Hi Guys,
I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
(google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
spared this fluctuation.
Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
Cheers.
Miles.
Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
fluctuate.
There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
link exchange schemes, etc.
Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> Hi Guys,
> I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> spared this fluctuation.
> Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> Cheers.
> Miles.
> Hi Guys,
> I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> spared this fluctuation.
> Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> Cheers.
> Miles.
It would make sense if #1 and #2 NEVER changed. They would surely be
THE best websites for that keyword. But tha fact that the #2 spot
changes, means that one of them is not. also, the sites that fill that
position jump in and then drop off to the second page, not to a
position thats closer (#4, #5). I also realise the algo changes
happen, but after 5-6 months, you would think it would settle.
Webhistory is also another thing, if i search from my computer,
wouldn't I get similar results on my computer
> Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
> other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
> Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
> authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
> fluctuate.
> There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
> been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
> which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
> link exchange schemes, etc.
> Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
> the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
> account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
> search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
> the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
> seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
> mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > spared this fluctuation.
> > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > Cheers.
> > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
> Your observation about the sites that are not in the shuffle is
> correctly witnessed.
> On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > spared this fluctuation.
> > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > Cheers.
> > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
EVery time you search even from yrou computer you are likely connected
to a diffrent datacenter.
Also every time you search your clicks end up being tallied against
your web history (if you are signed into yoru Google acount and have
enabled that feature). So your chocie of what to click NOW influences
what you will be served later, from among whatever is available in the
datacenter you are accessing randomly. So t's not likely to remain
constant.
Maybe only the #1 site is so heavily entrenched as to be a fixture.
All others are probably close in pagerank and can easily get shuflled
around and still correspond to the query to the same degree.
> It would make sense if #1 and #2 NEVER changed. They would surely be
> THE best websites for that keyword. But tha fact that the #2 spot
> changes, means that one of them is not. also, the sites that fill that
> position jump in and then drop off to the second page, not to a
> position thats closer (#4, #5). I also realise the algo changes
> happen, but after 5-6 months, you would think it would settle.
> Webhistory is also another thing, if i search from my computer,
> wouldn't I get similar results on my computer
> On Jun 12, 11:54 am, webado wrote:
> > Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
> > other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
> > Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
> > authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
> > fluctuate.
> > There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
> > been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
> > which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
> > link exchange schemes, etc.
> > Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
> > the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
> > account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
> > search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
> > the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
> > seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
> > mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> > On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > Hi Guys,
> > > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > > spared this fluctuation.
> > > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > > Cheers.
> > > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
> EVery time you search even from yrou computer you are likely connected
> to a diffrent datacenter.
> Also every time you search your clicks end up being tallied against
> your web history (if you are signed into yoru Google acount and have
> enabled that feature). So your chocie of what to click NOW influences
> what you will be served later, from among whatever is available in the
> datacenter you are accessing randomly. So t's not likely to remain
> constant.
> Maybe only the #1 site is so heavily entrenched as to be a fixture.
> All others are probably close in pagerank and can easily get shuflled
> around and still correspond to the query to the same degree.
> On Jun 11, 10:15 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > It would make sense if #1 and #2 NEVER changed. They would surely be
> > THE best websites for that keyword. But tha fact that the #2 spot
> > changes, means that one of them is not. also, the sites that fill that
> > position jump in and then drop off to the second page, not to a
> > position thats closer (#4, #5). I also realise the algo changes
> > happen, but after 5-6 months, you would think it would settle.
> > Webhistory is also another thing, if i search from my computer,
> > wouldn't I get similar results on my computer
> > On Jun 12, 11:54 am, webado wrote:
> > > Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
> > > other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
> > > Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
> > > authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
> > > fluctuate.
> > > There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
> > > been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
> > > which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
> > > link exchange schemes, etc.
> > > Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
> > > the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
> > > account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
> > > search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
> > > the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
> > > seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
> > > mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> > > On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > > > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > > > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > > > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > > > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > > > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > > > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > > > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > > > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > > > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > > > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > > > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > > > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > > > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > > > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > > > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > > > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > > > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > > > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > > > spared this fluctuation.
> > > > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > Cheers.
> > > > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
Intentionally? What might be such a diabolical intention? To torment
webmasters? ;)
I doubt it. I'd say it's more like when you have several items of the
same weight (read: relevance to the query), when you sort them by this
weight they can come in any order.
> Is it possible that, in addition to the other factors, Google also
> intentionally shuffles the results?
> On Jun 11, 9:23 pm, webado wrote:
> > EVery time you search even from yrou computer you are likely connected
> > to a diffrent datacenter.
> > Also every time you search your clicks end up being tallied against
> > your web history (if you are signed into yoru Google acount and have
> > enabled that feature). So your chocie of what to click NOW influences
> > what you will be served later, from among whatever is available in the
> > datacenter you are accessing randomly. So t's not likely to remain
> > constant.
> > Maybe only the #1 site is so heavily entrenched as to be a fixture.
> > All others are probably close in pagerank and can easily get shuflled
> > around and still correspond to the query to the same degree.
> > On Jun 11, 10:15 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > It would make sense if #1 and #2 NEVER changed. They would surely be
> > > THE best websites for that keyword. But tha fact that the #2 spot
> > > changes, means that one of them is not. also, the sites that fill that
> > > position jump in and then drop off to the second page, not to a
> > > position thats closer (#4, #5). I also realise the algo changes
> > > happen, but after 5-6 months, you would think it would settle.
> > > Webhistory is also another thing, if i search from my computer,
> > > wouldn't I get similar results on my computer
> > > On Jun 12, 11:54 am, webado wrote:
> > > > Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
> > > > other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
> > > > Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
> > > > authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
> > > > fluctuate.
> > > > There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
> > > > been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
> > > > which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
> > > > link exchange schemes, etc.
> > > > Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
> > > > the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
> > > > account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
> > > > search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
> > > > the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
> > > > seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
> > > > mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> > > > On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > > > > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > > > > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > > > > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > > > > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > > > > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > > > > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > > > > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > > > > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > > > > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > > > > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > > > > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > > > > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > > > > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > > > > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > > > > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > > > > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > > > > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > > > > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > > > > spared this fluctuation.
> > > > > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > > Cheers.
> > > > > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
> Intentionally? What might be such a diabolical intention? To torment
> webmasters? ;)
> I doubt it. I'd say it's more like when you have several items of the
> same weight (read: relevance to the query), when you sort them by this
> weight they can come in any order.
> On Jun 12, 6:51 am, gardener wrote:
> > Is it possible that, in addition to the other factors, Google also
> > intentionally shuffles the results?
> > On Jun 11, 9:23 pm, webado wrote:
> > > EVery time you search even from yrou computer you are likely connected
> > > to a diffrent datacenter.
> > > Also every time you search your clicks end up being tallied against
> > > your web history (if you are signed into yoru Google acount and have
> > > enabled that feature). So your chocie of what to click NOW influences
> > > what you will be served later, from among whatever is available in the
> > > datacenter you are accessing randomly. So t's not likely to remain
> > > constant.
> > > Maybe only the #1 site is so heavily entrenched as to be a fixture.
> > > All others are probably close in pagerank and can easily get shuflled
> > > around and still correspond to the query to the same degree.
> > > On Jun 11, 10:15 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > It would make sense if #1 and #2 NEVER changed. They would surely be
> > > > THE best websites for that keyword. But tha fact that the #2 spot
> > > > changes, means that one of them is not. also, the sites that fill that
> > > > position jump in and then drop off to the second page, not to a
> > > > position thats closer (#4, #5). I also realise the algo changes
> > > > happen, but after 5-6 months, you would think it would settle.
> > > > Webhistory is also another thing, if i search from my computer,
> > > > wouldn't I get similar results on my computer
> > > > On Jun 12, 11:54 am, webado wrote:
> > > > > Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
> > > > > other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
> > > > > Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
> > > > > authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
> > > > > fluctuate.
> > > > > There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
> > > > > been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
> > > > > which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
> > > > > link exchange schemes, etc.
> > > > > Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
> > > > > the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
> > > > > account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
> > > > > search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
> > > > > the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
> > > > > seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
> > > > > mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> > > > > On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > > > > > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > > > > > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > > > > > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > > > > > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > > > > > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > > > > > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > > > > > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > > > > > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > > > > > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > > > > > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > > > > > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > > > > > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > > > > > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > > > > > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > > > > > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > > > > > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > > > > > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > > > > > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > > > > > spared this fluctuation.
> > > > > > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > > > Cheers.
> > > > > > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Webado and gardener, while both those theories seem quite logical and
I've seen them in many forums. It would be a fair way of spreading the
business with so many websites about these days. The flaw with the
theories though is that is does not pertain to ALL websites. If you
think that the websites that don't flux are better overall, thats
fine, but again, I see the #2 position change so much with ridiculous
results eg. a site that normally ranks #15 will go there for a few
hours, then gone for weeks. So if those 2 websites are so good, why
does a very average result appear between them regularly. I've been
writing about this for months in forums. My only hope is that it
settles down eventually. Also, every report I have done from other
locations and websites that show results give me the same results I
see from my searches on my own PC, making Geotargeting and relative
datacentres no real reason at all. In other words, I get the same
results no matter what medium I use. I am seeing something quite good
in terms of how we can conduct business though. I seems that
superficial SEO (meta, on pages keyword ratio, blogs, forum entries,
etc) are not helping too much these days. It appears there are factors
behind the scenes that are mainly influencing the current algo. Why am
I happy about this, it means that i can actually just continue to
write what i want and run my website the way a business should be,
instead of always thinking in SEO. The bad side is my position is
making my turnover about 30% less than what it was last year when I
was #4. Thanks for your input though guys.
> Maybe an intentional shuffle could be used to test which sites get the
> best response from searchers.
> On Jun 12, 6:32 am, webado wrote:
> > Intentionally? What might be such a diabolical intention? To torment
> > webmasters? ;)
> > I doubt it. I'd say it's more like when you have several items of the
> > same weight (read: relevance to the query), when you sort them by this
> > weight they can come in any order.
> > On Jun 12, 6:51 am, gardener wrote:
> > > Is it possible that, in addition to the other factors, Google also
> > > intentionally shuffles the results?
> > > On Jun 11, 9:23 pm, webado wrote:
> > > > EVery time you search even from yrou computer you are likely connected
> > > > to a diffrent datacenter.
> > > > Also every time you search your clicks end up being tallied against
> > > > your web history (if you are signed into yoru Google acount and have
> > > > enabled that feature). So your chocie of what to click NOW influences
> > > > what you will be served later, from among whatever is available in the
> > > > datacenter you are accessing randomly. So t's not likely to remain
> > > > constant.
> > > > Maybe only the #1 site is so heavily entrenched as to be a fixture.
> > > > All others are probably close in pagerank and can easily get shuflled
> > > > around and still correspond to the query to the same degree.
> > > > On Jun 11, 10:15 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > It would make sense if #1 and #2 NEVER changed. They would surely be
> > > > > THE best websites for that keyword. But tha fact that the #2 spot
> > > > > changes, means that one of them is not. also, the sites that fill that
> > > > > position jump in and then drop off to the second page, not to a
> > > > > position thats closer (#4, #5). I also realise the algo changes
> > > > > happen, but after 5-6 months, you would think it would settle.
