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

Re: Google Adding Previously Dropped Pages

On 7 Aug 2006 03:38:14 -0700, "canadafred" <canadian_web@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>John Bokma wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > __/ [ John Bokma ] on Monday 07 August 2006 06:28 \__
>> [..]
>> > Ever  since  that/those blackhat/s with 10 billion  subsites
>> > hit  the Web I have never been able to 'recuperate'.
>> I, shortly, after they dropped that spammer. But also before he was in the
>> picture site: didn't work IIRC. Things changed by the end of January IIRC.
>> > Google
>> > hasn't  indexed  as  much,  nor has  it  delivered  as  many
>> > referrals since. That all began around March this year (some
>> > Webmasters  got  dropped earlier). All in all, I agree  with
>> > John.  Just  ignore  these  numbers, but  things  appear  to
>> > stablise  gradually.
>> Yup, I have the same feeling, slowly things seem to go back to usual.
>> Pages get picked up at normal speed (or close to) is my experience for the
>> past month or so.
>>From my observations:
>I watch four different keyphrase niche markets closely. Each seems to
>be doing the same weird rolling-of-the-dice thing, but at different
>times. One day this SERP gets the big shake-up, two days later, another
>sector. The whole process is like the scooping up of web pages, running
>through the filters and spitting them out last for about two weeks,
>there is a two or three day settling period then it starts all over
>This almost seems part of the regular refreshing of data and it looks
>like it is here to stay. Perhaps the continual instabilities are part
>of the new way Google reviews and ranks web pages. I think it a way to
>shake off some of the fluff (replicated content, useless content and
>machine generated pages).
>It is almost like the search engine picks a chunks of keyphrase markets
>and runs them through a new washing machine. If a web page happens to
>be one in its scoop then that particular web page gets a reviewed
>during the keyphrase market shakes up. It all spits back out basically
>the same in the end but a new process is involved in the delivery of
>the SERPs, a comparison filtering of sorts.

Um. I've noticed that pages ascend in a series of fits and starts as
opposed to the smooth post-dance rise we used to experience.

>Maybe Google is trying something else to replace its previous pitiful
>attempt at tring to be intelligent. The last couple of attempt at it
>are still broken and being exploited.
>I spent an hour on Google Accessible last night and even asked Matt a
>question regarding their latest filtering technologies and where they
>are going with this. It is obvious that Google has the technology to
>eliminate the fluff in the SERPs. Accessible seems to more fairly rank
>web pages based on the merit of the content within rather than from
>forces external.

It has to, doesn't it? How could blind people read the links to the
site? Google have now got their own in-house version of MSN where
on-page factors rule the day.

>It just feels like the link strategists are in for a big surprise. I
>see them disassembling one at a time. The days of creating a zillion
>web pages for SEO purposes is coming to an end. All these empty forums
>that people have been creating lately, so pointless. All these
>directories; such a waste of time and space. Victory by volume of
>repetition of anchors; a broken ranking factor.

Noooooo - I like internal link strategies!

>I hope Google continues focusing its filtering systems on rewarding the
>natural patterns of both links and language, with emphasis on what it
>finds internally within the actual content (obviously they can find it
>with Accessible) of the web page much more than how the web page is
>made to appear externally.

Then they go back in part to how they were pre-Florida. Only,
hopefully, better at it. Maybe they'll find an excuse to come up with
a Yahoo clone now. Deaf people, maybe, a search engine for the deaf
that exactly matches the Yahoo algorithm. God I'm good - how come
Google are phoning Roy and not me? Sniff...


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