McDar Experiment

I had the same thing for the sites I ran the coop on. I stopped using the coop, asked for re-inclusion, and Yahoo re-included both sites that I asked for. Took a few weeks, but they did it...


--
Derek

 

Same here, about six months ago. Submitted for reinclusion 1/2 dozen times. What's funny about that is Google also seems to have DEVALUED (not quite banned) the same site.

Nice catch McDar. In my mind Yahoo has always seemed to be more human based than Google. While Google seemed to have more sofisicated algos. The stats shown demonstrate that they are sharing many rankings algos and/or data.

Through Jagger I have started to look more closely at what once where very high ranking domains...pre-Jagger.

I first read About this in June 2005
If there is any truth to this article maybe some of us can't see the forest through the trees. So if Google has a secret force of human reviewers maybe we need to look closer at what is on our realm of sites in the eyes of a human. Taking it one step further...what if this is the nucleus of the scoring system that McDar speaks of. Some of us have many SE optimized pages (I know I did once I took a close look) that may been seen as spammy...negatively affecting your 'score'.
ADDED

Maybe some food for thought? It's interesting in my case where I have a few domains that are 6 years old with tons of pages created by dozens of webmasters ...performing my clean up has uncovered some, well...umm ...spammy pages.

Possibly the ingregration of the collected data into the 'scoring system' could be causing flux?

 

No they don't. They show that it is a possability, but there are 100 alternative reasons for this happening. Coincidence being one of the major ones (I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, however unlikely it might seem).

 

SE, I respectfully disagree. The numbers are FAR too close to be Coincidence, IMO.

I stand by this opinion .

 

How can you stand by it if you don't have proof?

That's crazy...

Like I say - there are hundreds of possible reasons - Coinsidence being just one of them.

 

What'd you say in the email to get reincluded. I got a reply back from mine, but never got put back in.

 

I agree. The ranking for 1 page on 1 site is hardly proof. It's interesting, but not proof.

 

Let him be crazy then, he stands by the OPINION. He isn't stating it is a fact with proof. We all have things we don't have proof for, but we feel that something is a certain way. That is fine as long as you don't put all your faith in that assuption, that would be dangerous.

oh btw, I don't agree with him... I don't think they share anything, but they are trying to figure out each other, like any good competitor would.

 

I can't remember exactly. I know I sent it a couple times, because their auto-response looked like a dead-end rejection, but it was actually just a "we put you in the queue" kinda message. I think I kept asking why they penalized me, playing dumb entirely(knowing quite certain it was the coop). It took at least a month, IIRC.


--
Derek

 

He, he...Just an opinion, as stated. Certainly noteworthy. Perhaps 'sharing' is the wrong term to use but there must be some common ground here . Does anyone else have similar comparisons? Not that it really proves anything! Just trying to drawn some concuisive findings here guys...of course I have no proof, geez. What I submit is for consideration only.

In the past I've always considered the ranking algos of Y and G very different. With humans possibly doing reviews for Google the result may appear similar to Y. Guess that's really what I am suggesting.

This was the answer I got:

Every time I submitted the exact canned email was sent back to me. After visting a couple of other forums I found the exact reply from Evan posted by others.

 

I got that same reply numerous times, and when I kept asking for a human response, someone actually did, and said that they were reviewing it-- I only did this for one of the 2 sites I had re-included-- and both got re-included, so I believe this mail is simply a "yes, we've penalized you, and if your comments compel us, we might actually research and maybe even un-penalize you" message. Or so goes my interpretation based on my experience with it...


