homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.21.135.68
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 498 message thread spans 17 pages: < < 498 ( 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 > >     
traffic from google has dropped
dhaliwal




msg:203576
 5:51 pm on Aug 6, 2004 (gmt 0)

anyone seen the drop in traffic from google?
I am seeing that the traffic has dropped nearly 50 % in a day while the pages in index are the same and also the SERP have not changed that way.

I am talking about traffic of nearly 7 k from google everyday and hence its a sizable decrease.

Looking for early answers on how we could check the things

 

erykalefrak




msg:203996
 2:55 am on Aug 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have been making my site "less efficient" let's say... like taking out some of the image alt's and such and my ratings are going up. odd, becauase they were not spammy.

DaveAtIFG




msg:203997
 12:36 am on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

I just noticed a number of sites missing in spaces I follow that used "sub-domain spam," cross linking between sub domains. Anyone else?

erykalefrak




msg:203998
 12:48 am on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Not as of yet. :)

walkman




msg:203999
 2:18 am on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

"I have been making my site "less efficient" let's say... like taking out some of the image alt's and such and my ratings are going up. odd, becauase they were not spammy."

Interesting....did you do this after this update and how long before you saw results?

Thanks

erykalefrak




msg:204000
 3:09 am on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

within the last couple of days, and I saw results the next day... what I have been doing is going page by page through all of the people I have seen who did not move during this whole shift, and some of the ones who even got better. Most of what I have seen so far is a lower keyword density, and a lot of less optimized pages. I figured it can't hurt to try so I cut my density by like 5 percent, and I blanked out some image tags, things like that, and I still don't have a PR back for my index page, but my key searches I follow jumped back up at least 10 spots, some much more, depending on how far they fell.

shri




msg:204001
 5:02 am on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

>> used "sub-domain spam,"

Could this have triggered a link based dupe content type filter?

DaveAtIFG




msg:204002
 5:38 am on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

I was thinking a cross linking filter but either is possible I suppose.

dhaliwal




msg:204003
 11:01 am on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think that things won't turn around as 10 days have passed, and i don't see many people suffering from this update.
So it would be a hard call to take, but i am going to make a new site with all the old data.

Ruben




msg:204004
 1:15 pm on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

My traffic also dropped and so my sales. I have deoptimized my site. Hope i will get back soon.

Also one competitor has 20 almost the same sites. He is rocking hard. I checked his hosts some were different. So the spam filter won't see it. Every site is indexed with 2000+ pages. I am considering also doing this, because google doesn't give me an answer. I think they can't detect this kind of spam, otherwise they would have removed him from the index.

erykalefrak




msg:204005
 2:07 pm on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yes I am beginning to agree that this is not a short term change, but rather a permanent one, so we should all begin adjusting and re-figuring out the new google "code"

div01




msg:204006
 2:42 pm on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

So thanks to this change we are going to see spammier SERPS as atleast some WW members look to go that route?

mikeD




msg:204007
 6:18 pm on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

just seen some of the serps shift again for some of my keywords.

they really are bad, absolutely the worst type of spam at the top. Seems to be low pr single page type of spam. See this on yahoo alot.

They get rid of the half decent professional spam, but they cant get rid of the single page awful spam which takes it's place.

erykalefrak




msg:204008
 8:50 pm on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

overall, I must say this really is terrible.

trimmer80




msg:204009
 10:22 pm on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have been making my site "less efficient" let's say... like taking out some of the image alt's and such and my ratings are going up. odd, becauase they were not spammy.

is this theory still working? I am seeing a co-relation between the use of alt tags and H1s and the pages that are hit bad.

erykalefrak




msg:204010
 11:05 pm on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

yes, it helped, not a full recovery, but a great improvement... my next step is to remove all <h> tags

walkman




msg:204011
 11:18 pm on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

"yes, it helped, not a full recovery, but a great improvement... my next step is to remove all <h> tags"

ALL? Not even one H1 tage for page?

petehall




msg:204012
 11:26 pm on Aug 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Removing H1 tags goes against correct HTML document structure!

erykalefrak




msg:204013
 2:05 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

so far the people who stayed have none

steveb




msg:204014
 2:22 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"so far the people who stayed have none"

You aren't concerned that is is an overly broad statement?

