| 5:41 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes, I am having this problem as of today. But strangely only for a few kw phrases is an internal page ranking #170 where my homepage used to rank #2, and in those results when I do finally find my homepage in never-never land, it is mysite.com and no google directory listing shown, whereas in the results where I held my #1 ranking for other kw phrases, my homepage is www.mysite.com. with google directory listing show. Strange to not be indexed correctly for certain kw's but fine for other keywords. Wouldn't a site be indexed or not, period?
| 5:53 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
OK, now just to freak me out a little more. After ALL DAY being in the situation I was with the one kw phrase only showing an internal page at #170, and staying #1 for my other kw phrase, I am now all of a sudden experiencing the very opposite. Now the other kw phrase is an internal page and dropped from #1 to #8, and the one that was #170 with an internal page is now at #2 with the homepage. Guess I just can't rank high for both at the same time these days....I'm not gonna look any more...it's crazy. Good nite all...may we wake up tomorrow and discover it was all just a bad nightmare.
| 6:14 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Same problem here..
Our site #4 with our main kw but now it is not indexed when we searh main kw but site still has PR5 and other interesting thing is index file is #9 with other mixed kw for example we have 3 targeted words as follow ;
1) green apple
2) yellow car
3) green car
not indexed @ green apple
indexed @ yellow car
indexed @ yellow apple!
and when i search www.mysite.com then don't have www.mysite.com result, sub files appear like www.mysite.com/yellowcar.htm and my link page
i really confused how it is and need to wait next dance.
info : site has 286 backlink
| 6:33 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Caught in semi-penalty and is well discussed here
| 7:32 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for all.
Could you tell us shortly what should we do? i think that i have similar problem with you (read your posts but not till end of thread)..
what did you do?
| 8:17 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Because exact 'how it works' is still unclear. There are many different opinions. Some says do nothing and wait.
For me, I don't believe this filter will go away because I understand why there is such a filter and its importants. In case you miss my post, IMHO, the filter is there to detect those who tried to manipulate google ranking by the use of excessive anchor text. It is important because there are more and more people tryting to manipulate it by things like excess link exchange, participating in link exchange program, signing guestbooks, buying links with the exact anchor text ...
My advice is, start looking for more links to your site without using the keywords which has caught the semi-penalty. I think this can make the specific keywords to the total keywords ratio smaller and thus deactivate the filter.
Another way is to change your title. Remove one or few of the keywords that has been backlisted. You *should* see your main page appearing instead of inner page even after the fresh bot crawled, but not that high in SERPs. At least it will appear.
These are only my opinions and observations which might not be correct at all. So I hold no reposibilities on it. :) But I am really doing a lot on this semi-penalty instead of waiting because I want to see my site back in the next update, not after the next few updates.
| 8:23 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
All you need to know on this subject can be found by looking for God! Try it, the anchor text king will show you how it should be done!
| 8:35 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thats interesting and proves the theory. No onsite spamming of the word 'god' so the anchor text becomes very relevant and not subject to the penalty.
| 8:42 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
MHes...yup, now try it at Yahoo. Fe Fi Fo Fum....who is the smartest of them all? Okay not totally smart but #18 is better than #1 IMHO!
| 10:41 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Can someone take pity on me and stickymail explain why the google #1 and yahoo #18 are showing up at all for that search term, given the fact the the word does not apear in the url, title, anywhere on the page or in any of the referring urls? I'm feeling really stupid right now because of this.
| 10:54 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Considering how one of my sites dropped from #6 to #78 just a few hours ago for a key search term, I'm wondering if maybe this semi-penalty exists. However, this doesn't explain why entering the domain name in the search box shows the site isn't in Google, yet checking by other means all the pages are.
[edited by: rfgdxm1 at 11:16 am (utc) on May 25, 2003]
| 10:54 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
PunkJazz, no need for sticky mail.
That site ranks #1 for a very simple reason, it knows how to use anchor text correctly. It has numerous other sites linked to it that say that it is relevant for that very common search term....plainly it is not....but the anchor text tricks Google (and to a less extent Yahoo) that it is.
It proves two things. First the penalty being discussed here only applies in certain circumstances and secondly that it is still relatively easy to trick Google.
Some around these parts think Google is the almighty, unbeatable and all wise and knowing, this example shows how easy it is to prove otherwise! All those PHD's and they still fall for a very common 3 letter search term as simple as this....you draw your own conclusions as to how good their algo's are!
| 10:58 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Some around these parts think Google is the almighty, unbeatable and all wise and knowing, this example shows how easy it is to prove otherwise! All those PHD's and they still fall for a very common 3 letter search term as simple as this....you draw your own conclusions as to how good their algo's are!
ROFL. Yeah, I hate to say at times the gang at Google seem like bozos. Innocent sites are being whacked left and right, yet an irrelevant site can get #1 for God. Bizarre.
| 11:33 am on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"That site ranks #1 for a very simple reason, it knows how to use anchor text correctly."
That would make a lot more sense to me if the search term we are discussing was actually used as anchor text in any of the listed backlinks, which it is not. All the text backlinks are a hyphenated version of the domain name, I I can't find anchor text god linking to him anywhere. Maybe it's just late and I'm just tired but I don't get it.
| 12:02 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Maybe it's just late and I'm just tired but I don't get it.
PunkJazz, it is late, in fact very early, but try this:
| 1:35 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
other thing is
allinanchor:key word #2 (my main key word)
but allinurl:www.mysite.com appering with sub files (2 and 1 of them is my link page)...
| 1:45 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> specific keywords to the total keywords ratio smaller and thus deactivate the filter. <<
I just don't buy the idea that too many links with the same anchor text will lead to problems. I defies the natural laws of linking.
