| 3:19 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
wackmaster and Jedi,
I will go for JAVA applets menu if google can read it! With colourful icon that animate! wow. But googlebot ...
OK, here is what I want to conclude a bit.
Ok, some people claimed that their links not reciprocal, so we take this posibility out. Some of us argue about H1, I don't think it is the reason too.
But 1 thing we are always the same (except rfgdxm1 which I don't think we have the same case here at all). We have our site display TOP with a search using allinanhor. However, page is missing when the keywords phase is search directly. The point is we do have strong anchor text and google algo's backbone are on Anchor Text and it is impossible to have a site missing UNLESS then did something (the penalty). Remember, a site can rank very high even if they don't have the keywords in any of the page! As long as they have some anchor text which point to it.
In my area, I am not alone, some of my competitors with strong links do encounter the same faith with me.
Shall we now agree that it is the anchor text/inbound links (which used to help us) thats dropped us out of the ranking. We shall agree that it is not due to any on-page factors such as H1 text.
The truth is, I am actively seeking for link exchange and every months I have lots of new links. Maybe, this filter think that if my site could have such an increase of links in such a short time, it must be done by link exchange (or for sure it it not link to me because my site is good). Maybe the filter doesn't like lots of same anchor text with 4-5 words? (how long is your anchor text?)
Hmmm, after I lost my last appearance in SJ today, I see no hope my site can appear in this update.
For those who keep saying that it is too early to examine the algo, please take your time to post elsewhere. Is it still early when your hair is already burning! You can say that loud because your site is steadily appearing in the index but we aren't. Please be understanding.
| 3:37 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
you say its not h1 or other on page factors and it must be strong anchor text...it seems to me it is strong anchor text possible amassed in a short time...BUT THEN WITH STRONG ON PAGE MATCHING FACTORS..such as h1...the point here being that we did nothing against google tos..google guidelines say by all means engage in reciprocal links that are ontopic....now after following its guidelines its kicking us in the teeth...so much for googleguy saying they would work closer with webmasters this year.....all they had to do was change the webmaster guiddlines...but to kick perfectly good sites because they worked hard to do what they could for their sites within the guidlines is sheer arrogance....i advise anyone now who asks me to spam away at google...it may only work for a short time but then so does following the rules....
| 3:47 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
i think people are saying less it's too early to analyse, and more that it's too early to form conclusions. i know that is what we feel for ourselves, and have said in posts. and we still feel that way.
but watching the play by play as events unfold, is also very helpful and shouldnt be discouraged by anybody who doesnt want to play.
| 5:06 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I think not Perfect Link, it is too many new links which is generated in a months time (the speed of new links) |
I think this is out of the question as it would be an extremely stupid strategy, even though it may be effective to combat the trading in PR.
Just think about how this would affect a truly important and relevant site that quickly became incredibly popular, like maybe the most authoritive site on SARS or something similar. I think Google generally likes "fresh" sites that quickly become popular and get lots of links. I think the penalty could only be tripped when it is clear that almost all links to a site has the exact same anchortext, and it is also obvious that the whole page these links are linking to are SEO'd for that keyword. Even the Center for Disease Control would not have every incoming link to them with the anchortext SARS...
I think this penalty is a huge mistake by Google since it will certainly degrade very relevant sites in the index, together with some sites that have paid their way to the top. Google's basic algo is great, and that is the reason they are number one. The only problem they have is that more and more people now understand the algo, because they have made it all available to the public...
| 6:41 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have a client's website which was hosted with a terrible host that went out of business. The site was down for about a month an a half until I could regain control of the domain. After another month, it was listed back in google but had a grey "unranked" bar.
Now the site is back with a white PR0, and I think it is due to the new semi-penalty. (The site probably reflects that it was expired and repurchased).
My site is clean from bad techniques, as I have always stuck with compliant tactics. Is there anywhere I can report this, or beg for help? Or should I just wait it out a while longer?
| 6:44 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
From what you say, it shouldn't be the semi-penalty. I think it is PR0 because there are no backlinks calculated yet. It is confimed if the site is new (2-3 months?). Or maybe google take it as a new site and ignore the links. Semi-penalty sites do have normal PRs.
| 6:46 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Shall we now agree that it is the anchor text/inbound links (which used to help us) thats dropped us out of the ranking. We shall agree that it is not due to any on-page factors such as H1 text. |
Because I see sites at the top of the SERPS in the "new" index which rely 100% on those anchortext inbounds - no keywords even on the page. Not even H1.
One keyword in the title and anchortext and that's it.
| 7:04 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
of course Anchor Text play a great role with search results since it is the backbone of Google Algo. Because google doesn't want any one manipulate it, so they have detect sites which seems like manipulating it and blocked it from appearing in the SERPs. So I think our sites is the victim of this new filter.
| 7:15 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Are all of your anchortext inbounds on topic and relevant?
| 7:25 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
my anchor text are usually 3-5 words and it match my title exactly.
