homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.157.103
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 409 message thread spans 14 pages: < < 409 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 > >     
How may front pages did you lose?
Google kicks clean html front pages
stinkfoot




msg:207428
 1:08 am on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)

I lost 2 top ranking front pages
All other pages on the sites still getting a few hits
both still top ranked by msn
urls = keyword1 - keyword2 - keyword3 - keyword4

Anyone else with losses please post like to get an idea of simliarities

 

caryl




msg:207638
 11:36 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

I have been working on how to "re-optimize our index page to get back in the results for the main $ keyword1 keyword2.

Google knows EXACTLY what people are looking for with this search term because it is a highly sought after adword.

I have been playing with the word combos, but in the back of my mind I still was thinking it has to be something more.

I think I have found the STOPPER, at least for my category. As we sell wigets, we are listed in the Google and DMOZ under the category: Shopping>...>...> Most of the sites that sell the wigets are listed in that category.

I just went through every page of the current results for keyword1 keyword2 and not one single sight listed in that category is anywhere to be found in the 996 (max) results returned. I have verified that there are sites from different categories.

I also noted that very early on in Florida that there was this "new" category being return in the results at the very top of the page. Category: Home > Consumer Information > ... > Keyword1 Keyword2. When I clicked on it I was given a page saying there was nothing found under that category. However, it is now slowly being populated.

If they are blocking pages because of Directory category my Index page does not have a prayer, no matter what I do.

Trouble is, even if a customer was resourceful enough to go to the directory and drill down in. Then tried to search "this category only" for keyword1 keyword2, Google still serves up the same results as in it's regular search.

Is anyone else listed in the Category: Shopping>...>

I beleive now that I will have to find another way up the mountain.

claus




msg:207639
 11:45 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think there are a few different issues in this thread. The numbers below serves only as identification, it's not a ranking of importance:
  1. an index page ranking lower/higher for a "normal" search than it did before "Florida"
  2. another page ranking lower/higher for a "normal" search than it did before "Florida"
  3. an index page ranking significantly different than other pages from the same site
  4. an index page completely gone from the SERPS - not to be found even with "site:"
  5. another page or a whole site completely gone from the SERPS - not to be found even with "site:"
  6. are the current SERPS more relevant than the pre-Florida SERPS or not?
  7. Are broad results always less relevant than specific results?
  8. do "we" judge the quality of SERPS differently than "the average joe surfer"?
  9. is there a commercial filter or a SEO filter?
  10. is there a duplicate filter?
  11. what is the difference between a "normal" search and a search using operators, like "-something"
  12. do searches with operators return the exact "pre-Florida" SERPS or (more or less) different-but-similar SERPS?
  13. does Google need to make a single keyword query return online shops, information sites, or another specific type?
  14. does Google need to make a multiple keyword query return online shops, information sites, or another specific type?
  15. are commercial sites (or any other kind of sites) completely gone from the "normal" SERPS?
  16. are there obvious flaws in the new way of doing things and if so, will these be corrected?
  17. has Google turned everything upside-down? Are they SOOB? (soon out of business)
I think that it brings greater clarity if these issues are looked at independently. This thread, i believe, is about (1), (3) and (4). It is not clear how widespread this problem is because of all the other factors being mentioned, but obviously this problem has occured and should not be neglected.

It seems sofar that (10) could have something to do with it. A lot of posts are mentioning (9) as well - of course this is possible, but i personally don't believe it - if for nothing else, then because some searches having a lot of adwords still display commercial, seo'ed, and/or even spammy serps. I do believe, however, that something else has the effect of making things look like this in some (but not all) cases.

To me (4) seems like the exception - and (5) as well. Anyway, i'm sure that both (4) and (5) are matters that will be corrected. These seem pretty much like obvious flaws - still, they can have reasons that are outside Googles control (server downtime, flawed robots.txt, messed up .htaccess, etc.)

