We have launched a ranking change that reduces the number of results
that are returned because of blogroll matches. There are still
problems to work out, but this change appears to be a big improvement
over our earlier fix. We had originally planned to launch an
experiment for link: queries, but decide more recently to release this
change first. We are still working on the link: change and expect to
have that ready in a few more weeks.
We'd appreciate your feedback on the latest change.
Jeremy
On Mar 21, 1:15 pm, Rodrigo <rali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:22 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, we ran into some delays with these experiments and had
> > to push back the schedule a couple of weeks.
> > Jeremy
> > On Feb 25, 11:22 am, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is just a brief status report. We've been continuing to
> > > experiment with blogroll detectors. We're going to do some user-
> > > visible experiments early next month, probably starting with link:
> > > queries. I'll follow up here when the experiments are running.
> > > Jeremy
> > > On Feb 7, 11:00 pm, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the update.
> > > > A few things I noticed lately:
> > > > 1. Lots of redundancy. For example, 25 separate Google Alerts have
> > > > arrived in my inbox since 12/18/08 from a single blog source citing
> > > > the SAME exact blog post (nothing new!)
> > > > 2. Old posts from 2006/2007.
> > > > 3. The blogroll issue
> > > > That said, the issue seems to not necessarily be limited to the
> > > > blogroll itself. The entire system is a mess. And while I say Google
> > > > Alerts, I'm able to reproduce the problems every time simply by going
> > > > to blogsearch.google.com, so I don't really think you need to focus
> > > > too much on Google Alerts. After all, it seems to be gathering data
> > > > from a system that isn't exactly returning relevant results.
> > > > Also, some of the data I actually receive is not tied to popular blogs
> > > > of mine at all. I understand the indexing problems; I'm not
> > > > requesting that you revert to the old system, but I still contend that
> > > > the new system gives me 95% noise and 5% reasonable results, which is
> > > > pretty poor.
> > > > Hopefully Google's deployment of the fixes will address the issue.
> > > > p.s. I'll be happy to send you the *really* awkward results I've
> > > > received that illustrate all above issues if you want them...unless,
> > > > of course, you already received them. ;)
> > > > On Feb 6, 10:12 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 6, 6:03 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Tamar,
> > > > > > Apologies for my tardy response. I'll be sure to give everyone an
> > > > > > update every week, even if we don't have much news to report.
> > > > > > As I mentioned, we made an initial attempt to fix the blogroll problem
> > > > > > in December. It fixed some fraction of the results that were coming
> > > > > > from blogrolls, but was inadequate in a number of ways. For some
> > > > > > blogs, the blog roll detection didn't pick anything up. For other
> > > > > > blogs, it detect some items in the blog roll, but not all of them. My
> > > > > > colleague Rick Klau was particularly unlucky. His blog appears in the
> > > > > > blog rolls of many legal blogs. I noticed that we often detect every
> > > > > > blog but his as a blogroll entry. We've been looking at a collection
> > > > > > of backlink queries (with the link: operator) and still see about 50%
> > > > > > of the results coming from blog rolls. So there is obviously a lot of
> > > > > > room for improvement.
> > > > > I wanted to clarify this point a little bit. The problem really is
> > > > > worst for people with popular blogs. The average user is getting more
> > > > > and better results as a consequence of the indexing changes that
> > > > > introduced the blogroll problems. We're return results from blogs
> > > > > with partial content feeds. We're index comments. We discover more
> > > > > links. So a lot of our internal analysis shows that most queries do
> > > > > better as a result of the changes. If there weren't some real
> > > > > benefits to the indexing changes, we would have reverted to the old
> > > > > version.
> > > > > Jeremy
> > > > > > We have been working on an improved blog roll detector. Our internal
> > > > > > tests look fairly promising, but there is a lot of variability in blog
> > > > > > markup that we need to handle. It's going to be a few more weeks
> > > > > > until we can start to deploy it. I'll see if I can provide a better
> > > > > > ETA next week.
