McDar Experiment

I just wonder if the page has been taken out because of the experiment thread here, I have always wondered how Google would react when someone pointed it out to them......I don't think it is something they would like, after all it is trying to suss out there algo.

 

I suppose that is not outside the realm of posibility.

BUT - I would consider such a move on Googles part to be both pitiful and petty!

Surely, the content of this thread is of little threat to Google's Sacred Secret.

IF this page remains buried after all others have settled, I will simply do what I did at the beginning - create an experiment(2) page!

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

Caryl

 

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 #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 --12/02/2005 [2 DCs #394, 4 DCs #400, 3 DCs #414, 10 DCs #432, 4 DCs #433, 10 DCs #442]**(Allinanchor #114 on 23 DCs, #117 on 10 DCs )

Postion #408 allinanchor: #115 -12/03/2005 [4 DCs #405, 10 DCs #408, 3 DCs #421, 2 DCs #423, 4 DCs #432, 10 DCs #442]** (Note: Allinanchor #115 on All 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
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

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
Unchanged from previous date
__________________

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

 

I had this same thought for a while, but google still ranks all those nigritrude ultramine pages and "miserable failure" and a ton of others still work.

Since its been admitted that the page is weak and thus probably more susceptible to google changes (even f-ups) previously, couldn't something be done to make it stronger and see what it takes to resurrect it? I realize google is probably a moving target at the moment, but that doesn't mean its not an unhittable one.

 

Lorien:

I'm one who has commented several times suggesting the site is *fragile* or susceptible to change.

Actually no one has admitted it. None of us really know. We are all trying to guess or come up with ideas or better yet...lots of evidence as to what is going on.

To get to the last part we need lots of experiences from others as to what is going on with their sites; especially vis a vis jagger.

Admittedly, I move quickly to comments and suspicions. Back in feb/march when the site was similarly whipped around I was suggesting the same thing; that it might be a function of the relevancy of backlinks. That was my reaction to some of what I was reading.

The site settled though and maintained strong serps and allinachor till this latest period. (guess I was wrong back then)

I think the same this time around...but its just a suggestion again...not based in fact or nothing more than my admittedly limited experience with my sites. There are always many opinions.

Caryl often suggests patience until things settle.

When the experiment started it was a participation experiment with participants being able to add links. They came from the sites each participant had and from the co-op. Admittedly none...or next to none had anything to do with sleeping bags, camping etc.. If any did that was luck.

I'd love to see more participants comment on their post jagger experiences...and making comments on post jagger results that are relevant to the way this experiment has proceeded.

Dave

 

I thought mcdar had said the same thing at one point - and I was right. Here, Nov 10th:

I agreed for a long time that patience was required with this update. but its been almost 3 months. Isn't the time for waiting over? Time for a little action?

My sites have recovered about 90-95% from Jagger and it happened Nov 6th or 7th or something. I have not seen significant movement from google since.

Why be coy? We all know what it takes to rank in google. Links from different IPs with anchor text from relevant pages and/or sites. Single pages are better than sitewides (at least nowadays). content links are better than footer links.

These are all generally accepted facts. The experiment page has footer links, sitewide links - at least from what I've seen. Google, you could say, has been frowning on these and could ignore them.

You could also make a case that google has inserted a link-aging algorithm. Links that are now 2 years old - assuming the introduction of no new links - could not weigh as much. If no new links appear to the page from relevant sites, google could very well assume that page is no longer relevant and drops it.

 

These are all very good points.

We could make several changes. Add some new links. Alter the anchor text. Solicit links from the main part of a page rather than the footer.

One question?

If we do any or all of these while, lets say, the cache date is not current in Google, and then changes occur to both the page's position AND the cache date gets updated at the same time - to what do we attribute the change?

Was it due to our new links or was it due to the cache date finally being updated?

I am NOT trying to be difficult and I certainly have NOT been enjoying the last two months of Google Crap.

The whole value of what we have been trying to do here is to "reveal" how effective certain factors are in optimizing for Google. IF we make too many changes at once or make changes at the same time Google is changing - it will obscure any cause and effect we may have an opportunity to derive.

UNFORTUNATELY - Google is still perfucked!

A quick scan of the topics of the Google forum here at DP reveals that today:
-PR and Backlinks are STILL fluctuating between new and old data.
-the number of Indexed pages fluctuates widely from Datacenter to Datacenter.
-Cached pages are bouncing from new to old to not found.

If we were to make changes right now and Google finally were to settle down - we would have no way to tell if it was what we did or what Google did.

Caryl

 

Possibly time for a new one! In an encrypted area so when can elimate the possibility that Cyclops suggested.

