homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.145.172.149
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 1225 message thread spans 41 pages: < < 1225 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 41 > >     
Dealing with the consequences of Bourbon Update
Which changes has Bourbon brought about & How to deal with them?
reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 3:41 pm on Jun 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Assuming that the greatest part of of the latest Google update (Bourbon) is completed, its rather important to do some damage assessments, study the changes brought about by Bourbon and suggest ways to deal with them.

We need to keep this thread focused on the followings:

- Changes on your own site ranking on the serps (lost & gained positions or disappearance of the site).

- Changes you have noticed on the new serps (both google.com and your local google site) especially in regards to the nature of the top 10 or 20 ranking sites.

- Stability of the serps. I.e do you get the same serps when you run the same query within the same day or 2-3 successive days (both google.com and your local google site).

- Effective ethical measures to deal with the above mentioned changes.

Thanks.

 

Ivan_Bajlo

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 1:58 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think people are getting a little strange/paranoid suggesting Google dropping sites or rank penalizing sites that use tables vs CSS positioning. Now you "can" position your text so it's read first with CSS/DIV and that's what you may be seeing....hehe

I've recently changed my main page from table to CSS layout. Once Bourbon hit my domain name (keyword usually used in two-three word searches) is still in its second place but if I try search for my "domain.tld" aka my trademark every page that links to me (Wiki, DMOZ, Alexa etc.) pushes my website down to page 6 in search results!?

Similarly numerous other unique content of my site is pushed down by sites that have link to me (not scrapers)!?

I'm going nuts here.

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 2:02 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)


"There are STILL no commonalities to the sites removed"

Every single one mentioned here (that I've seen) has canonical issues. Not a single problem site has been mentioned that does all the "canonical protection"(tm) tactics Google Guy outlined. The folks believing this is a coincidence ought to give that up by now, and figure out that "how to deal with them" means making your sites as friendly to Googlebot as possible

Steve, I think that's one of my quotes. I mentioned before, I guess you missed it, that I ran all the sites on the first few pages of G SERP's through the header check for their www and non www versions and they HAVE these canonical problems (if that's to what you are referring). I haven't found one that directs one URL prefix to the other. Www and non-www both show as that in the address bar at their sites. It hasn't hurt them any. I however fixed this on my sites anyway. I'm also still seeing duplicate pages in the G SERP's. (Indented page below previous page in the results).

There is no way to make a site "friendly to googlebot" since no one knows just how to do that anymore. :( G is not obeying THEIR OWN TOS on their 'info for webmasters' page. As I have repeatedly pointed out, top positions are link farms, link exchange pages, sites with hidden text, etc. So, if we want to make our sites friendly to the Gbot, then now that's apparently what we need to do!

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 2:16 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

the conditions I mention are kind of wide - most people on this board probably meet them if they have tried to increase their link power and have more than one domain. Sadly, serious spammers (rather than naive, tinkering webmasters like me) will avoid the conditions because they have always known about registering domains under different names and how to spread the link amongst many sites.

Iguana, someone that did an article on the "New Google Algorithm" and I THINK, mentioned something about domain name registering and the names used. Using differnt names is against the TOS of registrars, so how can we avoid that by using different names for our domains? (What the hell business is it of G anyway? I'm sure Millions worldwide have different domains).

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 2:29 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Billy, a follow-up on your post and mine on the G IP's:
216.239.37.104 and 216.239.59.104 say I DON'T EVEN EXIST. I search for mydomain.com and get "Sorry, no information is available for the URL mydomain.com". Yet, when I do a site:mydomain.com they are showing close to the same amount of pages as google.com here and the other google IP!

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 2:37 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>"Do most people who run multiple sites in same broad industry here use false WHOIS info? Could this simple 2 minute fix be preventative for this sort of drop with future sites I build? Any downfalls to false whois info? Or changing whois info? "<<

Alphacooler, this is supposed to be against the TOS of domain registars. Now many DO do it, as I've found out when reporting spammers that attack my business, and usually the jerk registars couldn't care less. However, they are within their rights as stated on their TOS agreement that they can delete a domain that's found to be using false whois info. So it's certainly not something I want to mess with.

I'd still like for someone to explain to me what the hell business is this of Google anyway? Now that's going too far...as if they haven't gone far enough already. This is yet another asinine thing. Of course if they DO NOT penalize for having more than one domain registered to you, this is all a moot point.

RS_200_gto

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 2:42 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Our internal back links are missing in the SERP's and searching by our own title using two or three keyword, or by the full description we should rank closely to the top including our own sitemap should be ranked at the top. No such luck in Google's algorithm!