> > > > > > I haven't been paying attention to the Google Alerts specifically.
> > > > > > The accuracy I mentioned earlier was for the regular search results.
> > > > > > I'll make sure we add some metrics that look at Alerts quality so that
> > > > > > we don't forgot about it again. The basic solution is the same for
> > > > > > search results and for alerts, but maybe there's something more we can
> > > > > > do for alerts in the short term.
> > > > > > Jeremy
> > > > > > On Feb 6, 8:07 am, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Is anything at ALL being done about this? I'm starting to consider
> > > > > > > either:
> > > > > > > 1. flagging all Google Alerts sent to my Gmail inbox as spam (cuz uh,
> > > > > > > they contain spammy results)
> > > > > > > 2. unsubscribing from Google Alerts -- since the results returned
> > > > > > > aren't relevant and they certainly aren't fresh. (Come on, isn't
> > > > > > > Google's mission to organize the world's information? This is clearly
> > > > > > > disorganized and in a very bad way.)
> > > > > > > Google: we've been pretty darn patient. This thread started in
> > > > > > > December and referenced an even older incident. It's February now.
> > > > > > > Is ANYONE paying attention to this? Please?
> > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > (p.s. a Google Alert email just prompted this post update. I don't
> > > > > > > really post about this out of the blue.)
> > > > > > > On Feb 2, 12:11 am, Kyle_Texas <Reiko.Admi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Yeah, same thing for me. It keeps reverting to these old results
> > > > > > > > which are completely worthless.
> > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 7:00 pm, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Today, I got links from 2006 and 2007 in my link: query emails.
> > > > > > > > > :(
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 6:25 pm, Kyle_Texas <Reiko.Admi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Yep, the problem remains. Either SPAM or Blogroll for 90% of
> > > > > > > > > > results. The SPAM is actually getting worse. It's funny to see
> > > > > > > > > > SPLOGS at the top of the relevancy rankings, or better yet, almost the
> > > > > > > > > > entire first page of relevancy rankings being SPLOGS.
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 27, 10:22 am, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > It looks like no progress has been made on this front AT ALL. The
> > > > > > > > > > > Google Alert emails I receive are spam and nothing but at this point.
> > > > > > > > > > > Plus, I keep receiving the same emails again and again -- it's not
> > > > > > > > > > > necessarily a "blogroll" issue but the same OLD content is being
> > > > > > > > > > > treated by Google Blogsearch as new content. On one search query,
> > > > > > > > > > > I've received the same result at least 10 times.
> > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy and team, please don't forget about us.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 9:39 am, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any update? It's been 3 weeks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 12:58 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy, I'm doing searches for "tamar weinberg," my blog title name,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or link:www.domain.com(wheredomain.comismyblog).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't check blogsearch results regularly, but I just performed a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > search for the purposes of giving you as much information as possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and saw a result that showed my blog on the sidebar navigation from 4
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hours ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, I'm pretty certain that this isn't fully addressed. :(
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that the problem isn't fully addressed :-(. I just did a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > link: search for your blog. It returned 10 results ranging from 37
> > > > > > > > > > > > > minutes old to several days old (Jan 1). There were two results that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > obviously came from the blogroll, one fromhttp://janefouts.com/and > > > > > > > > > > > > > one fromhttp://simplystated.realsimple.com/. We'll have to see why
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we failed to detect those links as coming from the blogroll. There
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are also a few results that came from Techcrunch posts that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > commented on. The comment has a link to your blog. I think those are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > legitimate results, but I'd be interested to hear what users thinks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So we're at 80% accuracy at this very moment. It's better than it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was, but obviously a lot of room for improvement.
I'm the producer for a watershed education site www.protectingourwater.org launched a few months ago by the Florida Dept of Env. Protection.
Although not a blog, with this release the site disappeared from the
face of the earth in Google's search for key terms related to
watersheds in Florida. Any ideas or explanation?
