McDar Experiment

Sorry Alek I did not include to ask you what you thought about the H1 idea

My sincere apologies

I think that holding your valuable PR7 till the next update after this one would be very beneficial

So what does the McCompalekfoxy team think? [I will use that phrase in the future]

 

Thanks for the welcome a few days ago, foxyweb

I've re-read part of this thread, and something Bob said made me start thinking about something. For the purpose of my coming speculation, let's assume that the sandbox theory regarding the new links is correct and that we can see the unfiltered SERP by using the "-dsa" search.

When Google implemented this dampening effect into its algorithm, what would have happened if they at that point not only applied it to all new links acquired after the implementation but also for those acquired some time back? Let's say 6 or 18 months back... This would, as far as I can see it, have resulted in the following:

1) A major shakeup of the SERP (Florida?)
Particularly sites that had optimized for Google by way of IBL after Google's cut date would fall deep down into the SERP. This would in large effect mean sites SEO'd for the famous money-words.

2) We would be able to find pre-Florida results by using the "-dsa" search

Exactly, the filter removal search could only have worked if Google had applied the sandbox also on older links (how far back, I have no idea).

3) The old sites would start moving gradually up in the SERPs again.
...and this would seem to happen without any good explanation.

Florida has been declared a major failure, and the "normalization" we have seen in the SERPs over the last months have been assumed due to Google carefully amending the Florida-update. Maybe Google hasn't backed off but this is the very result of the Florida update?

Why did Google, if this theory has any hold, not only apply the filter on new links (acquired after the implementation), but also on links some time back? If they had either applied it on every single link or on every new link, the SERP would have been stable.

Google's reasoning may have been that this was a good opportunity to clean up the SERPs. After all, a large proportion of the sites that had been floating to the top of the SERPs during the last couple of years for the money words, had been SEO'd -- something Google views as an attack on their algorithm's integrity. By doing this, they would clean up for a while, and maybe discourage people from optimization.

This in addition to the fact that the dampening factor applied on new links will make the SERPs more stable from this day forth ...and that Google has more time to take down (i.e. discover) sites moving up due to their private IBL networks before they float to the top of the filtered SERPs. ...in Google's point of view, Florida may indeed have been a great success.

It will be very interesting to follow this experiment in the upcoming weeks.

 

No need to apologize since I'm more a watcher than a participent in the experiment. Go team McCompFoxy! ;-)

alek

 

Well done Rational!! Why didn't I think of that one - it has been staring me in the face!!

The ski france site lost all its links in May 2003 - I ignored it - Florida did nothing to my positions, or links, but Austin did when I got hammered across the board only to come back after a month or two to similar positions corresponding with a return of links [all internal] at about the time of Austin and also now anchor links from elsewhere.

Which, I think corresponds with your rationale [sic] does it not?

BTW the H1 link that I changed to H2 and dropped 10 odd places for this site was changed back to H1 2 days ago and in some datacentres I am back to pos 8 or better.

 

Good thinking Bob - lets just stay put for the mo.

I think this experiment will prove the sandbox too!

 

Rational,

All I can say is that is a very rational suggestion and explanation of what Forida was all about. So contrary to my statement that Florida had nothing to do with newness of links, it may of in fact had everything to do with newness of links.

Indeed, the next few weeks will be interesting.

 

How do you explain the sudden drop in rankings for sleeping bags - it was quite consistent then - *bam* - down 10+ spaces

Normal flux or something else ?

ps -Foxy - you said about an H1 link - is this an H1 on your page linking back to the same page ?

ta

 

No, this is taking the on page SEO one step higher - you will see where I refer to it above with the ski site in that I tested a theory that H2 was ranked in the algo for G higher than H1 [it doesn't as I dropped 10 places overnight!] - and makes the Title tag and H1 work together - which is logical afterall if that is what your page is about!

