SEF
Search Engine Forums
Helping to make the Web - Since 1998
 |
| . | ||||||||||
| Forums | Index | Active Topics | New Topics | My Topics | Search | My Profile | Register | Inbox | Rules & TOS | |
| . | ||||||||||
Email this thread to a friend
| << First Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page >> | Previous Topic Next Topic |
| Member | Message |
|
ferret77 Joined: May 31, 2002
# Posts: 354
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 05:18 am
i would say "text of internal links containing those keywords" is not a requirement , but maybe it can be a factor my kicked sites don't have it although "- text of reciprocal links containing those keywords " seems to be a problem, |
 | |
|
DANXtendlife Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 05:34 am
"text of reciprocal links containing those keywords" being penalized or filtered does not hold up at all. In my industry, the first 2 sites in the very competitive sphere for which other sites have been removed have HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of reciprocal links containing those keyterms. One thing that seems to almost always hold, however, is that sites with the keyterm as part of the URL have been "filtered." This maybe is not always the case, but I have seen literally dozens of such sites disappear...or drop severely in the rankings. Not only in my industry, but others as well. If this is the case, there's a real problem because your URL isn't something you can just tweak or change. And forget about even addressing the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever (in most cases) to penalize -- or filter out -- sites with the keyterms in the URL. The filter would have been better if it differentiated between extremely long URL's that contains bunches of keyterms, and tend to be spammy. But other than this, most URL's that contain the keyterm within it are highly relevant. -Dan |
| |
|
loz Joined: Nov 24, 2003
# Posts: 5
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 06:18 am
Now I understand why my site is no longer listed and I'm rather dissapointed, to say the least. I would have accepted a lower position if Google has decided to penalize optimisation, but to be struck off completely is out of order. Now on page 3 of a search result using our main key phrase there are sites offering products that are completely out of context and we are nowhere to be seen. If things do not change for the fairer then I'm pulling out of AdWords. |
| |
|
nmottet Joined: May 21, 2002
# Posts: 65
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 07:03 am
I agree loz. My websites do offer interesting content (i get feedback from visitors). Now a lot of the current search results are far from being useful. However, let's take a look at the big picture. Google wants to stop some practises and it is understandable. My websites had a few keyword-rich text links on the homepage pointing to other websites, and i see that as a mistake now: it was a clear signal sent to Google that my website had been optimized! By the way, i look for "keyword phrase -nonsensekeyword" and my site is #1 as it used to be. HOWEVER, the description is the OLD one, not the new one that Google picked up a few days ago (I don't show up anymore for 2-keyword phrases, but if i look for a 3-keyword phrase, my site does show up with the NEW description). |
| |
|
loz Joined: Nov 24, 2003
# Posts: 5
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 07:19 am
nmottet, but if i de-optmizie then I run the risk of not being able to get a good position. My site ain't easy to optimise because of its design (which I believe is business critical). So I risk losing out to sites that are poorly designed and often this is a reflection of the poor service they offer. Tricky situation. |
| |
|
runboy27 Joined: Jan 02, 2002
# Posts: 154
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 08:40 am
MakeMeTop I agree it seems like people are mixing things up with -mt-tg.cgi but what really confuses me is that if you look at SearchEngineZ example: (Use this one and not the one in his post since there is no difference between his) http://www.google.com/search?q=Charlotte+Real+Estate http://www.google.com/search?q=Charlotte+Real+Estate+-mt-tb.cgi -mt-tb.cgi doesn't look like it is filtering out blogs like you would think, but actually restores his site in the search results. How come? |
| |
|
rossendryv Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 192
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 08:51 am
HI Logan, were are you? we need your input on this one. |
| |
|
runboy27 Joined: Jan 02, 2002
# Posts: 154
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 09:07 am
I think I figured it out myself. It seems like anytime Google has to make a "complex" search with more than one rule is doesn't apply its new filter. -mt-tb.cgi has two rules and therefore it worked, but i works with any "More than 1 filter" Example: http://www.google.com/search?q=Charlotte+Real+Estate Googles new filter effective http://www.google.com/search?q=Charlotte+Real+Estate -onerule Googles new filter stil effective http://www.google.com/search?q=Charlotte+Real+Estate -onerule -tworules Googles new filter NOT in effect ? EDITED |
| |
|
excell Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14502
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 09:18 am
"it was a clear signal sent to Google that my website had been optimized!" what does the word optimized mean to you?  When I say it, I mean to make my site the best it can be... there is nothing bad about that!
runboy.. currently anything -garbageword is showing what the search results would be prior to this filter.. it might not last but is just a quick way currently to see before and after. |
| |
|
runboy27 Joined: Jan 02, 2002
# Posts: 154
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 09:31 am
excell As far as I can tell -garbageword actually now shows the results filtered with the new filter. Now you need -garbageword-anothergarbageword to get the old stuff Eventually that will show new results also. |
| |
|
excell Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14502
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 09:40 am
oh well... If you remember where you were it shouldn't matter.. I am going to let it ride and let it happen, a clearer picture will imerge as time goes on.