Kevin
On Mar 26, 11:19 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have launched a ranking change that reduces the number of results
> that are returned because of blogroll matches. There are still
> problems to work out, but this change appears to be a big improvement
> over our earlier fix. We had originally planned to launch an
> experiment for link: queries, but decide more recently to release this
> change first. We are still working on the link: change and expect to
> have that ready in a few more weeks.
> We'd appreciate your feedback on the latest change.
> Jeremy
> On Mar 21, 1:15 pm, Rodrigo <rali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anything new?
> > On Mar 6, 3:22 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, we ran into some delays with these experiments and had
> > > to push back the schedule a couple of weeks.
> > > Jeremy
> > > On Feb 25, 11:22 am, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This is just a brief status report. We've been continuing to
> > > > experiment with blogroll detectors. We're going to do some user-
> > > > visible experiments early next month, probably starting with link:
> > > > queries. I'll follow up here when the experiments are running.
> > > > Jeremy
> > > > On Feb 7, 11:00 pm, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the update.
> > > > > A few things I noticed lately:
> > > > > 1. Lots of redundancy. For example, 25 separate Google Alerts have
> > > > > arrived in my inbox since 12/18/08 from a single blog source citing
> > > > > the SAME exact blog post (nothing new!)
> > > > > 2. Old posts from 2006/2007.
> > > > > 3. The blogroll issue
> > > > > That said, the issue seems to not necessarily be limited to the
> > > > > blogroll itself. The entire system is a mess. And while I say Google
> > > > > Alerts, I'm able to reproduce the problems every time simply by going
> > > > > to blogsearch.google.com, so I don't really think you need to focus
> > > > > too much on Google Alerts. After all, it seems to be gathering data
> > > > > from a system that isn't exactly returning relevant results.
> > > > > Also, some of the data I actually receive is not tied to popular blogs
> > > > > of mine at all. I understand the indexing problems; I'm not
> > > > > requesting that you revert to the old system, but I still contend that
> > > > > the new system gives me 95% noise and 5% reasonable results, which is
> > > > > pretty poor.
> > > > > Hopefully Google's deployment of the fixes will address the issue.
> > > > > p.s. I'll be happy to send you the *really* awkward results I've
> > > > > received that illustrate all above issues if you want them...unless,
> > > > > of course, you already received them. ;)
> > > > > On Feb 6, 10:12 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 6, 6:03 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Tamar,
> > > > > > > Apologies for my tardy response. I'll be sure to give everyone an
> > > > > > > update every week, even if we don't have much news to report.
> > > > > > > As I mentioned, we made an initial attempt to fix the blogroll problem
> > > > > > > in December. It fixed some fraction of the results that were coming
> > > > > > > from blogrolls, but was inadequate in a number of ways. For some
> > > > > > > blogs, the blog roll detection didn't pick anything up. For other
> > > > > > > blogs, it detect some items in the blog roll, but not all of them. My
> > > > > > > colleague Rick Klau was particularly unlucky. His blog appears in the
> > > > > > > blog rolls of many legal blogs. I noticed that we often detect every
> > > > > > > blog but his as a blogroll entry. We've been looking at a collection
> > > > > > > of backlink queries (with the link: operator) and still see about 50%
> > > > > > > of the results coming from blog rolls. So there is obviously a lot of
> > > > > > > room for improvement.
> > > > > > I wanted to clarify this point a little bit. The problem really is
> > > > > > worst for people with popular blogs. The average user is getting more
> > > > > > and better results as a consequence of the indexing changes that
> > > > > > introduced the blogroll problems. We're return results from blogs
> > > > > > with partial content feeds. We're index comments. We discover more
> > > > > > links. So a lot of our internal analysis shows that most queries do
> > > > > > better as a result of the changes. If there weren't some real
> > > > > > benefits to the indexing changes, we would have reverted to the old
> > > > > > version.
