McDar Experiment

To take the load off perhaps an update once a week would be a good way to go......I think it would be a shame to see the experiment die now.

 

I would go with that too....but only if you want Caryl

 

Nice to see you back Caryl!

I'd love to carry on with this personally as it makes for good morning reading, but like everyone has said, it's a hell of a commitment on your part so I guess it's up to you.

Once a week would be cool.

 

just make it to the 2 year mark, only 3 days to go

 

WOW - Thats true! The experiment started nearly two years ago....

I will consider putting up a report once per week, at this point.

Smyrl: " I understand Google less and less all the time." - Isn't THAT the truth!

When all of my sites got wiped out, it took Google no time at all to start removing pages from the serps.

Now that they are all back up and running - Google is taking it's sweet time in spidering and getting all of the pages re-listed.

Back in December it seemed that you could get a new site spidered very quickly (a few days) but now days it is taking sometimes weeks! Oh - I can get the main page indexed pretty quick - but the remaining pages - NOT.

Regarding the experiment page -

It has NEVER returned to PRE- Jagger placement!

Actually - it has never returned to even being stable across the datacenters!

Here is what it looks like today...


Caryl

 

Caryl, I find any keywords past page 2 on serps to be very unstable on words I follow. Page one serps seem to stay fairly stable with maybe 1 or 2 spot movements, but those at the top 3 stay firm until major updates, and even then they may not move at all.

 

I think it was just the fact that your site(s) were down and you had dissappeared from here that made people think the worst.

 

Welcome back my sweet thing....you were missed by many (incl ME). I am really happy that you're OK . Your observation above is true AND there are ways around it. The new Google is here to stay along with the new algos. I think much of this stems from patents being granted and implimented, along with human reviewers. You're right about prescoring and that's a no brainer. To get a (new) site indexed now you need to add a few extra ingredients to entice that miserable gbot to spider, IMO.

Caryl, don't ever leave this thread for that length of time again, some may not survive .


Cheers

 

i still think that the experiment page dropped because of either a combination of this or all of this:

1-too many footer/sitewide links
2-links from non-relevant pages/sites
3-no new links acquired since inception

I don't think pounding the same word to the site/page has any negative effect.

 

I have read that article and it agrees with what I am finding, Thanks.

Source: Googles TOS
That's a crock of BS and just as the article seems to claim there is evidence to back it up.

The other common note I seem to be stumbling across is the sites that got hit the hardest (since Jagger) were sites that had everything (as we understand it) well optimized. Some really big sites got flushed down Google's toilet never to return (so far)

The way I see this heading is the silent elimination of organic serps over time. The result will be the only top ten ranking sites you'll see will have to be paid for.

 

what do you consider an organic search? I think just about every site in the top 10 has paid for their ranking, in some form or another.

 

Before I got sick I was going over the Patent and found some areas that might explain or "best fit" as an explanation for the experiment page dropping in the serps.

THE one part I found to be most compelling was "the aging effect of links".

INDEED - all of the links to the page were "old". No new links had been acquired for nearly a year. New links meaning links from new and different sites/ip addresses.

According to the Patent, Google would assess the "freshness/staleness" of links pointing to the page and rank accordingly BUT they also implied penalties not just devaluation.

I certainly could be wrong, but I still think that the keyword saturation may not be that much of a factor as the case for that could very easily occur naturally. (I could be wrong - but one would suspect that IF Google was employing this - The Google Bombing examples would disapear - i.e. "miserable failure")

Caryl

PS - As far as Google Bowling goes - ALL of the sites in the contest were starting with ZERO links and obviously all were acquiring links quickly. There may have been a saturation point at which a penalty was applied OR perhaps other sites were acquiring "higher quality" links. So, although they had fewer links overall, the links may have been spread out over far more IP addresses. i.e. 100 links from 100 different IP addresses valued much higher than 1000 links from 10 IP addresses.

Afterall, the author of the article is reporting that his site is slowly "drifting" out of the top spot (currently at #17). One would expect a Penalty to knock a site a couple of pages back at least. - just a thought...

 

Guess this thread has faded away.

What a great experiment.

Hope you are healthy again, Caryl.

Dave

 

I know there hasn't been much talk on McDar keyword Analysis Tool in this post. I am new to online publishing and I want to say your keyword tool is great. I wanted to ask you, can you make it so that the tool can display more results?

 

How did you find this 3 months old thread ? btw

 

I wish this was still running...

It always made nice daily reading.

 

Yes it was a great experiment and I also wish it was still running.

I'm still concerned about Caryl, I'm not convinced that she was the one who made those last couple of posts.

 

Hi Caryl: I have read through the patent a few times now and feel that there are many hints to today's Linking at Googs. If you take the time to read and understand it you will get a some good ideas and be a little more clever with linking.

Currently I am running an interesting little experiment (started 2 weeks ago) that is playing on AT. I am trying to measure the difference between

1) apples
2) fresh apples

I have just used these two as an example but I have this feeling that Google is really trying to tell the difference between a real vote and a artificial vote. There may be thousands of ways they look at it but as simple as I think, I am trying to determine if making AT sound more like a vote has any effect .


Cheers


H
PS: Hope all is well with you

 

I've found it probably searching for a keyword analysis tool