| 1:49 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|So it's more than reasonable to point out that following an update, the traffic being sent by G, while comparable in sheer number, has suddenly deteriorated in quality. |
Google will be delighted to hear that.
| 1:53 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
LuckyChucky... Don't get panicky about penalties until you know for sure that you've been penalized. Somewhere around here I read that Google changed the way the link: function works and now it's only reporting a "sample" of backlinks. I'm sure one of the other forum hounds knows where the thread is... perhaps they could post a link to it. But anyway, until your rankings or PR plummet... don't sweat it. As mentioned SEVERAL times in this and other threads, blatantly buying or selling PR can get you in trouble. However buying or selling text link advertising (which by its very nature passes PR and backlinks) would be a MONUMENTALLY STUPID thing for Google to even try and penalize you for. Can you say non-competitive practice and class action lawsuit? While Google doesn't owe us anything in terms of the SERPS, the advertising realm is a WHOLE different story. In that realm link sellers are technically on an equal footing (legally speaking) with Google and the ramifications could be rather large if anyone could ever prove a manual penalty or other nefarious business practice to discourage us from selling text links for the sheer benefit of Google.
Seriously, buying links for the sake of advertising isn't all that bad. I guess it really depends on how the people you purchased these from advertise their "product". If they say they're selling PR then you may be in trouble. If PR isn't mentioned I think Google would have a hard time justifying any sort of penalty.
| 2:49 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>Google will be delighted to hear that.
TJ, not sure I get the point...
| 3:06 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It seems to me that this whole PR/backlink update is completely irrelevant.
At least in the categories we manage sites in, which are ultra competitive areas. (Drugs/Finance/Vision)
I am seeing many sites with PR4 or less, with as little as 5 backlinks, ranking in the top 10 positions. Many of these sites are garbage sites with NO content, NO real backlinks, and are breaking every G guideline in building a quality site. (or even a crappy site) Lots of the top 40 positions are held by these spammers with links from guest books, bogus forums and other automatically generated pages.
SoÖ.Based on what I see in my categories it is my FIRM opinion that G has no idea what its doing in ranking sites these days. The algo that they are using is clearly flawed and needs serious attention. Over the last 6 months the serps have only gotten worse, not better.
I read many posts in here about Gís effort to combat spam using the so called sandbox effect, and other methods, but all one needs to do is to look at our categories serpís and you would see that it is crystal clear that these efforts are NOT working.
So if someone at G is reading this, get back to the drawing board. Your current algo is seriously flawed and I canít believe you donít see this. (You would have to be completely BLIND.)
| 3:40 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
caveman -- you said....
|since this last update (or whatever it is), the traffic G has sent us, while constant in numbers, has been converting at a rate about 30% lower than before the update. We made no changes to the site; G made changes somehow in the quality of traffic they are sending. |
I concur with your logic; if the only thing that changed is Google, you have to wonder what changed.
The one thing I have noticed is that the algorithm for displaying title and summary (well, just summary, really) may have changed. Are you seeing different summaries than you did before?
| 3:50 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm in a much less competitive category and I am seeing the same thing, sites that have one single affiliate link and a dozen words of text on their single page website beating out authority sites across the board.
Maybe Google thinks if they return crappy results with single page websites, surfers will be more likely to click on adwords. I personally think those people will just start searching elsewhere, our MSN traffic and Y! traffic is up 15-20% since the end of May when the G results went in the toilet.
| 4:42 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Suddenly raised from 4 to 7. I hope it stays there...
| 4:53 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
the above tool is a great free tool that compares link popularity among a variety of engines and across competitors. I like to check alltheweb for backlinks as it shows a ll of the links that you have, but the number can be off by a lot, because they count pay per click links and paid portal links. It is good to see if some links that you may have thought were dropped, simply went below PR4 or if G just isn't showing them for reasons only the google gods know.
[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 8:04 pm (utc) on June 25, 2004]
[edit reason] See Forum Charter [/edit]
| 5:55 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> Somewhere around here I read that Google changed the way the link: function works and now it's only reporting a "sample" of backlinks. I'm sure one of the other forum hounds knows where the thread is... perhaps they could post a link to it.
Thanks much, DRGather.
| 6:06 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
my PR7 site just plummeted to a PR3 yesterday and am not sure why (suspect Garbo update). we do not buy any of our links but do focus on gaining a large quantity of links to our site. we are still appearing in the same positions for keyword searches but I am really concerned about our PR dropping so drastically. this is the first time it has dropped since the site was released 1.5 years ago. any insight would be much appreciated. thanks!
| 6:33 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Another case for you all--
Formerly 1000's of (quality) backlinks now show only 113.
Home page still PR6
#2 rank for the money keyword
My competitor's site:
1470 (awful quality) backlinks
Home page PR0
#1 rank for the money keyword
He just displaced me from #1 for the 1st time - a position I had held for many months on end. His wretched quality backlinks remain, my good backlinks vanish. I have high PR, he has zero PR, but he gets top spot. Looks like Google is in the Twilight Zone for awhile.
| 7:14 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
sublime1 the question you pose about changed titles/summaries is interesting.
We see some minor changes, mainly in the descriptions/summaries, not much on the titles. I might have guessed that that sort of change would have affected click thru's more than conversions, but perhaps not. Worth looking into more closely anyway.
| 8:03 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
just saw my allinurl go from about 50 to nearly 200 (of 500+) today, still looks like the majority are "partially indexed" and also finding a lot of incorrect urls.
