, but I have to ask. Why the backlinks are so different in this incarnation. I have spent twelve months working on quality incoming links, I had 650 or so, and now this new index I have lost every single backlink. Will I get them back?

[mfishy]

steveb,

Could not agree more. Seems like it's a snapshot from a long time ago where FFA and anything else pretty much goes.

Isn't it funny how just yesterday many thought that sj was some sort of algo without the spam filter and now we find out this is Google's new proud creation! :)

[steveb]

Google Guy: "But I agree that it would help either way if everyone relaxed. :)"

Actually no. What needs to be expressed here is that Google is putting out extremely poor results across the entire scope of the Internet. Google needs to go back to the drawingboard because valuing spam is not good. Valuing poor content is not good. Delivering unhelpful results to users is not good.

These results were not ready for prime time, or any time.

[GoogleGuy]

I disagree steveb, but the beauty of this community is that everybody posts their viewpoints. But SJ is not an old index. The pages from SJ are fresher overall.

[KevinC]

I know you guys are google are no spring chickens and I'm sure a lot of man power went into this plan.

But we can't all be wrong can we?

Of course we are all biased because we hang out here - but that just means we are the first to notice poor results.

The general public won't say "jeez is google playing with a new algo? these results suck"

They will simply just leave and go to MSN - besides they can check there hotmail account while there at it.

[Critter]

I hate to disagree with you disagreeing GG :)

But I currently have 1800 odd pages in www.

I got crawled in April (10,000 pages).

I have 0 (zero) pages in -sj.

Exactly what is your definition of 'fresher'. It sounds like spin from your superior.

Peter

[edited by: Critter at 12:00 am (utc) on May 6, 2003]

[JudgeJeffries]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but they appear, to lots of others here, to be spam ridden and if so, whats the point of transfering them even for a short period of time to burden the consumer with spam rather than applying the filters prior to them going on general release?

[PatrickDeese]

Googleguy -

I sent you 3 spam reports a little while ago, with SJ results 2 for using hidden text (well, one has put silver text (#cccccc) on a white background), and the other you may recognize from a previous spam report that you and I discussed in the google spam thread from a few weeks ago.

thanks -

patrick deese

[bucaro]

GoogleGuy: Should we report sites with backlinks mostly from guestbooks as SPAM? I see a lot of those on SJ

[Bio4ce]

Exactly what is your definition of 'fresher'

Right out of the can.

[Critter]

In America we call the toilet "the can"

:)

Peter

[needinfo]

I'm assuming that the sj results will not look like they do on the sj server when Google run with this index because filters, backlinks, new pr etc will be factored in.

[Bio4ce]

call the toilet "the can"

lmao. I guess in a way, we are both right.

[Pyewacket]

I know the -sj results are still simmering but here are my thoughts so far:

As a Google user: I have been researching product reviews in preparation for a large hardware purchase. I FINALLY found the info that I have been looking for in the -sj index without having to wade through a bunch of crappola. Thanks Google! Isn't that what it's all about? Providing relevant results to the searchers?

As a webmaster: (annoying newbie warning goes here) I know the update isn't a done deal yet but so far I'm thrilled. I lost some but I gained a whole lot more. Looks fair to me.

Quick question: What is a "spam snapshot"?

[pixel_juice]

Just to add my (conflicting) opinion to many of these posts, I see no problem with the results on www-sj. I tried comparing searches for a wide variety of different topics with the results from the other data centres and I didn't come across the mountain of spam I might have expected from reading some of the other posts.

Just my opinion :) - with regards my own sites I have some that do better, some that do worse...

[steveb]

"The pages from SJ are fresher overall.'

Actually "ripe" might be better.

Apparently in an effort to be fresh Google decides to forgoe quality.

Quality is determined a lot of ways, but this junk is falling into the same trap that FAST is moving away from: WORDS ON A PAGE DO NOT MEAN QUALITY CONTENT.

Keyword stuffed garbage are not good results.

The real question though is: did Google buy linksmanager? Everyone should be running out now and signing up for trash link exchanges because combine that with keyword stuff and you crack -sj.

GoogleGuy, just curious, aside from fresher results, can you name (even to yourself) how these results are in *any* way superior to the previous ones?

(For the record, I do just fine myself on -sj.)

[crobb305]

I see a huge drop in backlinks across the board. Backlinks are not only important in terms of PR, but also with respect to anchor text. My backlinks fell from 582 to 84! Even Yahoo's were cut in half. This has serious consequences on the search results. If the -sj index becomes the new www index for a while, how long until most, if not all, of the remaining backlinks are accounted for?

Thanks

[allanp73]

I noticed a real drop in all my sites rankings. The funny thing is I noticed a similar drop from my top competitors. Both my competitors and I have excellent resources with lots of content and useful information, which avoided spam in every way. Now when I do a search the 20-30 results have little or nothing to do with the topic. I noticed this time and time again on the sj server over a wide range of results.
I am hoping that sj results are a late April fool's joke because many of my sites which were top 10 for months don't even appear in the top 100.
This new algo is death to these sites which receive 70% of their traffic from Google.
I realize that Google has the right to change it's algo but I wish there was some logic behind it.

[NovaW]

In the -sj dc - if you have "keyword" in big letters as a header tag, the page filled with keyword, keyword, keyword then you're going to be happy.

No matter if your PR is 1 - it beats PR8 now if you page isn't bloated with on page factors. Funny - those 1 page junk sites seem to do well in -sj

[rfgdxm1]

>Not on this planet. Guestbook links are one of the keys to ranking well on -sj, as are free for all link exchanges.

If so, report them so Google can tweak this in the future.

[GoogleGuy]

Whew. This thread cools off and heats up, sometimes it's hard to keep up with it. :) PatrickDeese--thanks! bucaro, I'd definitely drop a report to us, and we'll make sure that we check it out. Pyewacket and pixel_juice, glad that it looks good from your perspective. steveb, sorry that it doesn't from yours. From my perspective, I like what I see. It also helps that I know what direction things are going though. crobb305, you put your finger on a good point. Reported backlinks matter less than how they're counted, and it's okay if the number of reported backlinks is lower as long as other sites' backlinks are reported as lower as well.

[IITian]

Saw lots of yahoo groups messages near top. Time to start posting messages on groups.