> > > > > > Jeremy
> > > > > > > We have been working on an improved blog roll detector. Our internal
> > > > > > > tests look fairly promising, but there is a lot of variability in blog
> > > > > > > markup that we need to handle. It's going to be a few more weeks
> > > > > > > until we can start to deploy it. I'll see if I can provide a better
> > > > > > > ETA next week.
> > > > > > > I haven't been paying attention to the Google Alerts specifically.
> > > > > > > The accuracy I mentioned earlier was for the regular search results.
> > > > > > > I'll make sure we add some metrics that look at Alerts quality so that
> > > > > > > we don't forgot about it again. The basic solution is the same for
> > > > > > > search results and for alerts, but maybe there's something more we can
> > > > > > > do for alerts in the short term.
> > > > > > > Jeremy
> > > > > > > On Feb 6, 8:07 am, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Is anything at ALL being done about this? I'm starting to consider
> > > > > > > > either:
> > > > > > > > 1. flagging all Google Alerts sent to my Gmail inbox as spam (cuz uh,
> > > > > > > > they contain spammy results)
> > > > > > > > 2. unsubscribing from Google Alerts -- since the results returned
> > > > > > > > aren't relevant and they certainly aren't fresh. (Come on, isn't
> > > > > > > > Google's mission to organize the world's information? This is clearly
> > > > > > > > disorganized and in a very bad way.)
> > > > > > > > Google: we've been pretty darn patient. This thread started in
> > > > > > > > December and referenced an even older incident. It's February now.
> > > > > > > > Is ANYONE paying attention to this? Please?
> > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > > (p.s. a Google Alert email just prompted this post update. I don't
> > > > > > > > really post about this out of the blue.)
> > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 12:11 am, Kyle_Texas <Reiko.Admi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Yeah, same thing for me. It keeps reverting to these old results
> > > > > > > > > which are completely worthless.
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 7:00 pm, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Today, I got links from 2006 and 2007 in my link: query emails.
> > > > > > > > > > :(
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 6:25 pm, Kyle_Texas <Reiko.Admi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Yep, the problem remains. Either SPAM or Blogroll for 90% of
> > > > > > > > > > > results. The SPAM is actually getting worse. It's funny to see
> > > > > > > > > > > SPLOGS at the top of the relevancy rankings, or better yet, almost the
> > > > > > > > > > > entire first page of relevancy rankings being SPLOGS.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 27, 10:22 am, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like no progress has been made on this front AT ALL. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > Google Alert emails I receive are spam and nothing but at this point.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Plus, I keep receiving the same emails again and again -- it's not
> > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily a "blogroll" issue but the same OLD content is being
> > > > > > > > > > > > treated by Google Blogsearch as new content. On one search query,
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've received the same result at least 10 times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy and team, please don't forget about us.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 9:39 am, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any update? It's been 3 weeks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 12:58 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy, I'm doing searches for "tamar weinberg," my blog title name,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or link:www.domain.com(wheredomain.comismyblog).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't check blogsearch results regularly, but I just performed a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > search for the purposes of giving you as much information as possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and saw a result that showed my blog on the sidebar navigation from 4
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hours ago.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, I'm pretty certain that this isn't fully addressed. :(
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that the problem isn't fully addressed :-(. I just did a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > link: search for your blog. It returned 10 results ranging from 37
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > minutes old to several days old (Jan 1). There were two results that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > obviously came from the blogroll, one fromhttp://janefouts.com/and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
I've noticed the number of blogroll results have declined (only 4-6
now instead of the usual 15-20), but the number of SPLOGS has exploded
again, especially the fake DVD review pages. Sometimes an entire page
of date ranked results is nothing but DVD review spam. You can always
tell because the summary will start with "The breathtaking cast in
this movie is astounding" (even TV shows are called a 'movie' most of
the time by these idiots), "The intricately woven subplots..." "The
overwhelming cast in this movie is confounding" "The confounding
movie" "The eye-opening movie" or "Download (Insert Title Here) Right
Now!" Many of these pages (at least they used to) contain viruses or
redirects to infected websites. Rarely are they on Blogger now, most
are on sites I doubt anyone has ever heard of.
