|So...to change or not to change?|
Wait for G to behaive or adjust our sites?
Ok, with regard to whatever is going on with Google, I'm starting to wonder if maybe I should work on a trying to optimize my pages a bit differently, in hopes that they will reappear in the Serps. Or, do we just sit and wait for Google to go back to normal? At first, I thought, ok we just wait. But then I saw a post on here that suggested that maybe Google has just drastically changed the algo, and our sites just aren't deserving the ranking that they once did. Even if this is temporary, like some freakish Google algo mess or whatever, we are still being crawled. So, should we think about a different approach to optimizing, or test some things and maybe find something that DOES work at the moment?
I just wonder because my site, who has been steady at #6 for several months for my most important kw, has fallen hard this week. Checking the datacenters, at first, I was still on two of them, then only on one of them, and now I'm on NONE of them. So maybe my site just doesn't deserve a #6 rank anymore, BECAUSE of whatever Google is doing. If this is the case, and sites AREN'T missing, just not ranking like before, shouldn't we try and test a few things or something and see if we can climb back up? I mean we can always save the pages the way they were when they ranked well under normal circumstances. Anyway, this would give us something to do.
Does any of this make sense, or should I just take my non-seo self back to racking my brain? LOL
On what bases are you going to make any changes? At least you have to wait till the update is over.
If you've been doing well, and looking for something to do, this is the extent to which I would "optimize":
1.) Add new pages.
2.) Work on getting new backlinks to new/existing internal pages instead of just the home page.
3.) Follow g1smd's simple, handy-dandy advice for those hard-to-find home pages:
|...every page of the site has very clear navigation to get you anywhere else in the site in just one more click... |
yes skipfactor you are right, just one thing to add, when creating new pages think of more than one keyword ask around/observe how people talk, even slight differences in the way a keyword is written or connected to other words make a difference.
In the log files you only see what you get and not what you miss.
Why do we really? I mean with as messed up as everything seems to be, how much more damage could be done? I am getting crawled, pathetically only one page at the moment, but daily, so why wouldn't I want to try changing some density, frequency, etc. or whatever, and see if it would help my "missing" page, move up?
Are you suggesting that touching anything right now could make matters worse, meaning that you think all will be back to normal fairly soon?
Please let me know, as I really don't have alot of G knowledge. I just want to be certain that there's absolutely nothing I can do but sit here and wait.
Added: I have been working on getting more quality backlinks, but as far as adding content, there's not really a whole lot more I could add at the moment.
[edited by: kstprod at 10:09 pm (utc) on June 24, 2003]
Try Overture, type in your main keyword/s, its like magic
LOL, funny that you mention that, because that is exactly what I have done. Along with Google Adwords too. :)
skipfactor has said it well. especially #2
Sorry Rogue & Skipfactor but I can't agree. I'm seeing top sites in my area with ALL their backlinks going to the index page. They haven't been affected by recent changes.
One of my sites with similar amounts of backlinks going to the index page has bombed. The index is nowhere.
The #1 site is optimised, not overly, but then neither is mine. Their backlink anchor text is always the same and includes the keywords, as does ours.
There is in short, no difference between what they're doing and what we're doing. I don't begrudge them the #1 spot. They are relevant, so good for them.
There doesn't seem to be any particular difference between the optimisation of the two sites at all, aside from the fact that their site is older. Ours is about a year old.
I don't believe this theory about a filter for over-linking to one page. It doesn't span across the results I'm seeing for a wide range of sites. Lots of sites link only to their index page, most have not bombed. The only consistent factor I'm seeing is that older sites are surviving the googlebombing syndrome, newer ones aren't.
batdesign... I think what skipfactor was saying and with which I agree with is that to fully optimize you need to create backlinks to other pages besides the index page to achieve the best results, as keyword combinations more often get better results than the singular word search. And besides, nobody said anything about bombing except you concerning your index page. You may want to take a closer look. Sorry, only quoting your words.
|I just wonder because my site, who has been steady at #6 for several months for my most important kw, has fallen hard this week. |
I believe the post was about ranking dropping drastically? This is why I was talking about bombing...it's what the first post was referring to. Perhaps you want to take a closer look ;)
I never referred to singular keywords. I don't optimise for singular keywords. So far from quoting my words you are in fact misquoting me.
I shouldn't get pedantic though. I apologise...
I'm just not convinced by the argument that links to one page is a reason for google to drop that page. Why should it? I don't disagree with getting links to the most relevant page on your site for that link though. That is just plain sense.
