Google's job isn't to be fair to everyone. It's to deliver good search results for the user. (Which isn't to say that loading the SERPs with pages from huge e-commerce, directory, or affiliate sites is good for the user.)
|Just as Yahoo has retained positions previous to this recent Algo change, while everyone else gets screwed. |
Everyone else hasn't been screwed. :-)
"That would be penalized faster than ...for everyone else..."
Huh? Yahoo has a travel page. It ranks third. What are you complaining about?
One of my major traffic pages came back today, to the first page of results, number 9 position, little lower than it used to be, but it's back! I am not that happy though, I know it might go away again.
Bad news is that the number 10 position is occupied by a site on a free server that has nothing to it, it's bad, pr0, no back links, dumb design, etc. I have never seen anything like this before. Not on the first page of results for a good traffic phrase anyway...
|Huh? Yahoo has a travel page. It ranks third. What are you complaining about? |
actually yahoo has some 6,200,000 or so... travel pages...
I think the Google people are more then fair- and they are only trying to offer a better, more accurate service. Better service = better revenue and happier stake holders. Most of the people complaining here probably published their first site in 2002 or later. Many of us have been managing CONTENT sites for 5, 6, 7 years...LONGER...since the web was born! Playing by the rules, building the network affect, filling a niche, etc. THOSE ARE THE SITES I AM FINDING NOW. This isn't an easy task (building a network of users) and Google SHOULD BE paying attention to those sites.
Placing a product feed on your template site isn't gonna cut it anymore. SO Deal with it. Enough with long-winded theories and bad talking these people.
To get good results on the most powerful and innovative engine in the world is going to take time, and I don't mean 12 months. I know many of you don't want to read these words but suck it up, put in the time, and be patient. That's your only choice at this point.
|I donít think optimizing sites in order to gain free traffic that can be monetized is a bad business model at all. |
It is if it's your ONLY marketing channel. There are SO MANY unexploited ways of garnering RELIABLE targeted traffic that utilizing SEO alone is ont only folly, it is leaving alot of money on the table.
|The challenge is that Google commands the lionís share of organic traffic, thatís just the way it is, so here we are. |
I think a more accurate statement is that google commands the lion's share of organic SEARCH traffic. Alot of organic traffic can be had via articles, press releases, and even college kids (or substitiue your niche market) blogging about your site. Hell, we get over a grand a month in sales from kids blogging to other kids about our stuff.
jgbmarc, you are right. If you have a website built in 1998 chances are you are treated as an 'authority' by Google. The competitor that outranks our 150 page site has built their 5 page site in 1998 and has a premier position on Google. The twist is - they did not update their 5 page site since 1998. Speak about 'all the work' that they put in...
>It is if it's your ONLY marketing channel. There are SO MANY unexploited ways of garnering RELIABLE targeted traffic that utilizing SEO alone is ont only folly, it is leaving alot of money on the table.
I have to agree. If you are running an e-commerce site, traffic from the natural Google SERPs should just be considered icing on the cake. Any businessman who relied on me or any other SEO to keep the traffic rolling in would be a fool. (And, I'd say any SEO who claimed that he could keep the traffic rolling in is either lying to his clients, or a fool, and should be avoided like the plague.) And for any webmaster who does his own SEO and is relying on his "skill" to keep the business going should immediately fire himself as the company SEO, and find someone who actually knows about Internet marketing. In web marketing, putting all of one's eggs in the same basket is folly. Diversity is the key in Internet marketing.
My business plan relies heavily on se traffic to thrive and I don't see a problem with that. Diversifiacation, as others have said, is the key. However, it is possible to diversify and still rely on search engines. For instance, my plan relies on multitudes of keywords, different engines, and multiple sites within multiple subjects. It's all white hat so banning isn't really a concern. Another important part is that I don't have to be tops for any keyphrases, just rank in the top twenty.
Having said all that, the sandbox is hurting severely because in effect, it is a ban. But it's only one engine and as the others come along, it is becoming less of an issue.
i'm still seeing the total number of results for a site: search changing as well as the total number of results for several keyword phrases...
|If you have a website built in 1998 chances are you are treated as an 'authority' by Google. |
Are you sure of this or might it just be an older site has had longer to get natural inbound links just by being there so long?
I have an older site and a year or so we were penalized. I think they just dropped some of the old links but I'm not sure. Now there doesn't seem to be any advantage at all.
Google update called "scrooge"?
Is this a joke? There is nothing official stated anywhere...
That 1998 story can be true, before we started our website earlier this year, my friend had a website at geocities started in 1996 about the same widget. Between 2001 and the moment we started he did never update his site. When i noticed that the old site was ranking high on many keywords, we decided to remove all content and place a Logo of our new site included by a link (redirect was not possible).
Strange thing is that its still ranking high on many searches, but the strange thing is that the content was removed about 8 months ago!
Is google still dancing? Are the results that google is showing right now permanent? What does everyone think?
I've noticed a couple of things while analyzing the new results that google is showing at the moment.
1) It seems that pages/sites that don't have the exact keyword match in the title are ranking higher than the ones that do have the exact keyword match in the title.
2) Google is rankings sites higher if they have heavy on-page optimization, if the keyword appears 8+ times on the page.
3) Meta tags are becoming more important again?
This are some of the things I noticed, not sure if any of that is right or not, but if this is the new google algo then the on-page optimization are affected rather than external factors such as how old the site is and how many links it has pointing to it.
What have you guys observed so far?
I just noticed something odd in the last couple of days. When I did a search for my site, G had 2850 results. Then a couple of days ago that number dropped to 2620. Yesterday it dropped to 2500. Today it's at 2420.
OMG! I have a small site on Geocities that I have never been able to get them to take down. I got messed up on the password when Yahoo bought them. It wouldn't let me use my old Yahoo ID so I set up a new one and have never been able to get them to give me the ID and password. I thought it was long gone by now but just searched a word that is unusual enough to rate well and it's still there and rates # 2 for the word and has a PR4.
It hasn't been changed for years for obvious reasons and even though it is a niche word the page is still competing with 3,740 other pages with the word. Aaaacccchhhh! It bugs the heck out of me that they won't take it down. Some of the info is repeated on one of my sites and it probably looks like duplicate content. Back before Yahoo bought Geocities they took down abandoned sites. Can anyone remember when Yahoo took over? That would give us a date. I'm thinking it was around 1998.
I don't know if itdoes so well in the serps because it's old or if it's that Geocities brings some PR or other ranking.
Another one that's a mystery to me.