I think one of the factor which determine this filter is the lenght of anchor text. Maybe.
| 7:30 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
For me it seems that there are more than one reason which could cause this kind of penalty. One reason to expect this is that my results are always the same on all updated data centers while others seeing different behaviours. Therefore, different pages must not have things in common and it's hard to draw conclusives.
I removed everythings which could have caused this semi-penalty, even if wasn't spam. Google have already spidered the page and changed the cache, but the situation doesn't changed. Maybe it is related to the deep crawl data and I have to wait until the 'e'-update. Another scenario was mentioned by GoogleGuy [webmasterworld.com]: a hidden text penalty which will expire after some weeks. Also in this case I just can wait. (I mention again that there wasn't any kind of hidden text. However, no filter is perfect.)
If the situation stay the same until the 'e'-update, I don't no what to do. Probably I will try to change the domain (maybe the penalty is related to the domain).
I will tell you if there are changes.
I still believe that this kind of penalty is caused by on-page factors. Apart from the fact that the offline factors PR and allinanchor are well while the on-page properties allintitle and allintext are bad, you could otherwise easily penalize a competitor. This would be the case for the 'speed of new links' theory as well as for any other. (e.g. just add thousands of links to his site)
Anyhow, Good luck.
(AthlonInside, my anchor text is just 2 words long and one of them is the company name.)
| 7:44 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What I meant was, are they on relevant sites or do your inbound links appear on off-topic sites?
| 8:01 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
IMO: SEO doing with just reading here plus using some easy to get software plus (ab)using some web-directories simply reminds me to something Don Quixote did.
Just my 2 cents
| 10:19 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My anchor text are usually 3 words and match my title exactly; usually comes close to matching H1 also...
| 10:22 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My links pages are all fine, but a fascinating thing I noticed while checking them was that some of my penalized expired domains that show a PR0 - PR3, now show backlinks. That's right, they're not showing as PR4 with backlinks, but PR3 or PR1 with numerous backlinks.
So, my response is...my links pages that are titled "Links.htm" are fine, but I'm showing backlinks where I shouldn't be. This whole thing is so weird.
[Edited so no one has to say, "Hey dummy, wrong thread", cuz I know, I know, I know. Maybe I'll just take a nap.]
| 8:14 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
More that I see today. Now it is 7/8 datacenters with the new index. Ok my site almost vanished although I rank well with allinanchor and PR is still the same.
The interesting thing I want to share is that pages in my site which get links from only my own site (internal links) seems like getting this penalty too. But since it is not competitive, it is drop from page 1 to page 3. I check sites in front of me and they are usually new sites and they either have no links or 1 link.
So, it might be possible that if we link to a page in our site extensively will activate this penalty. I will continue to observe everything and post it here.
| 9:00 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Seems like I have joined the "semi penalty club"
My website have been in google since last summer, nice and easy and have been
ranked top10 for my most important keywords all the time, until now....
These are my results in the new index (and the old) for my main keyword.
allinanchor:keyword1 keyword2: 22 (4)
allinurl:keyword1 keyword2: 3 (2)
allintext:keyword1 keyword2: 10 (6)
allintitle:keyword1 keyword2: 7 (4)
keyword1 keyword2 49 (4)
the old data can still be found in www-in.google server.
Have no idea why google don't like my website anymore, unless they have changed their
The only thing I can think of the numbers of domains that I have redirected
to my website (to keep the "type in" traffic), I see that in for some
they have been picked up by google and the description have been taken from my
developed website. This have been no problem before, and google have correctly "ignored"
the redirects in the past.
I hope this is a bug and google will correct it the sooner the better.
| 2:33 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> So, it might be possible that if we link to a page in our site extensively will activate this penalty. I will continue to observe everything and post it here.
AthlonInside, I think you are right. I have a whole magazine on my most important keyword, which I started last year in September. It had 200+ external links, and is listed in DMOZ and Google Directory. It was #8 on Google for 3 months, but has now vanished (I stopped looking for it at #300). It still has PR6, and backlinks are still enough to be at least #15. Only thing I did wrong was to extensively link to the magazine from the main part of the site. I cannot see any other reason why this happened. The main part of the site is not affected in any way. I have now removed all the links to the magazine, so hopefully it will reappear in the next update.
| 2:41 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
can some one post a summary please of what this new semi-penalty consists of....
| 2:48 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>So, it might be possible that if we link to a page in our site extensively will activate this penalty.
But how could this be possible? What about navigation bars/links? I can't see how they could apply a penalty for internal linking. If this was the case then every page of practically every website would have a pr0.
