Google Algorithm Changes

[Ace-Ace]

Check out this article at wired.com. Seems as if they have made some significant change (I know a lot of my sites are taking it up the ass right now because of this change).

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,...5597-2,00.html

[BVF]

I'm loving google recently. I'm now #9 for the word 'vagina'. I didn't even have that word in my meta tags. Now it is...In a few months, when you type in the word 'vagina', first you'll get "the vagina monologues" and then you'll get "black vagina finder".

Sweet.

[Fletch XXX]

Placement changed but overall traffic increased.

*shrug*

[Tipsy]

Originally posted by BVF
I'm loving google recently. I'm now #9 for the word 'vagina'. I didn't even have that word in my meta tags. Now it is...In a few months, when you type in the word 'vagina', first you'll get "the vagina monologues" and then you'll get "black vagina finder".

Sweet.

Probably (although nobody's 100% sure if they changed that this time) 'cause they dont use meta tags.

[BVF]

so meta tags are useless when it comes to google? I know that their algorithm is very complicated.

[Tipsy]

You'll get people argue otherwise but just about all the good SEO's will agree and google even state on their site that they ignore them. Of course they're worth using as other SE's still pick them up. More important for google has always been title and first few lines of page text as well as all the other usual bits like density and link pop.

However, there has been a little bit of debate that google may be picking metas up just a little after this change. Yet to see any real proof for that though with things such as your site getting that postion backing up the fact they still ignore them.

[StuartD]

When you do that search for vagina, you'll see that the first thing it shows you is the page title... and then under, it show you the instances of that word that it finds on the page.
It finds it in text that the surfer can see and read... not in the meta tags.

That is what's important to google. It wants to find what's relevent... so if you have "feet" in the meta tags, and nothing on the site talks about feet at all... no one will ever ever find that site by searching for feet.

So therefore... all images and no text for a home page makes for a very google unfriendly site.

[Tipsy]

Originally posted by MaskedMan

So therefore... all images and no text for a home page makes for a very google unfriendly site.

Very, very true. If you're building tours and want Google traffic you really wanna make sure to get some sales text in too.

[jennycards]

WOW!!

JennyCards is now #5 for both "adult greeting cards" and "adult e-cards".

Finally some good news this f*cking week.

[EscortBiz]

Ok they are looking for link with the link title being directed to a relevent site title same with inbound

to see an example search for the word click here see what happens that is because the huge amount of time the link click here directs to those sites

Plus they are looking in the URL and content as well

[Socks]

Google spidered two pages that were never supposed to be spidered of ours - and ranked them pretty high. They were sending people to a no-design PHP script used for user comments and e-mail feedback.. :P So we renamed the calls and made those PHP's load the proper pages within a few minutes, now bingo we're all over and people can read the pages. Just weird that Google ranks those nearly BLANK pages better than our pages we're trying to focus on. :/

[Planet Bob]

Originally posted by Socks
Google spidered two pages that were never supposed to be spidered of ours - and ranked them pretty high. They were sending people to a no-design PHP script used for user comments and e-mail feedback.. :P So we renamed the calls and made those PHP's load the proper pages within a few minutes, now bingo we're all over and people can read the pages. Just weird that Google ranks those nearly BLANK pages better than our pages we're trying to focus on. :/

I hope you have saved their layout for later study....