| 7:07 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>Here is an interesting tidbit though... One site received much of its traffic based on an extremely broad range of keywords that covered a lot of different combinations. It seems that the traffic for those thousands of combos went down dramatically while the traffic for a few of the targeted keyword phrases/pages (external links pointing to those pages) have retained their rankings. <<<<<
This is my case as well.My more obscure keyword traffic has disappeared.
| 7:12 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I HAVE SEEN ANOTHER THING
The Page Rank of Pages added three weeks ago has changed from 0 to 2
| 7:25 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think google guy should be giving us some kind of insight of what has happened. That can be the only official help from google if something has happened at their end, cause lot of things have happened at my end
| 7:37 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Google query XYZ (as of last week)
Site A gets 10% of traffic due to internal links
Site B gets 10% of traffic due to internal links
Site C gets 10% of traffic due to internal links
Site D gets 70% of traffic due to EXTERNAL links
Google tweaks algo downgrades importance of internal links. Now google query XYZ (as of today)
Site A gets 5% of traffic due to internal links
Site B gets 5% of traffic due to internal links
Site C gets 5% of traffic due to internal links
Site D gets 85% of traffic due to EXTERNAL links
Now seasonally adjusted the traffic for site D may look normal or slightly better - whereas we have lost traffic across a wide range of keywords to sites (like site D) with inbound links that are stronger than the internal links supporting our keywords.
Does that sound right - or am I just getting tired and stupid?
| 7:43 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Our main site has dropped 50%+ traffic since the beginning of August. The main bulk of loss is US keywords. However my europe keywords have faired better. Is this relevent? also our site is quite big at 50,000 page is this another fact?
The disapointing thing for me is that since the florida update were I took a big hit, We as a company have been adding content and improving the site consently.
My site is 5 years old and is travel based. Are these factors simlar to anyody else who have been hit?
My final thoughts are that this is relevent to the last PR update. Things are changing....
| 8:52 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
mmm...I got hit with Florida too but came back last Feb. just fine. When you guys talk about 20m pages + and such that is a giant site. My sites are 200 to 3,ooo pages and are doing great.
How do you make a site that large and keep it unique?
The only sites that large and unique are very large companies that are not that worried about google listings (and allot of those use their own affiliate programs for sales).
I would think that sites so big could find a ton of keywords for PPC and do well...if your services are good? Or are you cut-copy-paste affiliate sites trying
to say you are original?
Google traffic is way up for me and converts ten fold
over the same keywords found on Yahoooo!
I have top listings in both but Y does not convert to well for me?
| 8:58 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 11:19 am (utc) on Aug. 8, 2004]
[edit reason] Please review the tos. [/edit]
| 9:17 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Where are these guys taking the topic of the current discussion?
I don't think my current trouble has anything to do with a WAR
| 9:21 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Do you sell tin foil hats alain_bonaf?
Anyway, back to reality, I've noticed a huge drop in traffic but I've actually increased positions in Google. I put most of this down to the summer holidays so unless you sell something related to holidays or travel - I'm sure things are quite sticky this month.
| 9:30 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I do not like Bush but I like K's long face even worse.
It's more about oil than foreign aid to me?
What does your post have to do with Google?
Maybe most political sites see increases in Google traffic?@#%@%^@ I would think?
| 9:46 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>What does your post have to do with Google?
It has to do with the previous answer I made. I has also to do that efficiency of search engine will drop because the general environment will drop so there seem that some people here may be living in the moon not connecting general environment with commerce notably ecommerce is even more sensitive to events because it isn't brick and mortar.
If thos provokes a cognitive dissonance into your brain I'm sorry this is harsh reality to take into account: Business is less about profit that about MANAGING RISK. And you can't manage such risk by putting your head into the sand. Of course if you have never faced a risk of several millions like I had already you don't have to worry so I'm speaking to supposedly real businessmen.
Firday the Dow has made a huge drop. I had a free financial site in the past web traffic is astonishigly linked to the mood of the market.
| 10:16 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|If thos provokes a cognitive dissonance into your brain I'm sorry |
I don't think you have to be too concerned about that :)
| 10:20 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
alain_bonaf...sounds like you get your insite from strangers on the moon.
It's pretty clear that you do not speak english very well. So come to America, get your green card and see that some of us make a great living...**** I'm in Playa del Rey, California and I have a view of the OCEAN! I work for myself and life is wonderful. This whole post was about people not getting Google conversions and trying to figure that out...not trying to figure out your political views?
| 10:24 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i think he didn't read the heading of this message and started with his very own BLAH BLAH BLAH
| 10:36 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
yep dhaliwal but I think you left out a couple words so I wil add them;
| 10:42 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
i m in trouble and not in mood to laugh
| 10:48 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Back on the dropped traffic, is there anything firming up that having a proportion of links to internal pages is making a difference? Having them is less likely with big, big sites that aren't authority sites - which by reason of definition are "authority" sites because of their inbound linking.
How is the possibility of a connection?
Hey folks, pardon the intrusion, but regarding the Dow and SEO - from the Google forum charter [webmasterworld.com]
|Politics and Religion |
We have people from all over the world. Different systems of government and various religions. Please leave the political and religious discussions for elsewhere.
Back to SEO and AWAY from what's way off-topic according to the charter (and the TOS), I'm kind of thinking that it might be a good idea to vary the target of inbound links to include important internal pages regardless of PR distribution from the homepage, where most links usually point. Is anyone thinking of changing their inbound linking strategies to something a little different?
[edited by: Marcia at 11:06 am (utc) on Aug. 8, 2004]
| 11:04 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
diamondgrl >> for those writing in with your own stories, i think it would help to describe what kind of site you have...