On Mar 26, 10:19 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have launched a ranking change that reduces the number of results
> that are returned because of blogroll matches. There are still
> problems to work out, but this change appears to be a big improvement
> over our earlier fix. We had originally planned to launch an
> experiment for link: queries, but decide more recently to release this
> change first. We are still working on the link: change and expect to
> have that ready in a few more weeks.
> We'd appreciate your feedback on the latest change.
> Jeremy
> On Mar 21, 1:15 pm, Rodrigo <rali...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anything new?
> > On Mar 6, 3:22 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, we ran into some delays with these experiments and had
> > > to push back the schedule a couple of weeks.
> > > Jeremy
> > > On Feb 25, 11:22 am, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This is just a brief status report. We've been continuing to
> > > > experiment with blogroll detectors. We're going to do some user-
> > > > visible experiments early next month, probably starting with link:
> > > > queries. I'll follow up here when the experiments are running.
> > > > Jeremy
> > > > On Feb 7, 11:00 pm, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the update.
> > > > > A few things I noticed lately:
> > > > > 1. Lots of redundancy. For example, 25 separate Google Alerts have
> > > > > arrived in my inbox since 12/18/08 from a single blog source citing
> > > > > the SAME exact blog post (nothing new!)
> > > > > 2. Old posts from 2006/2007.
> > > > > 3. The blogroll issue
> > > > > That said, the issue seems to not necessarily be limited to the
> > > > > blogroll itself. The entire system is a mess. And while I say Google
> > > > > Alerts, I'm able to reproduce the problems every time simply by going
> > > > > to blogsearch.google.com, so I don't really think you need to focus
> > > > > too much on Google Alerts. After all, it seems to be gathering data
> > > > > from a system that isn't exactly returning relevant results.
> > > > > Also, some of the data I actually receive is not tied to popular blogs
> > > > > of mine at all. I understand the indexing problems; I'm not
> > > > > requesting that you revert to the old system, but I still contend that
> > > > > the new system gives me 95% noise and 5% reasonable results, which is
> > > > > pretty poor.
> > > > > Hopefully Google's deployment of the fixes will address the issue.
> > > > > p.s. I'll be happy to send you the *really* awkward results I've
> > > > > received that illustrate all above issues if you want them...unless,
> > > > > of course, you already received them. ;)
> > > > > On Feb 6, 10:12 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 6, 6:03 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Tamar,
> > > > > > > Apologies for my tardy response. I'll be sure to give everyone an
> > > > > > > update every week, even if we don't have much news to report.
> > > > > > > As I mentioned, we made an initial attempt to fix the blogroll problem
> > > > > > > in December. It fixed some fraction of the results that were coming
> > > > > > > from blogrolls, but was inadequate in a number of ways. For some
> > > > > > > blogs, the blog roll detection didn't pick anything up. For other
> > > > > > > blogs, it detect some items in the blog roll, but not all of them. My
> > > > > > > colleague Rick Klau was particularly unlucky. His blog appears in the
> > > > > > > blog rolls of many legal blogs. I noticed that we often detect every
> > > > > > > blog but his as a blogroll entry. We've been looking at a collection
> > > > > > > of backlink queries (with the link: operator) and still see about 50%
> > > > > > > of the results coming from blog rolls. So there is obviously a lot of
> > > > > > > room for improvement.
> > > > > > I wanted to clarify this point a little bit. The problem really is
> > > > > > worst for people with popular blogs. The average user is getting more
> > > > > > and better results as a consequence of the indexing changes that
> > > > > > introduced the blogroll problems. We're return results from blogs
> > > > > > with partial content feeds. We're index comments. We discover more
> > > > > > links. So a lot of our internal analysis shows that most queries do
> > > > > > better as a result of the changes. If there weren't some real
> > > > > > benefits to the indexing changes, we would have reverted to the old
> > > > > > version.
