leaving COOP now, not good, but have to

That is exactly my point, SVZ. Not all sites are equally affected. If the Coop is somehow taking this into account, great - but I don't see how if the primary reliance is on Google PR and number of pages in Google.

As for you, fryman, I think you're simply out of your league here... or else you're intentionally missing the point.

 

I know you just love to think you know everything and always have the correct answer and everyone else is wrong...

Anyway... I agree with VS. If everyone has lost their weight then what is the problem? I haven't seen anyone jumping in excitment because their weight just doubled.

 

No one's going to be gaining weight because this site:query problem didn't work that way.

The problem isn't that everyone lost their weight, some people did, some people didn't - just like how site:query is completely messed for some sites and fine for others.

 

And some of us are lucky to have a site that Google suddenly loves. I got one site with 60,000 weight. This occured during the chaos, and before then I had never had a site with more than around 32,000 weight!!

While I got one other site that's normal with weight and listings, the rest of my sites have crashed in weight.


I got one ad that went from 70,000 of weight to 60,000 of weight pointing at it and ended up with this...



ysf1 and Shawn say it has nothing to do with the weight crash. IMO that's like saying for example, on day one you had 25% of the co-op weight, then the next day after a Google/weight crash, you end up with 50% of the co-op weight, but you get no increase in impressions, even though less than 25% of the sites with the co-op take the ads off.

 

Coop ads are run on this forum, but only on the archived pages. Bet it gives a load of weight though.......

 

If the Co-op was an SEO tool then it wouldn't be so bad as you'd only benefit from pages indexed in the search engines. Because it's an advertising network then people aren't really getting full credit for the adverts placed on their site as only a few pages are taken into account.

 

Thank you, Nintendo.

Does that answer your question, fryman? Try reading and listening more and yapping and red-repping newbies less and you might, just MIGHT learn something one day.

 

With regards to someone saying that a high pr page with loads of pages showing in the site: command - Google has accepted having issues with their site: command and they said that site:www.site.com is fine and the problem is with site:www.site.com/ and site:www.some-site.com. This means the issue is with the command having a slash at the end and with domains having a hyphen in them.

I am not too sure but i guess the DP Co-Op tool deals with site:www.site.com/ rather than site:www.site.com. If its something to do with the slash then changing it to site:www.site.com can result in a healthy weight with so many pages crawled and a good PR.

 

That is indeed what the Google Sitemaps team has said. Unfortunately, it isn't true. There are also problems with the site: query for URLs without a trailing slash and without a hyphen in the domain name.

 

On one of my sites I see 30K pages site site:www.site.com and 60 on site:www.site.com/. The site is PR 5 and co-op weight is arnd 250. Whats the catch here?

 

The only problem I have is that most of my weight is gone, and most your everyone elses weight is gone as well...however, my impressions are WAY down...if everyones weight was down, impressions would remain unchanged, not the case for me at least.

 

What?


word restriction

 

And for those of us that use Camino...

 

I don't think this is a site: issue. When I query the API using site: for sites that have lost weight, it still shows a ton of pages returned. However, when I query using inurl:, I see numbers that much more closely resemble their respective weight in the coop.

This leads me to believe that the coop uses inurl: instead of or in addition to site:, and not just site: by itself. Furthermore, that seems to point to Google "fixing" the supplimental pages issue by not returning those pages in the inurl: query any more.

 

You mean the car that's not quite a truck and the truck that's not quite a car?

 

Maybe it would be easier to slow down the rate of adjustment, rather than introduce a complex series of calculations.

For example, if your new calculation is greater than 10% different than the last, then maximize the amount of change allowed to 10% of the total. Of course a different value could be used... to help smooth out the changes that take place so rapidly.

Anyway, I just signed up today, so I obviously don't know what the heck I'm talking about anyway.

 

I think what the man is trying to tell you is - NOT all sites have lost their weight. It is a fact, some people said on the forum they are not infected, or have been effected less.

Ans I dont know about those site:query problems, numbers are same for my sites and weights range from 1-10 in weight.

 

there is one site of mine having nearly 99 K in weight on COOP, but i do not want to place Coop ads on that site.

what i see is that there maybe a huge rise in impressions for those having good weight now ( more than 100 k), but if most of people, say even 50 % see a drop in weight and leave the network, the things may not be very good for those who are still on the network.

 

The thing is I have not seen, and still do not see this "site:" command problem. Every DC I look at shows the same (very consistent) listing of indexed pages, PR, etc.

 

And that is the point. One of my forums is now down to a single page in the index (or returned by the site: query). That is a massive drop. You see no change. Others are reporting an initial change and now recovery. Even the extent of the changes seems to vary enormously from one site to another.

My interest in the topic is primarily the Google angle - I freely acknoweldge that I'm not even in the Coop any more. But... I honestly do not see how the Coop cannot be adversely affected by this - all sites are NOT suffering equally and some are not suffering at all and that means the impact is inequitable. I'm not privy to Shawn's "algorithms" but I don't see how he can even out that impact if he's using Google PR and Google indexed pages data to determine weight.