homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.96.124
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 12 13 ... 14 > >     
Google SEO longterm?
layer8




msg:57671
 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....

 

James_Dale




msg:57791
 12:39 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Whilst I agree that such depth of feeling is unlikely to be caused by irrelevant SERPs alone (I mean, who on Earth could really care about that?), I do think they are irrelevant enough to be a problem for the wider searching community - and not just for those of us whose sites have taken a hit.

I've actually been surprised by the number of my clients who tell me "it's ok - I know you're not to blame - the results on Google are obviously a mistake right now. They are totally irrelevant." etc, etc...

Here's my analogy (never a stickler for sanity):
When you grow a beard, it goes through this horrible-looking stage. Unfortunately this is a necessary stage on the way to possessing a full, flowing, luxurious velvetty beard.

Current SERPs might resemble slightly overgrown wispy stubble right now, but give them time and they'll improve. Hopefully. PageRank has been abandoned. Totally. A brand new system for ranking pages was never going to hit the ground running, but I do think it looks like a step in the right direction.

Many SEO techniques will no longer work. It has become much harder to game the system I think. This is great news for the searching public, and horrible news for most people here at WW. Other forums are also aimed at webmasters, so that explains the current torrent of dissatisfied posts and threads for sure. Joe public, whilst maybe confused at Google throwing up irrelevant results, probably won't care too much.

If Google continues in this vein, people will naturally gravitate towards Altavista, or another engine. That will happen naturally. I for one prefer Altavista results at the moment. However, I believe Google will get better over the ensuing months, so will ultimately remain at the top.

Brett_Tabke




msg:57792
 3:30 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

> I need to make to get us back under our two main
> regional names (two word search terms -name of the area).

Once you throw in the towel on that dream and get back to building content that aims at 100 or 1000 phrases instead of 1, will you ever be successful long term.
As long as you feel you have 1 keyword in life, you will be 100% at the mercy of the algo. In that case, you are not building a business, you are just using se traffic. Please see AdWords and Overture for more info.

> I really don't see why time should
> be a relevant factor in an algorithm.

Because content rich and back link rich sites that have quality traffic do well in Google. That takes time to build and gain a following.

> If a site has content relevant to the search
> term then it should be ranked well.

Ya, and look at how well that theory is working for Excite, NorthenLight, and Infoseek.

Sites that are relevant that people wish to visit and find rewarding should be at the top of the results.

I think everyone closes their eyes and pretends the toolbar doesn't exist and that the log files generated about referrals, traffic, and behavior don't exist. Gee, you don't think Google could have just used some of that data to influence an update? <sarcasm> Nah, rankings are about relevance on-the-page and not about traffic and site utility. ;-) </sarcasm>

> You're making blanket statements

Seriously yes - it's true. Just offering a bit of balance to the noise coming from the other way. It is no more blanketoid than those crying the universe if collapsing because a few index pages are gone from their personal life long pet keywords.

> Do you imagine that all these complaints, and on every
> webmaster board (not just here), are simply people
> whinning because they have lost placement?

There you go. I just spent two hours looking through 30 searches where people sent me examples of index pages that were nuked. Lets look at the industries:

1) travel.

Appears there were some pretty big shakeups in the travel industry sector.

The results in most travel and tourist industries was "suspect" to begin with. Anything done in this update with keyword of any major city in the world with the word "hotel" or "motel" behind it would be a major improvement.

When we think of spammed out messes in Google, we often come around to the adult industry first. The travel and hotel industry run a close second.

Of the 30 sent to me, 12 were travel related. Of those 12, nine of those members were significant posters at WebmasterWorld and other forums.

2) Pharm.

Need we say more?

3) Adult.

Yep, there were many in the adult industry that took some major hits. What algo g applied to shake things up here is yet to be determined, but there are some heavy independent players that hit very hard. (eg: guys that were making 10-20k a day, are down to $0 a day).

4) Affiliate space.

