Top 5 Placements no cached pages.

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Top 5 Placements no cached pages.

The beginning of manual google placements?

DocElder

5:04 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Top placements of websites with no cached results. Check out the results for the keyword "<snip>" The top four have no cached results and on -sj the top five have none.

Is this the beginning of manual placements at google?

Have others noticed this on other keywords?

Thanks,
DocElder

[edited by: NFFC at 5:08 pm (utc) on May 29, 2003]
[edit reason] Specifics removed [/edit]

DocElder

7:21 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

I forgot to add that 3 of the 5 sites are the same people. They try to hide it but the web registry is the same, the dns server is the same for the domains, and they are selling the same products using the same third party cart.

If top ranks are being manually manipulated for some keywords, what happens to the sites that would normally be in those positions? Are they simply replaced and forgot about?

I think we may be seeing the beginning of arranged placements by google and it may be that those that buy the most advertising are given preference in the search results. I don't know for sure. Or perhaps a SEO company knows someone who works at google and are getting the results fixed.

Does anyone have any information in regards to this?

If there is a web results monopoly for certain keywords we need to know because it defeats the purpose of us trying to obtain top placement for these words.

Shak

7:26 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think we may be seeing the beginning of arranged placements by google and it may be that those that buy the most advertising are given preference in the search results. I don't know for sure. Or perhaps a SEO company knows someone who works at google and are getting the results fixed.

Conspiracy Theories :)

I, like a few others saw the keyphrases before the edit took place, and can assure you that NO hand/hard coding has taken place.

You have 2 options,

either complain if you feel they are playing dirty tricks.

if you cant beat them, join them.

but please please do NOT start conspiracy accusations about "anyone" unless you have hard evidence.

to be honest, the company in question wasnt even that clever :)

Shak

DocElder

7:33 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

I didn't think of it as a conspiracy. Just wanted to know if it happens. If so we need to think about the keywords that are not manipulated or not try to hard for placement. Maybe be happy at the bottom of page one.

I search about 50 different key words and found the top results to have cached pages for the top results. This one popular keyword may have 5 un cached websites for top results. If we are using feb. crawls for the index now why would every site have a cache listed?

It just don't add up.

Just trying to figure it out. Maybe I will join them.

pageoneresults

7:47 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you are not seeing a Google Cache, I'd be willing to be that those pages carry the <meta name="googlebot" content="noarchive"> tag.

Disabling the Google Cache [webmasterworld.com]

There are many reasons to use this and it has been discussed that there are risks involved.

DocElder

7:52 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

I checked and they do not contain <meta name="googlebot" content="noarchive">.

It is a real puzzle.

Chris_R

7:54 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

I am not seeing cahes for a lot of pages - including pages that are far from spam. It has been this way for a month or so. The sky is not falling. Relax. The no cache tag won't even list an option for cache. The problem is with sites that do have the option, but don't come up with the cached version.

pixel_juice

8:01 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

webmasterworld pages are not cached, and they don't have the meta tag either. I've always wondered why this was :)

theBear

8:19 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

DocElder,

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>

Sure looks like Webmasterworld uses the noarchive option of Google.

Cheers,

DocElder

8:28 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hello,
I looked and got this:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>

<title>Top 5 Placements no cached pages.</title>
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">

I did not see the no archive tag while viewing the source of this page. Why did you see it?

Educate me on this.

Thanks,
DocElder

pixel_juice

8:58 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

I see the same as you DocElder.

nanocet

9:58 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

I don't know what you guys who can't see the Meta tag are viewing the source with, but are you sure it's just not an issue of it being to the right and off the screen, and maybe you need to scroll right in whatever you're using?

IOW, I see it fine.

trillianjedi

10:03 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hmmmm.... this is a little strange.

I dont see the robots directive either. Nor do I see the description or keywords meta tags.

Educate me too please! Why do we see two versions of the same page source?

DocElder

10:04 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just using notepad and it is not there.

Also did a search and did not find it.

Why do some see it and others don't?

mikeb

10:19 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi,

I saw the META tags the same as theBear.

I then went to post a reply but had timed out on the 'new member' 30 day rule.

I signed up, logged in, and now I don't see them.

nanocet

10:27 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm not seeing them now either. I haven't changed anything but leaving the thread and then coming back to it.
Rather strange!

billg51

10:29 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well, I logged out completely. Viewed source...saw the Googlebot meta tag. Log in, and not there.

So meta tags only seem to show up to non-logged in users.

trillianjedi

10:34 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Ah, of course.

Googlebot is a guest and not a member...

D'oh!

Stefan

10:35 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

Seems so billg51. I'd swept out cookies earlier, came to this thread while not logged in yet, viewed src and there was the noarchive. Logged in, checked again and it's gone.

theBear

11:09 pm on May 29, 2003 (gmt 0)

He he

Don't you just love scripts, what one gets depends on who and how.

Cheers,

kaled

12:19 am on May 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

webmasterworld pages are not cached, and they don't have the meta tag either. I've always wondered why this was :)

I seem to recall that HTTP headers contain expiry information. I've never looked at this but if the page is set to expire, after, say 5 minutes, there would be no point in Google caching it. Perhaps WebMasterWorld pages expire immediately.

typein

12:19 am on May 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

No cache pages? here is the best example of a 'no nothing' in the web site of a top ranking site on google search. (i suppose etiquette prohibits the mention of the URL) So i will try a round about way of pointing it out to you as an example of Google madness. Useing the two word search term type into Google search bar .. classic cars .. everthing is fine until you reach page 3 .. see the title .. Hello World .. rank number 24 .. click on the site = nothing but Hello World .. look at the cache .. (these terms only appear in links pointing to this page) Check the source .. Title = Hello World .. body =  Nothing else! This site ranks even better on google UK number 2 .. The whole reason for it's ranking or even listing in Google is because of the links pointing to it. The webmaster there has done a marvelous job as it has constantly retained the very high placement .. The question is 'why' to what end result .. i dont get it! neither should Google.

Slade

12:38 am on May 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

I suppose the keywords you mentioned typein will be soon edited out, but...

What you're seeing is a site that has been taken offline. I doubt the people that linked to them did so because of the attractive <h1>Hello World</h1>. Once the other sites figure out this site is gone, the links to it will gradually go away, and take it's rank with it.

If you dig a little more, you'll see google still has other pages of theirs listed by name, but no longer cached.

Spica

1:50 am on May 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

As a user, the minimum I expect of a SERIOUS SEARCH ENGINE is to be served web pages that have ALL OF THE WORDS IN MY QUERY AT LEAST ONCE ON THE PAGE. It should not be a difficult algo to implement.

If Google loses sight of the most fundamental principles, they will eventually fail.

typein

2:03 am on May 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi Slade. Thanks for your input, i am aware of the "hello world" application the term returns 2,620,000 results. I thought that it was old hat and no longer effective. I did dig a little deeper on Alexa that site has 123 links pointing to it, looks like it was a good site back in early 2002. I doudt that the webmasters would be checking their links to it as it was once well established, it has been in that postition on Google for some time .. i cant see it losing position anytime soon... and yet far more worthy sites continue to vanish from Google.