it's not as if the general public are actually going to know that they have to search on -garbage to find the real results is it.. LOL :D |
| |
|
iWeb Joined: Aug 17, 2002
# Posts: 16
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 10:50 am
Personally I think it's about time to start optimizing for other search engines. Google has shot itself in the foot with this one. |
| |
|
hotftuna Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 11
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 11:19 am
What other search engines? I have a site that has first page rankings for a competitive keyword phrase is all the major se's (except msn) and 90% of my traffic is Google/AOL/Yahoo. I'm willing to pay up to 0.70 on the ppc's but that is not enough to compete for any real quantity of traffic. I earn about $1 pc and I would have to pay $2.50-$5.00 to get volume. It seems that this filter simply took all the sites rank 1-100 and replaced them with sites that ranked less than 100. |
| |
|
SEOK Joined: Jul 24, 2002
# Posts: 288
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 11:48 am
Everyone keeps calling this thing a FILTER. If this is the case then they need to pull the filter out and wash it real good to get the chunks of spam out of it! |
| |
|
dpeddle Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 269
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 11:58 am
hey everyone... opinion question: do you guys think google will rectify this situation... or could we possibly be in for some serious problems..... |
| |
|
SEOK Joined: Jul 24, 2002
# Posts: 288
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 12:02 pm
Speaking of Filters... Can I get a real filter for these BS comparison shopping sites? Look at this query and the top 30 results... http://www2.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=da+vinci+baby+cribs When is google going to learn that all of these comparison shopping sites have the same content because they are owned by the same companies??? |
| |
|
g1smd Moderator
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10126
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 12:42 pm
Heh, all those people trying the -oddword option have probably been further catalogued by Google by the keyword search done, sites visited, and IP address of the browser asking. Yet more stuff for their Sekrit SEO database. |
| |
|
St0n3y Joined: May 01, 2002
# Posts: 1620
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 01:05 pm
I agree... we have already begun adjusting our strategy towards Inktomi. If what I hear is correct, Yahoo is planning on rolling out INK results in January and around the same time MSN is dumping LookSmart which MAY mean Inktomi will get a boost there as well.
Very well put. My feeling on this is that this IS the new Google Algo, but they obviously screwed something up along the way... They are definately going to have to fix something, else they'll lose their searchers right quick. So in the mean time we're stuck between moving on and waiting it out. Can we do both at the same time? |
| |
|
Bry Joined: Sep 30, 2003
# Posts: 207
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 02:45 pm
Now I'm reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllly upset! When I first joined this site a couple months ago, my site was not listed at all. I never made any effort to get ranked as we did a lot of advertising. However we've scaled back advertising and begun to utilize the full potential of search engines. So after listening (and hopefully contributing) around here, I optimized my site white hat style and here's how things went. Keep in mind my site's always been a PR6 and still is. First 2-weeks after optizing: ~#346 out of 5.5 mil 1-month after optimizing: ~#170 Right before Florida Update: #13 Now: Gone completely So I tried keyword -garbage and I was still not there. Then I read this thread and tried keyword -garbage -trash -crap and the old results reappeared! AND MY SITE WAS IN 5th PLACE! OH THE HUMANITY! I could be reaping the traffic filled rewards of 5th place in a highly trafficed search term right now. *sigh* So that's why this is a bit more depressing then most situations. I haven't had a good run in the first page yet. I was on my way there, and when I got there... this happened! At least you've all had good first page runs before this travesty occured. So now everyone's talking about optimizng for other search engines, well shouldn't a well optimized site rank well on all search engines? I mean really, what are you going to do that's drastically different from Google to optimize for MSN? It just doesn't make sense to me. But maybe that's just because I'm new at this. Relevenace is relevance when it comes down to it, and the only difference I can see between the search enginges is how much their weight certain things but it should be all the same factors. For example, my site that should be #5 in Google right now, is #103 in MSN out of several million. Not a high traffic spot, but a high ranking nonetheless. I just optimized my site using basic principles and I got floated up into those positions. Hopefully I'll float higher in time. Bah I don't even know how to end this post. I'm just upset that I could have had a #5 ranking on a term that gets 50,000+ searches per month. *grumble* |
| |
|
001 Joined: Sep 26, 2003
# Posts: 64
|
Posted: 11/25/2003 02:59 pm
Bry, I sincerely feel for you. I got screwed too although not like you did. My site has only been around for about 90 days but I was already climbing the rankings (#430) in a highly competitive keyword (+5,000,000). If I were you I would keep at it in the SEO game as it pertains to organic listings in the SE's but revert back to advertising to back you up. This is how I feel now and I will NOT get caught with my pants down by ANY search engine EVER AGAIN! If they don't want sites like mine and yours, they can go to hell. Lee |
| |
Who's Online?
There are 153 guests and 1 members in the forums right now.
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
| << First Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page >> | Previous Topic Next Topic |
Switch to Advanced Editor and ... Create a New Topic or Reply to this Thread |
Related Forum Topics
© 1995 - 2006 · iWeb, Inc · DBA JimWorld Productions