Peter. Thanks. What I think you are saying is that Google doesnt like my
personal links which are at
http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com/urls.html
You will find Ken's blog there. There are more than 100 links there but from
what you sent I think that that is not the problem. (I have over 100 links
in pages elsewhere but that has never mattered before). It seems that Google
just dont like my taste in URL. Oh well.
Douglas Clark, Bath, Somerset, England ....
http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Cudmore" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Bourbons
> Found this >
>
> What has Bourbon filter/algo adjustment gone after? So far it looks like:
>
> Non-thematic Linking
> Duplicate Content*
> Fraternal Linking
> Run of Site Links
> Low Quality Reciprocal Links
>
> * Google Bourbon seems to have screwed up their duplicate content
> detector,
> and there are many examples of Google assigning "authority" to the
> duplicate
> page, and restricting the original page to the "similar results" filter.
>
> The victims of the Bourbon Update are in panic mode - some hypothesize
> that
> Google misidentified their site as a "scraper site" due to their AdSense
> placement and penalized it; others are going as far as to speculate
> (incorrectly) that Google is somehow detecting their AdSense ads on
> scraper
> sites, and considering them to be links from "bad neighborhoods", which is
> patently incorrect, as none of the search engine bots will actually
> trigger
> the JavaScript that loads the ads.
>
> However, upon viewing a few of the sites filtered by Bourbon, they have a
> number of things in common - basically 2 or more of the factors listed
> above.
>
> Lesson to be learned? Don't reciprocal link with any old site -
> viagra-casino-porn.biz is not a good link exchange partner for a florist's
> website.
>
> Think like Google - what "signals of quality" does your site have? How can
> you increase and expand those signals? What can they do to automatically
> detect both quality and low-quality signals.
>
> Google is trying to present their users with the best search results -
> concentrate on what criteria, apart from the basic on-page factors, they
> are
> using to judge the quality of a given page. Google wants quality results -
> if your site isn't ranking well in the post-update aftermath of Bourbon,
> reassess your strategy and look into what factors Google's algo might use
> to
> rank sites now, and in the future.
>
> <
>
> Me, I'm curious about 'why bourbon?' Is it a) to do with biscuits; b) to
> do
> with whisky; c) to do with the 1830 revolution in France that overthrew
> the
> eponymous dynasty that had been restored after Bonaparte; d) did I miss
> something?
>
> P
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to
>> poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Ken Wolman
>> Sent: 14 June 2005 17:05
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: website blackilisting
>>
>> Peter Cudmore wrote:
>>
>> >Strange. I typed in (well, let's be honest, I cut & pasted in)
>> >http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com/ at Google, and it came up with the
>> >required site. I'd infer that the Bourbon thing might be
>> responsible,
>> >but that it is a blind consequence and not volitional.
>> >
>> >One of the things Google uses to rate sites is how many other sites
>> >reference it. It took a long time to get the Edinburgh Review's site
>> >onto page 1 of a google search on that term, because there
>> are so many
>> >incidental references to the historical ER out there.
>> >
>> >
>> After running my own name in two identities (Ken and Kenneth
>> Wolman, vaguely related), I'm really at a loss to figure out
>> what's going on. I had no idea I was in that many places.
>> This isn't "fame," it's almost scary. Whatever this Bourbon
>> thing is, it has not dropped me off the radar. I'm listed in
>> places going back to about 1991, and there are one or two
>> things I'd rather forget I ever wrote. Then again, Poetryetc
>> seems to be quite visible: I could reconstruct my output over
>> the last two years simply by searching against Poetryetc.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> --
>> Kenneth Wolman
>> Proposal Development Department
>> Room SW334
>> Sarnoff Corporation
>> 609-734-2538
>>
> --
> This email has been verified as Virus free
> Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
|