Forum Moderators: open
If I enter the query "blue widgets" in google.com:
I get less results when I turn the filter "OFF" (add "&filter=0")
And I get more results when I turn the filter "ON" (leave the query as it is or add "&filter=1")
I think this is a little bit strange because a filter is filtering things out and does not display more results!?
Will google use this filter or will they turn it off soon or will they refine it?
In my oppinion I think the current results are really bad and I hope they will solve this soon.
I doubt it, BUT links will help you when this is solved. Google thinks that your site (and mine) is a dupe and has penalized it. My site had 100's more links than the redirect one and still...
Some recent ranking rules:
* be old
* be unique
query: site:www.sprockets.com +sprockets
results with &filter=1: 500 pages
results with &filter=0: 500 pages
Since the keyword "sprockets" is on each page of my site - you'd think the results would be the same.
I've tried similar tests on other sites and found varying results.
Not sure exactly what this means. It seems what google considers duplicate content is dependant on the query?
Maybe google thinks that all the pages on www.sprockets.com are so much "about" sprockets that the filter plays less of an effect?
Just speculation...
with &filter=0 #38
without #80
result #1 through #5 with &filter=0 is the same site i would think that my site would be further out with the filter removed.
Please explain someone
Has anyone managed to regain positions without filter=0? If so what, if anything, did you change?
I've tried a number of things including removing duplicate content without seeing any improvements.
if anyone can help, please don't sticky: post it here for all.
SOLUTION:
Well what I heard is that you need to replace your high competitive keywords with a non-sense one and your site will re-appear in the same spot. I haven't tried this yet.
Although I'm not convinced, if G did rely mainly on incoming anchor text and put a penalty in place for over optimisation maybe it would work, anyone tried it?
Another one of my sites has disappeared unless &filter=0 is added, this site has recently lost a link from the BBC website.
Has anyone else whose site appears well with filter=0 but not without filter=0 recently lost important links?
coincidence. Search for a sentence from your index page and what comes up.
Has anyone who is experiencing these problems found any pages coming back into G and ranking well without filter=0 being added?
In a last ditch attempt I have emailed Google today explaining what I am seeing and asking whether it is normal or not. Should I receive a response I will of course post it here.
I'm not sure why you are all suddenly taking a look at &filter=0
Because last month, Google's algo shifted a bit, and some of us took some hits. Those rankings losses can be reverted back to their original positions by using &filter=0.
For example, a kwd phrase was #1 for several years, but a month ago, it fell in the rankings (not completely out of the rankings, just a sizable drop). However, if &filter=0 is added, it is suddenly #1 again.
The standard two pages per domain (one indented) definition of &filter=0 doesn't seem to apply to this particular situation, so some of us are trying to figure out what ELSE it may be doing that would account for what we are seeing.
Lately it seems that G has tigntened the dupe filter, and didn't care about fixing their bug. Also, with agressive spidering more 302 links are getting spidered. Now innocent sites are caught in the middle. This has been happening at least since september, and every update we see (via postings here) a wave of sites getting caught. Maybe they'll be relaxed after the skiing trip and finally fix this.
===========
"I'm not sure why you are all suddenly taking a look at &filter=0, as that functionality has been in the search results for 2 or 3 years now. It weeds out near duplicates, and limits results to two pages per domain (moving one up and identing it underneath the first result if the second result was somewhere on the same results page). You might also want to compare results with 10 results per page and with 100 results per page (that's with &num=100 in the URL) too. "
