Google dancing until the end of July?

[JohnC]

"...Google-Guy, the changes should be complete by the end of July..."

Taken from this article (http://www.isedb.com/news/index.php?t=reviews&id=271)

Not sure how much faith to put into this, can anyone comment on its reliability?

[glengara]

Don't know about the article, but I believe he did say something about "weeks but not months" on a WW thread, which many interpreted as 7.8 weeks ;-)
Most members there accept Googleguy is the real thing.

[JohnC]

Yeah... Reading that huge thread now... Interesting but so far, but fairly unspecific.

[ihelpyou]

Oh, with all the changes they are making and with all the new spam filters, I don't doubt for one second that it will be at the end of July.

[glengara]

In that case, care to predict when Doug ;-)

[glengara]

*&%$+! Can't seem to be able to delete that post!

[ihelpyou]

Yes, the end of July. :D

[esavvy]

Sigh. . . I have spent the last 10 days working on coding projects - trying to ignore the upheaval - and came back to read the July post.

Very bad for retailers who depend on the summer season for sales. We haven't been able to get product pages indexed for a couple of months now.

Hopefully it will be worth the wait :)

[AskMeNoQuestions]

Looking at the site I'm currently working on, GoogleBot came every day (at least for 05 May to 08 Jun), but there is nothing since then...

Very strange!

Most of the site (if not all) didn't change in that time, so I'm not sure why it was being checked so heavily. Any ideas?

[esavvy]

A "dance" has started - lets hope for the best .. maybe some of these pages will get indexed!

[microdoc]

One thing I do know is that Google is changing its algorithms to make webpages stand on their own and not be supported by other pages in a domain nearly as much as before. We could in the past say a site had a PR value. Not now.

The way Google seems to be managing webpage explosion is to only index those pages that someone else other than yourself finds important enough to create a link to. Pages without links will be PageRank greyed and not listed in Google.

So, write a new page, get it linked, or it wil not be indexed nor have a PR value. Now, I do not know how far reaching this is going to be but so far it seems to be holding true. It remains to be seen whether this is going to be the case after the end of July when these changes will have come into full effect.

[Kelly]

Microdoc,

The way Google seems to be managing webpage explosion is to only index those pages that someone else other than yourself finds important enough to create a link to. Pages without links will be PageRank greyed and not listed in Google.

Where did you get this information? I find this kind of hard to believe, or should I say this will virtually destroy alot of good sites and businesses on the web. I run a business which sells paper money, coins and foreign currency, and people search by exactly what they want. If someone wants a buffalo nickel, that is what they search on, if they a Morgan dollar or Egyptian currency, the same is true. Are you saying I have to have outside links for each of my 300+ pages on my site?

I would hope that google is wise enough not to exclude a page just because it does not have an outside link. I feel if it does, then it will not be on top for long, or they will just open another can of worms where people will just create another domain to point to all the pages that they want indexed in the search engines. Now you will have a massive influx of new domains with doorway pages so the pages of the original site will stay indexed.

So now instead of 3+ billion pages to scan, it will double or triple just to keep the pages we currently have ranked showing up in google.

[microdoc]

Please note what I stated:

Originally posted by microdoc
One thing I do know is that Google is changing its algorithms . . . I do not know how far reaching this is going to be but so far it seems to be holding true. It remains to be seen whether this is going to be the case after the end of July when these changes will have come into full effect.

I know there is an emphasis on webpages as compared with the way we normally think about things -- sites. AND I think this is why we are getting all these strange update things happening. Where it will pan out??????? Who knows??

[Bernard]

Originally posted by microdoc
... The way Google seems to be managing webpage explosion is to only index those pages that someone else other than yourself finds important enough to create a link to. Pages without links will be PageRank greyed and not listed in Google.

So, write a new page, get it linked, or it wil not be indexed ...

I added two ~30 page each (project planning and management) tutorials on my site in May during Google's crazy update. The table of content pages for each tutorial have been linked to from outside sources. The internal pages of each tutorial not been direct linked from outside sources, yet they have been spidered and indexed by Google. They are showing in SERPs on -fi right now for remedial keyphrases (some as high as #1). If -fi is any indication, your hypothesis appears to be false.

[microdoc]

Interesting . . . I do not know . . . there are many factors to consider and at the present time I have a hypothesis. I will put your example n the memory bank . . . and continue to collect evidence one way or the other over the hypothesis. One example is not enough to rule it out.

[Webmaster T]

Originally posted by microdoc
One thing I do know is that Google is changing its algorithms to make webpages stand on their own and not be supported by other pages in a domain nearly as much as before. We could in the past say a site had a PR value. Not now.This is a hypothesis correct? So what you are saying is Google is going to only index pages that are linked to externally.

This is contrary to what I have seen in the SERPs recently. In fact, it is the direct opposite. G seems to be handling the linking schemes by ignoring the pages linked to externally if they are recipricol links. This also seems tied to the query and reciprocal link text. That does seem to be opposite of what you are saying.

Now you are hypothesizing they are also going to ignore the internal links. Well that would fix the rumoured capacity issues. I'm sure they would drop possibly billions of pages (some of it superior to what is being kept) if they made those sorts of changes to the way the bot finds sites and pages. External links would be driving the whole SE not just the ranking algo. That does seem contrary to what most think the changes are about.