It also seems that (11) and (12) in some cases restores the index page to the "old" position - in these cases, the index page have clearly not dissappeared, in stead it is ranking differently than before for a "normal" search.
Example: blue dotted jumpsuits <-- broad results (replace with your own keywords)

Try any of these specific results if you're not satisfied (Added: please do try them, and take note of the differences, i'm not being arrogant here, just offering advice):

Q1: "blue dotted jumpsuits"
Q2: blue dotted +jumpsuits
Q3: +blue "dotted jumpsuits"
Q4: blue dotted jumpsuits -green
Q5: blue dotted jumpsuits blue
Q6: blue dotted jumpsuits blue dotted
Q7: blue dotted jumpsuits -green -overcoats

(...) More info here:
1) [google.com...]
2) [google.com...]

(modified quote from: post #367 in [webmasterworld.com...] )

As for (15) this seems to be happening to some extent with "adult" sites. The "preferences" have an option called "SafeSearch Filtering" and this was in place before "Florida" too, so that should really be expected. Also, it should really be expected that "spam" would be revisited sooner or later - specifically i recall one early summer post by a well known Google representative that spam would have to wait for a while as they were busy doing other things.

Added: I'm not saying that sites that are no longer on page 1 are spammy or adult. I do hear people saying that even totally non-commercial, information-rich sites that has no spam (even ressource/authority sites) are (lower ranking or) gone as well.

I definitely don't find that commercial sites are gone from the SERPS across the board. I see different sites when searching without operators than when searching with operators, but that should really be expected, otherwise there would be no reason to have operators in the first place.

As for "are the serps better now?" - well, i don't really like to say that i think so, as other people seem to be losing money on it right now, and that's not a nice situation. Also, the searches that i run are not comparable to those of the "average joe surfer", i know that much.

I just managed to find a place where i could order a chrismas turkey online (an edible one as well as a talking one). Lots of other christmas stuff to order as well, and even a recipe for the turkey. And if i wanted to go to Turkey for cristmas, i could even do that off page 1 of the serps, using just one phrase ("order your christmas turkey here") and no operators - even "turkey order" seems to give me relevant results.

To me, that's diversity - it's not irrelevance.

/claus


Added: Even though the update is done, i don't think all changes are fully implemented yet, eg. directory, regional googles, spam, error/bug corrections, etc.
Added2: For "tyrkey order uk" the results were bad - adding "poultry" helped.

[edited by: claus at 2:38 pm (utc) on Nov. 26, 2003]

steveb




msg:207640
 12:00 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

"But let's try an experiment."

Yeah, let's see what happens when some folks stop violating the forum charter.

aspdesigner




msg:207641
 12:00 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

I just got a scary thought -

If you are unlucky enough to be in an industry where most consumers search for -

"keyword1 keyword2 keyword3"

...not "pretty keyword1 keyword2"...

...not "keyword2 keyword3 with pink polka-dots"...

...but that EXACT search phrase...

...and Google now penalizes you for targetting an exact search phrase...

...then what is the only way to get yourself back on page 1 for that phrase?

Can you say...AdWords?


(No, Mr. Woodward, this is NOT a conspiracy!)

Miop




msg:207642
 12:04 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

try 'turkey order uk'. Pah.

ronin




msg:207643
 2:19 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

In the latest update thread there was a progressively enthusiastic debate as to whether Google was applying penalties to 'over-optimised' sites (surely a contradiction?!) which were optimised around money keywords stored in a 'money keywords dictionary' of some kind... or not.

Something about maintaining a 'dictionary' (possibly one which examined AdWords bids to determine which items were the money 'keywords') doesn't ring quite true... it doesn't really fit in with the generally elegant way Google goes about things.

Rather than Google decide itself which topics are liable to generate spam... why not allow the spam topics to identify themselves...?

Something like this: Google compares total number of links to a page with the number of links containing identical text... which gives a percentage.

The percentage acts as a tripwire... if more than a given percentage of those links contain identical text, the page starts to lose some of the benefit from those inbound links(N.B. this isn't a penalty or a filter, it's just a decrease in the original benefit).

But the amount of benefit lost is in proportion to how much that tripwire percentage is exceeded by. (Exceed it by a little, you lose some benefit, exceed it by a lot, you lose a lot of benefit).

And, crucially, the tripwire percentage itself is in proportion to the total number of links to the page.

