| 6:27 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Same here, no PR or backlink changes, the site just disappeared from the rankings. It's the ranking algo that was being tinkered with, not the index. Unless it's clear they're done tinkering with the algo, I wouldn't do much to the site aside from maybe some tweaks to test theories.
| 7:38 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ditto on the last posting. No PR changes, BLs went down a very little (actually back to where they were about 4 months ago) but home page dropped Serps from 2->18, 21->100 and 8->35 respectively in top 3 keywords. Some internal pages dropped too, but majority stayed same. We already discussed in another thread that it looks like G was already discounting recip. crosslinks between internal pages. This must be the next step.
| 8:04 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|WebFusion, how long did it take for your sandbox to be lifted? |
Rememebr, it's not the site that is sandboxed, it is the links to that site that are limited for a certain period of time (in theory, anyway).
In the case of our site....it was launched last September, and did VERY well (i.e. top 10) for the first 4 months or so, with only a couple of IBLs. Unfortunately, since we were doing so well, a proactive linking campaign was overlooked, until around march of this year, when the site took a nose-dive (in google anyway - kept/improved serps positions in INk/MSN/Yahoo) down to the 350-400+ range in the serps. This made us change our approach in 2 ways:
First and foremost we concentrated our inital efforts towards alternative (and stable) sources of paid advertising (PPC, direct advertising, etc.) to get us a stable "base" revenue level. Once that was in place, we started an agressive linking campaign, ONLY targeting sites directly related to our site in theme, etc. Finally, not long ago, our site/pages began once again rising in google, and have now (as of yesterday, which was their biggest jump yet) made it to the 60-70th place in the serps, and I anticipate them hitting the top 10 within the next 6-8 weeks.
Something to also note...by using verbose product descriptions, it's also possible (although this has probably already been said here somewhere) to "optimize" for froogle. Since 3 froogle listings appear above the regular serps for a large number of relevant searched to our products, we get free top-of-serp exposure (which seems to be growing in click-thru rate as time goes on). To date...froogle clicks now bring in about 5% of our google-based sales.
| 8:10 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I hate Google. I have two times a year that are high times. Once in late August and once in early Jan. And it never fails. Google has to mess with shiznit right before.
Same here, no PR change at all. This is all algo mods.
| 9:03 pm on Aug 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The more I think about it, the more I agree with this:
As after getting a site back we lost another great site for no real reason.
This time, no panic at all - instead I'll simply wait...
| 3:13 am on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
OK, this is going to sound like a really dumb question.
Given the increased emphasis on inbound links, I'm trying hard to find them.
I find some sites that are related to my niche that are PR5 or above. Problem is, the Links pages on those sites have a PR of 2 or even 0.
I think I know the answer to the question, but I have to pose it anyway: does the PR boost come from linking to www.some_high_PR_site.com's index page, or does it come from the www.some_highPR_site.com/links.html page?
Deteriorating minds want to know.
| 3:34 am on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
It comes from the actual rank of the page that is providing the link.
| 4:44 am on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
dvduval is right. The PR comes FROM the page that the link is on TO the page where the link points. To repeat what has been said many times before, sites don't have PR, pages have PR (no sarcasm here, that's why they call in Page-Rank).
| 6:40 am on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
oaktown, I thought dvduval meant to say, the PR (in other words the link benefit) comes from the SE rank a webpage has.
Higher rank, irrespictive of a page's PR, means higher level of AUTHORITY and a link from an authority is all about Google ranks these days, not the PR.
| 12:37 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have also experience a 60% drop in traffic yesterday and today also it looks like. When I first checked the stats i thought maybe my hosting company had downtime or network problems!
This is after 2 of the best days (monday and tuesday) in the 2 year history of the site. The sites traffic has also been up 30% for the last 2-3 weeks.
| 12:59 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Our traffic is down dramatically as well over the last 2 days. Hopefully, this is just temporary...hopefully
| 1:42 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
For those who saw a dramatic fall in their traffic since yesterday, are your site(s) large content rich sites or simply sites with less content and more of an affiliate nature?
FYI, one of my newer site saw a 80% fall in traffic and its a content rich unique site. It was out of sandbox around a month back, but after analysing the keywords and the corresponding results, I assume its safe to conclude that its been sandboxed again or hit by another of Google's nerve wrecking update.
| 2:13 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My traffic has taken a significant leap this week. Content rich site, html and css validated, with great internal linking.
I'm eager for a PR update, just to get a reality check but from what I've seen over the past several months, for me the PR just doesn't matter. I build a new page and within a week it's drawing in traffic, without any PR acknowledged. From what I can see it's all about on page optimization, anchor text and internal linking.
| 2:16 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
adsense is ruining google's results. The serps are overrun with spam sites designed to draw in traffic and peddle adwords.
| 3:01 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Adsense has definitely veered off course. Great concept where site owners could gain some income and their visitors were exposed to products that were connected in some way to their search.
Exactly the opposite has occurred. Sites are being created just to place Adsense on them and they are doing surprisingly well in the SERPS. Gotta believe thatís not what Google had envisioned.
| 3:23 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I've seen about a 30% drop in traffic for Early this week against previous weeks, and it has just dropped even more today!
| 3:45 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
randle your spot on......google is now ranking sites that are simply designed to carry their own ppc....
| 4:38 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"adsense is ruining google's results. The serps are overrun with spam sites designed to draw in traffic and peddle adwords."
