McDar Experiment

Hi Schlottke,

We had 5 hits from Google for the search sleeping bags last week. That is about 5 more than I would expect, being on page 3 of the results.

Caryl

 

Bob,

To assume that we would jump to number 1 in allinanchor with the addition of the 3500 sig links, would assume that no other site ahead of us had more than 3500 links with the same anchor text, wouldn't it?

The site in the number 1 position for the search as well as number 1 for allinanchor, has more than 6000 links (extensive crosslinking) from ~8 other sites. This used to be real visible before Alltheweb change how they reported backlinks.

If you would like to investigate this you can find the "other sites" by viewing the source of the #1 site and scrolling all the way to the bottom. Then you have to scroll right for about a mile to view all of the alt tags to the invisible spacer gifs they have there.

Most of these links don't count much toward the total links reported by Google but I am certain they are instrumental in getting them to number 1 for allinanchor.

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"
_______________
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

Position #15 allinanchor: #6 - 05/14/2004 [28 datacenters #19]Note: Allinanchor #7 on 28 DCs
Position #15 allinanchor: #5 - 05/15/2004 [12 datacenters #19]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
Position #27 allinanchor: #5 - 05/16/2004 [11 datacenters #31]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 12 DCs
Position #28 allinanchor: #5 - 05/17/2004 [5 datacenters #33]Note: Allinanchor #6 on 6 DCs
Position #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/18/2004 [2 DCs #25, 10 DCs #27, 4 DCs #29, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #28 allinanchor: #4 - 05/19/2004 [8 DCs #27, 6 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 6 DCs
Postion #29 allinanchor: #4 - 05/20/2004 [9 DCs #28, 2 DCs #34]Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **27 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #4 - 05/21/2004 [10 DCs #26, 2 DCs #33] Note: Allinanchor #5 on 2 DCs **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #27 allinanchor: #3 - 05/22/2004 [1 DCs #25, 7 DCs #26] **31 DCs are NOT responding**
Postion #26 allinanchor: #4 - 05/24/2004 [1 DCs #24, 10 DCs #25] Note: Allinanchor #3 on 3 DCs & #5 on 7 DCs **29 DCs are NOT responding**

_____________________________________________________
note: these pages are found using ( site:www.compar.com +sleeping Bags )
number of Bob's PR6 and PR5 links found:
56 - 5/18/2004 (All datacenters)
Unchanged from previous date
__________________
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)
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

__________________
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
Unchanged from previous date
3510 - 5/20/2004
3620 - 5/21/2004
3650 - 5/22/2004
3640 - 5/24/2004
__________________

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
232 - 5/19/2004
254 - 5/20/2004
298 - 5/21/2004
318 - 5/22/2004
435 - 5/24/2004
__________________

"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
#2 - 05/21/2004
Unchanged from previous date
#3 - on 17 DCs and #2 on 14 DCs 05/24/2004
__________________

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)
__________________

 

I've been thinking about this 10 place drop that happened on the 15th which is still there and remember something about link text that was all the same.

Do you think there may have been a penalty on this at all ?

ie: you have sleeping bags in 3500+ links - no variation.

I see most of the 1000s of additional links started to be picked up on 9th

May be if you DON'T start climbing in a couple of months you should either
a) change the anchor text of some of the links
b) take out 1000s of links (after all, you can add them back in)

Is this feasible (the penalty I mean) or just me summising ?

 

leeds1,

It is very important, when analysing results, that you consider to bigger picture as well.

This "10 place drop" has NOT only happened to our page, but to a great many other sites as well!

Some changes in the serps are due to Google changing things now. The fact that Google is obviously making big changes at this time (29 datacenters down today) and many SEOs reporting that their sites are being bounced all over the place, is a good indication that the change is due to Google changes, not ours.

We will only be able to analyze this when Google stabilizes again!

To make any knee jerk changes right now (considering all I mentioned above) or even try to attribute something we did as effecting this situation would be foolish.

There are too many variables, happening all at once, to be able determine cause and effect right now.

All we can do at this point is be patient and wait.

 

Dazzlindonna has brought up a good point in another forum having to do with the "sandbox" keyword -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa search that I wanted to bring up here, since we have added this search to our experiment.

[My response:]

I never thought to check the string on the other site I had and now that I have, I have my doubts that it "just removes the sandbox" effect.

 

Hi

I didnt suggest doing anything now - it was just an observation

In terms of the nonsense things - I reckon G is doing something but I doubt if the -asdasd effect is just backlinks - it probably takes off a filter for (perhaps) everything G has in it's algo

As you point out it was the same case after Florida.

There is some delay with backlinks (as we have seen with your experiment) but probably not with the -asdasd effect.

 

McDar,

I have to disagree with you here.

1) I too think that the -dsa search does the same thing as it did after Florida: allegedly it showed pre-Florida results at that point, and the pre-Florida results had everything to do with backlinks.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5181&postcount=428

2) It cannot be that the -dsa seach ranks only based on on-page factors. My sites have usually only a few occurences of the targeted phrase. The highest ranked of my new sites probably has a keyword density of less than 0.5%. It is now #20 in the regular search, and #5 in the -dsa search (this is more or less where it should be when evaluating the competition closely). There are more than 2 million sites in results, and the top 100 is pretty competitive.

When this has been said, I don't know whether the -dsa search really shows what I hope it does. It may be that it is too easy to say that simply searching with enough non-existent exclusion parameters removes the sandbox filter alltogether, and there are definitely some instances -- like the one you mention -- that should have been higher up in the normal SERP than they are (if the sandbox removal filter really works).

John Scott's Bluefind is the only site I have data that goes back one month for. April 25th his -dsa position was #13 and in the normal search he was around #203. May 24th his -dsa position is #25 and in the normal search he is #28.