So a page with ten links can have ten links containing identical text and still get full benefit from them.

A page with one thousand links can have 85% of its links containing identical text, but after that it starts to lose more and more of the original benefit the identical links generated. (The other links still generate benefit as normal).

A page with ten thousand links can have 75% of its links containing identical text, but after that it starts to lose more and more of the original benefit the identical links generated...

You get the picture....

I don't imagine it's as crude as this, but is this a possibility? Obviously the new algo includes broadmatching as well as numerous other new elements, but does this explain why in some very competitive fields low PR / irrelevant sites are rising to the top, while brand name companies are still coming out top for relevant searches just as they were before...?

Just Guessing




msg:207644
 12:08 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

Am I behind the times, or is this new?

I am seeing broad matching in the normal SERPS.

In a search for: Widget Management

The following are in bold in the results:

  • Widget
  • Widgets
  • Widgeting

    It shows in some entries on the page, but not on others.

    I don't see it on a search for: Widget

  • linear




    msg:207645
     12:53 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    aspdesigner:

    linear, let's see how your results compare with the tests by Need3Lives and myself -

    ...

    Most intriguing is your kw4 kw5 example. It appears your rankings for this LESS RELEVANT (0% title match) phrase actually improved, apparently due to a few more relevant sites above you getting "TRASHED" by the penalty and moving you up a few spots from #83 to #78!

    No wonder the SERPs look like trash! More relevant sites are getting "dumped", and sites that are not quite a match are getting boosted!

    I'd be a bit careful. The page I'm experimenting on is an index page poiting at my collection of topic articles that comprises something like a quarter-million words. Having the index page pop up at #78 seems approximately correct to me given that
    a) the actual page on the topic kw4 kw5 is #1
    b) the index page just links to that page with a synopsis

    So I'll agree with you on your main point, "rankings for this LESS RELEVANT (0% title match) phrase actually improved, apparently due to a few more relevant sites above you getting "TRASHED" by the penalty," but I'm not 100% convinced of "sites that are not quite a match are getting boosted!" Maybe there's an indirect boost, but moving up a couple slots due to holes left in the front page is not very analogous to moving down 100 or so slots due to a penalty. It seems like a secondary effect to me rather than a primary one.

    James_Dale




    msg:207646
     1:10 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    JustGuessing, that shows up for results with a cache of 21st Nov or later. Other uncached sites do not list the braod matches in bold.

    aspdesigner




    msg:207647
     1:14 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    Claus, I appreciate your input.

    However, the most important question in my mind right now as an SEO is simply this -

    What has Google changed to cause many quality, relevant, non-spammy sites to drop like a rock for the specific search phrases most directly relevant to their sites?

    I am proud to say that if you look through the recent posts, that we seem to be making progress on an answer to this very important question, and I am very grateful for the intelligent insights and input of the other forum participants in this regard.

    I even welcome intelligent comments from those with differing views, as they only way to learn something new is to put our ideas to the test.

    <soapbox>

    However, what I am concerned about is a very few (NOT you, Claus), who have engaged, on both this and other topics, in personal attacks, and making of derogatory, sarcastic and disparaging comments about other forum participants and their ideas ("bizzaro theories...", etc.), in an apparent attempt to discourage the free expression of viewpoints and ideas that were contrary to their own.

    I find these sort of comments not appropriate for a public forum, and personally offensive (see TOS #4, #14, and especially #19). If someone disagrees with another's theory or idea, they should express their position in an intelligent and adult manner, not resort to bullying tactics or personal assaults. I am sure Kackle would agree.

    While I might not agree with everyone else's theories or ideas, I still respect their viewpoint. I expect others here to do the same.

    Let's play nice, folks.

    </off soapbox>

    linear




    msg:207648
     1:16 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    aspdesigner (way back in post #147):
    KevinC, tribal, linear, rather than changing your title and waiting to see what happens (that takes time), why not just try different searches with what you have now?

    Googlebot has spidered the changed page in question 3 times now. I'm eager to see where it goes with a modified title. Like KevinC, I want my main phrase back.