> > > > > Webhistory is also another thing, if i search from my computer,
> > > > > wouldn't I get similar results on my computer
> > > > > On Jun 12, 11:54 am, webado wrote:
> > > > > > Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
> > > > > > other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
> > > > > > Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
> > > > > > authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
> > > > > > fluctuate.
> > > > > > There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
> > > > > > been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
> > > > > > which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
> > > > > > link exchange schemes, etc.
> > > > > > Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
> > > > > > the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
> > > > > > account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
> > > > > > search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
> > > > > > the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
> > > > > > seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
> > > > > > mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > > > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > > > > > > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > > > > > > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > > > > > > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > > > > > > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > > > > > > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > > > > > > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > > > > > > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > > > > > > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > > > > > > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > > > > > > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > > > > > > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > > > > > > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > > > > > > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > > > > > > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > > > > > > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > > > > > > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > > > > > > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > > > > > > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > > > > > > spared this fluctuation.
> > > > > > > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > > > > Cheers.
> > > > > > > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Unless you zero in on specific datacenters with your queries you
cannot say the datacenter is not an element that influences results.
You should collect a few datacenter IP addresses and run your tests
with those. Of course this still won't allow for variations based on
the Google tld used.
> Webado and gardener, while both those theories seem quite logical and
> I've seen them in many forums. It would be a fair way of spreading the
> business with so many websites about these days. The flaw with the
> theories though is that is does not pertain to ALL websites. If you
> think that the websites that don't flux are better overall, thats
> fine, but again, I see the #2 position change so much with ridiculous
> results eg. a site that normally ranks #15 will go there for a few
> hours, then gone for weeks. So if those 2 websites are so good, why
> does a very average result appear between them regularly. I've been
> writing about this for months in forums. My only hope is that it
> settles down eventually. Also, every report I have done from other
> locations and websites that show results give me the same results I
> see from my searches on my own PC, making Geotargeting and relative
> datacentres no real reason at all. In other words, I get the same
> results no matter what medium I use. I am seeing something quite good
> in terms of how we can conduct business though. I seems that
> superficial SEO (meta, on pages keyword ratio, blogs, forum entries,
> etc) are not helping too much these days. It appears there are factors
> behind the scenes that are mainly influencing the current algo. Why am
> I happy about this, it means that i can actually just continue to
> write what i want and run my website the way a business should be,
> instead of always thinking in SEO. The bad side is my position is
> making my turnover about 30% less than what it was last year when I
> was #4. Thanks for your input though guys.
> On Jun 12, 10:56 pm, gardener wrote:
> > Maybe an intentional shuffle could be used to test which sites get the
> > best response from searchers.
> > On Jun 12, 6:32 am, webado wrote:
> > > Intentionally? What might be such a diabolical intention? To torment
> > > webmasters? ;)
> > > I doubt it. I'd say it's more like when you have several items of the
> > > same weight (read: relevance to the query), when you sort them by this
> > > weight they can come in any order.
> > > On Jun 12, 6:51 am, gardener wrote:
> > > > Is it possible that, in addition to the other factors, Google also
> > > > intentionally shuffles the results?
> > > > On Jun 11, 9:23 pm, webado wrote:
> > > > > EVery time you search even from yrou computer you are likely connected
> > > > > to a diffrent datacenter.
> > > > > Also every time you search your clicks end up being tallied against
> > > > > your web history (if you are signed into yoru Google acount and have
> > > > > enabled that feature). So your chocie of what to click NOW influences
> > > > > what you will be served later, from among whatever is available in the
> > > > > datacenter you are accessing randomly. So t's not likely to remain
> > > > > constant.
> > > > > Maybe only the #1 site is so heavily entrenched as to be a fixture.
> > > > > All others are probably close in pagerank and can easily get shuflled
> > > > > around and still correspond to the query to the same degree.
> > > > > On Jun 11, 10:15 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > > It would make sense if #1 and #2 NEVER changed. They would surely be
> > > > > > THE best websites for that keyword. But tha fact that the #2 spot
> > > > > > changes, means that one of them is not. also, the sites that fill that
> > > > > > position jump in and then drop off to the second page, not to a
> > > > > > position thats closer (#4, #5). I also realise the algo changes
> > > > > > happen, but after 5-6 months, you would think it would settle.
> > > > > > Webhistory is also another thing, if i search from my computer,
> > > > > > wouldn't I get similar results on my computer
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 11:54 am, webado wrote:
> > > > > > > Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
> > > > > > > other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
> > > > > > > Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
> > > > > > > authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
> > > > > > > fluctuate.
> > > > > > > There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
> > > > > > > been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
> > > > > > > which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
> > > > > > > link exchange schemes, etc.
> > > > > > > Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
> > > > > > > the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
> > > > > > > account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
> > > > > > > search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
> > > > > > > the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
> > > > > > > seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
> > > > > > > mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> > > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > > > > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > > > > > > > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > > > > > > > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > > > > > > > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > > > > > > > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > > > > > > > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > > > > > > > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > > > > > > > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > > > > > > > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > > > > > > > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > > > > > > > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > > > > > > > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > > > > > > > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > > > > > > > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > > > > > > > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > > > > > > > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > > > > > > > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > > > > > > > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > > > > > > > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > > > > > > > spared this fluctuation.
> > > > > > > > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > > > > > Cheers.
> > > > > > > > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> Intentionally? What might be such a diabolical intention? To torment
> webmasters? ;)
> I doubt it. I'd say it's more like when you have several items of the
> same weight (read: relevance to the query), when you sort them by this
> weight they can come in any order.
> On Jun 12, 6:51 am, gardener wrote:
> > Is it possible that, in addition to the other factors, Google also
> > intentionally shuffles the results?
> > On Jun 11, 9:23 pm, webado wrote:
> > > EVery time you search even from yrou computer you are likely connected
> > > to a diffrent datacenter.