There are a lot of variables we don't know the importance of which me skew the results; dilution of links because they come from the same site, same c-class, too many too quickly, from non-related sites, ... and variables we know little or nothing about, like why hasn't your site from January 9th moved more up in the normal search?

I think the only way we can learn more about these issues is by continuing to experiment and test like in your experiment here.

For example; one way of testing yours and Dazzlindonna's hypothesis (that the -dsa only ranks based on on-page factors) is to monitor the -dsa SERP position over time while not changing the on-page factors. If you start out in the 200s and slowly move upwards as new links are added, it is much less likely that the -dsa is based on on-page factors (the opposite would mean that the site's upward trend was due to de-optimization of on-page factors of the sites previously above you in the SERP).

 

If what you Guys are speculating is true then the "-das" search should work with any site regardless of the age.

Has anybody got a site that has been stable in 30 to 50 place and hasn't had any links added in the last three months. If so please test the "-das" search on it and let us know what happens.

If you Guys are right it should have the same effect on any page regardless of the age of the site or the age of the links.

The other thing about your theory is that the result should not always be to advance the page. If the page has poor on-page elements then bypassing the links should drop the pages SERP placement.

I personally don't think your theory is right. I don't know what is happening, but I don't think this search simply bypasses or ignores all links.

 

Nobody knows anything for sure. But think of the consequence of your suggestion. The first thing changing or varying the anchor text would do is drop the allinanchor: rating.

And yet much of the evidence from this experiment suggests that there is a close correlation between allinanchor: scores and SERP placement. So if we suddenly changes all the anchortext on the forum links for instance I would expect our allinanchor: score to go back to where it was before we put these links up.

I think it is the opinion of most of us invovled in this experiment that that would not be a good thing.

 

Sorry, I think one thing I said was mis-interpreted.

The page/site I was talking about should never be rated that HIGH in the serps, with only 9 backlinks. It may not even qualify to belong in the top 100!

It is this reason alone that has caused me to re-think this theory.

Bob,

I do have another site in a very similar situation. It has 5 backlinks and is 4 months old. It is # 99 in regular serps, #3 in allinanchor:, #3 in allintext, and #1 in allinurl:.

Using the -dsa... it is #3 in regular serps, #3 in allinanchor:, #3 in allintext, and #1 in allinurl:.

AGAIN, this site/page does NOT warrant being that high in the serps based on 5 links!

Something is not adding up.

Caryl

 

Here is the information:

The site is www.sleeping-bag-shop.com the search is sleeping bag (singular).

Currently: The regular results put our experiment page at #25 for that search term. The site mentioned above is not found at all.

If you search for sleeping bag -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa -dsa, the experimental page is no longer appears anywhere in the 806 results returned. The site mentioned above with 9 Backlinks is then in #17 position.

What is the explanation for this?

 

FYI FWIW: my RoShamBo page is currently #33 for a regular Google Search ... and a whopping #32 for a sandbox'ed Google Search ...

alek

 

Here is another example:

Site www.mcdar.com search: camping equipment

regular results #156, allinanchor:#24, and allintext:#23

Results with -dsa...
regular results #22, allinanchor:#22, and allintext:#20

No links added or any changes to page since late march.

attached find the daily results returned for this search since April 11th

Daily Ranking

 

Since your site is #3 in allinanchor I don't find it too strange that it is at #3 in the sandboxed search as well. You know, however, the cometitiveness of this particular SERP better than anyone, and if these 5 links do not warrant such a position then maybe we also need to investigate the allinanchor better?

How are your competitors in this SERP? Are there many targetting 'sleeping bag' in singular (also in their anchor text)?

 

Again the correlation between the allinanchor and the sandboxed search seems to be as it should. However, your results in the normal search seems off.

I took a look at the daily results, and noticed that on April 27th you had come as high as #28 in the normal search results. It is difficult to read very much into each placement since the ranking vary very much from day to day -- however the trend after April 27th seems to be downwards, even though you had a #39 as late as May 11th.

Has there been a lot of movement in this SERP generally, or is it your site in particular? And, how many links with 'camping equipment' as anchor text are we talking about here? My experience is: the larger number of links, the more stable is the SERP and the sites' movements. And where are the links from? Maybe, as was suggested here earlier, some links - for various reasons - never are given their full effect.

I hope you'll be able to monitor this search closely the next month -- both the -dsa search and the allinanchor search as well as the normal search, so that we maybe with some time and more data can find out what is going on.

 

This is very interesting, Alek. I think that by comparing those sites that do stabilize on (or very close to) their sandboxed search result position with those that possibly won't, we may be able to isolate the variables that cause this to happen -- and thus avoid them.

...and thereby, as a nice side effect, create a much more predictable world of SERPs and happy SEOs

 

I forgot to mention it, but that Rock Paper Scissors site has been around since the end of 2002 - I've never really tried to "do" anything with it, but maybe these forum links will help it! ;-)

alek

 

Rational,

The two examples that you commented on do not interest me as much as the example I have quoted above.

The example I have quoted above, removes the experimental page (the focus of this thread) completely from the results!

If using -dsa... simply adds full value to the links you have to a page, then reason would have it that it would displace current positions not replace them entirely.

Why would adding -dsa... remove our experimental page from the results entirely?

 

I have had a load of links added

normal google uk = 8th - -aasdfetc = #1

I have been steady at 8th for sometime - I have had many PR7 links added (and cached) but no change

I have a smallish site but no effect on the backlinks (different domains etc)

There is something else happening with this -adasdas etc

I have not seen my site drop at all in recent weeks - my on page is consistent (thanks foxy) but have been adding links

If I do -adsasd I am #1 but I cant see us displacing that one

As I say, there is something else - like Florida with the -asasdasd

As it is a summers day over here - I'm back to the outdoors !