11 of the sites I looked at, the only common denominator I could find? Commission junction links on the page. wait. I'm not saying anything other than that was one of the common denoms. Beats me.</shrug>


Google has had the same basic algo for almost 5 years. In that time, webmasters have come to be trained in classic Google techniques as "optimization". They have become expectant and are exhibiting a righteous sense of entitlement.
Notice there are very few old schoolers hurting in these thread? I've talked with everyone from the mod crew, to many supporters here, to some heavy industry players, and not only were they not effected by this update, some I actually had to inform there was an update.

Only google knows the depth of changes, but as far as I can tell, they were pretty minor in nature and this update did not effect very many people.

[webmasterworld.com...]

You want 50 pages that produce 1 referral each a day and do NOT want 1 page that produces 50 referrals a day.

frup




msg:57793
 3:38 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

"I think everyone closes their eyes and pretends the toolbar doesn't exist and that the log files generated about referrals, traffic, and behavior don't exist. Gee, you don't think Google could have just used some of that data to influence an update? <sarcasm> Nah, rankings are about relevance on-the-page and not about traffic and site utility. ;-) </sarcasm> "

I have a site that is #1 for Keyword1 and is nowhere to be found for Keyword1 Keyword2. It used to be #1 for both. People search Keyword1 and Keyword1 Keyword2 about equally, the site is equally relevant to both. (Keyword2 is a super common term, Keyword1 is the topic.)

If you think Google has analyzed the toolbar and decided to put the same site #1 for Keyword1 and oblivion for Keyword1 Keyword2, well, I don't know what to tell you. That's completely nonsensical and goes right against what is going on.

Those who run lots of sites are starting to see the patterns of what is going on. Dunno if it is a filter or a bug or what.

Brett_Tabke




msg:57794
 3:56 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Every update effects lots of people - but not all saw negative results, and certainly not the 99.9% of the old pros. Many of them, made out like bandits this update. There are guys throwing parties and headed to Vegas right now.

GoogleGuy




msg:57795
 3:57 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Brett and I have differed on a several things in the past, but there's some pure wisdom waiting for those who are willing to study what he's saying. Just to try to make it more explicit (from my viewpoint--Brett might not agree with everything I'm saying):
- showing up for one big phrase is probably not the best philosophy. Target a bunch of different phrases. Instead of worrying about rankings, spend a whole day looking at your server logs and the phrases that people have used to reach your site this year. Being #1 for a high-profile keyphrase is nice, but much better to show up for a broad base of queries.
- SEO = change. At least at Google, you can assume that there is a constant (or even accelerating) amount of work being done to improve quality and our other services. Sometimes that's visible to the outside world. But even when it looks like nothing major is happening at Google, lots of work is going on. Sometimes we're building infrastructure for the next generation of quality improvements. If you think there's a magic formula to SEO, you're going to be disappointed. The only magic formula that I know of is to build a diversified, content-rich site that users love and link to on their own--the sort of site that you can promote with newsletters, or forums, or any of a hundred different ways such that search engine traffic is nice but not essential. It's harder to do that than to fiddle with PR bars/buy links/sign guestbooks/blogs/whatever, but ultimately if you follow Brett's "build a site in 12 months" guide you'll sleep better and your time will be better spent. Even if Google re-ranks your page, as long as you're building your site primarily for users you know that Google shares the same goal of ranking your site well because users find good information and like your site. Following the sign guestbooks/buy links/PR bar watching path is much more volatile, because you never know when we'll introduce a new classifier, or introduce algorithm improvements that buying links or watching PR doesn't apply to, or introduce new signals of quality.
- Take everything with a grain of salt. When someone does research, they consider the source before they believe it. If someone claims that an H1 tag hurts any site, or that internal links with specific anchortext hurts a site, stop and consider it for yourself. Does something mesh with common sense? rfgdxm1 is pretty good at doing this, for example.

Um, there's probably more that I'm not thinking of. :) If something comes to mind, I'll post it again.

thanks to claus for a really clearly-thought out post toward the beginning of this thread, too. Also worth re-reading, along with anything Brett says. :)

highman




msg:57796
 4:02 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

>You want 50 pages that produce 1 referral each a day and do NOT want 1 page that produces 50 referrals a day.

Yes agreed, and why im not suffering, but geez where you looking Brett? Its not the results Im looking at for sure

The results are not good for G, whichever way you phrase it

john316




msg:57797
 4:02 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Relevance is an ivory tower notion, searchers don't ooh and aah over the percieved relevance of search results, they want the destination.