Right now, I'm voting to hold off on any changes until the dance is over or more stable. My reason for doing this is that in my keyword phrases there is still alot of movement. Up 2 positions, down 6, in then out of top 10. Therefore, there is no real way to analyze what is happening to G's algo. I try to analyze the top 5 postitions and the five postition above and below me to see what seems to be the best but with all the movement, as soon as I develop one idea - things change and destroy that idea.
I believe one item that is changing though is PR weighting (going down) but the new PR calculations do not seem to be in yet. I have one page that was a 'coming soon' page that I gave minor internal link (PR2) to get it into G, then on May 9th changed the link to a PR6 internal link where all linked to pages inherit a PR5. The back link is now showing but the PR value and positioning still reflect a PR2 value not a PR5.
Thanks all for the input.
Just to clarify, I do have pretty good backlinks and they do show. At one point, I had a PR7, which is really good for me. I think it's somewhere like a 5 or 6 now, but still good for me. The reason why I say I think, is because PR is acting funny, so I dunno what I have. For the most part, no matter what site I check at in my backlinks, they ALL show a PR8, and I know I don't have THAT many 8's as links. Anywho, I'm still working on getting more. :)
Anyway, when I made this first post, I should have clarified that my optimization talk was all about a 2 word keyphrase. I just wondered what would happened if I messed with on-page factors, just to test whatever it is that Google is doing. After reading reactions, I guess everyone feels that its better not to mess with anything and wait.
Go ahead and mess with stuff, and then tell me what happened so I can base my decisions on whether your site dies or not :)
Anyone that's optimizing on whatever's going on must have A Beautiful Mind.
Have you compared your "allinanchor:keyword phrase" rankings with your keyword phrase SERP rankings on the different datacenters?<<be careful, it might drive you mad.
Ok, now I am a bit confused. No, I have never checked allinanchor or any of those commands. I never really understood them. BUT, while messing around with them a few minutes ago, I noticed a few scary things. If someone would be so kind as to tell me what these mean.
I Just did the following....
search for MyDomain - shows 153 results (all but 2 are backlinks)
link:http://www.mydomain.com/ - Shows 20 pages (allbut 4 are my own)
allinanchor:key phrase, and my normal #6 spot is now #14
allinurl:www.mydomain.com - Shows 2 pages, with the other 43 pages omitted for similar results (GULP)
allinurl:mydomain.com - Shows 2 different pages, with other 43 omitted again
I'm not sure what to make on this. I sure wish I'd have done all this and learned them a LONG time ago. I sure hope some nice person will tell me what all of this means in English?...lol
|link:http://www.mydomain.com/ - Shows 20 pages (allbut 4 are my own) |
Meaning :- You can get some more external links
|allinanchor:key phrase, and my normal #6 spot is now #14 |
Meaning :- You can try and get Rich anchor text(with your Keywords in it) Links.
|allinurl:www.mydomain.com - Shows 2 pages, with the other 43 pages omitted for similar results (GULP) |
I wouldn't worry about that :)
|allinurl:mydomain.com - Shows 2 different pages, with other 43 omitted again |
Same as Above.
Now did you get the same results on all the Datacentres?
BTW Very good Suggestions by skipfactor ;)
Thank you mil2k. What about the info below?
|search for MyDomain - shows 153 results (all but 2 are backlinks) |
I don't really understand whats going on with my backlinks, because when I search with the link: command, I only get 20. When I search for my site name, and no www or .com, THEN all my backlinks show up (151). This number is way more correct than 20, I know I have WAY more than 20.
Does this possibly mean that I have used different variations of my url in my link campaign? 151 to 20 is a big jump, so there has to be something going on, right?
BTW, when I started my link campaign, I didn't know about trying to get them with my anchor tag. So what I've been doing while trying to aquire new links, is get some of the old ones changed to include ONLY my keyphrase or at least include it.
Added - Oops...no, I haven't checked all the datacenters yet..trying to get up enough strength...lol
|Have you compared your "allinanchor:keyword phrase" rankings with your keyword phrase SERP rankings on the different datacenters?<<be careful, it might drive you mad. |
Interesting you should bring that up because that is one of the things which is confusing me about the current update. allinanchor for my primary 'keyword keyword' phrase brings my index up at #4 which is where my index was before Dominic. Currently my index is nowhere. The other SERPS on allinanchor look pretty much the same as a straight search, as they should as most sites all link using the url which all have the keyphrase in.
Anyone else seeing this, have an explanation?