Hx tags are critically important in very competitive areas, and also in less competitive areas that happen to have tons of results (like for some hotel in Peoria).

erykalefrak




msg:204015
 2:42 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

i have pages myself with none that are in number one now... I think g has something funky with them now. I will conduct my own experiment and see, it cannot get worse I don't reccomend anyone follow if they don't want to. I am trying anything right now, I need to get back up there, I am keeping a back up copy of what things were before this so I can always revert back

trimmer80




msg:204016
 3:05 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

in my circumstance...pages that have dropped significantly seem to have a large number of words in the h1 tag . > 20

This would make it appear as though pages with hx tags were affected more than those without. It doesn't mean that h1 tags will rank lower. The ones without a h1 tag were most likely lower in the first place (they just have not decreased).

xcomm




msg:204017
 3:25 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)


my next step is to remove all <h> tags

is anyone else going back from *.html to *.txt?

:-)

trimmer80




msg:204018
 3:41 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

is anyone else going back from *.html to *.txt?

everyone is so quick to shoot an idea down. Considering many people have lost a significant amount of their income this month, I hardly take this sarcasm in good humor.

That said.
If google did research and found that 90% of H1 tags are spammy pages, then they could penalise the use of a h1 tag.
Google is under no obligation to stick by any standards. They will do whatever is best for the end user.

shri




msg:204019
 5:08 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

How many of you folks who have lost out, are going for the trifecta?

1) Hyphenated URL: <a href="green-furry-gerbils.html">
2) Anchor: Green Furry Gerbils
3) H1: <h1>Green Furry Gerbils</h1>

I seriously doubt it is just H1 .. but along with devalued internal links this could be very easy to spot algorithmically.

How many sites in your vertical / segment have the same combination?

steveb




msg:204020
 5:35 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"everyone is so quick to shoot an idea down."

When someone postulates an idea that runs counter to facts demonstrated via literally hundreds of thousands of sites, it is a sensible response to say it is a bad idea.

Better to examine the root of a situation rather than focus on branches that likely reveal nothing. Hx tags are critially important in getting rankings for targeted pages involving obscure and multiword search phrases. They help identify the content and nature of a page when there aren't more extensive signals available.

In other words, Hx is a great help when you don't have many/any anchor text links to pages. When there are multiple links to pages though, that text overwhelms Hx text. Some people seem to be only focused on one search term on one page, their main page. In this context Hx is a minor player. Good to have, but dwarfed by linking and anchor text. If your domain page has a problem, blaming Hx text is like blaming your shoelaces for how much you weigh. If you are having major problems, look at the major factors in ranking... links, anchor text, bad neighborhoods, even PR. And then, start optimizing your whole domain by having accurate targeted Hx text on your subpages so that you get good rankings for a wide variety of terms that you would never think to make a bunch of anchor text links for.

Copper




msg:204021
 6:19 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

I agree with steveb,

Just plainly blaming everythign on Hx tags is being too harsh. Just becos a couple of sites here and there have lost its serps and the fact that they had Hx tags included, doesnt make Hx tags the culprit.

There has to be more than that surely.

Cheers
Copper

trimmer80




msg:204022
 6:51 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

When someone postulates an idea that runs counter to facts demonstrated via literally hundreds of thousands of sites, it is a sensible response to say it is a bad idea.

I totally agree. The idea is to tell someone that you disagree, and what evidence you have seen to say to why.
Not spit out degrading sarcasm that doesn't help anyone.

Just plainly blaming everythign on Hx tags is being too harsh. Just becos a couple of sites here and there have lost its serps and the fact that they had Hx tags included, doesnt make Hx tags the culprit.

i don't think anyone was blaming one element. Just saying they would test different elements.
I agree the the h1 is very unlike to be penalised. It is however very possible that the weighting given to this element has been reduced.

PhilDC




msg:204023
 11:21 am on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have a new theory....Do you think it is possible that Google is setting a limit to what it considers to be an acceptable amount of links out to Affiliate networks such as CJ / Tradedoubler etc within an entire site...?

Out of all my sites, one theme is common in this latest change....size. All of my 'big' sites where clobbered and they weren't spammy, and did pass the 'would a user bookmark this site' test, however the common theme was lots of Aff network links.

Thoughts?

Phil

ltedesco




msg:204024
 2:01 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

I am still lost. I've been reading all ideas and speculations about this changes in Google and I still can't figure it out. I have 2 sites, same structure, same SEO Technique (using h1, bold...) and just one site has dropped. Should't both get penalized? Or both being ranking well? The only difference is that they are in different servers. There is something else going on and I don't think it is over yet.

petehall




msg:204025
 2:09 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

ltedesco we are in the same boat as you.

Three websites; two stronger than ever after this update and another weakening considerably on internal page listings.

Similar "techniques" and structuring used across all sites which disproves many theories.

The site affected was our oldest, most established site with the most links and a PR6.

ltedesco




msg:204026
 3:05 pm on Aug 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

"The site affected was our oldest, most established site with the most links and a PR6."

Exactly the same here!

This 498 message thread spans 17 pages: < < 498 ( 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 > >
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