Google's competition -
Found by Ask Jeeves/Teoma (1), Gigablast (1), MSN (1), Yahoo (1), Netscape (1), AltaVista/AllTheWeb (1), WiseNut (1), LookSmart (2)

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 2:49 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

RS_200_gto, and whomever posted this:
<added for your amusement> I just tried the same search in Yahoo and was gratified to see that my site was #1 in the serps. Behind it, of course, was the list of scraper sites. Wow, My site is ahead of them in MSN too!

This is what most have been saying since day one of these update threads. Most (if not all) still hold their same positions on every other SE (except for AOL and NS which horrifyingly use G's feed). I'm still 1st on the 1st page in all other SE's for dozens and dozens of search phrases, and at worse, no worse than the 3rd page. Again, this is of little consolation when the overwhelming majority of SE users use Google, AOL and Netscape.

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 3:07 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi Clint

>Reseller and Will, if this is the case then this would mean that G is penalizing entire domains, and NOT just their webPAGES. This would also indicate that it apparently has nothing to do with the content on the trashed domain if you can move the content over to a different domain and then it rises in the G SERP's! Or, maybe the (obviously "objectionable") content by the Googlebot just hasn't penalized the new domain yet? This is an interesting area here. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else has moved their slammed site to another domain and what the results were. Also indicate if the IP of the domain is the same.<

Its for sure very interesting area, that we all need to study further.

I guess many fellow members sites have been penalized for one reason or several reasons that triggered a filter or filters by mistake. Its those sites which might get the benefit of moving their contents to fresh domains.

[edited by: reseller at 3:18 pm (utc) on June 12, 2005]

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 3:18 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dude, read the posts, at least several pages. If I had to subtitle the Part 4 thread I would call it "Victims of the Google update: compare our sites to find commonalities; compare sites affected and sites NOT affected to find commonalities; and discuss what we can do about it".

I understand what you are saying, but you cannot compare your site to mine in this update IMHO. Every niche has different sites that remain or have risen - the only factor I see is "age". You are beating your head against the wall and chasing your tail if you compare 20 sites that are all in different niches and trying to find the common factor of why they were dropped (in this update anyways). Much better to compare the common denominators on those that are still in.

That's for sure, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Everyone is "beating our heads against the wall" here. ;) But unfortunately this is still all we can do, compare what has happened, and I for one HAVE been comparing sites that are still in and they are all totally and completely different.....with one exception; and that is very few of them, and NONE in some searches, have anything to do with the search phrase.


Again, this is not an update that one can say, "large sites are doing better", "white-hat SEO is doing better","black-hat SEO is doing better", "small sites are doing better", "keyword density has changed", "h2's are doing better than h1's", "# of backlinks"etc. etc. etc.....

That's basically what I've been saying, no commonalities other than, again, very few of the sites in the results, (and NONE in some searches), have anything to do with the search phrase. I have however noticed (as I indicated in a post earlier today) that it appears keyword density (as in the number of times the search phrase appears on the page) does indeed seem to be now the "fewer the better". Also in the phrases I've been monitoring, many in the top positions are using blackhat techniques.


That common factor I am seeing is age....period. Meaning I am seeing large topic themed sites doing well, whitehat/blackhat techniques doing well, single page sites doing well, less/more # of backlinks, single pages on off-topic sites doing well, pages MIA doing well etc. The only factor they have in common is they are all the oldest sites/pages taking the top positions. Now, I am not saying this is the rule across everyone's niches, only this is what I'm seeing.

The age factor reasons well with the sandbox effect also. I started a site in a very new industry and escaped the sandbox with it ranking very well on a 4 letter single word. Why did it rank well out of the gate - the reasoning I'm seeing as all sites/pages on this topic are NEW.

I'm not sure how to check the age of sites, but FTR, my main site that was trashed is about 8 years old. 3 of my NEWER sites (totally unrelated field), GOT BETTER in the G-ranks! With one of them still 1st on the 1st page! Recently the other 2 sites have also plummeted into the G quagmire, leaving on the 1 in the 1st position in its search field.

In my case, the only commonalities I've seen with my sites is the ones that have been slammed, ARE ON THE SAME IP ADDRESS.....

Main site 1 - Trashed
Main site 2 - Trashed (same field but a dedicated product)
Site 3 - Unrelated, tiny one page site with 2 links pages, got better in the update, then dropped.
Site 4 - Same as 3
Site 5 - Same as 3 & 4, but got better in the update and is STILL 1st on the 1st page.

