Forum Moderators: open
Kackle - can you explain the "dictionary" for me? And how I might benefit from it - Im reading your posts hard but dont see where youre coming from.
Sure. But you have to act quickly. Google will fix this one just like they fixed the hyphen.
1. Google is depreciating pages/sites that are over-optimized for certain keywords or keyword combinations. It does this by looking up search terms in a dictionary of target keywords or keyword pairs that it has compiled. This dictionary is Top Secret, because if you knew what was in the dictionary, you could avoid these words in your optimization efforts.
2. If the search term or terms hit on a dictionary entry, the search results for that user's search are flagged. This means that before the results are delivered, the order of the links, or even the inclusion of links, are adjusted so as to penalize pages that have overoptimizated for those terms. Most likely the title, headlines, links and anchor text are examined. It's possible that external anchor text pointing to that page has also been pre-collected and is available for scanning, but this is much less likely. (Besides, external links are not something within your immediate control, so don't worry about it right now.)
3. You want to find out which keywords that are relevant to your site are in Google's dictionary. Compile as many relevant keywords you can think of that searchers might use to find your site. Now take these words singly and in pairs, according to how users might search. Run two searches for each combination and compare the results.
4. If the results are strikingly different for the pre-filter and the post-filter search on a particular term or combination of terms, it means that some variation of those terms has been flagged because something was found in Google's dictionary.
5. Do lots of searches and you can come up with a list of "sensitive" words that you'll want to avoid when you re-optimize your pages.
It's a nice weekend project.
In my estimation, it is over. The fat lady has sung. We are now again in the continuous update mode.
I've found much of what you have contributed tonary is mostly "money" words or terms."
Could you point us to some of this evidence please. Like everyone who is affected I want to know what to do next.
To test the idea of a dictionary I wonder if otheres here could share, what evidence they have found that all/some of this recent Google effect can't be explained by on page text and link back keywords?
My site sells widget insurance. I have those two words in that order in the title, h tags, image alts, anchor text, out bound URLs, first words and a high percentage of all words on one page in question.
My page has been dropped. If I search for -fufufu widget insurance I'm back in at number 2. If I search for category widget insurance where category is a particular type of widget I go back in at number 1.
The one thing that the pages that fill the top ten slots for widget insurance now have in common is that 8 do not have <h> tags and the other 2 have style codes inside there <h> tags so they are not properly formed in terms of what many beleived Google previously required.
My point is this, the new algo could work like this: If two word term occurs in both title and <h> headings then if this two word term occurs more than x times and/or at a density more than x% drop the page from results for that two word term. This would work without a dictionary. So what evidence is there that this no dictionary hypothesis is wrong?
Please understand I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm simply trying to gain a level of confidence in what is right and what is wrong before I decide what to do next.
Many thanks in advance to anyone who can provide further enlightenment on this one.
Best wishes
Sid
Some of my previous post got missed out, not sure why.
Anyway the first para should have said:
I've found much of what you have contributed to this discussion very interesting. I then referred to your statement about evidence for a dictionery.
After this bit I hope that my post makes at least some sense.
Best wishes
Sid
Is anyone else out there looking into the abyss of $0 income? Anyone else trying to decide how to find gainful employment to pay the bills?
And seriously, is SEO a viable career path if these alterations hold? I am reading a lot of theory and hypotheses but nothing that resembles a coherent assessment of the new standards established by Google. I feel that, based on the SERPs that I have seen, there is still nothing to react to. Content has not been validated as the critical component and spam has not been invalidated as a promotional method.
Seriously, based on the current status, is there a future in independently developing and maintaining a commercial website? I, for one, am one more strong body blow from throwing in the towel.
I agree by midnight the FAT lady will have sung! So go out and bid up adwords, or start redirecting your google hits to a "google sucks" page and bury them like they buried you!
have you looked at my message #392 at [webmasterworld.com ]? how does this compare with your theory? (i'm not saying it does or doesn't, as at this point, i'm not sure of anything).
Well I'll be up the river without a paddle if We don't get a top listing back on Google.
They didn't go. They weren't in this thread.