I am also noticing from the many domains that I admin to that my flagship domains are getting hit the hardest. A couple 6 years old, totally tanked burried in the bowels of Google. Same as Lorien...Jagger1=tanked, Jagger 2 recovery (somewhat), Jagger3 CU CU!

So is it possible that Google IS looking at trends and history of a domain? These domains that got tanked have had alot of off page promotion done in the last year, mostly links. They are dead in the water now. As the Google patent reads history will be a factor. If my links have been seen as 'suspicious bursts' then this could possibly explain my results.

This new algo doesn't seem to be very predictable or consistant, making it hard to learn anything, really. Accept that it really seems that this algo deals with each site/page individually. This again makes me think that human reviewers have played a part in this new ranking algo.

As much as we don't like what we are seeing, Google's loving it. SE has suggested that both white hat and black hat tactics would drastically change if Data was being shared by Y and G. No real hardcore evidence backs this up, but it makes sense to me.

In a nutshell, I feel that G and Y are intentionally throwing random wrenches into the game to throw us off ours.

ALL IMHO...in case I upset some folks with my opinions!


EDIT: 10/k in vaultage still stands here. McDar, if your not familiar with LV you can see ALL links pointing to you!

 

Mine were similar, though the site came back for many terms and is now similar to prejagger, just a bit weaker overall for most of its terms.

Need a test domain to set up ?

 

One of the things that has been speculated on is that Google may be looking at the "who is" record and using the number of years that a site is registered for as a measure of the permancy or seriousness of the site.

Among the many things that have been, or are being, speculated on this one makes sense to me, and would be very easy for Google to do. I haven't renewed or registered any of my site for more than one year, but I'm thinking of doing so with a couple of them to see if this makes any difference.

Again, as Caryl and I have both pointed out during this period of extreme flux it is really impossible to determine the impact of any change. And if one is not careful it might be possible to make changes that actually will weaken a page and work against you. However I can't see how this change will ever hurt you and it might help. So as long as you have an extra $100 or so I think this is worth doing.

I've checked the "who is" data for the experimental domain and it is only renewed until next Sept. Maybe we should all send Caryl $10 via PayPal and have her renew the site for 9 years? Anybody got any comments on this suggestion.

BTW I just went and checked the top 5 sites in the SERP for "sleeping bags" and they have all been renewed for multi year terms. None have been renewed for 9 years but they have all been renewed for 3 years or more.

 

I just checked the same for those at the top of the SERPs I'm watching for my sites, and I noticed that most at the top are renewed until 2010 or later, and those that aren't are using odd-ball registrars of sorts-- possibly data that Google doesn't have... Anyways, as an experiment, I just renewed one of my sites for 8 years to 2015(tried to get the max of 9 years, but the transaction failed). I can use the tax write-off anyways... I'll check in with any results, even if they can't scientifically be tied to this action.


--
Derek

 

I still have my serps overall. I only renewed for 1 year. .co.uk must be registered for 2 year. I dont see at all how google will actually be able to properly implement that idea. - Anyone that needs to spam will register for 2 years, domains are one of the smallest costs anyway.

Test away, for $10 its probably worth it anyway - though I have doubts about it having any effect at all.

 

Domain costs are much higher for many spammers, because they register hundreds of domains at a time and repeat this process frequently.

 

..and if they rank higher with 2 year domains than 1 year then they will recoup the costs easily.

The model still doesnt work.

 

Except that they only use the domains for 3-6 months before the domains are banned. They have to get all of their ROI over a short period of time.

This raises their costs without a corresponding increase in revenue.

 

Well, I can buy into that theory, thanks Bob. I just did 5 domains for five years. If results are good I will do all the others , first I may have to talk to my bank manager .

 

My domains expire in march, I havent renewed yet, rankings are not affected. After the holiday, I'm going to move the registrar to go daddy (since im not sure if such a change affects rankings LOL) from register.com and do each for 10 years.

 

It doesn't matter if the "model works". If Google is using this as a factor in their algo then it is important. What you think works and what Google thinks works may be two different things.

 

What? You mean Google could be wrong about something? Oh heavens-- that can't be true. That's like saying there is no such thing as Santa Claus or something...


tic
Derek

 

At first I thought this domain registration idea was way off target, but if there are tons of spam sites with very limited domain registration ages on it...it could be one of the many elements google looks at.

Gotta query some major bhatters I know to see how long they register their domains for.

Still it may be only one of many factors. Somehow I don't think the experiment page dropping out of the top 10,000 or sitting in the 400 ranking range is primarily a factor of age or length of time of domain registration.

Dave