    Someone earlier opined that changing a working page while G was in flux seemed like a bad idea, I can't find the reference now. I make small tweaks like this on an almost daily basis; with 1341 words in hte page, title is a small tweak.

    My current look, which differs only in that I used to have kw1 kw2 in the title once:
    kw1 kw2 NOT found in Title (10 words)
    kw1 kw2 found 1 time(s) in 26 Keywords words (Density: 7.69%)
    kw1 kw2 found 1 time(s) in 32 Description words (Density: 6.25%)
    kw1 kw2 found 2 time(s) in 22 Headings words (Density: 18.18%)
    kw1 kw2 NOT found in Alt tag (1 words)
    kw1 kw2 found 1 time(s) in 385 Linktext words (Density: 0.52%)
    kw1 kw2 NOT found in Bold text (4 words)
    kw1 kw2 NOT found in Italic text (4 words)
    kw1 kw2 NOT found in Comments (71 words)

    This tool also figured the overall density of kw1 kw2 in the page at 5.22%. That doesn't feel over-optimized to me, but I'm not a pro. No single word topped 5%.

    aspdesigner




    msg:207649
     1:26 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)


    It seems like a secondary effect to me rather than a primary one.

    linear, that was the point I was trying to get at.

    Assuming that the penalty caused some sites to drop, it appeared your page may have been indirectly "boosted" as a result of 5 sites above you getting zapped. My point was this might explain how some non-relevant listings were "floating" to the top as a result of this penalty.

    What would be quite interesting would be to check the sites above you in both cases, and see which ones of those were "dropped" as a result.

    And how many of those sites has a high % of keyword matching in their titles!

    [edited by: aspdesigner at 1:33 pm (utc) on Nov. 26, 2003]

    aspdesigner




    msg:207650
     1:30 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    damn, can't keep up with the posts! LOL

    linear, I will be interested to hear how that turns out.

    linear




    msg:207651
     1:34 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    aspdesigner, I'll try your next proposed experiment later this morning, I have to get some real work done. ;)

    I think that despite having drifted from the original topic, we're on to something hot here.

    Jakpot




    msg:207652
     1:41 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    However, what I am concerned about is a very few (NOT you, Claus), who have engaged, on both this and other topics, in personal attacks, and making of derogatory, sarcastic and disparaging comments about other forum participants and their ideas ("bizzaro theories...", etc.), in an apparent attempt to discourage the free expression of viewpoints and ideas that were contrary to their own.

    I find these sort of comments not appropriate for a public forum, and personally offensive (see TOS #4, #14, and especially #19). If someone disagrees with another's theory or idea, they should express their position in an intelligent and adult manner, not resort to bullying tactics or personal assaults. I am sure Kackle would agree.

    While I might not agree with everyone else's theories or ideas, I still respect their viewpoint. I expect others here to do the same.

    Let's play nice, folks.

    Maybe the Mods could tighten up on this. Pre Florida if one
    critized Google they got dinged. Should get dinged if one is less than professional on all subjects/threads. Go to some other forum if one feels the need to vent in an attack mode.

    netnerd




    msg:207653
     1:51 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    But (within reason) a little sarchasm/humour can make the forum a more entertaining read!

    aspdesigner




    msg:207654
     1:56 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    My comments were not about people freely expressing their honest viewpoints about Google or the new algo, but rather, attacks directed against other forum participants.

    aspdesigner




    msg:207655
     2:05 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)


    aspdesigner, I'll try your next proposed experiment later this morning, I have to get some real work done. ;)

    LOL You and me both, linear! Let me know how it goes.


    we're on to something hot here.

    I would concur.

    Heywood_J




    msg:207656
     2:40 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    Well, here's what I observed for the most competitive key words in my industry after the google shakeup.

    When you search for "widgets" of "widgeting" you get old sites that will explain what the "widgets" are, or the history of "widgets", or a news article on "widgeting". But, the sites who sell "widgets" or consult in "widgeting" (basically anyone who depends on "widgets" to make a living) are no where to be found.

    And, those of us in the latter category, are the ones targeted by Adwords. Coincidence or Conspiracy? I truly hope this was not Google's intent, but you never know these days.

