homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.68.132
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 408 message thread spans 14 pages: < < 408 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14 > >     
Google SEO longterm?
layer8

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 8:57 am on Nov 19, 2003 (gmt 0)


I had a site, SEO was done, was in top rankings for about 2 months then overnight for no reason site was positioned way down the rankings. All practices were ethical and it seemed no point or logic to this what happend to me.

If you speak to all the best Internet Marketing Pros they tell you SEO is a waste of time longterm, everyone in the industry has lost their position at somepoint from what I gather - or am I wrong?

I want to hear from anyone who has had long term success with SEO say for 6 months or longer....

 

panic

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 11:53 pm on Nov 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

You can't really run a firm long term with no products and marketing only.

Amen to that!

-p

Kirby

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 2:39 am on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

What i was trying to state was that having a loyal user base means that SEO and SE traffic is the "cream on top" - not the whole pie.

This isnt applicable for many services, products and information services that people may only need every few years.

slade7

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 2:50 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

I run an informational site, and have always done well in Google (top ten results for the main relevant terms... # 1 for all kinds of obscure stuff) They are typically my biggest outside referrer. Over the past two years, I've gone to php pages almost exclusively,? in the url - all the stuff that's supposed to throw off the spider.

Right now practically every page on my site is dynamically generated, and best I can tell Google has at least 29,800 of my pages cached.

I don't use any redirects, meta keywords, or other tricks. I do have a lot of content and few graphics, but loads of text. I don't do anything specifically to optimize for Google, but I do use text links instead of rollover buttons for menus. I often ask sites that want to trade links with me to use text links rather than or in addition to my logo.

I was dropped from the index for a month - I suspect server problems, but picked back up and have done fine since.

buckworks

WebmasterWorld Administrator buckworks us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 4:07 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

You are either; a) gloating or b)

Reactions like this are why we seldom hear much from people whose rankings are stable or improved.

It's too bad, because there might be valuable lessons to be learned if people felt more freedom to say "My sites are doing okay and this might be why."

wanna_learn

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 4:12 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

A particular SEO technique would not live long, BUT SEO techniques would do.
AS
"There are systems to beat systems".

Long Live SEO - Long Live this Forum

[edited by: wanna_learn at 4:13 pm (utc) on Nov. 22, 2003]

frup

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 4:12 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm doing great for single keyword searches and getting killed for keyword1 keyword2

mfishy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 4:14 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

hehe, buckwors that's pretty silly. read my post. It is useless to say my sites are doing great because I have great content. Many sites aren't doing great that do have great content. His post was not helpful, that was my point.

We are having record Google referal days on mnay sites. I would imagine what most people are tryiong to figure out is why some pages have inexplicably dropped -when they have great, relevant content.

"My site has remained unaffected. I have great content and followed Brett's steps"

Posts like the above are insulting, and quite patronizing to those who have built great sites that are suffering. Get it?

The only type of post that is more useless is the one where someone says, "I have not noticed any changes". If that is the case you are obviously only looking at a very select number of pages/queries and any input is simply irrelevant.

I have had many members sticky me what are obviously class sites that have suffered - many have never even sought out 1 single link but have organically achieved all of them through wonderful content.

slade7

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 4:43 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Sorry to have offended, what I am trying to say is my idea of SEO for google is this:

Fill a niche
Use Text Links where you can
Have lots of relevant pages
Make your pages load fast

Have that and you will be googly. It was frustrating to me to be dropped, I assure you, and I can't explain why Google doesn't see all my incoming links, or why some less relevant pages have been ranked ahead of me for a long time, but if you follow the above general rules and hang in there for a long time, you will see results. My site has been out there since Feb 1999. If your site deals with something that there are a lot of other sites dealing with, you may have hang longer to outlive some of the other ones... that is the way it is in any business. There's no miracle fix.

I've started several sites from the ground up, and all of them have found their way into google eventually. The question this thread asks is "is Google SEO a waste of time LONGTERM?"

My answer is there is no such thing as short term in this situation. You have to stay at it, be patient, and keep adjusting things a little at a time.

ciml

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ciml us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 4:44 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

mfishy, a lot of sites with great content that followed Brett's steps are doing very well in this update. I understand that people who've been hit will often cite examples of good, affected sites, but to you and me the Google is better/worse argument is not particularly relevant.

Why do some sites which look like they fit the 'clean' model get hit, and why do some that we'd expect Google to dislike survive unaffected? This question takes us nearer.

The same goes for areas where there seem to be no changes. I think there's a lot to be found by comparing the sets of affected and unaffected sites.

IMO it's important to keep in mind that this is not new, even though it widened considerably last weekend.

mfishy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 4:54 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

CIML, I concur with everything you have stated. My point being, that it is useful to have real analysis, comparing and contrasting what has worked and what has not.

Simply stating that "making great content and good site structure will work wonders", is over simplifying the issue, and is offending those very people who have done just this and are now basically gone from search engines.