In this list, sites 1-4 are on the same IP and hosts. Site 5 is on a different IP and different hosts. Does that mean anything to anyone? Is anyone else in a similar position?

reseller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 3:26 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint

>In this list, sites 1-4 are on the same IP and hosts. Site 5 is on a different IP and different hosts. Does that mean anything to anyone? Is anyone else in a similar position?<

Are those sites all registered in your name (WHOIS domain register)?

Sites 1-4 are they cross-linked by anyway.

Any of sites 1-4 link to site 5?

arran

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 3:32 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

In my case, the only commonalities I've seen with my sites is the ones that have been slammed, ARE ON THE SAME IP ADDRESS.....

Are any of these sites interlinked?

kevinpate

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 3:34 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

> In this list, sites 1-4 are on the same IP and hosts

Maybe I'm overly dense, but 4 impacted sites on one host and IP tanked, and one site separate rose, all sites built by one person? That seems fairly significant, not a coinkidink at all. Perhaps your problem lays with Spud and his neigbors, not with Bob the Builder.

sblake

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 3:53 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

One commonality for an area I monitor:

Many of the sites that were adversely affected have a high keyword density for a commercial word or phrase, for example: "PayPal" or "buyer". Similar sites on the same domain without high keyword density for those terms weren't affected.

sailorjwd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 3:58 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Since most of my pages got indexed lately I was poking around Google search to see if I would rank for anything.

Found mysite on one obscure keyword phrase and happened to look at a few pages above me. The one directly above me oddly had nothing to do with the search terms - I looked at the cache of the page and it was MY PAGE!

Looked at another site above me and peeked at the cache - full screen of black on black keywords.

I did my 1st two spam reports.

This is the first time I've said this: Google is broken

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 4:34 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Reseller, Arran and Kevin:

Clint
>In this list, sites 1-4 are on the same IP and hosts. Site 5 is on a different IP and different hosts. Does that mean anything to anyone? Is anyone else in a similar position?<

Are those sites all registered in your name (WHOIS domain register)?

Sites 1-4 are they cross-linked by anyway.

Any of sites 1-4 link to site 5?

No, let's call sites 3 & 4 the same here to make things easier. Site 1 (main domain) is a private registration, none of the registrant data can be seen on it. My personal name is only seen on site 2, 3 (or 4 but NOT both) & site 5 (the one that got better). So that means my name is on 3 sites. My street address, city & state is seen on all (except again for site 1).

In my case, the only commonalities I've seen with my sites is the ones that have been slammed, ARE ON THE SAME IP ADDRESS.....

Are any of these sites interlinked?

They are ALL linked to each other. On the 3 tiny sites, there's a "site maintained by" sort of thing that goes to my main site. On site 2 (business related) there are links to go to my main site for order tracking, and things like that. Each site has identical or almost identical "links" pages. I thought this could have been relevant, but it's not since site 5 (the one that got better) as I just indicated has the exact same links pages, and is very similar to sites 3 & 4 in its layout and linking structure. Also I should point out again that sites that link to me (and I *DO* link to them) are the sites that are now showing top spots in the G SERP's for many of my once-first-place search phrases. So, the link exchanges have HELPED them.


> In this list, sites 1-4 are on the same IP and hosts


Maybe I'm overly dense, but 4 impacted sites on one host and IP tanked, and one site separate rose, all sites built by one person? That seems fairly significant, not a coinkidink at all. Perhaps your problem lays with Spud and his neigbors, not with Bob the Builder.

Yes, were all done by me. So what are you saying, it's the IP given by my hosts that's blacklisted? That "could" mean something, but remember that 2 of the sites on the same IP ROSE in the ranks. But they did fall again where they remain. I would have thought that if it were IP related, they would never have risen in the first place. I just checked and one of the tiny sites on the same IP is on the 3rd page, still a rise from where it was pre May 21st, but down from the 1st page where it was about 2 weeks ago. When the site first came out, and years after, it was on the 1st page for years. The same can be said for the other tiny site on the same IP. Then (I can't recall when) it got DUMPED maybe a year or so ago (along with the other THREE small sites). So, it's still showing a decent spot right now in G. The other tiny site on the same IP can't be found out to page 10! Then I stopped looking.

Again, I can't see how this is related to linking technique/structure, layout, nor to whom I am linked since site 5 IS the same as 3 & 4 and it is 1st. The only difference is IP address. BTW, I think I did find out about some other sites on my server with the same IP (my hosts said it was about 100 but the jerks wouldn't tell me any of them!), and I checked those sites, did some searches at G for words found in their title or webpage, and they DID show high in the G results! So, apparently there goes that theory of related IP's. Unless, it has to do with related IP's of sites that LINK TO EACH OTHER.?