    I just want things to go back to the way it was before 11/15/03.

    ronin




    msg:207657
     2:51 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    Does anyone have a page which:

    a) has a high percentage of inbound links containing identical text and which has moved up in the SERPS?

    b) has a very low percentage of or zero inbound links containing identical text but which has nevertheless been dropped down the SERPS

    ...?

    By inbound links I mean links pointing at the page either on the same site or from other sites.

    If anybody can point me to pages which satisfy conditions a) or b) I'll drop my current hypothesis, otherwise I'm sticking by what I said earlier in the thread.

    crankin




    msg:207658
     3:09 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    Bingo, Heywood_J.

    100-200 results of .gov, .edu, .org and a sprinkling of .com sites talking about specific local guidelines for their widgets, which department to submit their widgets in triplicate to, and so forth. Nary an actual widget for sale in the bunch until results 101 or so.

    Our search terms do not lend themselves to conversation - they are specifically active to purchasing. People in the field targeted by our niche product don't stand around talking about the mertits of our specialty widgets, they just want to know where to get one so they can cross that chore off their list and get on with their work.

    I've been an Adwords customer for years, pay Google LOTS of money every month. I notice my clickthrough rates INCREASE when I have good SERP positioning, decrease when not in SERPS. Conclusion? Customers looking to buy my specialty widgets are a skittish lot and NEED to see a company in both the SERP and the Adword box to get that last psychological nudge needed to click on through and buy.

    Since I (and, please note, ALL my competitors in my very focused niche area) have been relegated to SERP Siberia, my CTR on Adwords is crapping out. Google, you wanna make money off me and my competitors? Put the SERPS back in order, so that people can find us. This is not a hugely competetive area - I and a handful of others are the sole purveyors of our specialty widgets, and surfers can't find us on Google.

    Bad customer service - surfer doesn't get what s/he wants, ad merchant doesn't get what s/he wants, merchant make no money, Google make no money.

    frup




    msg:207659
     3:17 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    ronin, I have come to the same conclusion as you. However, there is one thing we must keep in mind. With it, a spammer could attack a competitor, putting up 1,000 links with the same link text.

    So, however Google has implemented this filter they must be taking this into account as well.

    I also think there is a glitch in dealing with two-word and three-word search terms that overpunishes sites.

    tomparis




    msg:207660
     3:22 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    To Ronin

    Type in a search into Google, the two words:
    Rankthis Rankpilot.

    See which page comes up number one.

    I rest my case.

    What a Joke!

    Umbra




    msg:207661
     3:24 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    I'm not sure if this info will help or not, but here is an interesting example for 2 competitive search terms, let's say "widget store" and "green widgets".

    Search results for "green widgets" mostly display different kinds of online widget stores.

    Paradoxically, the top 20 ranks for "widget store" contain UK directories, news articles, and forum posts which only indirectly relate to widget stores. (The news articles are especially redundant and irrelevant considering that the top of the SERPS displays "Try Google News: Search news for widge store or browse the latest headlines). Previous top rankers were more relevant but are now buried.

    On another note, we are now buried for our top keyword phrases (which are not competitive). On the other hand, we do rank highly for a more competitive keyword phrase. Those keywords do not appear in that exact order anywhere on our website. This seems to support the theory of an anti-over-optimization filter.

    Finally, there was one morning during the Florida dance that we ranked highly for our major keyword phrases, implying that one little filter is responsible for this, and not a general penalty.

    claus




    msg:207662
     3:25 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    Just wanted to add this; the front page has never been the focal point of Google - it is a page search engine and not a site search engine, so if other pages from your site are deemed more relevant than the front page these should show up in stead.

    It's not really an explanation of anything, but still it is important.

    /claus
    PS: If anyone feel that i have offended them, please accept my apologies. I surely don't want to add insult to injury, and i'm sorry if any of my postings have been unfair or offensive in any way.

    caveman




    msg:207663
     3:36 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    ronin, frup, we're working in that area also.

    Theory so far: Links are perhaps one, but not the only, criteria for penalty. And the criteria for penalty need not be conditional or connected; abuse in one area alone may be enough to cause the filter to pop (no surprise there, since we're talking about spam filters in essence).