With regard to the drop - I refer to it as the "mexican wave" right now as it seems to occur just before the "dance" or, update in todays language, as the "dance" doesn't happen any more, and is a sudden drop off and then , normally recover just like a mexican wave and then after move on again upwards if that is what the signs are showing.

 

I agree! I think the experiment has been focused on linking and anchor text so to start changing on-page factors would kind of blur the results.

I also think we have a chance to show some evidence regarding the "sandbox" effect.

Caryl

 

Leeds1,

I don't know if this drop is isolated to our experimental page. I have read on another forum that a great many folks are reporting the same thing happening in the last couple of days.

Foxy may be right on, though. As you will be able to see in today's Update, the instability between datacenters looks like it did back on 4/18 (just a few days prior to the last BL/PR update.)

The "Drop in ranking" may have been obscured by our sudden lunge, but you will notice that just as the BL/PR update began, we moved up 10 places.

Caryl

 

NEW PAGE UPDATE:
*Google PR/Backlink update

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

Search for "Sleeping Bags"
Position#n/a allinanchor:#n/a - 04/08/2004
position#104 allinanchor#32 - 04/09/2004
Postion#232 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/11/2004
Postion#193 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/12/2004
Postion#136 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/13/2004
Postion#133 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/14/2004
Postion#108 allinanchor:#n/a - 04/15/2004
Postion#104 allinanchor:#30 - 04/16/2004
Postion#92 allinanchor:#32 - 04/17/2004
Postion#29 allinanchor:#13 - 04/18/2004 [11 datacenters #30, 4 datacenters #27, 2 datacenters #22]
Postion#28 allinanchor:#13 - 04/19/2004 [ 5 datacenters #27, 2 datacenters #22]
Postion#29 allinanchor:#15 - 04/20/2004 [16 datacenters #25, 6 datacenters #27]
Postion#25 allinanchor:#7 - 04/21/2004 [All datacenters]
Postion#18 allinanchor: #7 - 04/22/2004 [10 datacenters #19]
Postion #19 allinanchor: #7 - 04/23/2004 [7 datacenters #21]
Postion #19 allinanchor: #7 - 04/24/2004 [7 datacenters #21]
Postion #17 allinanchor: #6 - 04/25/2004 [7 datacenters #20]
Postion #17 allinanchor: #6 - 04/26/2004 [7 datacenters #20]
Postion #19 allinanchor: #7- 04/27/2004 [18 datacenters #16]
Postion #21 allinanchor: #8 - 04/28/2004 [All datacenters] Note: Allinanchor #7 on 5 DCs & #9 on 7 DCs
Postion #21 allinanchor: #7 - 04/29/2004 [9 datacenters #23] Note: Allinanchor #6 on 16 DCs
Postion #21 allinanchor: #7 - 04/30/2004 [7 datacenters #23, 13 datacenters #24] Note: Allinanchor #8 on 14 DCs
Postion #16 allinanchor: #7 - 05/01/2004 [10 datacenters #17] Note: Allinanchor #6 on 15 DCs
Postion #18 allinanchor: #8 - 05/02/2004 [13 datacenters #19] Note: Allinanchor #7 on 15 DCs
Postion #21 allinanchor: #8 - 05/03/2004 [20 datacenters #22]
Postion #18 allinanchor: #8 - 05/04/2004 [All datacenters]Note: Allinanchor #7 on 15 DCs
Postion #18 allinanchor: #7 - 05/05/2004 [All datacenters]
Postion #18 allinanchor: #7 - 05/06/2004 [All datacenters]
Postion #18 allinanchor: #7 - 05/07/2004 [All datacenters]
Postion #18 allinanchor: #7 - 05/08/2004 [2 datacenters #15]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 2 DCs
Postion #18 allinanchor: #8 - 05/09/2004 [2 datacenters #16]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 2 DCs
Postion #18 allinanchor: #8 - 05/10/2004 [5 datacenters #16]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 4 DCs
Postion #17 allinanchor: #7 - 05/11/2004 [13 datacenters #15]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 13 DCs
Postion #17 allinanchor: #7 - 05/12/2004 [21 datacenters #15]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 20 DCs
Postion #17 allinanchor: #5 - 05/13/2004 [24 datacenters #14]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 28 DCs