--
Derek

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update
**33 Active DCs(6 New DC Found)**


The "New Page" sleeping-bags.htm
04/07/2004 "New Page" went live

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
_____________
NOTE: Due to size constraints, the entire report can no longer appear in a post.
You can view the entire report here... Complete Report
________________
Last 10 days

Postion #331 allinanchor: #84 --11/21/2005 [10 DCs #15, 2 DCs #63, 4 DCs #302, 4 DCs #309, 3 DCs #316, 10 DCs #331]**(Allinanchor #20 on 2 DCs, #33 on 10 DCs, #83 on 7 DCs, #84 on 14 DCs )
Postion #461 allinanchor: #102 --11/22/2005 [10 DCs #132, 4 DCs #339, 3 DCs #422, 10 DCs #461, 2 DCs #483, 4 DCs #484]**(Allinanchor #27 on 10 DCs, #85 on 4 DCs, #102 on 19 DCs )
Postion #430 allinanchor: #105 --11/23/2005 [12 DCs #430, 4 DCs #434, 9 DCs #446, 4 DCs #451, 4 DCs #487]**(Allinanchor #102 on 6 DCs, #105 on 27 DCs )
Postion #482 allinanchor: #105 --11/24/2005 [10 DCs #430, 2 DCs #462, 4 DCs #464, 7 DCs #480, 10 DCs #482]**(Allinanchor #104 on 6 DCs, #105 on 27 DCs )
Postion #485 allinanchor: #108 --11/25/2005 [10 DCs #425, 2 DCs #481, 10 DCs #485, 4 DCs #488, 7 DCs #492]**(Allinanchor #108 on All DCs )
Postion #425 allinanchor: #107 --11/26/2005 [2 DCs #392, 7 DCs #402, 10 DCs #425, 10 DCs #426, 4 DCs #472]**(Allinanchor #107 on 26 DCs, #108 on 6 DCs )
Postion #425 allinanchor: #100 --11/27/2005 [4 DCs #421, 10 DCs #425, 6 DCs #437, 10 DCs #463, 3 DCs #485]**(Allinanchor #100 on All DCs )
Postion #421 allinanchor: #102 --11/28/2005 [2 DCs #398, 10 DCs #421, 4 DCs #443, 6 DCs #444, 4 DCs #450, 4 DCs #463, 3 DCs #467]**(Allinanchor #100 on 10 DCs, #102 on 21 DCs, #116 on 2 DCs )
Postion #n/f allinanchor: #119 --11/29/2005 [4 DCs #402, 3 DCs #409, 4 DCs #411, 10 DCs #436, 12 DCs #n/f]**(Allinanchor #118 on 12 DCs, #119 on 21 DCs )
Postion #n/f allinanchor: #119 --11/30/2005 [6 DCs #397, 10 DCs #399, 3 DCs #424, 14 DCs #n/f]**(Allinanchor #118 on 10 DCs, #119 on 21 DCs, #120 on 2 DCs )
Postion #415 allinanchor: #119 --12/01/2005 [10 DCs #395, 6 DCs #402, 4 DCs #422, 10 DCs #415, 3 DCs #n/f]**(Allinanchor #119 on All DCs )

Postion #432 allinanchor: #114 -12/01/2005 [2 DCs #394, 4 DCs #400, 3 DCs #414, 10 DCs #432, 4 DCs #433, 10 DCs #442]** (Note: Allinanchor #114 on 23 DCs, #117 on 10 DCs )

Cache Date: Nov 19, 2005 23:13:23 GMT
_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:

142 - 11/16/2005
Unchanged from previous date
140 - 11/19/2005
Unchanged from previous date
149 - 11/21/2005
142 - 11/22/2005
Unchanged from previous date
105 - 11/24/2005
Unchanged from previous date
101 - 11/26/2005
100 - 11/27/2005
Unchanged from previous date
108 - 12/02/2005
__________________

note: this page is found using ( site:www.ski-france-ok.com +sleeping Bags )
Foxy's PR5 and two PR4s
0 - 4/20/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
Unchanged from previous date
2 - 6/17/2004
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
Bob and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on this forum 5/06/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags )
Note:Foxy & Bob removed links from Signatures - 6/11/2004
4060 - highest links reported 6/12/2004
Note:Foxy & Bob replaced links in Signatures - 7/21/2004
Note:Foxy & Bob removed links in Signatures - 11/16/2004