I know many of us are studying patterns over thousands of unrelated pages (not ones we own) to look for answers.

slade7

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 5:05 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

To give you a short example of "what has worked" in SEO, I work on a corporate site too & one of the products they sell is commonly called one thing by customers who buy it and another thing by the manufacturer who makes it.

Say for example, say customers call it a "Zert" and the manufacturers call it an "Alemite"

I get ready to build the area of their site that features that product, I get on google and do some queries... 'alemite' turns up hundreds of manufacturers making the same product. 'zert' results are rather obscure. So naturally, I try to fill that void by making sure I use the term 'zert' - happily the customers are familiar with it, and it drives them to the companies web site because no one else is calling a zert a zert apparently.

It's not always this simple, but I have pulled this off with a couple of product lines for this company and brought in thousands of dollars in sales from the web. Often, these new customers buy other products as well. It did take about 8 months for the first implementation of the "zert" strategy to start yielding results, but it's like planting a seed and waiting for it to grow. And that really has nothing to do with building a great site, or being a supercool webmaster... it's just business sense, and trying to fill a void in google is far easier than fighting your way to the top of the results for a very common keyword.

Yidaki

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 5:46 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Is Google SEO a waste of time longterm?

As long as i'm able to influence rankings of the pages i build, Google SEO isn't dead for me. And Google SEO also isn't a waste of time as long as there's something valuable to be said about it and as long as there's nobody here or at google who puts the chairs on the tables and cleans the house.

>I want to hear from anyone who has had long term success with SEO say for 6 months or longer

3 years - forgive me but even Florida didn't hit ME.

Btw, if this forum would get closed one day you can be sure, Google SEO is a waste of time.

claus

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 6:21 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm sorry if i have offended anyone - it was not my intention to say that people who don't do well in Google right this moment have built bad sites or anything.

I still say: Focus on your customers or target group and try to become as independent of SE's as you can long term, that way your income will be less sensitive to SE changes. I know this advice does not help in the current situation, but the current situation is short term, not long term - find out what went wrong (if anything) and take it from there.

/claus


edited some

[edited by: claus at 7:47 pm (utc) on Nov. 22, 2003]

AjiNIMC

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 7:37 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Now I start feeling that

SEO means
-------------
make a normal site which suits best for your customer, then links .....links..........links.

You will be #1.

This can be the story and the song of the day.

AJi

shasan

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 7:44 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)


make a normal site which suits best for your customer, then links .....links..........links.

You will be #1.

While I have learned that this is largely true, I think you have to be keyword savvy too (my rhymes are fly rhymes).

After all, what do you want to be #1 for? Targeting specific keywords, which is just like targeting specific types of customers, is important as well.

Jakpot

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 8:49 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

mfishy:

Jakpot
You are either; a) gloating or b) suggesting that the numerous webmasters who were affected by the recent update do not have good content.

hehe, buckwors that's pretty silly. read my post. It is useless to say my sites are doing great because I have great content. Many sites aren't doing great that do have great content. His post was not helpful, that was my point.
We are having record Google referal days on mnay sites. I would imagine what most people are tryiong to figure out is why some pages have inexplicably dropped -when they have great, relevant content.

"My site has remained unaffected. I have great content and followed Brett's steps"

Posts like the above are insulting, and quite patronizing to those who have built great sites that are suffering. Get it?
The only type of post that is more useless is the one where someone says, "I have not noticed any changes". If that is the case you are obviously only looking at a very select number of pages/queries and any input is simply irrelevant.
I have had many members sticky me what are obviously class sites that have suffered - many have never even sought out 1 single link but have organically achieved all of them through wonderful content.

Please at least quote me correctly per my post:

Designing a High Search Engine Rankings Page By Brett Tabke, June 1997.
I followed Brett's advice and guidance in developing hundreds of web pages. I did not seek out links, just registered in search engines and directories. The pages are simple and strictly whitehat.
Most have survived the top 10 in the SERPs for competitive
keywords/phrases. Some in the top 10 have less than PR4.
I have no idea why so many folks pages are taking a SERP
hit nor really why my pages survived.

I suppose making good content using Brett's guidance is the key.

I sincerely hope all can overcome the disappointments

I know lots of folk are struggling but as buckworks wrote:

Reactions like this are why we seldom hear much from people whose rankings are stable or improved.
It's too bad, because there might be valuable lessons to be learned if people felt more freedom to say "My sites are doing okay and this might be why."

Sorry you got your feelings bruised.

typein

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 11:10 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google.com itself is a waste of time. With this latest update over the past 4 days many of the relevent sites have *gone* vanished, all that is remaining are a few of the top sites, the rest are rubbish *sub domains* and irrelevent sites.

I am not going to waste any more time worrying about Google, there are other search engines out there. And if people like me get sick of trying to sort through the rubbish on Google what do you think the public will do? they are not all stupid.

Thank God for the *Type-in* domain name.

Gabor

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 11:22 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google returns truly bad results lately. I can't believe this is happening to what I thought was the best search engine. Sooner or later there will be a negative repercussions for google, unless they fix this mess.