My support and compliment, this is exactly why I logged in today after discussing with a friend how bad it is with G traffic these days around.
Here is my piece to the cake:
Static, hand-maintained, unique, nichy content sites hold up nicley, gain some. Finally an algo change that didn't impact anyone doing the right thing in terms of adding value to the web.
Dynamic, semi-dynamic, copycats, directory clones and somesuch do poorly, being thrown over board or downgraded and this all goes hand in hand with some two weeks ago downgrading in homepage PR for those.
I got one major site with many thousands of pages with syndicated content, hand-made portal with affiliate links, diretory clone built-in and trying to mimic a nice nav structure pleasing users with clean pages to find stuff fast. The whole thing is combined with a AWS subdomain, parts dynamic, parts static copies of dynamic product pages (SE food) and Yahoo! hates me for that!
Their point was (as presented by a Y! guy present around here) that Y! is NOT looking to throw users some interfaces or secondaries into their face but deliver relevant FIRST HAND content exclusively.
I did respect their point and liked it for what all my other sites do (exactly that: manual, unique, value adding). Now G seems to be going down the same path to some extend and I can only congratulate them and I hope MSN is doing the same thing.
So, I will finally have the best reason to only use the large site as a playground and offering another Y! type environment WITHOUT getting external traffic there!
Is Yahoo! counting on traffic by Google or MSN?
Is your unique, white hat SEO, nichy, focused, user-friendly site affected this time?
I bet: hardly. For that: COMPLIMENTS TO GOOGLE.
Even if I am losing big bugs right now.
Let's hope it holds up so we all know for a while that adding value is the name of the game now (finally).
[edited by: adfree at 11:19 am (utc) on Aug. 8, 2004]
| 11:18 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Please leave your sex, politics, and religion comments for another website. Other members, please ignore them when you seen them and don't take the troll bait.
| 11:23 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
post appreciated adfree
| 11:27 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
what is happening with Google lately is on page keywords and how they relate to your whole site.
Then how many incoming links to you and it does not matter where from. The guestbook & blog spammers are loving Google today.
Plus it's working best to have each page to have only 1 sentence NOT as long as 200 plus words. Try just 8 words on each whole page. Since Florida, Google is
trying to find and compete.
If you make pr 4 and above, you will not show up on google backlinks of other sites but it will count.
They are just hiding this right now.
There are many variations happening besides this but...It works well for strong, busy areas.
Think I'm wrong?
| 11:30 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I don't see this is an inbound link thing.
A few of the affected phrases I see were around primarily because of keyword density, so maybe there was a changing of on-page factors.
| 11:36 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Their point was (as presented by a Y! guy present around here) that Y! is NOT looking to throw users some interfaces or secondaries into their face but deliver relevant FIRST HAND content exclusively. |
Yeah but haven't Yahoo bought Kelkoo the biggest spammers on the web. And they rank great in Y!
More like Y! dont want commercial competition if you read between the lines.
| 11:53 am on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
On my website, I have noticed a drop in traffic the last few days. Hence that is why I popped in here to see if something was going on.
For the first time, MSN is whomping Google in my logs.
As a user, I have noticed that more and more of my searches on google come up with Ebay listings...either from Ebay or other sites lisitng ebay auctions.
| 12:24 pm on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Does anyone have a site they can compare to with this time last year? One that is stable and changes very little in the SERPS to compare to?
As far as the original question--I'm down across the board from last week. Here are my figures--one site..
Search Engine Traffic-- - 50.3 %
Total Visitors-- - 45.7
Repeat Visitors-- - 22.4
Google-- - 74.9 %
Yahoo-- - 6.8
MSN-- - 23.4
Google(Canada) - 42.0
Ask-- - 42.0
AOL-- - 70.0
Some may have seen my question in the members forum. Now I feel more at ease after reading this thread.
| 12:24 pm on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<<There is all sorts of movement on the datacenters.>>
Yes. Talking to people across the globe, everyone is seeing different SERPS. I go from #2 to #15 on refresh on one term. Check all the datacenters and you will probably find your answer.
BTW, thanks Bigdave and europeforvisitors. Can we just insert, "Build an organic site with wonderful editorial content and you will do great", into all the posts to save time? If you looked into what was actually going on, you could have told the poster that he may be seeing different rankings than what others are seeing. But I guess you found it more useful to tell him how you have managed to avoid volatility...
| 1:09 pm on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I guess the words "DONT PANIC" spring to mind at times like this."
trying not to but it's hard. Let's hope that Google does a U-Turn on this soon. If it was a small change I would have no hope, but since it's a major change maybe they realize it was taken too far. I'm hoping so at least...
| 1:40 pm on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I also see a drop of maybe 30% of usual 32000 unique visits and some changes in serps not like a update but some drops for speacial keyword strings, the main keyword serps are as usual.
Im not sure what that is, I dont think everybody is a the beach, one thing is for sure the search has NOT got better.
| 2:15 pm on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Agree totally with your comments zeus, not sure why they have done it.
I am not seeing an increase in quality serps from this change, just the opposite. Not even like my competitors have benefited.
| 2:33 pm on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
So, are we ready to call this an update?
1) Those of you who have lost traffic, have you recently accquired links? Are the effects of those links dampened?
2) Are you seeing an devaluation of internal anchor texts?
3) How many of your sites which have lost traffic are in dmoz (sorry... I might be barking up the wrong tree on this one.. but humor me).
| 2:41 pm on Aug 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
2) is a possibility though I am not done with my analysis.
3) Yes, I have atleast one site with DMOZ links, including several deeplinks, that seems to be suffering. DMOZ links haven't been of much help to my other sites that seem to be in extended sandbox/limbo mode but that is another thread.