> > > Also every time you search your clicks end up being tallied against
> > > your web history (if you are signed into yoru Google acount and have
> > > enabled that feature). So your chocie of what to click NOW influences
> > > what you will be served later, from among whatever is available in the
> > > datacenter you are accessing randomly. So t's not likely to remain
> > > constant.
> > > Maybe only the #1 site is so heavily entrenched as to be a fixture.
> > > All others are probably close in pagerank and can easily get shuflled
> > > around and still correspond to the query to the same degree.
> > > On Jun 11, 10:15 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > It would make sense if #1 and #2 NEVER changed. They would surely be
> > > > THE best websites for that keyword. But tha fact that the #2 spot
> > > > changes, means that one of them is not. also, the sites that fill that
> > > > position jump in and then drop off to the second page, not to a
> > > > position thats closer (#4, #5). I also realise the algo changes
> > > > happen, but after 5-6 months, you would think it would settle.
> > > > Webhistory is also another thing, if i search from my computer,
> > > > wouldn't I get similar results on my computer
> > > > On Jun 12, 11:54 am, webado wrote:
> > > > > Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
> > > > > other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
> > > > > Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
> > > > > authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
> > > > > fluctuate.
> > > > > There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
> > > > > been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
> > > > > which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
> > > > > link exchange schemes, etc.
> > > > > Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
> > > > > the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
> > > > > account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
> > > > > search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
> > > > > the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
> > > > > seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
> > > > > mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> > > > > On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > > > > > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > > > > > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > > > > > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > > > > > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > > > > > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > > > > > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > > > > > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > > > > > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > > > > > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > > > > > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > > > > > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > > > > > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > > > > > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > > > > > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > > > > > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > > > > > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > > > > > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > > > > > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > > > > > spared this fluctuation.
> > > > > > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > > > Cheers.
> > > > > > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
There are a lot of factors that go into ranking in particular, not to
mention elements like the different datacenters that come into play.
As mentioned in a blog post about search quality (
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/introduction-to-google-search-... ), we made over 450 adjustments in our systems in the last year alone
-- things are always being changed, hopefully for the better :).
That said, perhaps there are specific issues that are involved with
your site. If you could post your URL, we could take a look and see if
there is something we can help you with. That usually helps much more
than philosophical discussions about generic changes.
True but you have to realize John that most us who have watched "the
shuffle" for a long time are prone to thinking things...we try to find
answers and in doing so come to conclusions that may or may not be
correct.
Why wouldn't Google shuffle sites above the spam certain times of day
to give them visibility and determine human interest?
> There are a lot of factors that go into ranking in particular, not to
> mention elements like the different datacenters that come into play.
> As mentioned in a blog post about search quality (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/introduction-to-google-search-...
> ), we made over 450 adjustments in our systems in the last year alone
> -- things are always being changed, hopefully for the better :).
> That said, perhaps there are specific issues that are involved with
> your site. If you could post your URL, we could take a look and see if
> there is something we can help you with. That usually helps much more
> than philosophical discussions about generic changes.
> Is it possible that, in addition to the other factors, Google also
> intentionally shuffles the results?
> On Jun 11, 9:23 pm, webado wrote:
> > EVery time you search even from yrou computer you are likely connected
> > to a diffrent datacenter.
> > Also every time you search your clicks end up being tallied against
> > your web history (if you are signed into yoru Google acount and have
> > enabled that feature). So your chocie of what to click NOW influences
> > what you will be served later, from among whatever is available in the
> > datacenter you are accessing randomly. So t's not likely to remain
> > constant.
> > Maybe only the #1 site is so heavily entrenched as to be a fixture.
> > All others are probably close in pagerank and can easily get shuflled
> > around and still correspond to the query to the same degree.
> > On Jun 11, 10:15 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > It would make sense if #1 and #2 NEVER changed. They would surely be
> > > THE best websites for that keyword. But tha fact that the #2 spot
> > > changes, means that one of them is not. also, the sites that fill that
> > > position jump in and then drop off to the second page, not to a
> > > position thats closer (#4, #5). I also realise the algo changes
> > > happen, but after 5-6 months, you would think it would settle.
> > > Webhistory is also another thing, if i search from my computer,
> > > wouldn't I get similar results on my computer
> > > On Jun 12, 11:54 am, webado wrote:
> > > > Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
> > > > other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
> > > > Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
> > > > authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
> > > > fluctuate.
> > > > There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
> > > > been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
> > > > which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
> > > > link exchange schemes, etc.
> > > > Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
> > > > the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
> > > > account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
> > > > search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
> > > > the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
> > > > seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
> > > > mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> > > > On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > > > > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > > > > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > > > > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > > > > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > > > > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > > > > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > > > > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > > > > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > > > > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > > > > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > > > > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > > > > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > > > > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > > > > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > > > > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > > > > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > > > > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > > > > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > > > > spared this fluctuation.
> > > > > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > > Cheers.
> > > > > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
I've been watching this across DCs, and one other issue - it appears
that this shuffling may actually occur as post processing. On
ocassion I've seen DCs pretty much in sync but the results on
Google.com very, very different, and subject to change on page
refreshes.
> Unless you zero in on specific datacenters with your queries you
> cannot say the datacenter is not an element that influences results.
> You should collect a few datacenter IP addresses and run your tests
> with those. Of course this still won't allow for variations based on
> the Google tld used.
> On Jun 12, 6:00 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > Webado and gardener, while both those theories seem quite logical and
> > I've seen them in many forums. It would be a fair way of spreading the
> > business with so many websites about these days. The flaw with the
> > theories though is that is does not pertain to ALL websites. If you
> > think that the websites that don't flux are better overall, thats
> > fine, but again, I see the #2 position change so much with ridiculous
> > results eg. a site that normally ranks #15 will go there for a few
> > hours, then gone for weeks. So if those 2 websites are so good, why
> > does a very average result appear between them regularly. I've been
> > writing about this for months in forums. My only hope is that it
> > settles down eventually. Also, every report I have done from other
> > locations and websites that show results give me the same results I
> > see from my searches on my own PC, making Geotargeting and relative
> > datacentres no real reason at all. In other words, I get the same
> > results no matter what medium I use. I am seeing something quite good
> > in terms of how we can conduct business though. I seems that
> > superficial SEO (meta, on pages keyword ratio, blogs, forum entries,
> > etc) are not helping too much these days. It appears there are factors
> > behind the scenes that are mainly influencing the current algo. Why am
> > I happy about this, it means that i can actually just continue to
> > write what i want and run my website the way a business should be,
> > instead of always thinking in SEO. The bad side is my position is
> > making my turnover about 30% less than what it was last year when I
> > was #4. Thanks for your input though guys.
> > On Jun 12, 10:56 pm, gardener wrote:
> > > Maybe an intentional shuffle could be used to test which sites get the
> > > best response from searchers.
> > > On Jun 12, 6:32 am, webado wrote:
> > > > Intentionally? What might be such a diabolical intention? To torment
> > > > webmasters? ;)
> > > > I doubt it. I'd say it's more like when you have several items of the
> > > > same weight (read: relevance to the query), when you sort them by this
> > > > weight they can come in any order.
> > > > On Jun 12, 6:51 am, gardener wrote:
> > > > > Is it possible that, in addition to the other factors, Google also
> > > > > intentionally shuffles the results?
> > > > > On Jun 11, 9:23 pm, webado wrote:
> > > > > > EVery time you search even from yrou computer you are likely connected
> > > > > > to a diffrent datacenter.
> > > > > > Also every time you search your clicks end up being tallied against
> > > > > > your web history (if you are signed into yoru Google acount and have
> > > > > > enabled that feature). So your chocie of what to click NOW influences
> > > > > > what you will be served later, from among whatever is available in the
> > > > > > datacenter you are accessing randomly. So t's not likely to remain
> > > > > > constant.
> > > > > > Maybe only the #1 site is so heavily entrenched as to be a fixture.
> > > > > > All others are probably close in pagerank and can easily get shuflled
> > > > > > around and still correspond to the query to the same degree.
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 10:15 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > > > It would make sense if #1 and #2 NEVER changed. They would surely be
> > > > > > > THE best websites for that keyword. But tha fact that the #2 spot
> > > > > > > changes, means that one of them is not. also, the sites that fill that
> > > > > > > position jump in and then drop off to the second page, not to a
> > > > > > > position thats closer (#4, #5). I also realise the algo changes
> > > > > > > happen, but after 5-6 months, you would think it would settle.
> > > > > > > Webhistory is also another thing, if i search from my computer,
> > > > > > > wouldn't I get similar results on my computer
> > > > > > > On Jun 12, 11:54 am, webado wrote:
> > > > > > > > Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
> > > > > > > > other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
> > > > > > > > Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
> > > > > > > > authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
> > > > > > > > fluctuate.
> > > > > > > > There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
> > > > > > > > been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
> > > > > > > > which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
> > > > > > > > link exchange schemes, etc.
> > > > > > > > Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
> > > > > > > > the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
> > > > > > > > account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
> > > > > > > > search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
> > > > > > > > the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
> > > > > > > > seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
> > > > > > > > mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > > > > > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > > > > > > > > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > > > > > > > > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > > > > > > > > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > > > > > > > > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > > > > > > > > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > > > > > > > > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > > > > > > > > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > > > > > > > > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > > > > > > > > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > > > > > > > > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > > > > > > > > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > > > > > > > > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > > > > > > > > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > > > > > > > > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > > > > > > > > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > > > > > > > > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > > > > > > > > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > > > > > > > > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > > > > > > > > spared this fluctuation.
> > > > > > > > > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > > > > > > Cheers.
> > > > > > > > > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
I think I've only seen one or two cases where a search on google.tld
that I did returned one set of results and using the same IP address
of the google.tld DC gave a very different result (usually it's just
the ads that are absent when using the IP). Of course it could be
that between the search by tld and my pinging for the IP I got a
different DC, even if it was all very quick on my end.
Maybe geotargeting was in effect using the google tld and none using
the IP, or a different bias was put on it.
> I've been watching this across DCs, and one other issue - it appears
> that this shuffling may actually occur as post processing. On
> ocassion I've seen DCs pretty much in sync but the results on
> Google.com very, very different, and subject to change on page
> refreshes.
> Rgds
> Richard
> On Jun 13, 1:09 am, webado wrote:
> > Unless you zero in on specific datacenters with your queries you
> > cannot say the datacenter is not an element that influences results.
> > You should collect a few datacenter IP addresses and run your tests
> > with those. Of course this still won't allow for variations based on
> > the Google tld used.
> > On Jun 12, 6:00 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > Webado and gardener, while both those theories seem quite logical and
> > > I've seen them in many forums. It would be a fair way of spreading the
> > > business with so many websites about these days. The flaw with the
> > > theories though is that is does not pertain to ALL websites. If you
> > > think that the websites that don't flux are better overall, thats
> > > fine, but again, I see the #2 position change so much with ridiculous
> > > results eg. a site that normally ranks #15 will go there for a few
> > > hours, then gone for weeks. So if those 2 websites are so good, why
> > > does a very average result appear between them regularly. I've been
> > > writing about this for months in forums. My only hope is that it
> > > settles down eventually. Also, every report I have done from other
> > > locations and websites that show results give me the same results I
> > > see from my searches on my own PC, making Geotargeting and relative
> > > datacentres no real reason at all. In other words, I get the same
> > > results no matter what medium I use. I am seeing something quite good
> > > in terms of how we can conduct business though. I seems that
> > > superficial SEO (meta, on pages keyword ratio, blogs, forum entries,
> > > etc) are not helping too much these days. It appears there are factors
> > > behind the scenes that are mainly influencing the current algo. Why am
> > > I happy about this, it means that i can actually just continue to
> > > write what i want and run my website the way a business should be,
> > > instead of always thinking in SEO. The bad side is my position is
> > > making my turnover about 30% less than what it was last year when I
> > > was #4. Thanks for your input though guys.
> > > On Jun 12, 10:56 pm, gardener wrote:
> > > > Maybe an intentional shuffle could be used to test which sites get the
> > > > best response from searchers.
> > > > On Jun 12, 6:32 am, webado wrote:
> > > > > Intentionally? What might be such a diabolical intention? To torment
> > > > > webmasters? ;)
> > > > > I doubt it. I'd say it's more like when you have several items of the
> > > > > same weight (read: relevance to the query), when you sort them by this
> > > > > weight they can come in any order.
> > > > > On Jun 12, 6:51 am, gardener wrote:
> > > > > > Is it possible that, in addition to the other factors, Google also
> > > > > > intentionally shuffles the results?
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:23 pm, webado wrote:
> > > > > > > EVery time you search even from yrou computer you are likely connected
> > > > > > > to a diffrent datacenter.
> > > > > > > Also every time you search your clicks end up being tallied against
> > > > > > > your web history (if you are signed into yoru Google acount and have
> > > > > > > enabled that feature). So your chocie of what to click NOW influences
> > > > > > > what you will be served later, from among whatever is available in the
> > > > > > > datacenter you are accessing randomly. So t's not likely to remain
> > > > > > > constant.
> > > > > > > Maybe only the #1 site is so heavily entrenched as to be a fixture.
> > > > > > > All others are probably close in pagerank and can easily get shuflled
> > > > > > > around and still correspond to the query to the same degree.
> > > > > > > On Jun 11, 10:15 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > > > > It would make sense if #1 and #2 NEVER changed. They would surely be
> > > > > > > > THE best websites for that keyword. But tha fact that the #2 spot
> > > > > > > > changes, means that one of them is not. also, the sites that fill that
> > > > > > > > position jump in and then drop off to the second page, not to a
> > > > > > > > position thats closer (#4, #5). I also realise the algo changes
> > > > > > > > happen, but after 5-6 months, you would think it would settle.
> > > > > > > > Webhistory is also another thing, if i search from my computer,
> > > > > > > > wouldn't I get similar results on my computer
> > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 11:54 am, webado wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Multiple datacenters, never quite in sync. This means your site, any
> > > > > > > > > other competing site can appear anywhere, or not at all even.
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps the #1 and #2/3 sites are very well established as most
> > > > > > > > > authoritative sites on the subject, so they are less likely to
> > > > > > > > > fluctuate.
> > > > > > > > > There are always algorithm changes. More serious recent changes have
> > > > > > > > > been in weeding out duplicate content, spam of all ilk, demote pages
> > > > > > > > > which had enjoyed unfair advantages previously through paid links,
> > > > > > > > > link exchange schemes, etc.
> > > > > > > > > Other changes appear to concern geo targeting where the location of
> > > > > > > > > the searcher as well as the Google tld used are both taken into
> > > > > > > > > account when returning results. Add to it the possibility of past web
> > > > > > > > > search history influencing current results - kind of like guessing at
> > > > > > > > > the searcher's expectations based on previous searches and what they
> > > > > > > > > seem to have preferred from the results presented. A kind of feedback
> > > > > > > > > mechanism that influences subsequent results for the same searches.
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:37 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > > > > > > > I'm sure you get thousands of enquiries a day, but I thought I might
> > > > > > > > > > seek an answer from you guys directly. As a website owner I constantly
> > > > > > > > > > check my generic results for my major keyword "wedding invitations".
> > > > > > > > > > For years it has been a pretty stable return for the top 10
> > > > > > > > > > (google.com.au), but since the beginning of this year I have seen a
> > > > > > > > > > huge variation in results, sometimes within a few minutes of each
> > > > > > > > > > other. Basically I noticed that most of the webpages listed changed
> > > > > > > > > > their positions dramatically. Myself, I went from #4, to #13, now I
> > > > > > > > > > fluctuate constantly between #7 and #13 and this has been going on for
> > > > > > > > > > months now (since Jan 2 or 3). There was abviously some kind of algo
> > > > > > > > > > change here, but I have seen 2 sites in these listings that don't
> > > > > > > > > > change at all. So, my question is, is this a flaw, as surely the
> > > > > > > > > > results and algo's should be applicable to all websites. The websites
> > > > > > > > > > that don't change are invitationhouse[dot}com.au (#1) and
> > > > > > > > > > kardella[dot]com (#2 and #3 depending on the day). If they are just
> > > > > > > > > > way better websites than the rest of us (I can happen I suppose :)
> > > > > > > > > > then how come position #2 is constantly changing as well? I'm not
> > > > > > > > > > saying my position is not fair (although I think it should be better
> > > > > > > > > > as we all do :), but my concern is that these 2 website seem to be
> > > > > > > > > > spared this fluctuation.
> > > > > > > > > > Any insights or help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers.
> > > > > > > > > > Miles.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Hi John,
apologies for the delay in replying. I totally agree that these
philosophical debates are basically theory based. My website URL is
www.dizzidezine.com.au and the major keyword for my industry is
wedding invitations. Thank you kindly for offering help on this and I
look very forward to seeing your responce.
Regards.
Miles
> There are a lot of factors that go into ranking in particular, not to
> mention elements like the different datacenters that come into play.
> As mentioned in a blog post about search quality (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/introduction-to-google-search-...
> ), we made over 450 adjustments in our systems in the last year alone
> -- things are always being changed, hopefully for the better :).
> That said, perhaps there are specific issues that are involved with
> your site. If you could post your URL, we could take a look and see if
> there is something we can help you with. That usually helps much more
> than philosophical discussions about generic changes.
Hey Guys,
The DC fact seems a fair comment. Can anyone recommend a good tool for
testing different datacentres. I've never tried this before so want to
do it accurately.
Regards.
Miles
> Hi John,
> apologies for the delay in replying. I totally agree that these
> philosophical debates are basically theory based. My website URL iswww.dizzidezine.com.auand the major keyword for my industry is
> wedding invitations. Thank you kindly for offering help on this and I
> look very forward to seeing your responce.
> Regards.
> Miles
> On Jun 13, 5:59 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > Hi Miles and welcome to the groups!
> > There are a lot of factors that go into ranking in particular, not to
> > mention elements like the different datacenters that come into play.
> > As mentioned in a blog post about search quality (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/introduction-to-google-search-...
> > ), we made over 450 adjustments in our systems in the last year alone
> > -- things are always being changed, hopefully for the better :).
> > That said, perhaps there are specific issues that are involved with
> > your site. If you could post your URL, we could take a look and see if
> > there is something we can help you with. That usually helps much more
> > than philosophical discussions about generic changes.
> > Hope to hear back from you soon!
> > John- Hide quoted text -
> Hey Guys,
> The DC fact seems a fair comment. Can anyone recommend a good tool for
> testing different datacentres. I've never tried this before so want to
> do it accurately.
> Regards.
> Miles
> On Jun 17, 9:13 am, MilesK wrote:
> > Hi John,
> > apologies for the delay in replying. I totally agree that these
> > philosophical debates are basically theory based. My website URL iswww.dizzidezine.com.auandthe major keyword for my industry is
> > wedding invitations. Thank you kindly for offering help on this and I
> > look very forward to seeing your responce.
> > Regards.
> > Miles
> > On Jun 13, 5:59 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > > Hi Miles and welcome to the groups!
> > > There are a lot of factors that go into ranking in particular, not to
> > > mention elements like the different datacenters that come into play.
> > > As mentioned in a blog post about search quality (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/introduction-to-google-search-...
> > > ), we made over 450 adjustments in our systems in the last year alone
> > > -- things are always being changed, hopefully for the better :).
> > > That said, perhaps there are specific issues that are involved with
> > > your site. If you could post your URL, we could take a look and see if
> > > there is something we can help you with. That usually helps much more
> > > than philosophical discussions about generic changes.
> > > Hope to hear back from you soon!
> > > John- Hide quoted text -
> Hey Guys,
> The DC fact seems a fair comment. Can anyone recommend a good tool for
> testing different datacentres. I've never tried this before so want to
> do it accurately.
> Regards.
> Miles
> On Jun 17, 9:13 am, MilesK wrote:
> > Hi John,
> > apologies for the delay in replying. I totally agree that these
> > philosophical debates are basically theory based. My website URL iswww.dizzidezine.com.auandthe major keyword for my industry is
> > wedding invitations. Thank you kindly for offering help on this and I
> > look very forward to seeing your responce.
> > Regards.
> > Miles
> > On Jun 13, 5:59 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > > Hi Miles and welcome to the groups!
> > > There are a lot of factors that go into ranking in particular, not to
> > > mention elements like the different datacenters that come into play.
> > > As mentioned in a blog post about search quality (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/introduction-to-google-search-...
> > > ), we made over 450 adjustments in our systems in the last year alone
> > > -- things are always being changed, hopefully for the better :).
> > > That said, perhaps there are specific issues that are involved with
> > > your site. If you could post your URL, we could take a look and see if
> > > there is something we can help you with. That usually helps much more
> > > than philosophical discussions about generic changes.
> > > Hope to hear back from you soon!
> > > John- Hide quoted text -
Look again, a few minutes later and I'm #10. On the weekend I jumped
to the second page. I have seen the #1 and #2 position stay constant
for the last few days though, which is my real point to this thread,
although I would like to regain my #4 spot :). Will be keeping an eye
on those first 2 though and also fix up that syntax error, thanks for
that feedback.
> I see the site at #7 on google.com.au for pages from Australia for
> [wedding invitations] .
> I'd say that's good.
> On Jun 16, 7:27 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > Hey Guys,
> > The DC fact seems a fair comment. Can anyone recommend a good tool for
> > testing different datacentres. I've never tried this before so want to
> > do it accurately.
> > Regards.
> > Miles
> > On Jun 17, 9:13 am, MilesK wrote:
> > > Hi John,
> > > apologies for the delay in replying. I totally agree that these
> > > philosophical debates are basically theory based. My website URL iswww.dizzidezine.com.auandthemajor keyword for my industry is
> > > wedding invitations. Thank you kindly for offering help on this and I
> > > look very forward to seeing your responce.
> > > Regards.
> > > Miles
> > > On Jun 13, 5:59 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > > > Hi Miles and welcome to the groups!
> > > > There are a lot of factors that go into ranking in particular, not to
> > > > mention elements like the different datacenters that come into play.
> > > > As mentioned in a blog post about search quality (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/introduction-to-google-search-...
> > > > ), we made over 450 adjustments in our systems in the last year alone
> > > > -- things are always being changed, hopefully for the better :).
> > > > That said, perhaps there are specific issues that are involved with
> > > > your site. If you could post your URL, we could take a look and see if
> > > > there is something we can help you with. That usually helps much more
> > > > than philosophical discussions about generic changes.
> > > > Hope to hear back from you soon!
