Is there an issue with Google?

A surfer wants to know

[richlowe]

I've been doing some research lately and I've noticed that the results for google are significantly degraded lately. I used to be able to type in a search term and get what I needed in the first page or so. During this last month, the results seem to be wildly different. Lots and lots of 404 pages, weird sites at the top of the serps, and, strangely enough, affiliate sites at the top and good informational sites deeply hidden (5 pages or more on some of the terms I looked for). It sure has made it more difficult to get the research done.

Is this just my imagination or is something "broken" or changed? I've searched on enough terms (over a hundred) to conclude it's not just some minor, isolated fluke.

Richard Lowe

[ljgsites]

Hi Rickard-
Good to hear from a surfer. Yes there is an issue with Google. I run a bunch of content rich travel websites that are sub-domained for each destination. The sites are linked but it's all good for the user. Since the 12th my traffic shrank to about 20% of what it was. My sites are nowhere to be found in Google even though they provide great information. If Google can't get it together soon I would suggest switching to MSN.

[258cib]

This tells the story:
[webmasterworld.com...]

[jimh009]

For the types of searches I do, I find Google is about as good as it has been in quite a while. Some of the good sites (not mine) that disappeared a while back have since returned - along with a couple of good new ones I've never seen before.

Are they perfect? Of course not. And in highly competitive fields like travel and such, results still may indeed be "odd" at times due to all the spamming and "tricks" in this field. But for the type of searches I do, I've been quite pleased with Google.

> I run a bunch of content rich travel websites that are sub-domained for each destination.

ljgsites - All your sub-domains may be creating the problem. One thing I've noticed is that sites that make real heavy use of sub-domains often (but not always) have been reduced in ranking. I personally think this is a good thing - very few reasons to have 2000 sub-domains for a site, etc...Google also seems to have changed the way they display results for sites with sub-domains (a sub-domain is no longer treated as seperate for listing purposes). Before, one site with a bunch of sub's could fill up entire pages of Google. With the recent changes, this is no longer really occurring - at least for searches I'm familiar with.

My two cents

Jim

[Stefan]

Adding another couple of cents:

The problems I've seen over the last while, using G, have been a result of G trying to deal with link-farms. With Florida, unreciprocated linking out became more important. This started boosting directory-type sites, but also benefitted quality info sites. With Austin, this approach increased and the serps started getting spammy. With Brandy, the serps became heavily laden with directories. With this latest algo "tweak", it's become absurd. The link-farms have been cleaned out, but there seems to be nothing left but directories linking to directories ad infinitum. If I never see another directory in my life, (as a user), it will be too soon.

This is probably a temporary state of affairs, (I hope).

[jimh009]

Stefan,

True about the directories. However, even this has changed. Immediately following Austin, lots of no-name and, to put it blunty, useless directories based on nothing more than the phone book were all over Google.

Since then, though, these crappy directories have disappeared - at least within the fields I'm familiar with. Instead, they have been replaced by ODP, Yahoo and Looksmart type directories.

I personally have nothing against this. If you type in a "city-name state" into Google, I'm finding that the G is bringing back a very wide variety of results - which to me is good. A good directory or two or three should be listed - as these directories contain links to related web sites about the subject.

While there are indeed some crappy directories out there still filling the SERPS, I believe G recognizes this and is getting rid of them (and, as mentioned, in the terms I'm familiar with, they have mainly done so already).

My additional two cents.

Jim