> > > > > > Jeremy
> > > > > > > We have been working on an improved blog roll detector. Our internal
> > > > > > > tests look fairly promising, but there is a lot of variability in blog
> > > > > > > markup that we need to handle. It's going to be a few more weeks
> > > > > > > until we can start to deploy it. I'll see if I can provide a better
> > > > > > > ETA next week.
> > > > > > > I haven't been paying attention to the Google Alerts specifically.
> > > > > > > The accuracy I mentioned earlier was for the regular search results.
> > > > > > > I'll make sure we add some metrics that look at Alerts quality so that
> > > > > > > we don't forgot about it again. The basic solution is the same for
> > > > > > > search results and for alerts, but maybe there's something more we can
> > > > > > > do for alerts in the short term.
> > > > > > > Jeremy
> > > > > > > On Feb 6, 8:07 am, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Is anything at ALL being done about this? I'm starting to consider
> > > > > > > > either:
> > > > > > > > 1. flagging all Google Alerts sent to my Gmail inbox as spam (cuz uh,
> > > > > > > > they contain spammy results)
> > > > > > > > 2. unsubscribing from Google Alerts -- since the results returned
> > > > > > > > aren't relevant and they certainly aren't fresh. (Come on, isn't
> > > > > > > > Google's mission to organize the world's information? This is clearly
> > > > > > > > disorganized and in a very bad way.)
> > > > > > > > Google: we've been pretty darn patient. This thread started in
> > > > > > > > December and referenced an even older incident. It's February now.
> > > > > > > > Is ANYONE paying attention to this? Please?
> > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > > (p.s. a Google Alert email just prompted this post update. I don't
> > > > > > > > really post about this out of the blue.)
> > > > > > > > On Feb 2, 12:11 am, Kyle_Texas <Reiko.Admi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Yeah, same thing for me. It keeps reverting to these old results
> > > > > > > > > which are completely worthless.
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 31, 7:00 pm, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Today, I got links from 2006 and 2007 in my link: query emails.
> > > > > > > > > > :(
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 6:25 pm, Kyle_Texas <Reiko.Admi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Yep, the problem remains. Either SPAM or Blogroll for 90% of
> > > > > > > > > > > results. The SPAM is actually getting worse. It's funny to see
> > > > > > > > > > > SPLOGS at the top of the relevancy rankings, or better yet, almost the
> > > > > > > > > > > entire first page of relevancy rankings being SPLOGS.
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 27, 10:22 am, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like no progress has been made on this front AT ALL. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > Google Alert emails I receive are spam and nothing but at this point.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Plus, I keep receiving the same emails again and again -- it's not
> > > > > > > > > > > > necessarily a "blogroll" issue but the same OLD content is being
> > > > > > > > > > > > treated by Google Blogsearch as new content. On one search query,
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've received the same result at least 10 times.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy and team, please don't forget about us.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 22, 9:39 am, tamar <puntr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any update? It's been 3 weeks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 7, 12:58 pm, Jeremy Hylton <jhyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy, I'm doing searches for "tamar weinberg," my blog title name,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or link:www.domain.com(wheredomain.comismyblog).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't check blogsearch results regularly, but I just performed a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > search for the purposes of giving you as much information as possible
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and saw a result that showed my blog on the sidebar navigation from 4
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hours ago.
Well, the blog roll results are much more common again. In fact, this
one blog is always #1 now in some of my searches, both in relevancy
and date rankings, because it is simply a personal blog a woman posts
to numerous times a day and she used this one phrase over a year ago.
The rest are mostly blogs which are 1-6 months old and completely
irrelevant now. I don't expect all of this to disappear, but having a
blog constantly appear as #1 simply because someone makes a post every
1/2 hour, which has nothing to do with the results being searched for,
is frustrating.
|
