New Google Algorithm?

  • The Apostle of God
  • Beginner
  • Beginner
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 54
  • Loc: SDSU, SD, USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

No, it's not the last new one, it's the new new one :p

From what I am understanding, they are changing several things in their importance structure, sort of going to a weighted linking system. Basically they're looking to make the system "truly democratic," or something similar. This impacts link exchanges most severely. I.E. if you have links to a site in a table along with other links and these sites in return have a similar system, it is noted as a link exchange and thus weighted less than a link in the middle of a paragraph.

I believe this information to be accurate, but am looking for comments and verification.
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • phaugh
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 796

Post 3+ Months Ago

Hey Apostle...

Sounds like a nice idea...but wouldn't it be easy for linkers to now create a short paragraph and include a link in the middle of the text.....a bunch of these links would then appear to be a page of text with links inline.
  • phaugh
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 796

Post 3+ Months Ago

From what I have been reading it seems that there is a glitch in Google's filtering process. You can fool the filter and retrieve accurate results by using the exclusion operator ( - ) on dummy words that you know will not exist in the SERs. Here's an example with dummy words: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... fjh+-dtrhe

Sample without dummy words: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... gle+Search

As you can see the results are very different. Sadly :cry:
The trick to using the dummy words is that if your key phrase is 3 words long you have to use 3 dummy words as exclusions and so on. Single word searches do not seem to be effected by the filter.

The filter glitch is happening when Google is post processing the results from it's DB. There are spam sites that are causing the filter to crash and thus truncating the results that are returned.

You can verify this by using http://www.scroogle.org to see what should have been returned from you search.
  • phaugh
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 796

Post 3+ Months Ago

Here's the article from Seth Finkelstein on Google's SPAM filtering. http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-spam.php

Just hope you are not the one causing the "Google NACK"!
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

The Apostle of God wrote:
No, it's not the last new one, it's the new new one :p

From what I am understanding, they are changing several things in their importance structure, sort of going to a weighted linking system. Basically they're looking to make the system "truly democratic," or something similar. This impacts link exchanges most severely..

Well, isn't that what they've been doing from day one?

Quote:
I.E. if you have links to a site in a table along with other links and these sites in return have a similar system, it is noted as a link exchange and thus weighted less than a link in the middle of a paragraph.


There is nothing wrong, evil, or underhanded about two sites that link to one another and Google understands this. There is nothing angelic about a link that is *not* reciprocated, as it could be, and in many cases is, from a site owned by the first site. And, yes, Google understands this also.

I have noticed many webmasters complaining that the top serps are now mostly niche directories and, of course, they claim this to be a disservice to the searchers, heh. Since the floridaupdate, in my category, 3 of the top 4 are niche directories...nothing but links, no content. This disproves the above theory, at least for my category.

Have others found this to be true?


I have noticed many self-proclaimed SEO experts moaning, groaning, and crying because the floridaupdate dropped their sites from the top 500 where they had been in the top 10 for months and months. The bottom line is that they got caught and are now blaming Google, heh.

Now that the dust has settled, the crying is over and it's time to speculate and start rumors. *sigh*

phaugh, don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of these things, I'm just ranting about it in the same post as my reply to your post.
  • phaugh
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 796

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
phaugh, don't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing you of these things, I'm just ranting about it in the same post as my reply to your post.

Not sure if you read my post....about the Google NACK. It obvoiusly proves that the floridaupdate has suffered a major setback. The fact that it has gone on this long can only mean the problem is not easy to fix. I have a top ranked site that was knocked back to link #586 from #5. It does not use any deceptive linking or other frowned upon techniques...so it would not be banned from the results. It happens to lie next to a spam page in the results and is thus being supressed by the faulty spam filter of google. Again read the article I linked to in my post above. Once the filter issue is fixed my top ranking will be restored.

Did you really think that google would modify their algo to a point that it would discredited everything that the billion dollar algo has brought to the search engine market to date.

peace
  • phaugh
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 796

Post 3+ Months Ago

Looks like anchor text in the new King....

"In an effort to weed out the noise, Google constantly refines its weighting algorithm, which it says is a combination of a hundred different factors. In an attempt to thwart deliberate gaming by link farms and blog noise (exacerbated by lossy software gimmicks such as 'Trackbacks', which generate reams of content-free pages for Google's crawlers), Google has stepped back from its trademarked PageRankā„¢ method and instead, emphasized more traditional factors such as anchor text. "

Note that there are factors...what else is considered traditional in the eyes of SEO?
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

phaugh wrote:
Looks like anchor text in the new King....

"In an effort to weed out the noise, Google constantly refines its weighting algorithm, which it says is a combination of a hundred different factors. In an attempt to thwart deliberate gaming by link farms and blog noise (exacerbated by lossy software gimmicks such as 'Trackbacks', which generate reams of content-free pages for Google's crawlers), Google has stepped back from its trademarked PageRankā„¢ method and instead, emphasized more traditional factors such as anchor text. "

Note that there are factors...what else is considered traditional in the eyes of SEO?



Where did that quote originate?
  • phaugh
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 796

Post 3+ Months Ago

You can read the complete article here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33325.html

enjoy

PS read the associated articles buy clicking on the anchor text that is in the article.....there's a lot of good info there!
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

Thanks plaugh.

"... emphasized more traditional factors such as anchor text..."


It just seems to me that anchored text, being part of a link, is also part of the PageRank system, and therefore, this is not news and not a change.

In another forum, a poster started a new thread titled "This is what's happening at Google" and then in the post itself, quoted an article that sounded very authoritative. It really came accross as factual. I knew the author of the article from, yes even a different forum, and asked him where he got his facts. He said he drew his conclusions from reading other things on the internet, hahaha.

It's all just speculation based on speculation. The articles sound more authoritative because the authors are better writers, but there's no more facts involved than right in the forums, which are 100% opinions.

There is almost zero information available based on documented research.

If you want to know what's going on with Google, you have to research your keywords yourself. You can see my research, but it's for my keywords, not yours. But, I know, research is tedious and boring and therefore webmasters will not get their own facts, they will continue to read the deliciously entertaining tabloids.

Maybe I should start research business for webmaster. :)

Bompa
  • seo
  • Newbie
  • Newbie
  • seo
  • Posts: 5
  • Loc: England

Post 3+ Months Ago

If you check the -googlegoo results closely you'll find they are not the same as last months SERPs and the non commercial searches that are meant to be identical (non commercial 'keyword -googlegoo' = 'keyword)' are not so the entire theory falls apart.

google has shifted it's emphasis away from anchor text/PR towards on page factors and what we are seeing is the result. If you have an all round optimised site or one that was weak on anchor text you would of seen no chnages or improvements (I saw improvements).
  • Bompa
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 229
  • Loc: Philippine Islands

Post 3+ Months Ago

seo wrote:
If you check the -googlegoo results closely you'll find they are not the same as last months SERPs and the non commercial searches that are meant to be identical (non commercial 'keyword -googlegoo' = 'keyword)' are not so the entire theory falls apart.).



-googlegoo ? commerical, non-comercial?

I have no clue what you're talking about sir.
  • kenni
  • Banned
  • Banned
  • kenni
  • Posts: 11

Post 3+ Months Ago

*reading some of the posts*

did google get sued for changing they PageRank????

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 13 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.