Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

-fi on Yahoo!

         

textex

1:06 pm on May 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I am seeing -fi results on Yahoo! for one of my search results. And yes, I am positive!

dazz

8:57 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Q -"So you obviously don't have any problems with this index or are you just kissing butt."

A - Both

"Ive saids time and time again I not moaning about positioning I'm moaning about WHY what we are told to do does not work, but 1 page crap spam does.... "

Told what to do by who? If you mean Bretts 12 Months thing.....it does work.

"Oh and the world will come to an end one day but I won't say why when or how.....pointless isn't it."

Tell me this and Ill email you the Google algo! ;)

webdev

9:00 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I know the Goolge algo

Hidden Text
Multiple Link Farms
Multiple guestbook entries....etc..etc...etc...

jojojo

9:07 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



"GG has said about 1 million times...yes the -sj will go live on www eventually BUT they will be adding new backlinks in over time."

Forget the backlinks - where is April's Deepbot data?

Googleguy:

Everyone agrees that sj and fi are crap for the surfer. Now you say that you are going to be fixing this 'over time' 'gradually' - why are you allowing surfers to see these crappy SERPS for ANY amount of time? Why is this neccessary?

Hopefully it won't be along time until the results are 'fixed'.

creative craig

9:13 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Sounds alot more like a rolling index this month, putting the new index live and only then adding new backlinks, filters etc etc...

Before hand we could watch on the www2 and www3 the filters being added and then it would go live to the public, but this time the index is out there with out all the work done.

Is this the future of the Google update?

Craig

percentages

9:59 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



I think we are seeing a Google botch up!

GG says it may be the fi or sj results that are filtered down....well they are different so why is it a secret....when pushed GG says he doesn't know......fair enough GG and thanks for the honesty....but there is a reason why you don't know.....and I don't think it is because you are not privy to such info! I think Google doesn't know what to do about this situation.

GG says the si or fi results will be sent to other DC's over time....but how long....not known. Says to me Google may decide not to roll this out too fast.....although all indications are to the contrary right now.

When asked how long will it be before backlinks are recognized the answer seems to be "in time"...hmmm....how long is that....10 years?

Personally to me this update isn't going to make much difference...but I appreciate to many it will.

I have to conclude that Google is making a major change in the way it updates and calculates SERP's.

GG must be in a very tough position right now, and to beat on him as the nominated representative simply would not be fair. Google could simply retract into a shell and put forth no one to mediate and assist.

I think we have to accept that not many like this update, probably not Google either, but it is the stepping stone to better things in the future.

What do those weight loss folks say...no pain...no gain!

trillianjedi

10:19 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Maybe it's a little more sinister than a botch up?

Perhaps the -si and -fi indexes are for Yahoo! and aol?

I mean, why give your best stuff away and lose traffic? Presumably Google wants people to continue going to google.com and seeing the adwords etc.

So it's palming aol and Yahoo! off with a duff index to ensure that traffic continues? And probably giving their respective boards the same line - "it's fresher and more topical guys, honestly!".

TJ

jojojo

10:24 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



none of this makes any sense.

Google's whole sizzle is the quality of their SERPS - that is why they are going public soon. They burn millions of dollars monthly paying their engineers.

chiyo

10:39 am on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



webdev said, with steam coming out of his ears and after a lot of chest beating, >>Its simple I want to know if I need to start optimizing for other things than Bretts post so that I don't have to go through this rubbish again. <<

webdev, why would google want to make it easier to optimize for them? They are quote capable of doing it themsleves without our "help"! Yes GG plays an interesting role here - of helping webmasters as far as it also helps Google. Helping us know the importance of having clean sites or to encourage spam reports is one, but making it easier for us to SEO or spam them is not a role! He's a classic PR man and you can listen to him and read behin the lines if you like, or igmore him. But dont expect him to provide info that has little return to Google but that makes it easier for people like us to influence our own sites ranking in ways that reduces the value of the index for Google. Frankly, telling us exactly when the update will occur and the date of the next deep crawl and what exactly both does, gives SEO's an advantage over non-SEO sites - and just because a site is SEO'd for ranking does not make it anymore valuable that sites that are not so assisted.

Kirby

8:13 pm on May 14, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



I agree, Chiyo. However, there is still the issue of some really bad results showing up on AOL and I don't believe this is in anyone's best interest. Surfers (and that includes SEOs) know that something is wrong when they surf for "blue widgets" and get "blue paint".

To many people here defend these serps by accusing others of spam, but the real problem for me is not the spam sites, but the clearly irrelevant results sprinkled throughout the serps.

This 99 message thread spans 4 pages: 99