Focus on your website and business plan - don't worry about any one search engine. You have to be able to have a valid business that is not at the whim of a search engine...

sidyadav

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 12:22 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google returns truly bad results lately.

I don't know what your meaning by "Truely",
The results are still good and Google is still the best search engine in the world.

And if it did return bad results, it will still be the best search engine in the world because those "bad results" of Google are better than the "bad results" of any other engine.

and also, a dis-agreement about this thread, why would SEO be a waste of time? If you don't want to do it, don't do it, but if you will do it, the only person its gonna benifit is you.

Sid

Dave_Hawley



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 1:25 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think the hundreds of negative posts by SEO's after the latest shuffle proves that SEO is a waste of time.
[webmasterworld.com...]

Build you site for humans, exchange links with 'on-topic' pages, forget PR, add content every day and Google will send you LOTS of traffic.

Too many SEO's try to 'beat the system' when they have no idea what the system even is. They are like a fish out of water. They have no idea where the next flip will take them, all they know is they don't like where they are now.

Dave

shasan

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 2:54 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)


Too many SEO's try to 'beat the system' when they have no idea what the system even is.

Many people think SEO means 'beating the system'. Trying to beat the system is a waste of time in the long term. Whether you want to call it 'SEO' or not is up to you.

PatrickDeese

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 2:59 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

> The results are still good

Yes I agree. They are excellent.

For example the #2 results for a search for "$city $country" in my area currently is a site that says:

"Best Directory Results for $City, $Country"

and then there's a text link labelled:

Save money when purchasing "$country" on eBay!

You know, I never consider purchasing an entire country, but you know, it's nice to know that I could use this site and save money through eBay.

I don't want to exaggerate about the content, so I will add that there are some banner ads, a pop up window about bad credit and upon loading the page it tries to install something called the "sex bar" or something. But it must be okay, since it is the #2 result from Google, right?

Wow. That *is* a great result.

jady

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 3:09 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Sure the results are good for some folks. We manage many sites - some have been aggressive SEO'ed and others not touched at all. Naturally most of the SEO'ed ones have disappeared down the ranks as I thought they would one day - no biggie, Google is just trying to beat this "problem". Cant complain at all!

What I do have a problem with is sites that are NOT optimized at all. They were created with just the user in mind - no header text, no link exchange crap, no keyword density, etc. But it appears some of these sites too have disappeared from the mix! One site in particular has been in the #1 spot for 3 years - now it CANT be found at all - but it is still listed in Google. The terms are now filled with newspapers, directories and even anchor text for other sites that have linked to this site in particular.. (rofl) This leads me to believe that the update/testing is FAR from over.

Here is something really funny to add to this statement. When I search for a web designer in my local area, our company (usually #2 or #2 - no seo at all) is GONE. However the #5 spot is held by a company 4000 miles away that has doorway pages with every major city on their site. Now is this a good result? Nahh...

Dave_Hawley



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 3:16 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Whether you want to call it 'SEO' or not is up to you.

It doesn't really matter what the label reads, other than the points I made SEO is nothing more than 'trial-and-error' on ever changing search engine systems. It is, for the most part, a witch hunt (IMO).

Human Being Optimization (HBO) will always win as that is exactly what search engines strive for.

Dave

sidyadav

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 3:19 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

PatrickDeese, Are you sure what your talking about is Google? It looks to me like some crap PPC engine.

Sid

PatrickDeese

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 4:12 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

PatrickDeese, Are you sure what your talking about is Google? It looks to me like some crap PPC engine.

Sid - perhaps you are seeing the light.

Instead of seeing real sites for $city $country (and there are a lot of them) the #2 result is a template generate crapola page that is wedging $country into a Commission Junction Ebay affiliate link.

If you want I will sticky you the search term.

Powdork

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 5:43 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Why don't you guys/girls go check these same searches on altavista. I have been amazed lately at how on target their results have been. Perhaps it's time for Brett to get them out of the 'lumped together paid inclusion forum' and give them their own. I think they've earned it.
Just an idea.

Powdork

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 8:35 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

alta vista does fill everything above the fold with paid listings when applicable and yes, I hate that. But do you really think all the web results are paid listings? I've never paid and I rank quite well there. None of the top ten for my queries have. They are consistently fighting INK for best spidering of my sites. I guess I also don't have the mistrust others may have since I wasn't around when they went $ in '99.
How's your site doing in av?
Did you pay?

Jakpot

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 10:27 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Too many SEO's try to 'beat the system' when they have no idea what the system even is. They are like a fish out of water. They have no idea where the next flip will take them, all they know is they don't like where they are now

And some "SEO's" seem to think anyone who is a non-elite, is the enemy.

feeder

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 10:56 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

<<The results are still good...>>
ROFL.

They are. In fact, better than usual (IMHO). Look at the non-commercial serps.

As for the commercial - well, AdWords are on topic. Shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone. ..

claus

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 18388 posted 11:45 am on Nov 23, 2003 (gmt 0)

Whatever happened to the long term of this thread? Current SERPS couldn't really matter less in five or ten years from now.

This 408 message thread spans 14 pages: < < 408 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved