Matt Cutts Gives Insight To Bigdaddy

I found this to be a bit strange. I have never seen another search engine come up in the serps for a key phrase for a industry specific phrase. When I was searching Las Vegas real estate..check this out.

http://www.google.com/search?q=las+vegas+real+estate&hl=en&lr=&start=50&sa=N

Google has some issues.

 

The bottom line is : THINK BEFORE YOU LINK

 

The Lycos SERP in there? hahahah that is funny... Here is a clue, Google: try excluding things like "search.lycos.com"

 

Not only does Google show Lycos but also MSN and links from their own Google Directory which they never did before. This would give us a clue what the future might bring.
Google will only show pages from pages.google.com, Google Directory, MSN searches and Yahoo and Lycos searches. No other web sites except big companies like Microsoft and Adobe will be in Googles index. Google should just delete their index and start over again because what they have right now/is showing right now is nothing but old pages. It seems like they have restored a database from 1999 when I had some pages which I never deleted and that is now showing up in search results. New pages that's been there for years after that is suddenly gone. What a bunch of BS!

 

Yeah. That's what is going to happen

 

AND they only have 39 related (related:www.yahoo.com/)... even I have more than that..... It's not broke, but we fixed anyway!!

 

I've not been following this "BigDaddy" thing as much as most of you guys, but it does look like there are problems with new sites showing up in Google. Common sense would suggest that a SE with only old results would quickly fade away. I think what Google might be doing is just not showing new results from new domains. When I search for current news and stuff like that I find current links to sites like CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, but nothing from sites which were created in the past year or two. Could this new "BigDaddy" infrastructure just be expanding the "sandbox" effect even more than the old Google did? Google is providing new pages to users, but those new pages are only from old domains, which have been listed for years.

 

Google have slowly but surely taken away elements or features that were being used to manipulate their SERP's. ALL SEO manipulates SERP's and separating that which benefits them and that which compromises the SERP's integrity is what they have to decide.

Seems to me that in their rush to disable the site: search client side, they might well have screwed up big time server side.

Matt has out and out stated that Google server side can pull up ALL the links, using the link: command, but that client side it shows a 'selection of links'.

I really think that they have created a beast that is using client side data for server side calculations.

 

I wouldnt agree with that. I am finding new sites being indexed fine in G.

I think most of the problems are with more established sites which are more deserving of having more pages indexed... thats seems to be the most common complaint from what I can gather.

With regard to this deindexing issue, are most ppl having the same issues with large dynamic/static sites?

 

This has always been the dilemma though, NEW data is what the search engines NEED to be ahead of the opposition. If you have the BESt algo, AND the newest data, then your balls on to be the number one SE of choice.

 

Well yeah, otherwise you would have pretty stale results.

 

You're right. Let me restate that sentence. Yes, Google is indexing new sites, but most of them don't come up in any common searches. Sure they are in their index, but if they are not added to the mix of results, what good are they?

 

? I was replying to the guy above you who said new sites were not appearing! We cross posted, sorry I wasn't replying to your post

 

Well now you are getting into the "sandbox" issue, which is a different topic and one many have different opinions about

 

Interesting, just found this thread:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=86303
Alexa switched to Live...

 

google is full of stale results. if you do various searches for "coupons" you'll get tons of results that expired in 2005.

 

WHY should a site appear if very little is known about it? What you have to realise is that top Spammers use throw away domains, THOUSANDS of the buggers.

Your use of new news sites not appearing is a little off really, because if I want news, then I would EXPECT the BBC, Sky, CNN, Reuters to appear, if the DIDN'T, then I would be disappointed.

 

A9 switched a few weeks ago. Not really big news, as Google stole AOL from under the pen of Microsoft. MS NEED some big traffic sites to pump their search into.

 

LOL, yeah it would really show in the coupons niche. I wasn't saying their results weren't stale, just making a point

 

This is the very reason it is difficult for a new site to find an audience in Google today. I'm glad you touched on the "throw away" domains issue because I believe that is at the heart of what has happened. I think I said this earlier in this thread but I'd like to mention it again. I believe in the future there are going to be a few trusted sources of links that Google and maybe other SE's will consider valid. Any other link to a website will just be ignored. While this does make sense, it does go against the origional principle, which Google has used since its founding and that is "natural linking". It's hard to have natural linking when only a handful of sites will be seen as "trusted" by Google. It also will lead to another "can of worms" which will be corruption. Anytime someone like Google gives that much power to only a handful of sites, there will be corruption involved. Sorry, I've drifted off topic!