Or am I missing something here - I do have the flu :(
| 3:35 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I can't see how they could apply a penalty for internal linking. If this was the case then every page of practically every website would have a pr0. |
| 3:51 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|can some one post a summary please of what this new semi-penalty consists of.... |
Some people think that google is penalising "links" pages.
Some people don't think that google is penalising "links" pages.
GoogleGuy say's it's a red-herring.
Some respected members of this forum don't think it's a red-herring.
The penalties some believe being incurred are PR for links pages being reduced to 0 or grey-bar'd.
| 4:03 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This thread is not about whether link pages are getting PR0. This thread is about people who are wondering why their site has dropped down several pages or disappeared from the SERPs for their major keywords, while they are still ranking well for all other keyword combinations.
| 4:05 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Whoops... sorry, wrong thread!
Too many threads on google spoils the broth. Or something similar. Or just "wake up TJ!".
| 4:18 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
TJ - Not your fault...Google has caused a wrinkle in the time-space continuum. ;-)
| 4:35 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have a question related to this string (I think)...
In an 'allinanchor' search for an important key-phrase regarding one of our sites, we've gone from high on page one to low on page two. We didn't get a lot of new (external) backlinks over the last several months...
This would have made sense to me if we had added a bunch of backlinks recently, i.e., backlinks that were factored into last month's SERP's but aren't yet in these new SERP's (because the new SERP's seem to have the older index + freshie overlay).
Am I just missing something obvious...or is it possible that my backlinks in the Dominic SERP's have been dampened? I've been struggling with this for days, and don't get it. Plus, despite this, the site is doing well. Dominic, you crazy guy!
| 5:09 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"I can't see how they could apply a penalty for internal linking. If this was the case then every page of practically every website would have a pr0."
I think the idea is to detect navigation links and dampen the anchor text benefits. So, if a page has loads of internal links from other pages with the same anchor text this triggers a dampening algo. Webmasters can easily generate hundreds of pages with links to a targeted optimised page, so this deals with this problem. There may be other factors which dictate how much 'penalty' is applied. I suspect if an internal page link has anchor text which matches the file name, page title, H1 of the page it is pointing at then this triggers an 'seo algo' (my phrase!) In other words, if a series of obvious seo tactics are employed, then an algo is triggered which basically says 'Come on guys, I wasn't born yesterday' and ignores the optimisation. So you are not receiving a 'penalty' , you are instead getting no benefit from the h1 etc and thus dropping in the rankings. If your content is good, you will still get traffic for less competitive phrases, as per usual, hence googleguys comment about not worrying about targetted phrases, just rely on content. This 'seo algo' could also apply to links from other sites, so if a webmaster has been 'bombing' a keyword phrase, google detects the percentage of links in which uses the same anchor text, looks at the optimisation on the page and if it matches the anchor text phrase then drops any benefits it would normally apply.
Just my thoughts so far.... but tomorrow is another day :)
| 5:18 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Penalizing internal links can REALLY kill a home page, since every page on a site should link back to your home page.
In fact, on my sites I have a navigation menu on the left (or top, or right) of every page linking to the main sections so that, no matter where you are, you can get to a main section. I think this is often better than breadcrumbs.
However, I offer breadcrumbs, too, since some folks like to follow those.
I also have a search function, and graphics linked to the home page on every page of the site.
To penalize internal links means that these simple navigation tools -- ones that make the site more user-friendly -- are hurting traffic? That seems stupid.
Maybe these internal links should be discounted, and deliver much less than a link from another domain, but should certainly not be a negative.
| 5:23 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm with MHes 100% all the way until someone can convince me otherwise... Yes, 'seo algo' it is :)
Also, quick note: I've noticed sites that have NOT changed for a very long time are doing very well!
| 5:39 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
MHes, thank you.
Your theory is the first I've seen that could explain why some of our sites with *more* external links dropped in 'allinanchor' searches, while others with *fewer* external links have gone up...something that was counter-intuitive until now.
That said, to restate a question I posed rhetorically before, Does this mean that I need to contact all of the sites that link to us and ask them to make their links to us *less clear*?
I believe it's possible that Google is trying something very like what you've outlined above, but in our particular case, it's the external links that are the variant.
It's a dubious practice, in my mind at least, to apply this to (external) backlinks. The vast majority of backlinks we receive have been in place for some time...still, our "allinanchor" results have dropped.
I sure hope those guys at Google are as smart as they think they are...
| 6:03 pm on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Every few post, there would be someone saying 'GoogleGuy said ...' & 'GoogleGuy mention ...'
This thread is active for a few days with 150 posts! I can see no way GG can miss this thread. He just don't want to give any comments on it. So I never believe what GG says in other threads can apply to us.
He did say new backlinks will be add in. But he never say if your site is lost, it would rise again. He never said that.