Yet another dominic theory

internal linking and anchor text.

[Powdork]

I've been doing some thinking and it would make sense if Google deweighted anchor text for internal links. With what has happened to mysitethatgooglenolongerloves.com and others it would make sense. It seems that my sites drop has been a bit further than for others who are suffering from diminished allinanchor. If most of my intenal anchor text were taken away my site would probably have fallen similarly to others here. My site however, also suffers from the fact that the majority of the backlinks with this anchor text were added since mid february and many are therefore not being counted yet. Hopefully, they will be added in soon.:)

I'm sure I'll have more theories as the night wears on.

[Clark]

Yeah, I felt that all along...

[4eyes]

You might be right PowDork.

I hope so, cos thats the only thing that I am going to react to before the next update.

Its worth remembering that last time G did a 'funny' update (last september?) where the results on some of my monitored phrases went 'less relevant' (ie, some of my sites dropped;)) I just waited it out. Sure enough, the next update restored normality.

They are playing with the dials right now. I think we need to see the same patterns over another update before we start reacting, otherwise we will be changing too many variables at the same time.

So I am going to forget detailed algo analysis for now, and go build some more quality content and get a few more quality incoming links.

[pff_iy]

Hi All

Might sound like a stupid question to most but what is allinanchor? how does it work?

[Marcia]

>They are playing with the dials right now.

Playing with the dials with volume, but we'd better wait to make tonal adjustments.

Just for the record, a new site went up first Monday in March with a few pages. More pages were added as they were completed throughout the month, with Freshbot catching them and the site ranking for a lot of the appropriate search terms. It was a new domain, newly hosted and bringing the PR0 from the registrar's server, which means nothing more than that it has no PR yet.

The action so far this pending update: First, PR0 (perfectly normal), 9 pages showing as indexed, ranking for nothing. Then 11 pages listed as indexed, ranking for the keyword phrase a page was uploaded and relevant for later in March. Date modified as shown on cached page: March 29th (nice to have typed those in when uploading pages). Latest is 12 pages listed as indexed, ranking for the first phrase plus another relevant to an additional page that was uploaded later on in March and a couple more for those pages - Date modified as shown on the cached page: April 13. There's also now a Fresh date next to it. PR0 most of the time now, which can be a little scary to look at, and that fluctuated in and out for a while mid-day Monday.

Things seem to have gone back in history, then on to progressively more current versions of sites - which was easy to see with a site that had pages added over a period of a month's time just in the right time frame to be able to watch this happening. The PR0 isn't incorrect time-wise, even though it's been PR5, there were no links back when.

Nothing will be changed unless it would have been changed or added anyway, had this update not been in progress. It'll stay the same "plain vanilla" that it is. There were some interesting things to see with how the indented listings were being handled during the construction month and Fresh listings, but it's far too early to make any definitive assessments.

>>I'm sure I'll have more theories as the night wears on.

We'll probably be able to come up with more than theory a month or 2 or 3 down the road. I can see myself staying up for all-nighters two updates down the road, but not for this one, it's too soon and too slow to lose sleep over. I'll conjecture that if it's a major change it'll be buggy {from our point of view, anyway) and need to have adjustments, but only time will tell.