Forum Moderators: open
A client's site dropped from page 1 to page 2 after the last update. For a while it showed up at it's page 1 position sometimes but now it seems to have settled at page 2.
Am I right in thinking that this new SJ index is reading banklinks as they were a few months ago?(which is why my client's newly-promoted site has dropped whereas his competitors' sites haven't).
Thanks for answering an old question.
GG indicated (paraphrasing) watch for changes in more than a week but less than a month > that was about 7 or 8 days ago.
Be patience -- with an archive at 3.4+ billions pages it is starting to get very difficult to through a new update "all together" in a mere few days no matter how many servers are being used. Things MUST change to continue to move forward.
Old backlink data, new algo.
This has certainly hurt newer sites the most as no new backlinks (since February) have been factored into ranking.
If it makes you feel any better, GoogleGuy has stated that we will see a traditional update at some point (less than months away) where they will use more recent data to score pages.
mfishy
for what it's worth GG stated more than WEEKS less than months.
GoogleGuy care to comment on this? You said in other posts that Google is not PR0 ing link pages, but so far as i can tell these are very old (basic) sites with only the "link" pages PR0 with no back links showing. All other pages of the web site are PR4-5 and backlinks showing.
Sorry, that's what I was trying to say earlier. :) Links pages don't get PR0, and we index them.
On May 17 GG said
when bringing up a new system, you want to work from a known base of data.
Somehow the first time I read that it didn't sink in that he has said "bringing up a new system". I'd kind of assumed the update was over as so little has changed for a while but now I'm wondering. It must be a new system that is taking a long time to sort out.
Back to lurking, staying hopeful, adding pages, and watching Fast and Ink digging deep into the site every day.
(**Shhhh, don't tell me Yahoo or Microsoft or CNN have lots of links)
I think the 1000 limit is intended. I think the purpose is to damper people buying a few thousand links from some high PR site.
What's your thoughts?
As most sites have a good portion of their backlinks coming from internal pages, and with the limit on which pages are listed for backlinks, I would not be surprised if there was some sort of expolanation for the clumping of backlinks around certain numbers.
The number external links links required to get a PR6 while variable will generally list between zero and a couple of hundred external pages. You may have thousands of links less than PR4, but those aren't counted in the link: command (though they are counted towards PR).
Now with that PR6 page you will be able to create your own PR4-6 pages internally that will also count as backlinks. This will also be within a certain range. While you can create unlimited pages to spread you PR out across, you will only be able to make a few hundred of them the PR4+ that will get them listed as backlinks.
This combination could easily lead to these groupings of numbers.
I really don't see any advantage to Google to limit the count of links that they show. The actually results that they will shoe you is always limited to 1000 anyway, and you can look at the PR of the site with the toolbar if you are shopping for high PR links.
as they always say Quality NOT Quantity...
Shak
I've seen where an awful lot are coming from the same site with very few external sites linking. Well over 2,500 for one from an off-topic site. You can't actually see the links and they're not done with hidden text, either. Gargantuan PR boost for the type of site that has all those back-links.
You can't actually see the links and they're not done with hidden text, either.
Marcia-please explain, or sticky me the example. Baffled as to how that is even possible....?
It's nothing dodgy, it's perfectly legitimate and common practice for very practical reasons. It just ends up with some funny results. Someone I know personally had a few links showing that I couldn't see code for so I called them in a panic to check with the webmaster, thinking there was hidden text at some point in time I didn't find.
Turns out it's a completely legitimate rotating banner. So when I saw the other one, that's how I knew what it was.
link:www.yourdomain.comwill show you your important backlinks in google.
If you want to see all your backlinks try www.alltheweb.com
:)
Use this syntax on alltheweb:
link.all:www.yourdomain.com -site:www.yourdomain.com
This shows incoming links to all pages on your site minus links from within your site.
Even with Google limiting it to PR4 or greater backlinks, they still show more links for me than ATW. How can this be? Google simply has a much larger index of pages.
My site is 10 months old and Google still has 10 times as many of my pages in their index as ATW. That means that around 90% of my outbound links are not counted towards other sites.
The lesson is that you should use BOTH Google and ATW, if you really care that much. And even when you do use both, you should remember that it still won't give you a complete list.
Can anyone give some pointers as to what I might be able to expect when new backlinks come in at Google? I put in the hours from September 2002 - May 2003 (joining WW in December was a turning point) and worked on solid, high-quality content, but was rewarded with mediocre traffic.
However since May I have been working on links (I only had 30 something), mailing all the sites that link to my top competitors. Thanks to the content feedback has been very positive, and now I'm going up about 150 more users a day per month, 1800 a year, which is good news. However this is despite the Google update, as my front page has dropped from Google even though it still has a high PR6, and obviously none of my links have been picked up yet.
If growth has improved despite the generally negative impact of the outdated SERPS, can I hope for a pleasant surprise when new links do come in?
Cheers for any responses,
Jeremy
Thanks to the content feedback has been very positive...
Google predictions are tough. However, you are doing things very well. Clearly if/when your front page reappears that will be a happy day.
However, I confidently predict that you'll do well, no matter what Google does, if you continue to develop your site as intelligently as you have.
Can anyone give some pointers as to what I might be able to expect when new backlinks come in at Google?
You can expect a PR8 and #1 in the serps for every one of your kw's.
(Just humouring you... :-) )
Thanks for the comments and humour ;) Truth is I'm cocky enough to believe I will get PR8 - as Morpheus said, "I do not believe it to be a matter of hope, simply a matter of time".
"However, I confidently predict that you'll do well, no matter what Google does, if you continue to develop your site as intelligently as you have"
Like that comment - implies a healthy independence from Google SERPS. If I have done anything intelligently, this site has shaped it all, like getting rid of my super-cool and super-unnecessary 150 KB Flash index page and making a better HTML one instead.
It really is just about innovative content and links, with a dash of decent design to boot.
Good luck to everyone out there,
Jeremy
Is anyone able to report the return of any of the backlinks which disappeared earlier in the month?
None of my own have returned yet.
Are you able to scroll down the Google News forum and see if anyone did?
[edited by: Macguru at 12:12 pm (utc) on May 29, 2003]
I don't think that you'll need to ask that question. As soon as someone notices a site has had its backlink data added into the index, it will be posted on here within seconds....
TJ
I did a lot of scrolling and didn't find anything Macguru.
Bingo.
TJ
