Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Got Some Java!
Posted 11 August 2009 - 10:21 AM
After a few tests it appears to be a lot cleaner results. That should cause a lot more people to get on here complaining they lost
rankings. Anyways have fun.
You can go here to read about it or Matt's blog
Matt Cutts Blog
Posted 11 August 2009 - 10:34 AM
As for the test algo, I can't find my own site in the top 100 results, therefore the new algo sucks!
Posted 11 August 2009 - 01:00 PM
The only thing that I can kinda sorta pin down is that it looks like they're either using links/anchor text as a less important factors or they've done a lot better job with sorting out the more obvious back linking schemes. I only note this because I have at least one or two competitors in pretty much every market I'm in who do a fair amount of forum, blog and/or social network spamming to garner huge numbers of low quality backlinks with spot on anchor text. In every market I've looked at so far each of the sites utilizing these link spamming techniques is now gone from at least the Top 50 results. I didn't look any farther than the Top 50, but considering they were all pretty much Top 5 before I'd call that an improvement.
Let's just say I wouldn't complain if the new Caffeine results went live today. All of my sites I've looked at --and I'm only looking at the 4 or 5 most competitive phrases for each-- have either held their places or moved up. For a couple of my newer sites that were link deficient, meaning not a huge number of links but with several high quality links, jumped up several pages for the most competitive keyword phrases.
For stuff I would normally search for but where I don't have any site in the market I'm not sure I would notice a difference if a site or two fell out of the top spots. I did however spot check a dozen or so of these and each of the top 10 results seemed to be pretty accurate for the search term I entered. So all in all I don't see any problems with the update. Though I'm sure other views will vary.
Posted 11 August 2009 - 02:45 PM
Posted 12 August 2009 - 04:33 AM
BBCoach, was that page a genuine complaint about company XYZ ? if so why should it have been removed?
Posted 12 August 2009 - 09:53 AM
Posted 13 August 2009 - 05:13 AM
I can see why if G! is able to filter these out it's a good thing, but how it works out genuine from bogus or defunct complaints is a mystery, especially when the SE's seem so dumb at times.
I had a similar situation but the other way round, I had a bad experience with a hosting company, I was fuming and wanted to give them a slating (backed up with screen shots and suport ticket correspondance). I found a site dedicated to slating this particular company off, geat I thought perfect place to announce my grievance...
However, before posting I checked the site out, all I found was each forum section filled with spam for Viagra and enlargments! , 20-30 spammed threads in each section.
So I thought ok, I'll come back in a week and see if the moderators have cleaned things up....they hadn't , so I PM'd the moderator giving them a heads up over the spam.. a week later, it still hadn't gone. I gave it another week and still the site hadn't been cleaned up, it had got worse!
Now although I had a serious greivance to post on a site dedicated to this company's bad customer service, I was not prepared to post on a forum that was used mainly for spam and not moderated, infact instead of using the site to post my complaint about company XYZ, I used my GWMT account to 'report' this site to G! for the spam.
Why should this forum site show no.1 for 'problems with XYZ', when it's nothing but spam going unmoderated. This time the sites bad customer service got them a complaint.
Oh the irony , so I can see where you're coming from BBCoach, sometimes these sites create more trouble than the good they are meant to do, so I hope this site gets filtered out with the new Caffeine algo!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users