This is still ridiculous because what the hell could be wrong with one's sites linking to each other? I find it most difficult to fathom that G would think this was bad! What's wrong with something like: "See our other websites here".

I did, about a week or so ago, blocked the googlebot from my links pages (just 2 of them) on my MAIN site for whatever that's worth. I put the noindex nofollow googlebot bit in the <head> tag.

Atticus



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 4:46 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

That whole nofollow tag is one of the things that makes me feel that G is broken, or that the core philosophy has failed.

Links were supposed to be 'democratic' votes. Some people used links to game the system. So now, we are supposed to use nofollow to show that we are not trying to game the system.

End result being that links that should count as 'democratic' votes (because they have been proved to be non-spam via using nofollow) are not counted because they use nofollow.

It's the kind of thing that would make a Palm Beach election board proud.

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 4:46 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Billy, I sent you a PM earlier today on that tool you mentioned to check for Google penalties. (You may want to ask a mod if you can post that since it no doubt is a VERY VERY useful thing we can all use).

Iguana

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 4:54 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry, I've been away writing content so I'm a bit behind so there's a couple of questions from reseller and Clint regarding domain registration.

I did some tests in the middle of last year to assess the power of links from various satellite sites to my main site using a band name consisting of two very unusual words - and produced some content purporting to be reviews of various albums by this imaginary band. To my surprise I found that when searching for just one of the unusual words the two links that same up in the top 10 were from a Geocities site I have (in the ODP) and a 10 page lyric site on my ISP webspace. My link from my respected review site produced a SERPS position from #70 to #140. So Google figured out my review site was related to the bigger site and adjusted the power of the link accordingly (by the way, they are on different IPs).

So, either this was due to the fact that there were other links to the same site on the page or the identical domain registration.

I don't think there is any harm in front page links between your own sites (and that is normally more powerful in PR terms than all the inside page links put together). But if you are going to massively interlink then Domain registration details will get you penalised quickly. But, I also think that if you are going to massively interlink from any site to another then Google will get you. Your only chance would be to have a big directory style site and dilute your links to your own site within links to authority sites.

I relied on the fact that my sites were all well themed and in a very similar area and I could easily justify the way I linked. But, looking at purely the pattern, I could see that from the outside (an algo) it was pretty close to a spam network. As I said before, I also checked out two other very well respected sites hit recently and I could easily see how the pattern of linking from other domains under the same ownerships could be regard as a match to 'spam networks'.

arran

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 4:57 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

It's possible google has flagged your network of sites due to interlinking on the same IP and somehow only given credit to site 5. Is site 5 older? Does it have more quality inbounds?

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 5:12 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Arran, I assume you are talking to me.....

It's possible google has flagged your network of sites due to interlinking on the same IP and somehow only given credit to site 5. Is site 5 older? Does it have more quality inbounds?

I mentioned site 5 has the same links, but I don't know how to check "inbound" links, is that "link:domain-name.com"? If so, G only shows ONE site linked to it! That is sooo far off target! There should be AT LEAST 5, plus I know of at least a dozen others linking to it! It's also incorrect for the other 3 tiny domains, one also shows only ONE link, and the others show only 3!

I don't recall its age, the 3 tiny sites are all at least 4 years old.

That "interlinking on the same IP" could mean something, that's why I mentioned: So, apparently there goes that theory of related IP's. Unless, it has to do with related IP's of sites that LINK TO EACH OTHER.?

Iguana

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 5:15 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint, I think my question would be have you during the past year had pages on any of your sites that have a lot of links to any one of your other sites? And also have you had links on every page to one or more of your other sites? That would imply a 'network', in terms of what I am thinking about.

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 5:15 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>That "interlinking on the same IP" could mean something, that's why I mentioned: So, apparently there goes that theory of related IP's. Unless, it has to do with related IP's of sites that LINK TO EACH OTHER.?<<

Well maybe not, I'm forgetting that one of the small non-related sites on the same IP that links to the others still shows good in G.

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 5:21 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)


Clint, I think my question would be have you during the past year had pages on any of your sites that have a lot of links to any one of your other sites? And also have you had links on every page to one or more of your other sites? That would imply a 'network', in terms of what I am thinking about.

(Am I the only one here that's FED UP with having to type the 'quote' in brackets all the time or copy and paste it from somewhere? Why the heck is there no "quote" buttons or even BBS codes for that matter?)