When Part 3 reached about 70 pages, the last 20 pages were cut off and became the first 20 pages of Part 4.
A few dozen "me too" posts were deleted along the way though.
***
You all still have only two choices.
1. Google is broken - Not completely broken mind you, but very messed up.
2. Google is displaying these results on purpose, for whatever reason.
<edited> cuz I made a statement I could not back up.</edited>
[edited by: BradBristol at 9:15 pm (utc) on Nov. 23, 2003]
Baloney. If political correctness was the issue, then Google would quit selling Adwords to pornographers. If the IPO has anything to do with this, the motivation is raising profits, and not being PC.
Maybe the new "search inside the book" feature on Amazon might be the reason they are appearing at the top in many of the results.
amazon most likely has put some major $$$$ on the table somewhere
Maybe their is just a few more weeks to go and the major update will be completed. Just like the updates in May/June etc, results were showing PDF's, Amazon links etc.
Two weeks after the update we had a mini update which corrected the listings and all was well again.
Think you all need to chill out on the conspiracy theories.
Not a chance.the dc's are showing different results and no they are not new fresh results.Google have gone home for the weekend.
They took the engine apart to give it a good clean and now they are having trouble putting it back together.
mainstream results in adult and adult results in mainstream.I don't think its over by a long shot and if it is its not webmasters who should be worried but Google itself because these are amateurish attempts to be a search engine.
Forgot to mention that we are pointing them all to Altavista
[edited by: ronhollin at 9:49 pm (utc) on Nov. 23, 2003]
26 of them have electronically confirmed that they would, result in about 80,000 less searchers. If we pass this along to everyone we know and work with I think we can start what will be a very damaging consequence for Google.
Hmmmm........watch out Google theirs going to be another velvet revolution.
Its about time i was out of here, the topics of the posts are well out of control and I will return in a few weeks time once everything has settled.
You guys gotta take it easy :)
I find it interesting what a Google representative actually sent from the Guidelines Tuesday.
>Think about the words users would type to find your pages, and make sure that your site actually includes those words within it.
>Make sure that your TITLE and ALT tags are descriptive and accurate.
Basically I have enough money for my family until March but that’s dipping into savings. I will soon join the thousands of unemployed textile, furniture, and tobacco workers in my home state.
This update is about money, as all things are. The big boys have taken over and the little guy bites the dust as usual. Looksmart though the same way.
Not to start another conspiracy theory or nothin...
This IS THE TIME for online Christmas shopping! Not a few weeks from now. How very convenient for the Amazons, Targets, Walmarts, etc. to be on the top of the heap.
Just imagine the Business news reporting "higher than expected" online sales for these companies. What would reports like that be worth to Wallstreet, Politics, etc.
If this turns around in a couple of weeks, small internet retailers will have missed the Christmas sales.
I'm sorry, but if filters change, fine. Many sites would have lost ground. BUT, to be thrown out of the game is just ridiculous. Something must be broken somewhere.
A lot of people are pis*ed with google, but I don't think they intended this to happen. I expect a lot of damage control to come from google in the next few days.
Google has made things right in the pass, I expect it will be the same this time.
How many of the thousands of webmaster/seo people are thinking of using overture or adwords now?Actually I was thinking of starting a new Search Engine based on the model that made google in the first place.
[edited by: BradBristol at 10:03 pm (utc) on Nov. 23, 2003]
Forgot to mention that we are pointing them all to AltavistaI'm considering a popup(under) for anyone referred by Google "Since you were referred by Google you are probably not seeing all the quality information on <search query>. To get a better idea try your search on AltaVista" with a link to the search. Anyone know how to do this?
sim64,
In this thread [webmasterworld.com], Brett mentions how its our fault, perhaps you would like to run his theory by the sites in your list. I don't know how to test it, however.
If it is a simple case of 301 redirecting domain.com to www.domain.com, wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't Google have announced this prior to the update?
How come they could do it before, but can't now?
Why can all the other se's figure it out?
Thanks to anyone who has been following better than I who can do that : )
[edited by: Josefu at 10:09 pm (utc) on Nov. 23, 2003]
