In
http://www.dgdclynx.plus.com/lynx/lynx17.html
I have a link to Neil Rollinson's BoomerangUK which has been hijacked. I
have been waiting for him to sort it out. Could this be the cause of my
trouble? Thanks.
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
|