Postion #15 allinanchor: #6 - 05/14/2004 [28 datacenters #19]Note: Allinanchor #7 on 28 DCs
Postion #15 allinanchor: #5 - 05/15/2004 [12 datacenters #19]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
Postion #27 allinanchor: #5 - 05/16/2004 [11 datacenters #31]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
Postion #28 allinanchor: #5 - 05/17/2004 [5 datacenters #33]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 6 DCs
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/18/2004 [2 DCs #25, 10 DCs #27, 4 DCs #29, 6 DCs #34] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
19 - 4/13/2004
24 - 4/14/2004
40 - 4/15/2004 (most datacenters report 40 but some as low as 31)
37 - 4/16/2004 (7 datacenters report 36, 7 report 42, the rest - 37)
37 - 4/17/2004 (8 datacenters report 36, the rest - 37)
38 - 4/18/2004 (10 datacenters report 37, 16 report 32, the rest - 37)
48 - 4/19/2004 (7 datacenters report 47, the rest - 48)
50 - 4/20/2004 (9 datacenters report 49, the rest - 50)
50 - 4/21/2004 (7 datacenters report 49, the rest - 50)
51 - 4/22/2004 (12 datacenters report 48, 5 datacenters report 50, the rest - 51)
51 - 4/23/2004 (7 datacenters report 50, the rest - 51)
51 - 4/24/2004 (7 datacenters report 50, the rest - 51)
51 - 4/25/2004 (7 datacenters report 50, the rest - 51)
51 - 4/26/2004 (7 datacenters report 50, the rest - 51)
50 - 4/27/2004 (All datacenters )
50 - 4/28/2004 (All datacenters )
50 - 4/29/2004 (All datacenters )
50 - 4/30/2004 (All datacenters )
50 - 5/01/2004 (All datacenters )
52 - 5/02/2004 (All datacenters )
54 - 5/03/2004 (All datacenters )
54 - 5/04/2004 (All datacenters )
55 - 5/05/2004 (All datacenters )
54 - 5/06/2004 (All datacenters )
Unchanged from previous date
54 - 5/10/2004 (17 datacenters report 55)
55 - 5/11/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
54 - 5/16/2004 (All datacenters)
53 - 5/17/2004 (All datacenters)
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
__________________
note: this page is found using ( site:www.komar.org +sleeping Bags )
Alek's PR 7 Link:
Not reported by Google 4/17/2004
Reported by Google 4/18/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/19/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/20/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/21/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/22/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/23/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/24/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/25/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/26/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/27/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/28/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/29/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 4/30/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 5/01/2004 (all datacenters) *page changed link now #37 on page
Reported by Google 5/02/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 5/03/2004 (all datacenters)
Reported by Google 5/04/2004 (all datacenters)
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
1 - 4/21/2004
1 - 4/22/2004
1 - 4/23/2004
1 - 4/24/2004
1 - 4/25/2004
1 - 4/26/2004
2 - 4/27/2004
2 - 4/28/2004
2 - 4/29/2004
2 - 4/30/2004
2 - 5/01/2004
3 - 5/02/2004
3 - 5/03/2004
3 - 5/04/2004
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 )
217 - 5/06/2004
241 - 5/07/2004
246 - 5/08/2004
901 - 5/09/2004 ( Looks like the sig links were picked up )
908 - 5/10/2004 ( 18 Datacenters report 1660)
1670 - 5/11/2004
1990 - 5/12/2004
2290 - 5/13/2004
2670 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 2960)
2950 - 5/15/2004
3100 - 5/16/2004
3350 - 5/17/2004
3500 - 5/18/2004
__________________

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 )
9 - 5/11/2004
10 - 5/12/2004
13 - 5/13/2004
16 - 5/14/2004 ( 4 Datacenters report 110)
108 - 5/15/2004
108 - 5/16/2004
181 - 5/17/2004
230 - 5/18/2004
__________________

