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
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...