Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Reduction in Google Referrals

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:29:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote:

>Jez wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Jez wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>Hi Roy,
>>>>
>>>>You can read all the goss on the Bourbon Update here
>>>>http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/29524.htm you will need to
>>>>register if you haven't already.
>>>>
>>>>It's a long thread split into 4 separates each with 80 odd pages in - so
>>>>it's going to take you a while to catch up.
>>>>
>>>>I have "lost" a site to bourbon and my google referrals are currently 0
>>>>so I know what you are going through.
>>>>
>>>>No one really seems to know anything at all as of yet and googleguy has
>>>>been pretty cryptic - so it's just a waiting game at the moment. A lot
>>>>of people suspect 302 hijacks to be the problem, other think it's a
>>>>problem with canonical URL's and still others think it's something to do
>>>>with "scraper" sites (of which no one seems to have pointed out that
>>>>google is, essentially) - or in other words, duplicate content (I think).
>>>>
>>>>Good luck Roy.
>>>>
>>>>Jez.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks Jez. These words are reassuring. The only thing I ponder is who or
>>> what 'steals' (maybe justifiably, just to be on the safe side) these
>>> potential visitors. When one loses, another gains.
>>> 
>>> Roy
>> 
>> 
>> If you read any of the thread, the underlying theme is that of the
>> current irrelevant SERPS. Google seems to have taken SERPS away from non
>> spam sites and awarded them to exactly what it seems to be trying to
>> eliminate.
>> 
>> As someone in the WMW thread said "I feel like the small kid who has
>> just been beaten up by the school bully for being in the wrong place at
>> the wrong time"
>> 
>> Jez.
>
>Provided that it is the case (I have no idea as I don't keep track of
>SEPR's), I am sure that Google will be on the case and make the necessary
>adjustments. I meant to say that it was indeed reassuring that something
>global was happening and I was not specifically-targetted victim.
>
>Roy

Well, you *could* have been specifically targetted, as well as all the
global stuff going on...

BB (tee-hee)
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo@kruse.demon.co.uk
        seo that watches the river flow...
--

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index