With the years of "SEO bad, google good", I think it might be time to consider that the SEO knows a lot more about the user than the algo wizards.

Any cracks in google from the user perspective will diversify the search landscape, and that is a good thing.

-my2cents

europeforvisitors




msg:57798
 4:03 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Here's my analogy (never a stickler for sanity):
When you grow a beard, it goes through this horrible-looking stage. Unfortunately this is a necessary stage on the way to possessing a full, flowing, luxurious velvetty beard.

At last--a Webmaster World member who believes in the possibility that Google is Santa Claus! :-)

superscript




msg:57799
 4:05 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi Brett and GoogleGuy.

I have to make a couple of points about Brett's post. As far as I can make out, Brett is in the business of information (about the INet, SEO etc. etc.). Now, the strategy he has suggested is fine for this sector - he provides valuable information, puts up pages, runs a fine informational site like this one. And of course people link to these pages - because the Internet is, and will remain, primarily a source of information. (And I have always thought that the Internet is, in particular, the best source of information about the Internet!)

Now this is Brett's subject - so the strategy is bound to be a success if followed through diligently.

However, my company sells widgets, but let's suppose, hypothetically, that I sell plumbing parts. Now, I could put up a page a day about the history of the U bend, the benefits of plastic over lead piping. It would all be worthy stuff - may attract the odd obscure link, but frankly, isn't never going to give me a PR of 8! (or make me a world famous site!)

For these reasons, I think Brett is being a little uncharitable, and it is of little comfort to me, and thousands of others, that the mods and pros are all fine with the update!

<edit: minor grammatical>

[edited by: superscript at 4:15 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]

europeforvisitors




msg:57800
 4:13 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy wrote:

...Just to try to make it more explicit (from my viewpoint--Brett might not agree with everything I'm saying):
- showing up for one big phrase is probably not the best philosophy. Target a bunch of different phrases. Instead of worrying about rankings, spend a whole day looking at your server logs and the phrases that people have used to reach your site this year. Being #1 for a high-profile keyphrase is nice, but much better to show up for a broad base of queries.

That's certainly been my experience. The great thing about diversity is that it can bring nice surprises. A while back, after a number of readers had e-mailed me with the same question, I decided to make my own life easier by writing a one-page article on what I thought was a fairly inconsequential topic. The resulting article is now one of my highest-traffic pages during much of the year, and it turns up in searches on keyphrases that I never would have thought of targeting if I'd been in an SEO state of mind. Thanks to dumb luck, that inside page is now a major point of entry for my site.

When SEO doesn't work, put your faith in serendipity. :-)

nileshkurhade




msg:57801
 4:15 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy i am really confused, if Google really wants to produce really relevant results then - Why dosent it very specifically come out its policies, algo, filters to the webmasters? People resort to cheating ways when they are unsure of what to do. Everyone wants to be on top.

jranes




msg:57802
 4:24 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Funny, my dad is in the plumbing business and was telling me just this weekend about some of the community sites that he finds very useful for his business and keeping up on things. If you can't think up enough to say about your area you need to either read up on it a little more or get out.

No offense but there are a lot of people toiling away at sites with large content areas that don't ever hit bingo on some kw jackpot and are working on slowly building an audience.

If your 100% ecom and you want to utilize seo as your main point of advertisement you are going to find things tougher and tougher in the age of popularity based search results period. Brett didn't cause this he is just pointing out the obvious.

highman




msg:57803
 4:25 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

GG - are you happy with results of this update?

GoogleGuy




msg:57804
 4:31 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

"People resort to cheating ways when they are unsure of what to do."

Sadly, nileshkurhade, sometimes they also resort to cheating ways even more when they are sure of what to do. We've got guidelines on our site at www.google.com/webmasters/ and Brett wrote a lot about how to do this right. You'll also find tons of good info in the archives for this site. But my advice would be something along the lines of 1) make a site map 2) make sure your site architecture such that the spider can find every page if it wants to, 3) pick a small niche where you can be the undisputed best resource. Don't start with something ultracompetitive--look for a fringe or niche or related area where you can present something new, esp. if it's new or useful information that users can't find elsewhere. 4) Once you have a good handle on your niche, expand your horizons. Now that every knows to come to you for reviews/info/analysis about fuzzy used widgets, you can set your sights on just used widgets in general. 5) Notice that I haven't mentioned anything about links, cloaking, etc. Take that lack of mention to heart, and just add a page of useful hand-written content about your niche to your site every day.