418 - 11/04/2005
409 - 11/05/2005
Unchanged from previous date
2300 - 11/09/2005
2290 - 11/10/2005
Unchanged from previous date
409 - 11/17/2005
2290 - 11/18/2005
Unchanged from previous date
2280 - 11/27/2005
Unchanged from previous date
2290 - 12/02/2005
__________________

Caryl and Foxy added link Sleeping Bags to their sig files on the SEO Chat forum 5/11/2004
Results for - ( site:forums.seochat.com +sleeping bags )
Note:Foxy removed links in Signatures - 11/16/2004

156 - 9/08/2005
Unchanged from previous date
155 - 10/06/2005
Unchanged from previous date
138 - 11/04/2005
Unchanged from previous date
147 - 11/19/2005
Unchanged from previous date
145 - 11/27/2005
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

*August 18, 2004 - (10) Project Supporters donated Links from 13 different IP addresses to page. Additional info will be added as it comes in.

Total links found by using site:www.domainname.tld Researched daily by Foxy

Daily Totals Report (click to see full report)

606 - 1/29/2005
457 - 1/29/20052/6/2005[/B](148 lost links from one IP) [/b]
251 - 2/12/2005
261 - 3/03/2005
273 - 3/18/2005
275 - 3/19/2005
508 - 4/09/2005
560 - 5/20/2005
627 - 6/14/2005
536 - 6/25/2005
584 - 7/11/2005
631 - 7/29/2005
15,785 - 8/19/2005
3891 - 10/20/2005
3904 - 10/26/2005
3699 - 11/08/2005
3461 - 11/28/2005
__________________

Dec 17, 2004 - digitalpoint's "Patient" Added link to 116 different urls
(Located on 3 different IPs within same class 3 IP address Address - 217.36.188.*)

Jan 20, 2005 - (moved all urls to dif server - now all 116 are on same IP + changed from Coldfusion to Java)

Number Indexed by Google

40 - 12/23/2004
48 - 12/24/2004
107 - 12/30/2004
115 - 1/2/2005
116 - 1/21/2005
108 - new urls & 70 old urls- 1/31/2005
__________________

PR/Backlink info

~ April 22 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
143 Backlinks reported
___________

~ March 3 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
113 Backlinks reported
___________

~ February 3 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
260 Backlinks reported
___________

~ January 1 Update ~
sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
268 Backlinks - see Table of Links reported
___________
~ December 16 Update ~ (only Backlinks updated in this update)
sleeping-bags.htm has PR6
155 Backlinks
(Details can be found for this and the following in Complete Report)
___________

"A nice tool that Shawn didn't write -" DISCUSSION
__________________
Note:Google API has page at #n/a

 

It wasn't an opinion that was posted - it was an assumption that it was a fact.

Either way, I'm not gonna get caught up in this - you are crazy for making a decision without knowing the facts, but I don't really care.

I did a bit of digging around last night to see what could have caused the drop at the same time and I think it's save to say that I came up with f*ck all.

Caryl, have any of the variables changed?

Has the site moved host?
Had the Dmoz listing changed?
Have the HTTP headers changed?
Has a site been added to the host that does a lot of spammy stuff?
Has the site been link bombed/linked to from a bad neighbourhood?
Has any content on the site changed?
Have you pissed anyone off?

I don't know what the reason was - Like I say, G and Y! *could* be sharing information, but I *really* doubt it, and personally think that it's a cop-out assumption to make.

Why would they bother? Even if G or Y! have lost parts or their DB, what would be the benefit of filling in the gaps from eachothers index?

You seem to forget that Yahoo and Google are competitors. They aren't on the same team. :|

 

First of all this finding was PAGE specific! The fact that I had no other "evidence", as in that no other pages on my site or others that I monitor, makes most of your questions moot.