[microdoc]

Originally posted by Webmaster T
Now you are hypothesizing they are also going to ignore the internal links. Well that would fix the rumoured capacity issues. I'm sure they would drop possibly billions of pages (some of it superior to what is being kept) if they made those sorts of changes to the way the bot finds sites and pages. External links would be driving the whole SE not just the ranking algo. That does seem contrary to what most think the changes are about.

What evidence have you of things being opposite to what I have hypothesized?

[Webmaster T]

Daily searches on Google, yes I'm not a dancin' fool but the SERP's always show the keys if you know what to look for. There is also the fact that I don't do linking campaigns or solilicit links in any manner and all the sites I manage have steadily risen for the past two months. I removed links from clients sites to some of mine and that had a positive affect on all the properties affected by the link some being two or three removed from the source.

In fact, in the new SERPs I've seen internal pages as the offset listing (they were always DMOZ listings a month or so ago) which are linked to from an internal page and nowhere else that I know of. I'm not saying I'm right by any means, only that I see far more evidence contrary to what you are hypothesizing.

These would be things that you wouldn't see gaukin' at the activity on the Google servers but it is IMO, a better use of my time!

Frankly it just doesn't fly with me or make sense for that matter. What you have hypothesized is IMO, anti content development, which would be a major divergence for Google, and pro, linking conspiracy schemes often used by bloggers and other inflaters of PR.

It seems to me the changes are about shifting reciprocal linking weight in the overall ranking algo that uses PR. If I had a hypothesis on the current situation that would be it! But I don't hypothesize on anything changing so dramatically so don't believe a word of that either! I might have an opinion a month from now, but not presently.

[Kelly]

microdoc,

I have been thinking about this all day, and all I have to say, is that it is wrong!! There is no way google would even consider or entertain this practice!

Originally posted by microdoc
... The way Google seems to be managing webpage explosion is to only index those pages that someone else other than yourself finds important enough to create a link to. Pages without links will be PageRank greyed and not listed in Google.

So, write a new page, get it linked, or it wil not be indexed ...
This would be the easiest thing to over come, and would be abused just as link farms are/were. Have a second domain, put your site map on it, and have your site link to the 2nd domain via the site map... instant reciprocal links between 2 domains, ALL PAGES too. If google ever resorts to the idea, you already have to way to resolve the problem quickly, easily and efficently.

If you design sites for others, then you could just swap where you put the site maps between the domains you design. Every site would have the reciprocal links, everyone would be happy, and all pages would get indexed.

[bwelford]

Doug's forecast still seems in line re the end of July. At least we all hope that it will be finished by then.

On the other forum, there seems to be much agitation among the Google watchers about apparently random changes in SERP's from day to day. Sites that are #1 one day are not in the first 500 the following day.

At one point during the even more heightened Google frenzy a few weeks ago, GoogleGuy suggested that everyone should apply a Kalman filter to the results that were appearing and not become too reactive. In other words we should all ease up and not react to every last happening.

A Kalman filter, he explained, is a mathematical device that smooths out fluctuating time series data so that you are not too affected by the "noise". It seems to be related to the notion of exponential smoothing of time series.

Given that the current behaviour of the Google datacenters/algorithm/filters complex seems to have become very erratic and noisy, perhaps those operating the Google ship might consider using this same Kalman filter suggested by their colleague, GoogleGuy.

Barry Welford

[ihelpyou]

LOL. Yes, that's a good point.

I think most of us in here always prescribe to that filter. We just don't get all excited about a position change today or tomorrow.

And yes, I'm still thinking we will have a much better picture of things at the end of this month.

[Mel]

Originally posted by microdoc
...We could in the past say a site had a PR value. Not now.

The way Google seems to be managing webpage explosion is to only index those pages that someone else other than yourself finds important enough to create a link to. Pages without links will be PageRank greyed and not listed in Google.

So, write a new page, get it linked, or it wil not be indexed nor have a PR value...

Interesting Theory Microdoc, but does it stand up to the scrutiny?

IF google were to do this my estimate is that about 80+% of all webpages in its index would be dropped and, more importantly, it would fail miserably to perform its primary function, that of providing access to relevant content to searchers, which would be a 180 degree reversal of all that Google stands for and has been so successful at.

This does not seem to be borne out on my own site pages and many of my customers site pages, all of whom seem to have thier pagerank intact whether or not linked to from external sources.

Do you have anything other than conjecture to support this?

[glengara]

*I know there is an emphasis on webpages....*
I thought that was the way G always operated, and was the reason internal links WERE counted.

[microdoc]

Mel,

Will have an answer to this in a few hours. I am pulling together some links and sources.

[OptWizard]

>>>by ignoring the pages linked to externally if they are recipricol links<<<<

So what you are saying if I link to widgets.com and widgets.com links back to me they will penalize? Just no count this link? Consider Spam? I see them just ignoring it maybe.

I always thought once the link pop took off that was a huge mistake cause it is so easy to go out and solicit links.

I hope google just goes back to reults no more PR worries no more link worries make a quality site good content optimzed for your keyword and life will be grand.