Forum Moderators: open
Still find domains but have just seen a big negative shift on one reasonably competitive term and then no movement on another with a similar number of results? (As a user, I'd say that the relevancy of the new SERP is down.)
...and then surprise - 4 pages submitted 11 June are in (is this an improved turnaround?)
It looks like a big change in how page titles are being weighted, and the word order in the titles. There are pages in there now in the categories I check with little relevant page text, a few no text at all.
On May 24, AV dropped all my sites except the ones mentioned above: not in the index and I dont know why.
Did you use any methods that may be interpreted as spamming by AV? FWIW I have been really conservative and my Sites are all intact at AV. Older, newer, all seem fine except that newer sites now get buried at AV for at least a month (after getting a quick index)...
We've taken a few samples of two word phrases that have been monitored progressively for some time now on 4 different domains, different IP's, all using similar page designs and SEO, all spread through top 10 results.
Sample 1: 1,7m results, 3 pages held #5,7,8 now on page 5, 6 and somewhere else very deep.
Sample 2 and 3: 5,6m and 38,9m results respectively with unchanged SERPs in top 10.
Marcia noted that title and word order could be part of it (I think description too). I also noted lack of relevant or minimal text in some results - seems quite prevalent.
It seems that sites most affected are those where fewer results are returned.
#3 spot dropped 25 places: 23 million results found.
#1 spot dropped 10 places: 44 million results found.
I have really lost interest in AV in last 6 motnhs.If i would have to rate them i would say " they suck." lets hope things will improve in time and they will get back to good old AV they were long time ago. They were my favourite SE for years and now they are becoming the first SE that i am starting to "HATE".
Jon
What are the differences between results we see today and those a few days back?...and what's caused the shift?
I wouldn't worry too much about AV. Looks like the engineers left and the janitors are adjusting the algo.
jon
That's one of the strangest things about this shift. AV was so loyal to Sites with senority.
>Looks like the engineers left and the janitors are adjusting the algo.
...maybe they'll know how to clean it up toolman :)
Analyzing my sites and those of competitors I find I’m following Danny Sullivan’s AV advice pretty much to the letter, i.e
These are key factors occurring within a page's content that influence whether a page will rank well for a particular search term:* The term appears in the title of the web page.
* The term appears in the meta description and keyword tags.
* The term appears in the beginning of the body copy.The number of search terms present on a page and their proximity are also considered for ranking purposes.
Apparently, AV looks at title, keyword, and descriptor tags. Short titles containing the keyword or keyword phrase do well. There appears to be little limit on meta descriptions or keyword tag length, and internal linkage is extremely important (especially through linked keywords).
AltaVista tends to place a stronger emphasis on a web site's root page
Detailed navs or site maps upfront should do the trick.
In the pages I surveyed, there were a surprising number with few external links. What seems to matter to AV is the ease with which internal pages can be crawled from the main page. Thereafter, it seems to take into account an internal / external link ratio where external links are tied to identified authoritative sources, e.g. sites listed in the main directories do well. Thereafter, other external sites (and their inbound links) seem to be taken into account. Quality rather than quantity works best.
Search Engine Watch gives the lowdown on AV’s other peculiarities.
AltaVista doesn't index punctuation, so "webmaster's guide" becomes "webmaster s guide."Comments are not indexed.
Only the first 100K of text on a page is indexed. After that, only links are indexed, up to a maximum of 4MB. Since most web pages are under 100K, these limitations should not be a problem for most webmasters.
Pages heavy with text in a small font size may not get listed. Avoid using font size 2 or lower as the dominant size for your body copy.
AltaVista considers words in the meta description and keywords tags to be additional words on the page, just as if they appeared on the page in ordinary text.
Text from the description meta tag is used for page descriptions. If no meta description tag exists, then AltaVista will use the first text it finds on the page, not including ALT text.
Search Engine Watch [searchenginewatch.internet.com]
Content might well still be of immense importance. There appears to be an ability to tie in similar words. This could merely be a result of AV sucking in the keywords tag, most of which seem to be heavily populated, or it could apply a meaning-based algorithm. The old maxim of “Never insert a keyword if it doesn’t appear on the page” doesn’t seem to apply.
Keyword (or like-word) proximity seems to be important with the old title, header, and first line of text rule applying.
Time and submission are two elements I think have great influence. In this shuffle, AV appears to be giving weight to pages crawled and / or indexed in the second quarter this year.
I know that I’ve not submitted any existing pages to AV (although with changes I’ve been tempted to do so). However, I have changed several file names and have re-submitted those pages to check out possible penalties I might incur by submitting via the ransom note. There appear to be none. Revised pages submitted in March are showing up. New pages submitted in May have yet to appear (I’m sure I recall them being spidered). Other sites (whose content has presumably changed) have pages dated June listed up at the top. I assume they’re revised rather than new.
I used to submit on a monthly basis but I gave that up after falling out of the top 100 about a year ago! Since then, I’ve let the engine spider the sites and I’ve merely submitted new pages as they arise. I came back into AV contention about six months ago with six-month old data and I’ve maintained my ‘ritual’. Seemingly to good effect!
Given the apparent importance of submission rules and the age of pages ranked, I think it’s best to tidy up tags and text and leave submissions to new pages only (or if the file name changes).
This is all sucked from a few pages so please let me know what seems to work (or otherwise) for you. I could be barking up the wrong tree altogether. All I know is, of seven test key words and phrases, I’ve got three top tens and five top twenties. One is in the thirties and the other, the forties.
