Tracking Mustangevolution.com

site:mustangevolution.com vbseo - Google Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 111 from mustangevolution.com for vbseo. (0.25 seconds)

site:mustangevolution.com - Google Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 76,900 from mustangevolution.com for . (0.19 seconds)

See how long it takes from this post before Google stops sucking

I show the same number across the board after going form 400k back to 40k then back to 152k now. That number is across all DC's BUT there seems to be a lot of supp results as well and cahce dates back to August 2005

as retrieved on Aug 18, 2005 23:26:41 GMT.

SERPS are in the garbage though for many secondary keywords.

I'm showing a MAJOR drop in referrals.

Only change today is 200 less indexed pages overall

Results 1 - 10 of about 76,700 from mustangevolution.com for . (0.19 seconds)

site:mustangevolution.com vbseo - Google Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 109 from mustangevolution.com for vbseo. (0.25 seconds)

site:mustangevolution.com - Google Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 76,900 from mustangevolution.com for . (0.19 seconds)

Strange. Mine has stayed put the whole time. No change at all and all DC's.

Results 1 - 10 of about 105 from mustangevolution.com for vbseo. (0.23 seconds)

Rest is the same.

Finally!!!!

site:mustangevolution.com - Google Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 32,000 from mustangevolution.com for . (0.22 seconds)

site:mustangevolution.com vbseo - Google Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 28,500 from mustangevolution.com for vbseo. (0.21 seconds)

wooohooo!

Still in supp hell here....get me out!!

Results 1 - 10 of about 38,700 from mustangevolution.com for . (0.18 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 29,400 from mustangevolution.com for vbseo. (0.22 seconds)

I'd like to mention that I have resorted to turning the archive back into a sitemap after using Yahoo as my bench mark for testing archive earnings via adsense. Yahoo indexed both my archive and my original threads and were sending almost 95% of the visitors to the original page instead of the archive. This has lead me to believe that rewriting the urls on the original thread has lead to them being much more appealing over the dynamic stock urls which leads the original page to be served to the user searching over the archive one. So I have resorted to turning it into a sitemap and will be keeping it this way.

Did you do that before or after your current results?

Originally Posted by BamaStangGuy

I'd like to mention that I have resorted to turning the archive back into a sitemap

Good deal. From our previous discussion about duplicate content & the archive, I had specifically asked Matt Cutts about this in April at PubCon. Never got around to giving his comments.

Matt said that the archive is most definitely duplicate content. He also said that he would not expect an archive thread to rank better than the real thread if all things were equal except for the different formatting. I took that to mean he bets there was better PR distribution to the archive version &/or you were somehow optimizing the archives better than the real threads.

Good luck,
Ross

Originally Posted by gcc llc

Did you do that before or after your current results?

Before

Originally Posted by rmjvol

Good deal. From our previous discussion about duplicate content & the archive, I had specifically asked Matt Cutts about this in April at PubCon. Never got around to giving his comments.

Matt said that the archive is most definitely duplicate content. He also said that he would not expect an archive thread to rank better than the real thread if all things were equal except for the different formatting. I took that to mean he bets there was better PR distribution to the archive version &/or you were somehow optimizing the archives better than the real threads.

Good luck,
Ross

I still don't think Google sees it as duplicate. It is not the exact same thing. However I was not seeing the adsense earnings and traffic to the archive to warrant me keeping it as an archive and at the very least this will be one less step the search engines have to go through to find my content.

Originally Posted by BamaStangGuy

I still don't think Google sees it as duplicate. It is not the exact same thing.

Ok, suit yourself. Maybe I did a poor job of asking Matt or listening to his answer. Or maybe he just doesn't know much about how Google works