    Reasoning: There were many blow-ups in our category - and some of the missing do not satisfy the criteria you refer to. In other cases, however, links would seem to be the only explanation for the damage.

    The Title stuff that is the focus of a lot of the posts here may be another area, but again, need not be connected to the links issue. We have absolute proof of this, unless the same rules do not apply to all sites. This would be consistent with AthlonInside's post also, except that the links may be a cause all by themselves, not just a pre-condition...

    Clear?

    caveman

    yetanotheruser




    msg:207664
     4:12 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    Hello all.. boy this is a long thread - my eyes hurt! ;) Hadn't dared enter into this, but I've suddenly discovered we've seem to have a site that's been caught by the same filter..

    This is what I understand from the thread so far - appologies if I've got it all wrong..

    - Google are not only penalising overuse of H1's*?
    - Google are penalising [over]use of keywords in links/H's/titles?
    - There is some suspicion this is a ploy to get people to panic-buy Adwords?

    I really don't want to have to go and re-build those of our sites that have been hammered to the bottom of the SERPS.. They have a perfectly legitimate reason to be on the front page.. I have a site who are one of the leading manufacturers of "widgets".. Now suddenly when you search for "widgets" they're not there.. a load of resellers are.. but the manufacturer isn't...

    Do we know if google is aware that their results are wonkey?

    Someone earlier mentioned that their wife has switched their homepage to AV.. I'm going to do the same ( and tell the client to aswell ;) ) .. Shame on you google - penalising legitimate user-oriented sites - I thought you knew better :(

    * I think Google are in serious danger of loosing if it's a battle of HTML-best-practice versus Google spam-filters.. I go with W3C everytime - H tags have been around a lot longer that Google!

    willardnesss




    msg:207665
     4:15 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    I haven't been able to read all of these posts, but thought I'd point out something I just noticed...could be old news for you guys though...

    For my 3 keyword niche, there is not 1 homepage in the top 30 results.

    #35 is the first home page, and it is a big directory site that is not specific for this search phrase. #37 is msn.com! Then the next homepage is around #45.

    Every single site (me and all my competitors - about 50 different websites) that specialized in this niche has had their home page completely dropped.... In fact, none of our internal pages are in the SERPs either. The only pages are big directory pages that vaguely describe our niche or are ads for companies who sell our niche product.

    Only a few lucky ones have their ad pages on big directory sites showing up in the top 10...

    Both my girlfriend and my mom (not very internet savvy individuals) have also commented on how they couldn't find what they were looking for in Google lately...and I'm seeing a lot more MSN traffic...c'mon Google...it's not just SEO types noticing.

    Hissingsid




    msg:207666
     4:24 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    Hi,

    Not sure if this thread has become a general "What the hell has happened to Google" one or if we are still comparing pages lost.

    I've lost one very important page and in my desparation I've just stumbled on something that may just be obvious and it has always been like that or may be another part of this problem.

    When I search for "widget insurance" in the Directory tab of Google I see exactly the same results as I do when I search under the main Google web search page.

    Has it always been like this? I have to admit that I don't use Google directory at all but thought it was DMOZ with tweaks.

    Best wishes

    Sid

    Miop




    msg:207667
     4:30 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    regarding the home page question, I am on page 2 for my 2 word keyword + uk for my home page, but the page that shows up is my links page.
    Is there a clue here? Why should my links page show up before my home page? BTW the kw's are much more prevalent on the links page (for obvious reasons) than they are on the home page. A small irony there since I have been examining my home page to see if my kw density was too high!?

    caryl




    msg:207668
     5:02 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

    Willardnesss
    Every single site (me and all my competitors - about 50 different websites) that specialized in this niche has had their home page completely dropped.... In fact, none of our internal pages are in the SERPs either. The only pages are big directory pages that vaguely describe our niche or are ads for companies who sell our niche product.

    Are all of you listed in the same category of Googles Directory?

    The entire category we are in has been eliminated from the results for the main Keyword1 Keyword2 search [for our industry].

    This 409 message thread spans 14 pages: < < 409 ( 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