Those would be my off-the-cuff recommendations to you.

nileshkurhade




msg:57805
 4:32 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yes GG, please answer this Are you satisfied with this update, if yes, how?

James_Dale




msg:57806
 4:33 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Now hang on a moment. Say I want to buy inkjet cartridges. I couldn't give a left potato about incredible content. I am simply looking for a quick, easy, cheap deal.

Is it not possible to rank sites anymore if they are just this? This is equally user-orientated. Just because a site doesn't have forums, chatrooms, endless pages of reviews, shouldn't mean it doesn't deserve to rank high.

slade7




msg:57807
 4:36 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

One of my sites comes up in google for a zillion keywords, but the one that I constantly check is a two word "keyword1 keyword2" phrase that I could say definitively: "My site is about 'this phrase'"

I have never checked this phrase in google that I have not seen fringe, marginal, or off-topic sites listed ahead of mine. There's a personal (tripod) home page that hasn't been changed since 2001 that has held # 2 in google consistently for a LONG time for my phrase. On the other hand, I'm not going to complain about hanging in the top 5-10 SERPS for google for a LONG time myself. For this phrase I'm also #2 @ alltheweb, #3 @ altavista, #2 @ lycos, #2 @ dogpile, #16 @ overture, #8 @ yahoo, and #32(!) @ MSN.

I held #3 @ Google for a long stretch until this year, when I noticed the only significant change in Google's algo re: my phrase and that is this: It's a fact that I have over 300 backlinks on the web - a great many of these in various directories that (I guess) get info from DMOZ or Yahoo. I can turn these up in Google by searching on my domain name (which is very unique) and excluding results FROM my domain.

However, a link:www.mydomain.com search in Google turns up a total of 25 backlinks. I don't know this to be true, but in my case it would appear that earlier this year, Google decided to discredit a lot of second tier directory type sites as it pertains to backlinks. I'm listed in the Yahoo, Google, and DMOZ directories, and these are the only 3 directory type sites that show up in a backlink search on Google, but a normal search for my domain on google shows close to 300 more sites linking to me.

Now I might add that I have never paid for any SEO, search engine submission, etc. The only SEO I use is that I make sure my main keywords are used regularly in the content of my site, but even at that - I won't sacrifice quality of content or ease of navigation to include a keyword. On top of that, I've been at it for 4+ years with this paricular site.

I don't operate the above mentioned site as a business to the extent that some of you do, so the SERP ups and downs don't bother me too much - but I agree with Brett for the most part. If you are going to operate a web site, and hope to profit from it, you ought to have some plan for success other than betting it all on your search engine rankings.

superscript




msg:57808
 4:38 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi GoogleGuy,

I sell a particular type of widget - I have one of the finest selections of hairy widgets online in the UK, and, because I am a widget expert, probably the best FAQs pages about hairy widgets!

Accordingly, my site has been in the top 3 in Google UK for 2 years.

Now, when I search for widgets, I find a page on a site that has no interest in widgets, they sell hundreds of wotsits - but happen to have a single widget in stock.

[edited by: superscript at 4:39 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]

john316




msg:57809
 4:38 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just more "your fault for being a dolt". Users don't want the history of cheeseburgers and cheeseburger discussions and directions to local cheeseburger stands...they just want the cheeseburger...dilbert thinking at its best.

nileshkurhade




msg:57810
 4:41 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

5) Notice that I haven't mentioned anything about links, cloaking, etc. Take that lack of mention to heart, and just add a page of useful hand-written content about your niche to your site every day.

Those would be my off-the-cuff recommendations to you.

Thanks GoogleGuy . I think now i know where i was try.

superscript




msg:57811
 4:46 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

john316,

Precisely! And most likely, a 'history of the cheesburger' page would involve so many mentions of cheeseburger, that it would be filtered out by the current algo.