"Sandbox" info - this search theoretically removes "sandbox" link filter
Results for - ( sleeping bags -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -das -das -dsa )
#3 - 05/15/2004
Unchanged from previous date

__________________

Caryl's Links [links posted 04/07/2004]
2 PR6s & 5 PR5's
__________________
PR/Backlink info

sleeping-bags.htm has PR5
49 Backlinks
(backlinks reported in the 49)
5 of Caryl's links
42 of Bob's Links
1 of Foxy's Links
2 for Digitalpoint forums
Nothing for Alek's PR7 link(the link on Alek's page is 53rd link - may validate the 50 link/page theory)
__________________

 

It amazes me how slow seochat is to collect the back links!

BTW the "parallel" .....errr, not really, experiment with me BBQs has left me still where we were with G but Yahoo has me at 3 and 4!!!

Y is definitely quicker at getting a site up

 

Yahoo grabed the experimental page and put it in the number 3 position.

But it must have been just a fling! This month, we are NOWHERE to be found for the search on Yahoo.

 

BTW guys, I had an idea for a theming experiment if it interests you. I've noticed that FoxyWeb is targetting the keyphrase "weber bbqs" and actually has this forum thread ranking #2 for the term right now, even though there is argueably very little relevent "weber bbqs" content there.

Even though I'm a "BBQ guy" (note .signature!), I don't have any information anywhere on/underneath www.komar.org/bbq/ that is weber related - in fact, I just did a find/grep and the term "weber" does not exist.

So while my website is on the top page for terms such as "bbq grill" (so if it has a theme, that is probably it), it does not rank in the top-100 for terms such as "weber" or "weber bbqs"

I gotta wonder what would happen if I did not change ANY content, but some folks did "weber bbqs" (or maybe some other brand) links inbound to this page.

Just a late night thought that popped up - similar experiments could be done with other sites/keyphrases.

alek

P.S. FoxyWeb: Absolutely NOT trying to "poach" your keyword, and again, since I have no actual content on my website for "weber bbqs"

 

I have reached the limit for the length of a post on this board.
(you cannot exceed 10,000 data points)

So, this morning I eliminated the record I was keeping of my posts to this forum. I figured that, since we were now recording all of our signature links with the site:forums.digitalpoint.com +sleeping bags, that it was redundant anyway.

However, there still is a problem, from this point forward, in how much data can be added.

Any suggestions?

Caryl

 

Cool idea Alek!

Gets my vote

When do we do it? Perhaps when I've pushed my page to the top - all things are in place now but I will have to wait for the delay - if I want to win the Champagne.

 

Ask Shawn nicely if he could assist for the period by extending the post limit - he should be out of bed bt now!!

Hehehe

 

Alek,

Can you expound on what you mean by "Theming"?

NOTE: * = Weber BBQ (just so we don't push yet another forum post to the top of the serps)

Because, what I see you suggesting is to take a lot of unrelated sites (non-BBQ) and inserting links with anchor text * and point them to a page that does NOT contain * on it, and see if it can then rank for the term * .

That is just Google Bombing isn't it?

Caryl

 

I think he was interested in the fact that his site was about BBQs but he doesn't have the term * on his site so it would give an indication of the strength of the * anchor without any on page of the same

 

Yea, I think (!) that is what I was thinking.

However, the more I think about it, you guys are much more "players" than I am, so maybe one of you has a "themed" site that could be used for good for testing - the BBQ one just popped into my mind because I've seen it discussed and I happen to have a little info on my web site about it.

An interesting science experiment would be have three URL's with "equivelent back-links" (if that is possible!) with one having on-page content customized for the keyphrase, another NOT have the keyphrase, but being "themed" in that area (again, if such a thing as theming truly exists and/or is measureable), and finally the third being similar to the second one, but no theme (that's the GoogleBomb example).

Just thinking out loud,

alek