stevenjm
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 824
|
Posted: 2007-Sep-25 15:49
hey, been away from seo for a while and friend has asked me to do seo for his sight. Has there been a new algo come in in last couple of days?
results are totally different to what they were a few days ago and totally irelevent, seems to resemble florida algo.
Or is google just still a messed up search engine playing with new useless algos at random?
|
 |
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2015
|
Posted: 2007-Sep-30 09:11
I'm finding that results are as expected.
|
|
erbenson
Joined: Jul 25, 2007
# Posts: 6
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-02 13:56
Steve -
Our results are closer to yours. Our site is offers basically a local service (dog sledding in Maryland) and our searches have moved from good (#1 - #5 in google) to terrible (mid-third page).
We update our site at least every three days or so and our other rankings stay high (#1 - #3 in Yahoo).
Some of the sites that moved up were old sites that did not change in the last 5 years!
-Eric
It's n
|
|
stevenjm
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 824
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-06 13:38
Seems to me this algo is disregarding backlinks except from .gov's .edu's pdf's and sometimes gzips.
Only sites getting good ranking at the moment (for those effected commercial, high volume type terms) is sites that have a text url mention on other sites as opposed to a backlink.
ie. link: sometoprankingsite.com gives nothing but sites with text mention of url. The only backlinks showing are ones that also have text url. (except in the case of .edu .gov or pdf, gzip.
Good exploit for the time being anyway.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-06 15:02
Here on Planet Earth, the link: search has not been a reliable - or useful - way to check backlinks for a very, very long time.
And Google has never been "a messed up search engine playing with new useless algos at random"
But that's enough about us ... tell us more about the search engines on your planet!
|
|
stevenjm
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 824
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-06 16:42
On my planet we have enough common sense to see whats getting rankings.
|
|
stevenjm
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 824
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-06 16:54
Now I remember why I stopped using this forum. Well, I have shared plenty here over the years and not often been wrong but your typical of the new breed of know nothing backlink competition seo's and your attitude obviously matches your seo skill.
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10438
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-06 18:56
It is extremely difficult to narrow down cause and effect with Google rankings, as some things have a delayed response in making a difference.
Additionally, the link: operator cannot be relied on for anything at all. It just presents a random selection of some of the known links.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-06 19:48
I have shared plenty here over the years and not often been wrong but your typical of the new breed of know nothing backlink competition seo's and your attitude obviously matches your seo skill.
Interesting view, however, it is quite obvious, if you read the thread, that I know more than you.
Also, that I tried to help you.
Also that if you make stupid comments about Google (or anything else), then you can expect the same in return. That's fair, surely? Or do you have special rights on your planet?
|
|
stevenjm
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 824
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-07 03:12
Link: was just an example. domain-name.com does the same
Look at all the top ranking sites in effected areas of this algo - what do they have in Common?
"stupid comments about google" what are you an employee? This latest algorithm is absolutely ridiculous and if you cannot see that then you should go back to reading instead of commenting.
|
|
Quadrille
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
# Posts: 1064
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-07 07:33
Or is google just still a messed up search engine playing with new useless algos at random?
That's what you said.
If you seriously believe that, then you should need to trade in your etch-a-sketch and get a computer. Don't forget to plug it in. Don't turn the electricity on, it can be dangerous. Ask Mom to do that for you.
Over and out! 
|
|
stevenjm
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 824
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-07 09:42
Good luck getting your clients up from page 1000.
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10438
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-07 09:44
Personal stuff stops here, or the ><(((@> will be deployed.
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10438
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-07 09:47
Google has at least three different versions of their index in play at the moment. It is obvious they are testing things out on a limited number of Class-C blocks. They do this most years about this time, and it will take at least several weeks for things to become more clear. What you see now is probably not very indicitive of what might follow.
|
|
stevenjm
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 824
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-07 11:01
Yeh, I agree.
"Personal stuff stops here, or the ><(((@> will be deployed."
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10438
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-07 18:26
We had a new batch delivered last week... the Mods are itching to try them out.
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2015
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-10 08:19
Hmmm - I've had to go to Yahoo 3 times this week to find what I'm looking for.
Simple searches to.
|
|
kynduvme
Joined: Apr 18, 2001
# Posts: 977
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-16 19:07
interestingly, if you have your site set up in webmaster tools, through the google sitemap program, it shows, 377 links to my site from their webmaster tools screen but when you actually type link:website it shows one. I do not know which one is actually accurate as far as what google algo is using to approximate relevancy
|
|
Hampstead
Joined: Feb 20, 2001
# Posts: 2015
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-16 19:19
Google's webmaster tools and Yahoo's site explorer are correct.
|
|
kynduvme
Joined: Apr 18, 2001
# Posts: 977
|
Posted: 2007-Oct-16 19:28
great! 377 sounds a lot better than 1
|
|
Inbox