This is why I have had to cloak my History of the cheesburger site ;)

p.s. I prefer my burgers with spam personally ;)

Small Website Guy




msg:57812
 4:48 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

People talk about "cheating". What does that even mean?

The way I see it, cheating is when you manage to get your worthless spammy site full of affiliate links into the top page of results.

But if your site is a high quality site, then it's not cheating to get it into the top page of the results. You are doing the world a favor.

People are trying to assign moral values to things like anchor text and H1 when such doesn't exist outside of arbitrary rules made up by Google.

The sad fact is that websites don't make it into the top pages of the SERPs naturally. They require SEO to get there. Google now seems to be penalizing sites that have TOO MUCH SEO.

Google has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Amdist the spammy sites were also genuine sites that were doing SEO because it was the only way to not get drowned out by the spammy sites.

SEO takes a lot of effort, so the fact that a lot of effort went into SEOing a particiular site sometimes indicates that the site is actually an important site, because people wouldn't want to put so much effort into an unimportant site.

The problem with the Googlebot is that it has no real way of knowing whether a site is "good" or "bad". To the Googlebot, a page of prose written by a highly skilled writer looks identical to a page of randomly generated words.

[edited by: Small_Website_Guy at 4:51 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]

GoogleGuy




msg:57813
 4:49 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just more "your fault for being a dolt". Users don't want the history of cheeseburgers and cheeseburger discussions and directions to local cheeseburger stands...they just want the cheeseburger...dilbert thinking at its best.

I saw a similar post by someone. Basically they said that anyone doing any "insurance"-related search clearly wanted to buy insurance. What do you think, James_Dales? Should every insurance search return "buy my policy"? Or would you rather learn about the different types of insurance, and which type of insurance is best for my situation, and what the limits of a policy is? You mentioned inkjet cartridge. Yes, most people typing inkjet cartridges probably want to buy one, and the search results give plenty of places where you can. But to take an example of "U bend" pipes earlier--not everybody searching for that want to buy one. Maybe they want to know how to install one. Or how to take one out if stuff gets rusted. If I'm searching for dryer vents, I might want a dryer vent cleaning service or product, or I might want information about how dryer vents get clogged up and how I'd clean it myself. Good webmasters in commercial areas will sell things, of course, but they'll also have unique information that helps users and differentiates their site.

So you say: If a user types in cheeseburger, it's Dilbert thinking if you believe that the user wants anything other than the cheeseburger. Personally, I think a user who just types in cheeseburger might want information on how many calories are in a Burger King cheeseburger, or a Wendy's cheeseburger, etc. Or they're having a BBQ and would like to cook the perfect cheeseburger and would like a recipe.

c1bernaught




msg:57814
 4:50 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)


I think building the best site you can is certainly a priority. Adding content, having loads of information etc.. is probably also important for certain sectors... However, as others have said, if you are selling a product, most users only care that they can find what they need quickly, the right amount of information is there to make a decision with, the price is right and the transaction is fast. That's it...

From what I can tell from this update many well built ecommerce sites have been booted and replaced by the largest of commercial vendors.

So, if the point was "Hey, everyone can succeed if you build a good site", I believe you are mistaken, at least in the "sales of products" end of ecommerce on Google.

Tropical Island




msg:57815
 4:51 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

I would first of all like to thank any of those that offered constructive suggestions about my particular site. I have now made some adjustments and have my fingers crossed.

My big problem is, as I've posted before, is that our area is known under three different names all of which produce different results. In order to create a reasonable home page we have to acknowledge that these names exist and that produces repitition of the one common word. It's almost impossible to avoid it. That said I've gone ahead and made some changes to reduce the frequency.

It's all well and good to say that you should try to create 50 pages of content however if the money part of the site is covered by just a few terms and the majority of your visitors only type in different regional terms it is reasonable to assume that I, and the other webmasters in our area, would feature those terms in both titles and text.

And, yes, we do have an AdWords program to supplement this.

The results being provided by Google right now for one of these regional two word terms includes a site with no content (This site is temporarily unavailable. ...) which is in the #1 posistion and has been this way for months.

Our complaint is that we not only fell from number #2 - we disappeared from this term (unless we append -fufuf in which case we are #2).

