Update Dominic - Part 4

[Luke_SR]

Continued from: [webmasterworld.com...]

---

www2.google.com and www3.google.com have the new -sj results.

Update is on :)

[rfgdxm1]

>The real update is probably another 10-15 days away.

GG already confirmed that this IS the update. However, he implied that this was just the beginning of the dance, and that things would change before it was over. The update isn't like flipping a switch, and that's that. It is a process, and one which has begun, but likely not ended.

[gilli]

Or, will things just be subtracted? As in, spam filters whacking spam that has crept in, but leaving what sites that aren't spam which are listed there?

Speculation, but yes thats what I think - see my previous post.

[GoogleGuy]

Happy to try to help, Liane, although I suspect I'm going to sign off to bed pretty soon. Seeing the reactions to changes last September gives me a little more experience and a little thicker skin. :) I'll be around off and on over the next few days..

[Shoplifter]

Great update so far. A lot of the spammy internal link sites are gone...And it looks like the notorious .biz porn spammer is goine too.

[PFOnline]

I'm not usually one to complain, but like others, my site has lost over 100 backlinks, and went from the 2nd page to the 13th page for my sites main keyword.

And the results, from here, don't seem to be more quality, (I see an affiliate link on the 2nd page?)

Maybe it had something to do with changing our main index page from index.html to index.shtml?

I also see a site with only 6 backlinks now on the 1st page.

I just don't understand is all...

[Beachboy]

I'm not complaining. Most of my sites are about where they were, and one has jumped way high. Nice. :-)

[Zapatista]

Googleguy, If you remember, you owe me one when I didn't get my coffee mug for an idea I gave awhile back. I may be in contact with you through google email soon to find out if one of my sites is being singled out. My mind is completely at a loss for why it fell so far.

Thanks,

Zapatista

[GoogleGuy]

You bet, Zapatista. I'd be extremely surprised though, if that makes you feel any better.

[crobb305]

Googleguy...Sent you a spam report. It may be frivilous, but just something I thought was interesting (and spammy). I emailed to [e-mail] and put "to Googleguy" in the subject line. Will that get to you?

[mil2k]

All hell break lose in the last 14 Hrs. Luckily i was away. After reading those zillion posts i feel we are going to have two updates. Whether those updates will quickly follow each other i don't know or it could also be that we have in front of us the longest update. Won't comment anything more now will like to see the final results. But before those final results come i think i will have to be much more patient.

[vitaplease]

Googleguy,

will this be the start of quicker updates? with on-the-fly additions?
(although if the extra data/filters will be coming in over the next days, is it quicker?)

and thanks for on-the-fly back-up here.

[jojojo]

I wonder how long before we see something 'added' etc

[GoogleGuy]

vitaplease, I think some people way back in the Pleistocene SJ threads (you know, the ones several hundred posts back) mentioned that they're seeing pages newer than the regular crawl.

And yes, I did just use Google to find out how to spell "Pleistocene." :) I'm going to head to bed soon, but I'll check back in when I can.

[shaadi]

mil2k,

i am going to slash my wrist for the 1st update and in case i don't die - during 2nd i will hang myself..

:(

[Krapulator]

Would that be called Googlecide? :D

[whatson]

All the sites I have seen on www2.google.com have a lot fewer links, what has Google done? I have seen sites that have 1/10th the backward links, but most have about 1/3rd.
Do you think Google removed backward links that were reciprocal links or something?

[vnsampat]

One of my site has gone down to 0 backlinks, but another sites having virtually the same backlinks is showing all of them.

God knows what google is upto, or probably Google Guy does ;)

[GoogleGuy]

Don't be alarmed if the number of reported backlinks goes down. That's actually to be expected in the update. Most of it affects all sites uniformly, so it comes out in the wash as being equal. The better way to measure it is how your rankings/traffic change.

[crobb305]

Just seems that if those backlinks that were not counted contained some important anchor text, then the serps are adversely affected regardless of whether the actual fraction of diminished backlinks is the same across the board for all sites. That said, I am seeing some sites who didn't lose as many backlinks as others...so it may not be an even loss.

[Powdork]

I keep saying this.
Here is the backlink check from one of my pages

On www currently
Results 1 - 10 of about 70. Search took 0.16 seconds.

On -sj, www2, etc
Results 1 - 10 of about 34. Search took 0.18 seconds

While it looks bad, in actuality there are only two backlinks missing. Google has always said there twice as many backlinks as you could actually find when you go through the listings. The new index(es) are reporting the amount that Google actually shows.

[crobb305]

Powdork,

Backlinks for one of my sites fell from 582 to 84, and from 480 to 96 for another. Everyone is talking about this sort of decrease (greater than half). I see GG's point about the contribution of backlinks to PR (if everyone lost the same fraction, etc then it all comes out in the wash). But my concern is the fraction of backlinks not counted that contained important anchor text.

[rfgdxm1]

>Speculation, but yes thats what I think - see my previous post.

I remember from updates last year it often seemed that PR didn't get fully factored in until the end. I remember a case where I was #1 for my most important SERP at the beginning of the dance. At the very end, I dropped to #3. The most reasonable explanation that I had for this was because the #3 site trumped me with better PR. PR not being fully factored into this update might tend to explain a lot of what I see.

[NovaW]

Regardless of my absolute horror at -sj and the new movement of -sj over to the main index. I would like to say a big thanks to googleguy for his posting here today. I don't post here a lot but I read WebmasterWorld everyday. It is a huge positive about google that GG is willing to be a human face of google to worried site owners. Not everybody here is an SEO guy. There's a lot of people here who are just plain build good honest sites people

I got stressed out last sept - but it seemed to work out in the end - I am just holding that thought in mind.

So, frustration & skinking feelings aside - thanks GG for taking the time to communicate.

[Alphawolf]

Why are people freaking out over 'lost' backlinks?

GG stated that they were going to add them in.

Seems many who are posting have not read GoogleGuys posts in these threads.

Basically, the meal is still being cooked. Ingrediants may be added or removed before the final meal is served.

Many are looking at something that is not final and for some reason no matter what Googleguy states feel the SJ results will be the final index.

Maybe it'll even make it to all the data centers before G finishes cooking it.

But changes will be made- backlinks added, filters tweakes, added, or removed...

'least...this is what I got from reading nearly all the posts.

added: Only thing I don't get is why G made this public to get responses to something that isn't a finished product. If it was to test some spam filters or whatever, GoogleGuy coulda told us and we could have given better feedback specific to what the wanted. <shrug>

AW

[edited by: Alphawolf at 5:47 am (utc) on May 6, 2003]

[crobb305]

I have to say thanks to Googleguy also. Incidentally, I am assuming everyone at Google knows he posts here since our spam reports are sent to him with reference to our Nicks and Webmasterworld. Google must not mind the help that he provides, and perhaps they encourage it. Seems to say a lot about Google and their desire to work with webmasters as much as they can because they know that they can get good feedback from forums like this, and the honest/ethical webmasters that post here.

[edited by: crobb305 at 5:47 am (utc) on May 6, 2003]

[rfgdxm1]

>Just seems that if those backlinks that were not counted contained some important anchor text, then the serps are adversely affected regardless of whether the actual fraction of diminished backlinks is the same across the board for all sites.

Google has *never* shown all backlinks like Alltheweb did. Thus, there is no reason to assume just because they don't show that they weren't counted.

[crobb305]

Googleguy has already said that more backlinks will be added in the next phase, implying that not all backlinks were counted. I am sure they will be soon enough, though.

[1milehgh80210]

All I know, is I would bet on two things-

.Google results will return to previously high levels or higher.
.Algo will change in a major way. <webmasters will need shift drastically>

if the above is'nt true, WHY bother?

[Cyberaver]

www2 and www3 are dancing.... As I have checked they are showing the same results than www-sj. Yahoo have lost 300k link www2 and www3.

Also I lost 900 of my 950 links....

[mil2k]

Yes We know. If you are interested see all the "UPDATE DOMINIC" Threads. They are full of info of update related posts.
By the Way Welcome to Webmaster World!