Google results on an Ipad 2
-
Has anyone else seen different google organic results for a site when viewing on an Ipad compared to computer browser ?
I've just checked a site and were no1 on google when searched on the Ipad 2 but when searched on my Macbook we are page 2 ?
Could this just be different data centers or do google serve up different results to the 2 devices ?
Would be really interested to know if anyone else has seen this.
JP
-
I see different results when searching on an iPad and when searching on an iPhone. Two different devices for sure but one is connectiing through my home network and the other through a wireless signal.
However, that does not surprise me nearly as much as getting different google results from a single computer when using IE, FireFox and Chrome. I also connect remotely to a computer at my office in the same town but with a different ISP and get some differences in results there.
I do not believe that there is a standard google anymore.
Just like the TV commercials that show very different types of guys using PCs and Macs Google knows this too and serves them different results.
Heck.... when I visit websites now that are entirely unrelated to SEO I am seeing SEOmoz ads in the Adsense. Google recognizes me and serves me Fishkin's ads on the fly.... but somehow the people at Moz have not told Google that I am a member and that they can turn the ads off.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Does Google's Information Box Seem Shady to you?
So I just had this thought, Google returns information boxes for certain search terms. Recently I noticed one word searches usually return a definition. For example if you type in the word "occur" or "happenstance" or "frustration" you get a definition information box. But what I didn't see is a reference to where they are getting or have gotten this information. Now it could very well be they built their own database of definitions, and if they did great, but here is where it seems a bit grey to me... Did Google hire a team of people to populate the database, or did they just write an algorithm to comb a dictionary website and stick the information in their database. The latter seems more likely. If that is what happened then Google basically stole the information from somebody to claim it as their own, which makes me worry, if you coin a term, lets say "lumpy stumpy" and it goes mainstream which would entail a lot of marketing, and luck. Would Google just add it to its database and forgo giving you credit for its creation? From a user perspective I love these information boxes, but just like Google expects us webmasters to do, they should be giving credit where credit is due... don't you think? I'm not plugged in to the happenings of Google so maybe they bought the rights, or maybe they bought or hold a majority of shares in some definition type company (they have the cash) but it just struck me as odd not seeing a reference to a site. What are your thoughts?
Algorithm Updates | | donford1 -
SEO Audit after Penguin 2.1 what are you guys seeing? this is my thougts
We have looked at around 2000 sites since Penguin 2.1 launched a few weeks back. These include our customers and their own competitors site. We are going through all the data which is obviously going to take some time. Hopefully we will publish a report on our findings as we are happy to share. What I currently see in my early analysis is Roughly 70% of sites tested have 0% exact match Anchor Text for their money keywords. The other 30% have less than 5% exact match Anchor Text. The quality of the links is often still poor to the sites ranking on page 1. The content surrounding the links is only about 10-15% of the time related to the money keywords. The loading time of the sites ranking seems to not matter, we encountered a lot of slow sites. Design and usability of the site was not important. We are not seeing much impact via Social media, a lot of these sites are small business Less than 10% of sites on page 1 had a Google+ account More than 40% of page 1 sites had Facebook profiles. More than 80% of the sites ranking on page 1 had less than 100 links to the landing page that ranked What are your opinions of helping to recover if hit by the above??? Q) If you have too high an anchor text percentage and have been hit or may get hit in the future would you. a) create some more high quality links with more varied anchor text, ie Click here, brand name etc b) not create any more links just remove the links you have to dilute the anchor text c) change the anchor text on links you are able to These figures are a work in progress so data will change just wanting to share our early findings and try to get a good conversation going. What are you guys seeing?
Algorithm Updates | | tempowebdesign0 -
Test site is live on Google but it duplicates existing site...
Hello - my developer has just put a test site up on Google which duplicates my existing site (main url is www.mydomain.com and he's put it up on www.mydomain.com/test/ "...I’ve added /test/ to the disallowed urls in robots.txt" is how he put it. So all the site URLs are content replicated and live on Google with /test/ added so he can block them in robots. In all other ways the test site duplicates all content, etc (until I get around to making some tweaks next week, that is). Is this a bad idea or should I be OK. Last thing I want is a duplicate content or some other Google penalty just because I'm tweaking an existing website! Thanks in advance, Luke
Algorithm Updates | | McTaggart0 -
De-indexed homepage in Google - very confusing.
A website I provide content for has just suffered a de-indexed homepage in Google (not in any of the other search engines) - all the other pages remained indexed as usual. Client asked me what might be the problem and I just couldn't figure it out - no linkbuilding has ever been carried out so clean backlink profile, etc. I just resubmitted it and it's back in its usual place, and has maintained the rankings (and PR) it had before it disappeared a few days ago. I checked WMT and no warnings or issues there. Any idea why this might've happened?
Algorithm Updates | | McTaggart0 -
Drop in Traffic from Google, However no change in the rankings
I have seen a 20% drop in traffic from google last week (After April 29th). However when I try to analyze the rank of the keywords in the google results that send me traffic they seem to be the same. Today (6th March) Traffic has fallen further again with not much/any visible change in the rankings. Any ideas on what the reason for this could be? I have not made any changes to the website recently.
Algorithm Updates | | raghavkapur0 -
Google's not indexing my blog posts anymore! Why?
Google just recently stopped indexing my blog posts immediately after being published, why could this be? I would usually post a blog post and it would be in google results within 45 seconds, now they don't show up until 6 hours later, if at all (a few never even showed up). Also, my home page doesn't even refresh when I make a change to the site. My site is CantStopHipHop [dot] comI have all in one SEO, xml sitemap generator, and webmaster tools and nothing seemed irregular in the settings.I appreciate any thoughts/help/suggestions.
Algorithm Updates | | bb2550 -
Very Strange Search Results!
Having just done a search on Google.co.uk for 'payday loans' I am baffled as to why the top two organic results (image attached) are even associated to the keyword. The KW isn't present in the title, metas, or content. Nor do any backlinks use relevant anchor text. I'm guessing this is an algorithmic 'f*ck up', do you agree? uGdk7Cw92Rme
Algorithm Updates | | Webpresence0 -
Google Update?
We have a website that for the past several weeks has been very consistent at between 13,500 and 14,200 daily visits and this site received 15,600 last Thursday. THIS week, Monday is at 22,200, Tuesday is at 26,200, and at mid-day today (at about our traffic halfway point in the day) we're already at 14,000 today. This was a site that was bringing about 14,000 visits as of May 16th last year and dropped to 11,000 the following week. The traffic to this site this week is so far beyond statistical analysis that there must have been something that happened.
Algorithm Updates | | sourcelinemedia0