I am feeling singled out...why me! whine, whinge.
The site is clean by the way...I've checked very very carefully...
The google description is also at least 3 months old, which may indicate something, or not...
Don't feel alone. I'm the same way. My big competitors (SERPS #1 - #5) are sitting nice and pretty and aren't missing anything or changing. I seem to be the only one "missing". I havent changed anything, so I dont understand the reasoning either. As far as I can tell, they haven't changed a whole lot either.
Too add to the confusion for me, Freshy visited last night and grabbed ALOT of pages, in the last week she's only grabbed my index. Hmm, checked the SERPS, and still no index page, other pages buried, and no date can be found. Ok, so I check site:www.mysite.com and low and behold my index page SHOWS a date, but is the only one. So, I go back to SERPS and find my index page for another keyphrase, but with no date.
All 9 datacenters for my most important keyphrase, show me nowhere in the top 50.
I am Soooooooooooooo confused.
kstprod raised an interesting question - to react now or not?
I made my decision and I decided to put my energy after Dominique and Esmeralda into optimizing my site from now on for my CLIENTS and no longer for Google.
I have a rather dynamic and large .ASP site, intensively connected with a database system. I followed Brett Tabke's basic advice to give Google good and plenty of content. I created a vast web site with hundreds of quality pages and no spammy tricks. Until Dominique and Esmeralda I was doing very well with Google inspite of dynamic .ASP pages.
After Dominique and Esmeralda my Google traffic is down to 50%, the homepage of my English version went from PR6 to PR5 and the homepage of my German version is grayed out. I have no clues what happened - except one posting on this forum indicating that dynamic pages with "?" URLs got a beating.
Anyway, I am tired of wading through 495 posts of "Esmeralda Update No.3" nor do I think it makes sense in the long run - at least for me - to take a different approach.
The situation may be different when you have a small web site or a relativly new one. For me it is clear. I will no longer run after Google's latest algo secrets. I will make changes to my web site when I feel it is good for my clients or visitors - that's it.
sorry for misinterpreting your post.
I just checked allinanchor: for my site and everything returns the same as for the serps as it has for the last two months except for last week when the index fell one day then came back the next.
From what little bit I know changes don't seem to be the right thing to do at this point in time.
If you had good standings before you have to be very patient... it should come back
Patience...I have plenty...my clients sadly do not and are understandably upset when I give them this line!
If all my sites were behaving the same way I would probably be doing something, but as the results are totally inconsistent, I can't see how it can be the fault of optimisation. I use the same tactics for all my sites:
Clean code, optimise for individual page content and keywords, use the index to cover the general theme of the site and hence the more general keywords.
So tempting just to spam...
What I read today...
<<You can't control Google," says a search engine marketer who goes by the name martinibuster on Webmaster World. "Anything you do to control Google, the more you try to manipulate it, the more it will backfire on you. It's counterintuitive, but it's when you let go -- when you don't try to control Google -- then your results get better.">>
Batdesign: every word you have typed applies to so many of the sites in my set.
>> There doesn't seem to be any particular difference between the optimisation of the two sites at all, aside from the fact that their site is older. Ours is about a year old. <<
Now where have I seen words like that before? Ahhh, I know.... I typed the same sentiment in the Twilight Zone theory.
It is TRUE though. Sites with older link structures hold much better than those with newer ones. OK... I hear the chorus of "change the record Napoleon". OK then I will.
Seriously though, I'm giving it until the weekend and then I will HAVE to adopt a new approach to these matters. I can't just sit and hope and hope and hope that Google will reward sites that have followed its content/appropriate-link philosophy by returning them to the index (ie: ranking their index pages sensibly).
On a tangent, here's an interesting quote from our missing friend, GoogleGuy:
>>Kalman filters have a knob that blends between how much you believe your model vs. how much you believe each new data point. If you tweak the knob all the way in one direction, you always trust the model and any new input just gets ignored. On the other extreme, you can ignore your current estimates about the state of the world, and only trust each new data point as it comes in. If you set the knob too far in that direction, the object you're trying to model jumps all over the place each time you see even a hint of new info<<
In the context of data being new link data, think about the implications of twisting that knob towards the existing model. Yeh... interesting... eh?
Back to reality.... sorry, he WASN'T talking about link data, but about people's reaction to change. I will take up the Kalman issue though on the link data issue: if you twist the knob towards the model and leave it, your model becomes stale.
No, I don't really think they have a knob to shift things like that. But it is interesting nonetheless.