ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> On 13-Feb-2005, Big Bill <kruse@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >>>Same problem #2 ranking for couple of years, educational site,
>> >>>now zilch. Go to
>> >>>http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3286101#nottops
>> >>>for why. I'm working on the problem, but welcome comment and
>> >>>input.
>> >>
>> >> Er, that was from 2003. You still working on it? Or (horrors!) did I
>> >> miss something?
>
> No, I've just found the reference, although there appear to be more
> recent threads. The one I quoted seemed to sum up the situation
> quite well. They went public, now they are trying to maximise their
> bottom line by stopping free advertising for commercial sites. Well
> that's how I'm reading it. The thin end of the wedge, leading to pay
> for your ranking. All that I can see happening at the moment is
> hits remain high, with Google hits way down in number, Yahoo hits
> have shot up, and to a less obvious extent (ranking at #1on AV,
> so their hits are staying high anyway) from AV and the others.
>
> Got to #1 on Google by optimising and researching reaction to
> subtle site changes, now I'm researching what Google doesn't
> like, synonyms for words, and alternatives to syntax that
> seems to be downgrading ranking.
>
> Google seems to have shot itself in the foot, they have gone pear
> shaped, and from the logs I'm seeing people are voting with their
> feet (well meeces actually :-)).
Well, one mistake they make is downgrading of sites which have had a
(possibly scheduled) downtime. I checked other search engines (Yahoo, M$N,
Webcrawler, AV) and they all list the site first (and I may as well mention
that the site is Google-oriented (AdSense and dozens of Google references
and recommendations)). Google has put it in page 4 for nearly a week. It
puts a PR0 page on top.
Serenity now! *smile*
Roy
--
Roy Schestowitz
http://schestowitz.com
|
|
