More on Google Duplication and Old Results

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
Anyone who has used is aware is massive egregious
duplication and poor results, especially by large corporate websites
supported by companies like Google.

Today, I was searching for information about Phil Green the billionaire
who has turned around BHS in just two years, so I entered phil green
bhs into and got back my page of results. The first three
results had a BBC article 4 years old, and two links to exactly the
same articles (one for and one for Tthe
fourth has a small article of just a few lines from the Scotsman which
was 2 years old.

Google has always said content matters, but the reality is that it just
points to large websites on the assumption that the articles there are
the best. The fact is of course is that they are not the best.

The search engine even indexes and lists in the top three results links
to different sites which are just copies of one another - something
which Google claims it tries to avoid and yet Google is even partnered
with which has a policy of copying huge of amounts of

Re: More on Google Duplication and Old Results

__/ [ Logician ] on Saturday 01 July 2006 05:52 \__

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I am able to make the observation that:

* Google traffic is gradually restored to genuine sites

* Google crawling rose dramatically for no apparent reason

* Pages are readded to cache

* Page titles and content is stored in a corrupted way, which raises the
possibility that it is recovered from backup

Quoted text here. Click to load it

A similar example was brought forward a few days ago (in AISE). Some Web
sites have a lot of merely identical content dominate some SERP's. It's a

Quoted text here. Click to load it

People love to point at the BBC. This infatuation has earned it such high
status (PageRank and crawling frequency). The only solution is to change the
perception of people, or at least the algorithm. When searching for common
news, I typically find the same Web sites at the top (CNN,, BBC).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Re: More on Google Duplication and Old Results

It would be wild if it turned out a covert group within the NSA broke
into Google headquarters and wiped everything out because Google refused
to go along with the justice dept and turn in those records of google
searches they asked for. Meantime Sergy Brin luckily had some backups on
floppy discs laying around the house and they are now trying to get the
pieces back together again. Hey it's as good as any other explanation
I've heard so far.

In all seriousness though here's my explanation:

I believe that Google is running this very complex algo based on linking
structure that sites use for their linking both internal and external
linking. The algo is very imperfect and has a long way to go to working
right if it even ever can work right and because of this the search
results are all screwed up. While google's intent may have been to clean
up the spam it has tremendously increased spam at google searches not to
mention duplicate and out of date sites showing up high and all over the
place. This algo is in beta testing mode and probably will be for a long
time to come. I think it was a mistake to spring this algo so soon the
way they did when it is far from ready for usuable search.

One has to ask why would Google do this at a time when Yahoo is
improving and MSN is working on a new search engine? I can only think
that Google must really be worried about Yahoo and even more so MSN's
new search being developed, to the point where they're going for broke
to try to drastically improve their own search engine and stay way
ahead. In the short term it's killing them.

I'm convinced about one thing that the algo is based on a complex
linking structure and big sites are doing better because the bigger the
site generally the more complex their linking structure gets. The
linking structure needed to seo a site escapes me so far, although I am
forming a very vague idea of it in bits and pieces so far. I happen to
know of only one person who might understand this linking structure that
the new algo favors and he happens to be the biggest spammer on the
internet and he's been mostly doing it with thousands of .info domains
like as an example of one of his sites (that's not a real
domain just an example of what his are like). has about 50,000 pages and some of those pages link to a few
thousand pages from's internal pages and then those link to's pages which link to and so on and so on and all this is
being done to get about 10 different target pages from all those sites
to page one of certain serps. How it works exactly and how to do it
escapes me but I can see what's going on. There are major flaws in
google's new algo that they are able to take advantage of. They are
essentially manufacturing their own link popularity and in a very
gigantic way too I might add.

Yahoo on the other hand still uses google's basic simple link popularity
algo and has much less problems and more relevant searches right now
between the two. While the simple link popularity algo may open up the
back doors for spammers to enter and get some of their sites listed high
up, it at least doesn't allow them to totally take over the search
engine lock, stock, and barrel the way google's new algo does. The
simple algo is the lesser of two evils.

However there is hope because I have developed two simple linking
structures that have thus far escaped the new google algo's complex
requirements and fake them out completely. Sorry I won't share them with
you, call me selfish if you must but I have a family to feed.

Re: More on Google Duplication and Old Results

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's always been possible to a degree. Google is somewhere where you
really can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. There's been this
surreal element whereby you can create link pop using your own
internal links for a long time. I do it, and probably SEO Dave does it
too but on a much larger scale.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yeah, funny how everyone loses all sense of morality when they have


Site Timeline