I added 301 redirects for the incorrect urls G has in the index, but....
...does anyone know how to fix this:
My main page indexed as www.mysite.com/%1F
I tried adding /%1F 301 redirect to www.mysite.com but it won't work, it just goes to my 404 page.
| 9:13 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"we do not buy any of our links but do focus on gaining a large quantity of links to our site"
how do you get your links then? It takes quite a few links to be PR7 in 1.5 years.
| 11:04 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
In a competitive area I am also seeing more sites with virtually no text on their home page (other than copyright & site name, and a few image links without ALT text), limited content elsewhere on the site, and a handful of mediocre backlinks beat out high quality sites with hundreds of on-topic backlinks and lots of relevant content.
Is anyone else seeing a similar phenomena? If a lot of such sites are now ranking high, it seems like it would be an easy model to replicate. Maybe less IS more. . .
| 11:40 pm on Jun 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|It takes quite a few links to be PR7 in 1.5 years |
Why is this?
| 12:25 am on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Why is this?"
becuase you need a lot of links and many of them from high PR sites. For most of us it takes a lot of time, anyway.
| 12:29 am on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>how do you get your links then? It takes quite a few links to be PR7 in 1.5 years.
2 or 3 will do, if you can get the right sites to link to you.
| 12:51 am on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|need a lot of links and many of them from high PR sites. |
Nah, maybe to score well, but to you can get to PR7 with one link in under 1 month sometimes.
| 3:40 am on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yup, it ain't that hard - I got a PR5 for one of my sites within 30 days of it's existence without even having to do a single link exchange.
Thanks Garbo! ;)
| 4:04 am on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Nah, maybe to score well, but to you can get to PR7 with one link in under 1 month sometimes. "
I guess, but I have a commercial site and can't find anyone with > PR4-5 to link to me.
| 4:15 am on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>I guess, but I have a commercial site and can't find anyone with > PR4-5 to link to me.
I hear ya, walkman. In some ecom niches it's lucky to even find any PR2-PR3 sites/pages out there, much less higher. It may be easy for certain informational sites, but it's not a universal truth.
| 6:02 am on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>> how do you get your links then? It takes quite a few links to be PR7 in 1.5 years
Walkman, I think it could be possible as Ds2004 also mentioned that "...but do focus on gaining a large quantity of links to our site."
Ds2004, I guess what you had done (if your links were not bought) was to get links "indiscriminately" and perhaps you are linking to bad neighborhoods, especially the ones with large networks. You know, it is very dangerous to exchange links with someone who approach you with something like "we have 200 websites..."
| 10:34 am on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|>>Google will be delighted to hear that. |
TJ, not sure I get the point...
Google wants you to buy AdWords.
| 12:34 pm on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I guess, but I have a commercial site and can't find anyone with > PR4-5 to link to me. |
If that is the case, I would seriously consider hiring some outside help with your SEO efforts.
| 1:19 pm on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
" I would seriously consider hiring some outside help with your SEO efforts"
I can buy links on my own, but he said that he reached PR7 without buying links. The discussion was if someone with a PR8 woudl link to a commercial site for free.
I have a few paid links, FULL sentences though, and I get real traffic too from them.
| 1:37 pm on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I never said anything about buying links. Congrats on your full sentences :)
| 2:03 pm on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
[Pardon me for moderating out of place, but somebody needs to do it--]
Hey Guys, there's this lovely forum called 'Link Development'...
Meanwhile, anybody around here care to discuss war stories / theories abour Google's new link and PR update?
| 2:14 pm on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have to agree. Full sentences are not just some silly affectation, they help people understand what you are saying, or they would have gone extinct.
Back to the topic: To hear some people talk, PR (page rank) is useless, meaningless or worse. If this is so, why are so many of us willing to put Granny under the cellar steps go from a PR=5 say, up to a seven?
I watch my very well researched (20 years work) UFO related site bounce everywhere from #18 down to #35 on Google. I shouldn't bore you with the utter crap that often ranks higher in the serps .. sites with half the honest backlinks, KW stuffing, you name it.
As I do this, I have to ask myself how I might be doing if my PR were 5 instead of 6! Thank heavens my site is non commercial. My pet lemon tree will get watered whether my site does well or not. Somebody who has to feed a family will take a more urgent view.
Up in front of me, for KW = UFO, I find somebody selling motorcycle parts, a rock music fan club, various and sundry science fiction blogs, a Ghost-stories site that loudly boasts it has nothing to do with UFOs, one or two pages about a video game, and way up top some blatant KW stuffer.
None of this is meant to slam the Goog. Yahoo is ten times worse, and it usually goes downhill from there.
My one bright spot is Gigablast, which somehow rates the sites I admire (especially my own of course) more highly.
There is definitely something to be said for a fresh look and clean clear sentences. Sorry for the rant.
| 2:32 pm on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Synonymous with Google SEO
| 3:01 pm on Jun 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>> ...buy Adwords.
Light bulb goes on.
Though I have to admit I've resisted buying into theories about G manipulating the organic SERP's to reduce relevance, to get Adwords sales up. That has always seemed like a 'shoot yourself in the foot' strategy to me.
OTOH, money is money, even more so to a wannabe public company. And their SERP's are sufficiently good that if they lose 10% in organic quality but revenues go up, I guess that works...
| This 234 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 234 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6  8 ) > > |