Ok, to answer your question....what do you mean by "many"? On my site 2 (business related of another specific product) there are only 4 links from it to my main site. On the other sites there are no more than 2 links TOPS to each of each sites.

Iguana

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 5:28 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Many to me would be more than 10 on a page, so it doesn't support my theory. Have you have www and non-www problems where your non-www pages have links to www pages?

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 5:50 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>Many to me would be more than 10 on a page, so it doesn't support my theory. Have you had www and non-www problems where your non-www pages have links to www pages?<<

I don't use the full paths on my pages, I think you call that "relative links". So if you were at www.mydomain.com or without the www, and clicked a product's info, the HTML code would be "/whatever/product-name.pdf" or whatever and the final path of that shown in the address bar would be the same prefix as the domain. That is no longer the case now since I 301'd my non-www to the www version. In the few areas where I do link to my other sites, of course the full path must be used there, and I DO NOT use the www version. I also recently 301'd my other sites' non-www to www, except for ONE which had a HIGHER PR on the NON-www URL! So, for that one I did the opposite.

Clint



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 5:55 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Does anyone know to what exactly Billy was referring on this page, msg 94 regarding that G penalty tool?
[webmasterworld.com...]

If so, can you please SM the URL to me? I asked him about it an SM, and got a very strange reply back--asking me if *I* knew where the tool was.
Thanks.

activeco

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 6:14 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think he was refering to the special way of searching, by adding parameters like "-asdf" or "-sdf" or even this one: "-sdfsdfq -ddsf -dsfsqdf -dqdfqsdf -dqfsdfqsd -sqdfqsd -sdfsdqfqsdf -sqdfqsdfqs -qsdfqsdf -sdfsqdfqsdf -sqfqsdfqsd -sdfqsdfsq -sdfqsdfsdf -qsdfqsdf". Some say it needs at least 13 instances of such "-" stuff (w/o quotation marks).
It seems searching in this way turns filters and penalties off.
There are even some sites with a search bar set up in this way.

zafile



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 6:42 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Which changes has Bourbon brought about & How to deal with them?"

One of my main sites was 30 plus before Bourbon. After Bourbon, the site is now 100 plus.

The same site fluctuates within the Top 20 in MSN.

I've done an extensive research which I've titled 'Computers and The World Wide Web'. I've concluded MSN has the best search technology (see the URL in profile).

Therefore, if my sites perform well in MSN and not so good in Google, the problem is in Google's end.

Iguana

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 6:45 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint

I had a look at your site and one of the others. I notice that your 'feeder' (ccb) links back to your main site without the www.

Checking for links to the feeder there are a lot from your mail archive where you put both the main and feeder sites links in without the www. A spam network algo might pick up that up the majority of links to the feeder are from a 'possible untrustworthy source'. And it might pick up that the PC mail archive's only external links are to your two sites (and the mail archive pages have reasonable Pagerank).

So, I can see a potential www. problem (well, problem for Google but not the other SEs) and one possible similarity with a 'spam network' pattern of links. But it would be a very severe (and plain 'wrong') algo that flagged you up as suspicious (unless the mail-archive site has been used for previous spamming by others in the way that Geocities site directory has and you have been charged with guilt by association).

From my review, Clint, you're innocent and Google has the problem.

Dayo_UK

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 6:54 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>From my review, Clint, you're innocent and Google has the problem.

Yep - 100% innocent.

*Cough* Any sign of that Canonical URL fix Google? *cough*

annej

WebmasterWorld Senior Member annej us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 29902 posted 6:58 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm now quite certain that the root of my problem with my smaller site is that it has been hijacked. I think it is the root for many of the sites that have been discussed here. It appears to me that in the case of hijacked site google has penalized the whole domain not just individual pages.

Saying that I need to point out that it is not just the fact of being hijacked. I find in that my larger site has not been hurt at all even though it was hijacked by the same domain as the smaller site was. I can see several possible factors why the hijack damaged one while leaving the other unscathed.

The larger site has a great many more good quality incoming links.
The larger site is, well, much larger.
The larger site has better internal linking and navigation.
The larger site uses CSS while the smaller one uses tables

The smaller site must have a greater percentage of incoming scraper links to it's quality related links. I've discovered it has at least a hundred scraper links from made for adsense sites. The big site probably has as many but it has so many more incoming links overall. These incoming links are completly out of our control but they are there and may be considered.

Any or all of these factors might have helped the larger site escape the duplicate penalty while the smaller one got it.

[edited by: annej at 7:00 pm (utc) on June 12, 2005]

This 1225 message thread spans 41 pages: < < 1225 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 41 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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