Have I pissed anyone off? It seems that the very fact that some folks breathe pisses folks off these days (noting the abundance of red rep given for no good reason) undoubtedly - I have.

BUT since the number of links reported by Google to this page have been decreasing NOT increasing, I hardly think some sinister webmaster has decided to Google Bomb this page.

PLUS - I have seen no indication that Google has made any changes to their algo that renders Google Bombing useless or harmful. As the infamous Google Bombs for "miserable failure" are still every bit as effective today.

There really is no need to make such an issue of this - one way or the other!

What is the BIG deal if Yahoo utilizes some data from Google? Up until a few years ago Yahoo displayed Google results as there own. AOL has been using Google and applying their own algo to it for years.

Afterall - How many copies of the internet do we really need?

Think about it...
If every search engine stored a cached version of every page on the internet that would be redundancy of "Biblical Proportions"

Did you know the Ford Motors has sold Nissans with Ford lables? - check out the Mercury Villager/Nissan Quest. GM has done the same with Toyotas.
_______________________

Someone made a BIG deal of this as evidenced by the "sudden" appearance of RustyBrick to this thread. Obviously, some folks have had their suspicions previous to this. But THAT is a whole n'uther topic.

This thread is not about comparing and contrasting Yahoo and Google. I just posted that because it may have been relevant information regarding this experiment page and the theory of "missing data".

One last thing...

As far as search engines go - you will never have PROOF of anything. The best you can hope for is "evidence to support".

Caryl

 

With respect Caryl, I do think this is a big deal as it could have some fairly large implications for all kinds of online marketeers - BH players especially, who often couldn't care less that they have been banned from G because they still have good results in both Y and M.

I'm aware of this, but fail to see how that makes my points moot.

Well, rep isn't a huge deal, but have some green if it will make you feel better.

So you have seen no evidence that a drastic increase in the number of links pointing to a site has can a detremental affect on it's rankings? I have, and I also have it in writing from a G engineer.

I think I understand that - But I would like to see more evidence to support the case before I make any judgements...

If you want the topic dropped fine - I'll start another thread about it...

And as an FYI - I PM'd Rusty about the post initially which is most likely why he appeared in the thread.

What's the deal with everyone acting so uptite?

 

That's hard to do, SE. If I post something and can find evidence that supports it, I'll also post that (as I did with eval.google). If not, I will post an opinion at the risk of sounding 'off the wall' to some.

Exactly, hence one of the greatest purposes of a forum.

I have some other 'off the wall' assumptions that are based of jagger 1,2,3 (still rolling it seems). But I am going to keep quiet now and watch now.

Also, we are all here for the same reason. I think every post on a forum has a purpose. It's really up to you to draw your own conclusions.

If any more backlinks are required for further testing I have (10.k) vaultage available that I would be willing to throw at this experiment page. Why? Because I have a suspicion about it's effect...and I would like to confirm it.

 

Oliver,

I'm sorry if my previous post came of as chastising - It was not intented to be.

Very good point!

If there were major problems with my site in general such as...

One would predict that other pages on the site would have experienced at least some detrimental effects as well - that was not the case in Google or in Yahoo.

Thank you for the "Greeeeeeen" BUT it was not me I was referring to. I have seen many cases of decent members in this forum getting "red rep'ed" for nearly everything they post. Scoundrels definately abound!

Do share...

Yes, start another thread and I will be happy to join in. We may even be able to come up with an "experiment" designed specifically to test for this!

Oliver - I really do appreciate and respect your input and participation!

Caryl

 

Thank you for the offer, Homer!

We just may take you up on that offer - once things have become stable.

Caryl

 

I'm sending you a PM - I'd rather it wasn't public for obvious reasons.

We've seen that the major SE's have been treating certian phrases differently based on the market they are in.
Perhaps this is a page-specific treatment per market, rather than site-wide...

Will do.

Anyway - PM on it's way...

 

Thread here...