We will advise if the changes we made have any effect. We are spidered daily.

superscript




msg:57816
 4:57 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

If I wanted to know how many calories in a cheeseburger, I would type in 'calories cheeseburger' If I wanted a history of the cheeseburger; 'history cheesburger', but if I wanted to buy a cheeseburger, I would expect 'cheeseburger' to work pretty well, as it is not generally regarded as an academic subject ;)

Similarly, I would hope that 'install U bend' would give me the required info. But if I wanted to buy one, I would hope that 'U bend' would throw up some decent, specialist, high quality plumbing shops.

GoogleGuy




msg:57817
 5:02 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

superscript, why wouldn't you type buy cheeseburger or cheeseburger prices? Why should just the query cheeseburger carry an implicit "buy" keyword along with it? You don't think an average user is probably looking for recipes, esp. given that it's hard to order a cheeseburger online and have it arrive fresh? ;)

maxfalcon




msg:57818
 5:04 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you think there's a magic formula to SEO, you're going to be disappointed. The only magic formula that I know of is to build a diversified, content-rich site that users love and link to on their own--the sort of site that you can promote with newsletters, or forums, or any of a hundred different ways such that search engine traffic is nice but not essential. It's harder to do that than to fiddle with PR bars/buy links/sign guestbooks/blogs/whatever, but ultimately if you follow Brett's "build a site in 12 months" guide you'll sleep better and your time will be better spent. Even if Google re-ranks your page, as long as you're building your site primarily for users you know that Google shares the same goal of ranking your site well because users find good information and like your site. Following the sign guestbooks/buy links/PR bar watching path is much more volatile, because you never know when we'll introduce a new classifier, or introduce algorithm improvements that buying links or watching PR doesn't apply to, or introduce new signals of quality.

Try to apply what you are asking to do to an industry like online gambling, and I guarantee you that you will spend one year without seeing any visitor from your site.

I have tried to build a quality site for users and try to make it known via Google and link exchanging, and it has completely disappeared from the search results. Some industries are so competitive that becoming THE BEST site is pure utopia when you don't have at least $10,000 in monthly advertising budget.

My site does not even appear in the first five results for its site name. My site is an internet gambling guide, I have linked with "internet gambling guide", and I am not even at the first ten pages.

Thanks google for having destroyed my small business. Any clarification about the online gambling industry?

[edited by: maxfalcon at 5:10 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]

darkroom




msg:57819
 5:05 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well GG...thanks for your posts.

Regarding yoru content rich sites. I have lots of rich content, backlinks etc. I have done everything and stayed in between the google guidelines. But now my site suddenly disappears from SERPs which had been #1 before.

I don't know what's happeneing

Some clarifications GG?

Thanks

troi21




msg:57820
 5:06 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

I run a small business and my website has been hit badly by the Update. For our main keyphrase that brings in business we have completely disappared but if you add "uk" to the end of the keyphrase, we are number two (like we were pre-update). For other phrases, we have completely disappeared. I see results for my industry, in the top ten, like a University page with one small paragraph of instructions for students to log into their computer systems. Absolutely, nothing to do with the search phrase.

I personally am baffled by the update. Building quality content daily is not something that will work for my industry. I have a few content pages and they are the least looked at pages on my site. I deal mostly with businesses and when I get emails or calls, all they want to know is if I can beat the competitor's prices. That's it. Sometimes they want samples but they are mainly interested in price. There are many businesses out there that are similar.

I cannot afford to waffle on every day or even every week, about things that clients are not interested in. I hardly have enough time as it is. I think I will have to accept that Google will not be a source of exposure for me anymore. Here's hoping that Google's domination of the search engine wanes.

marin




msg:57821
 5:06 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

If I wanted to know how many calories in a cheeseburger, I would type in 'calories cheeseburger' If I wanted a history of the cheeseburger; 'history cheesburger', but if I wanted to buy a cheeseburger, I would expect 'cheeseburger' to work pretty well, as it is not generally regarded as an academic subject ;)

Very nice, but do not forget : GG is a business, and the e-commerce sites pays your bills

This 408 message thread spans 14 pages: < < 408 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 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