> Sorry webado, just to clarify, all results I've reported are from "the
> web" searches", not from "pages from Australia".
> On Jun 17, 10:31 am, MilesK wrote:
> > Bang, back to page 2, not so good anymore :(
> > On Jun 17, 10:19 am, MilesK wrote:
> > > 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.auandthemajorkeywordformy 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 -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
I would enjoy talking about the shuffle more with JohnMU, if you want
to watch it pick a single "keyword" (you know what my most important
singular and plural are for the product I sell) and watch, you will
become a believer quick!
> Sorry webado, just to clarify, all results I've reported are from "the
> web" searches", not from "pages from Australia".
> On Jun 17, 10:31 am, MilesK wrote:
> > Bang, back to page 2, not so good anymore :(
> > On Jun 17, 10:19 am, MilesK wrote:
> > > 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.auandthemajorkeywordformy 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 -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Hi webado,
at the risk of sounding obnoxious, I think you are missing my point
here. Its more about the flux of MOST websites, NOT ALL are affected.
My position jumping is a side note, although has my best interests at
heart. It is no argumant that even though I up and down, its not as
detrimental as some other peoples results (for example #4 to #100). My
concern is more about 2 websites in particluar that have escaped the
flux, hence making it an unfair algo. Saying that, I do really
appreciate your (and others) feedback. I am also looking forward to
hearing JohnMU's responce.
> Well there you have it.
> Give or take a ferw spots.
> I see you also have an ad showing on the right site.
> On Jun 16, 8:38 pm, MilesK wrote:
> > Sorry webado, just to clarify, all results I've reported are from "the
> > web" searches", not from "pages from Australia".
> > On Jun 17, 10:31 am, MilesK wrote:
> > > Bang, back to page 2, not so good anymore :(
> > > On Jun 17, 10:19 am, MilesK wrote:
> > > > 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.auandthemajorkeywordformyindustry 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 -
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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.
On the one side, I'm slightly worried about whether or not your site
is engaging in unnecessary link-exchanging. I'm sure you'd know for
sure and from a quick first glance, it doesn't look too bad, but it
should be something to keep in mind. I'll just include the link about
that topic on our help center to be sure:
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
On the other hand, while visiting your site I ran into 4 instances
where your server just returned the default "Fedora Core Test Page"
with a result code of 403. After refreshing the page a few times, it
will display and most of the time it did come up properly. That said,
if this is something that is also happening to search engine crawlers,
I imagine they might worry about your site.
Hi John,
thank you for your reply. I'll look into both of those asap. I take it
that these were the only things that grabbed your attention, so I
suppose I'll just keep plodding along after those 2 are
investigated.I've never come across the 403 page yet and I scour my
website daily, but its abviously happening/happened. Could i ask why
you mentioned "unnecessary link-exchanging". Did something raise a
"flag" about this. I have tried to take good care when adding links
that they are from valid resources.
P.S. Attented the JuneTune today. good job from all the G guys. Even
got a few direct answers :)
On Jun 19, 7:35 pm, JohnMu wrote:
> On the one side, I'm slightly worried about whether or not your site
> is engaging in unnecessary link-exchanging. I'm sure you'd know for
> sure and from a quick first glance, it doesn't look too bad, but it
> should be something to keep in mind. I'll just include the link about
> that topic on our help center to be sure:http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
> On the other hand, while visiting your site I ran into 4 instances
> where your server just returned the default "Fedora Core Test Page"
> with a result code of 403. After refreshing the page a few times, it
> will display and most of the time it did come up properly. That said,
> if this is something that is also happening to search engine crawlers,
> I imagine they might worry about your site.
I noticed that many of your "reciprocal links" pages appear to have
been removed. I think this is a good idea so I'd like to encourage you
to continue working on this. In particular, http://www.dizzidezine.com.au/links/links.htm still mentions the following in the footer:
"dizzi dezine offers reciprocal links to other websites in the wedding
industry and websites that offer helpfull services to our customers.
(...) We do ask you to add a link to dizzi dezine first."
If you feel that these links might have been added in order to gain a
reciprocal link, I would like to encourage you to work on removing
both the link on your site as well as the link on the other site.
Personally (this is just my opinion), I like to think of a website
like yours as a "physical" shop where I could go to get some really
nice products. If I were a potential customer, do you think I'd be
more inclined to buy something in your shop if I were presented with a
list of alternative businesses? Would you hang a directory of wedding-
themed businesses up in your shop? If I were a business owner, I would
perhaps work together with a handful of people that I know really
well, that I can whole-heartedly recommend, but certainly not hundreds
of random shops.
> If you feel that these links might have been added in order to gain a
> reciprocal link, I would like to encourage you to work on removing
> both the link on your site as well as the link on the other site.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that what a reciprocal link is?
I link to you, you link to me? I'd be a little worried that your
comment could be perceived to mean that recip linking was against the
TOS. I don't believe that is the case?
Maybe some further clarification pls John - am I taking this out of
context?
A link should not be tied to getting a reciprocal link, otherwise you
could argue that the link is not a natural one (it's only done because
the site is getting one back in exchange). There are many cases where
it's absolutely natural for sites to link to each other & that's
certainly fine with us. I know it's hard to draw a line and that is
why we also have so many other factors that are involved with
crawling, ranking and indexing.
At any rate, the Webmaster Guidelines on link schemes is fairly clear
on this:
"This is in violation of Google's webmaster guidelines and can
negatively impact your site's ranking in search results. Examples of
link schemes can include:
(...)
* Excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging ("Link
to me and I'll link to you.")"
From http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=66356
Thanks for the clarification John. So, in a nutshell, quality one way
links is the way to go. Easier said than done, but does make more
sense. I'll scrutinise and fix up my links pages and hopefully that
helps.
Greatly appreciated.
Miles
> I noticed that many of your "reciprocal links" pages appear to have
> been removed. I think this is a good idea so I'd like to encourage you
> to continue working on this. In particular,http://www.dizzidezine.com.au/links/links.htm > still mentions the following in the footer:
> "dizzi dezine offers reciprocal links to other websites in the wedding
> industry and websites that offer helpfull services to our customers.
> (...) We do ask you to add a link to dizzi dezine first."
> If you feel that these links might have been added in order to gain a
> reciprocal link, I would like to encourage you to work on removing
> both the link on your site as well as the link on the other site.
> Personally (this is just my opinion), I like to think of a website
> like yours as a "physical" shop where I could go to get some really
> nice products. If I were a potential customer, do you think I'd be
> more inclined to buy something in your shop if I were presented with a
> list of alternative businesses? Would you hang a directory of wedding-
> themed businesses up in your shop? If I were a business owner, I would
> perhaps work together with a handful of people that I know really
> well, that I can whole-heartedly recommend, but certainly not hundreds
> of random shops.