Couldn't agree more
| 4:49 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well, the changes have now radiated into my areas of interest, and I see what people are complaining about. These are sites I haven't seen since Florida. Most are still relevant, but they are not the highest quality. Then there are the directory sites, amazon, made-for-adsense, etc.
Certainly not as bad as it has been at times in the past, but still a degredation in quality. (I don't say this because of my rankings, since I am still top 3 across most of my terms.)
| 5:30 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I co-own a large network, very old, some of my sites are at 6 years, numerous pr 6-7 sites, unique content, authority out the wazoo, you would know a few of them by name.
Traffic down across all sites by 30% at a minimum with multiple seo formats and some with no seo all performing the same.
HTML scraper spam with adsense is dominating the serps I watch.
| 5:57 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm just not seeing it, guys, so the changes must still be localized somehow. SERPs I watch (which are pretty much informational, not a lot of ads on them) are stable with very minor changes, solid authority sites that have been there for years are still in the top ten.
| 6:06 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
same here, I suspect in my section this is because there is very little SEO and grandfathered sites stay on top due to backlinks (which are now all but impossible to get)
All stable here - now if only I could get the latest site out of that bloody sandbox
| 6:31 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Definately seeing it in my industry. Significant changes in positions but pretty much the same sites with few exceptions.
| 7:28 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm Definitely seeing a downturn in traffic from a couple of travel related sites as of yesterday as well (30%-40% down).
Currently looking into the theory of too high a keyword density as mentioned earlier, but it may well be because many inbound links have been filtered out. Some are on several hundred pages from one domain in the footer. I'm wondering if Google has a multiple page from single domain link filter of some kind. Although the ranking dip hasnt been major, 3-15 places, its enough for a substantial loss in traffic.
The question is whether to act now or not to panic and wait it out some. The sensible thing is to wait out and work out what has happened. I wouldnt mind if the serps with this change had got better, they haven't however and some large quality sites have been replaced with scrapers and sites of much less an authority/expert status. Hopefully Google will sort things out shortly. Research so far has indicated the travel and financial themes have been hit but I suspect it is a filter for all competitive terms. Interestingly on the sites I checked, it is only certain keyword terms affected, so it could be that
a. The pages for those terms use templates where the keyword density is too high or
b. There is a change on how internal linking structure is weighted (more internal links for some pages keyword phrase templates than others).
Another possibility may be that many incoming links are still showing on google but have lost all weighting (footer links most likely).
In the next few days things sahould be clearer.
PS. I wanted to open a new thread on this Wednesdays major change in serps (I think it deserves it and weve had to go off topic here) but it didnt seem to get past the pre-moderation for some inexplicable reason or hasnt been reviewed yet, one of the two.
| 7:31 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I was about to post that I was seeing no changes, but had a quick look to see what had changed since yesterday..
First keyword I checked - The usual suspects are all there.
Second keyword- More than half the listing on the first page are from low quality sites of the type I last saw during Florida. I'm all right, I'm still there.
Third - About half the "good" sites have been replaced by pages from big "outsider" sites. I'm still there thank goodness.
OK. This is starting to remind me of the situation around Florida. Anyone else seeing the similarities?
| 7:42 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|OK. This is starting to remind me of the situation around Florida. Anyone else seeing the similarities? |
It is beginning to llok that way.
Something that strikes me is how the changes radiate out through different segments. It seems that my areas of interest are always 2-4 days behind in showing changes from when the posts first start showing up on these boards.
Anyone else seen that pattern of SERP shifts across market segments? Any theories of what is behind it?
| 8:01 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Its amazing our revenue pages have been battered 66% reduction in traffic with an obviousley larger loss in converions while our vital stats pages that run adsense are holding their positions #1 #2 #3 quite niceley.But google wouldnt do that i hear the cry.
MY ARSE THEY WOULDNT
| 9:34 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm also seeing a big downturn in google traffic. Tues was down but not drastically. Yesterday, traffic from google was down about 25% from recent Wednesday stats.
Traffic on certain pages is way down (and keywords for those pages have moved way down in SERPs) but traffic on other pages holding steady - with keywords holding their positions. Just checked a sampling of pages.
| 10:25 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Would I be right in saying that those that have seen major drops have over say 200 pages on their site?
| 10:49 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Would I be right in saying that those that have seen major drops have over say 200 pages on their site?"
| 11:19 pm on Aug 26, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have not seen any significant loss of traffic - we dropped a single position for the term I am competitive for and most want to land solidly but had only gained that spot within the last week. In some cases I lost a second result on a handful of terms we do well with but nothing major. My industry is not adwords intensive - our "seo spam" is generally companies who sell businesses like mine customer RFQs (with my widgets said quotes pay better then adwords would).
What is curious to me is how so many can be down and no-one is up - though I dont have a firsthand knowledge of serps that have shifted significantly you would think some webmasterworld member would have ridden the tide to glory but all this thread concerns is 25-75% loss, or break even, and that almost unanimously. My $.02 says that there is something going on in a larger perspective. Even Florida had those who survived and improved - generally they were the ones bucking the recipricol trend and concentrating on quality anchors from good sites ala hilltop.
I dont think we can chalk this up to adwords spam - there are to many practitioners who frequent WW. Either the gains are exclusivly being made by presences too large to hobnob with us little folk (which presumably would result in less complaining about the degredation of SERPS) or there is some larger patter to internet traffic or google traffic as a whole that we have yet to observe.
(Incedentally how is it that we get a 20 page thread on the next visible update every frickin' month?)
| This 233 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 233 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 8 ) > > |