> > > > John- Hide quoted text -
> Look again, a few minutes later and I'm #10. On the weekend I jumped
> to the second page. I have seen the #1 and #2 position stay constant
> for the last few days though, which is my real point to this thread,
> although I would like to regain my #4 spot :). Will be keeping an eye
> on those first 2 though and also fix up that syntax error, thanks for
> that feedback.
> On Jun 17, 9:57 am, webado wrote:
> > I see the site at #7 on google.com.au for pages from Australia for
> > [wedding invitations] .
> > I'd say that's good.
> > On Jun 16, 7:27 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > Hey Guys,
> > > The DC fact seems a fair comment. Can anyone recommend a good tool for
> > > testing different datacentres. I've never tried this before so want to
> > > do it accurately.
> > > Regards.
> > > Miles
> > > On Jun 17, 9:13 am, MilesK wrote:
> > > > Hi John,
> > > > apologies for the delay in replying. I totally agree that these
> > > > philosophical debates are basically theory based. My website URL iswww.dizzidezine.com.auandthemajorkeyword for my industry is
> > > > wedding invitations. Thank you kindly for offering help on this and I
> > > > look very forward to seeing your responce.
> > > > Regards.
> > > > Miles
> > > > On Jun 13, 5:59 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > > > > Hi Miles and welcome to the groups!
> > > > > There are a lot of factors that go into ranking in particular, not to
> > > > > mention elements like the different datacenters that come into play.
> > > > > As mentioned in a blog post about search quality (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/introduction-to-google-search-...
> > > > > ), we made over 450 adjustments in our systems in the last year alone
> > > > > -- things are always being changed, hopefully for the better :).
> > > > > That said, perhaps there are specific issues that are involved with
> > > > > your site. If you could post your URL, we could take a look and see if
> > > > > there is something we can help you with. That usually helps much more
> > > > > than philosophical discussions about generic changes.
> > > > > Hope to hear back from you soon!
> > > > > John- Hide quoted text -
> Look again, a few minutes later and I'm #10. On the weekend I jumped
> to the second page. I have seen the #1 and #2 position stay constant
> for the last few days though, which is my real point to this thread,
> although I would like to regain my #4 spot :). Will be keeping an eye
> on those first 2 though and also fix up that syntax error, thanks for
> that feedback.
> On Jun 17, 9:57 am, webado wrote:
> > I see the site at #7 on google.com.au for pages from Australia for
> > [wedding invitations] .
> > I'd say that's good.
> > On Jun 16, 7:27 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > Hey Guys,
> > > The DC fact seems a fair comment. Can anyone recommend a good tool for
> > > testing different datacentres. I've never tried this before so want to
> > > do it accurately.
> > > Regards.
> > > Miles
> > > On Jun 17, 9:13 am, MilesK wrote:
> > > > Hi John,
> > > > apologies for the delay in replying. I totally agree that these
> > > > philosophical debates are basically theory based. My website URL iswww.dizzidezine.com.auandthemajorkeyword for my industry is
> > > > wedding invitations. Thank you kindly for offering help on this and I
> > > > look very forward to seeing your responce.
> > > > Regards.
> > > > Miles
> > > > On Jun 13, 5:59 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > > > > Hi Miles and welcome to the groups!
> > > > > There are a lot of factors that go into ranking in particular, not to
> > > > > mention elements like the different datacenters that come into play.
> > > > > As mentioned in a blog post about search quality (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/introduction-to-google-search-...
> > > > > ), we made over 450 adjustments in our systems in the last year alone
> > > > > -- things are always being changed, hopefully for the better :).
> > > > > That said, perhaps there are specific issues that are involved with
> > > > > your site. If you could post your URL, we could take a look and see if
> > > > > there is something we can help you with. That usually helps much more
> > > > > than philosophical discussions about generic changes.
> > > > > Hope to hear back from you soon!
> > > > > John- Hide quoted text -
> > Look again, a few minutes later and I'm #10. On the weekend I jumped
> > to the second page. I have seen the #1 and #2 position stay constant
> > for the last few days though, which is my real point to this thread,
> > although I would like to regain my #4 spot :). Will be keeping an eye
> > on those first 2 though and also fix up that syntax error, thanks for
> > that feedback.
> > On Jun 17, 9:57 am, webado wrote:
> > > I see the site at #7 on google.com.au for pages from Australia for
> > > [wedding invitations] .
> > > I'd say that's good.
> > > On Jun 16, 7:27 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > > > Hey Guys,
> > > > The DC fact seems a fair comment. Can anyone recommend a good tool for
> > > > testing different datacentres. I've never tried this before so want to
> > > > do it accurately.
> > > > Regards.
> > > > Miles
> > > > On Jun 17, 9:13 am, MilesK wrote:
> > > > > Hi John,
> > > > > apologies for the delay in replying. I totally agree that these
> > > > > philosophical debates are basically theory based. My website URL iswww.dizzidezine.com.auandthemajorkeywordfor my industry is
> > > > > wedding invitations. Thank you kindly for offering help on this and I
> > > > > look very forward to seeing your responce.
> > > > > Regards.
> > > > > Miles
> > > > > On Jun 13, 5:59 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Miles and welcome to the groups!
> > > > > > There are a lot of factors that go into ranking in particular, not to
> > > > > > mention elements like the different datacenters that come into play.
> > > > > > As mentioned in a blog post about search quality (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/introduction-to-google-search-...
> > > > > > ), we made over 450 adjustments in our systems in the last year alone
> > > > > > -- things are always being changed, hopefully for the better :).
> > > > > > That said, perhaps there are specific issues that are involved with
> > > > > > your site. If you could post your URL, we could take a look and see if
> > > > > > there is something we can help you with. That usually helps much more
> > > > > > than philosophical discussions about generic changes.
> > > > > > Hope to hear back from you soon!
> > > > > > John- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
|
