What is Google up to?

[glenng]

Yesterday morning (5:30 EDT), I noticed a major change in the real estate serp's and when checking backlinks had changed and a more recent cache of my homepage was showing.

Have to admit I was rather down in the serp's.

Later in the day about 12 hours later, serp's showed about the same as they do normally - slight improvement in my serp, the backlinks were back to the number previously noted when using the toolbar and lastly the old cache was appearing.

Has anyone else noted this activity?

Could another "Florida" be on the way for the real estate industry?

[Jenny Barclay]

SERPS can show changes daily.

G tally of backlinks has been non-operational for a long time now.

Those who thought Florida was a storm will be somewhat surprised by the hurricane that could, and should, take place soon.

Maybe November ?
Pictures of Houses : Andalucian horses for sale

[VRI]

Google's shuffling the cards again. Maybe we'll see something fairly soon (I'm guessing a week). Jenny.... So you've got inside info on the Google algo? Let me guess, you can't share right?

[chachi]

[yukii]

If i had to bet , it would be that pr is dead , and links will not count as much as before. Also you will be penalized for backlinks that are the same if coming from
totally unrelated websites.

[yukii]

Google may be able to stop it all together by simply deprecating the value of inbound links to a web page. i.e. When more than X number of links contained identical wording and the inbound link text did not appear contextually, on the web page being targeted.

In all cases, if the link text was not on the page, the rule would apply. Therefore "miserable failure" for George Bush's web site would likely fail, as those words do not appear together at all on the real web site. The value for X links could theoretically be either a percentage or a hard number. For example, if more than 50% of inbound links contain the identical link text, then depreciate their value by 90%.

More realistically you could choose an arbitrary number, such as 200 identical links gets a value depreciation of 90%. This would likely ward off the malicious and the humorous Google bombing campaigns. They are mostly viral in nature and would quickly eclipse 200 in number. The text chosen rarely is extracted from the text on the page. But 200 inbound links with identical text for a company web site would not need to face a penalty. If Coca-Cola got all their distributors and retailers to link to Coca-Cola.com (2), that would exceed 200 inbound links, but the links would all say, "The Coca-Cola Company" and thus be highly relevant and contextually correct with the content of the target web page. It would therefore not need to be penalized. This formula should also not penalize web sites for poorly formed links. e.g. If someone links to your web site using alternative terms, it should not trigger the filter. Unless of course 200 others did exactly the same thing.

[VRI]

Yukii. congratulations on your subscription to site pro news.

"...More realistically you could choose an arbitrary number, such as 200 identical links gets a value depreciation of 90%. This would likely ward off the malicious and the humorous Google bombing campaigns.... "

[rogerdan]

Seems like everyone is reading Sitepro news here.

Great minds think alike

[Vlado Tovarnak]

If I understand it good, you are talking about that yukii copied content from sitepronews here? Who said it was from sitepronews? Try to add quoted text by VRI into google. I don't see sitepronews.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22.....e=off&filter=0

[VRI]

Vlado, He copied it directly from a mailing.