Examples? Tons of them. What anchor test are you going to use for a link to the BBC? How about 'BBC'? Bet almost all the links there use that.
Ditto MacDonalds, or how about Google itself?
It's natural to link to a site by its name or similar. I can't see anyway that Google would construct a penalty for that.
| 1:52 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Not all links will link to Google with the word 'Google'. They can link to it with
2. Google Search Engine
4. Search Engine
5. Here (search for it 'here')
6. Site (goto 'this site')
While in the case if you exchange links or buy links, you will usually have a heavy one site down keyword phase which Google try to detect.
And, you site will always highly optimize for it - h1, lots or repetitation ...
| 2:00 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We'll just have to see... but I think it will iron itself out as things unfold. IMHO it's just too hit and miss, because there are sites that will always attract the same or similar anchor text.
| 2:01 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>While in the case if you exchange links or buy links, you will usually have a heavy one site down keyword phase which Google try to detect.
If you provide your visitors with a "link to us" page that offers a html code with your prefered link text and description, you'll also end with all the same keywords in your backlinks. Nothing dodgy. Perfectly legit.
| 2:44 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google didn't promise to show every web sites in their index. There are always good sites ready to be in the top spots. If yours is not there, it isn't a problem for them nor their visitors. It is only your problem.
If you have a 'link to us' page, you can't generate too much links, because linking today is done mostly for mutual benefits. Usually, this copy and paste codes are for link exchanging purposes.
Plus again, sites that have that specific excessive phase in anchor text will usually highly optimized in their site. This is another factor the filter use to determine is the filter should be applied.
Of course there are many many more factors which Google will take into consideration. Since I am not from GooglePlex, I can't comment much. But this filter is really there because many people here are noticing it.
| 2:57 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Google didn't promise to show every web sites in their index. There are always good sites ready to be in the top spots. If yours is not there, it isn't a problem for them nor their visitors. It is only your problem.
Maybe you didn't adress me with this statement. However, just to clarify what could be misunderstood: i didn't complain - nor have i been unaware of the fact that it's my problem if my site isn't found at google.
>If you have a 'link to us' page, you can't generate too much links, because linking today is done mostly for mutual benefits. Usually, this copy and paste codes are for link exchanging purposes.
Don't know how you come to this conclusion but i clearly disagree. A comfortable link to us page with appropriate copy and paste code is a important part of a marketing strategy. It's far away from link exchange purposes! You wouldn't believe how many people send us emails asking how they should link to us and where they can find banners, codes and stuff.
I'd agree that for seo aware webmasters linking is done prob mostly for mutual benefits. But you can't generalize it. There are far more seo unaware webmasters out there than those who only link reciprocally. If someone finds my site to be attractive and worth to link, i'm happy to provide them with some code - and they're allways happy, too.
| 3:41 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> But this filter is really there because many people here are noticing it. <<
Or could it be that you put forward a plausible explanation and others agreed because there is no other obvious answer?
Could the real answer not be that significant volumes of data have not been applied yet? And that some of that data could relate to anchor text tables?
I'm sure there are others, but the conclusions you reach are premature IMHO. This doesn't sound to me to be a sensible route for Google to take.
No-one is doubting that many sites have seen their index pages fall on key terms. But excessive anchor text is only one of MANY possible causes, and not one that seems likely to me personally.
| 4:07 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We are human and we always have different opinions. By the way, are you one of the victims of the semi-penalty?
| 4:16 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> By the way, are you one of the victims of the semi-penalty? <<
For one of my sites, yes, AthlonInside.
But the Google centers really are all over the place at the moment... in fact it's just re-apperaed on -SJ and -EX (but none of the others) for example. Things are changing so much it's difficult to make firm conclusions in any direction.
Not quite true... I tripped a hidden text filter last night on one of my most important sites. I'd coded style="color=silver" and not style="color:silver". Hence no silver, hence hidden text, hence the site was totally zapped. I'm gutted - I feel quite sick about it.
ADDED: There we go... it's just gone from -SJ again. Talk about fluidity!
| 6:44 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Here's my 2 cents why this semi-penalty theory for anchor text is invalid.
I am experiencing the same problem where I do not show up all of a sudden for a main kw phrase. But I'm still #1 for another. And the one I am #1 for still has far more exact link anchor text, H1, and title stuff. So, that clearly does not explain the loss for certain kw's. I do not believe for one second there is a semi-penalty. It also seems to have something to do with the www.mysite.com versus mysite.com issue, because I see that same issue for the kw's I barely show up for: I show up with an internal page only.
| 6:50 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Napolean...with everyone's sites disappearing, how can you say yours disappeared because of a "color:silver" issue...I'm laughing, not at you, but that people are giving different yet specific reasons for the same exact thing tons and tons of people are experiencing, and the reasons don't apply across the board. We now have a hidden text theory and a semi-penalty theory. Neither hold water if the can't explain the majority of sites affected.
| 7:11 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> how can you say yours disappeared because of a "color:silver" issue <<
It's quite simple. That site is stable and has been there for years. Suddenly the whole site goes (not just the index), at a time when Google is known to be flicking the hidden text filter.
Quick check on the site, and bingo. There it was, bold as brass on the front page. A real sickener.
If I'm deliberately pushing the boundaries, it's a fair copy, I can take it. But accidental stupidity? On my part? There's no-one else to blame! I'm going to get drunk.
| 7:31 pm on May 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't buy this Anchor text penalty theory..seems like it would be too easy for competitiors to screw you over by using anchor text in 1000's of guestbooks, etc, just my opinion though
| This 104 message thread spans 4 pages: 104 (  2 3 4 ) > > |