homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.224.202.109
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
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 1014 message thread spans 34 pages: < < 1014 ( 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 34 > >     
My site has been First Now vanished from Google
My site has been the first of its kind, I drop off Google
sabine7777




msg:760006
 6:35 am on Sep 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

For the past year I have experienced periodically being completely dropped off Google. My site has been the FIRST of its kind and is in all the natural search results on the first spot. I'm just a small business, but since spet of 2004 I have been vanishing off of Google every 6 weeks or so--recently it has been more often and for longer periods. Does Google discriminate against Older sites? Are they doing it so that we will advertise with them? Any help, advice, comment from a desperate single mother of 4!

 

disspy




msg:760516
 12:57 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry, but anyway it's intresting and I couldn't paste so big article because of copyrights, or?

However, this guys showed just a little bit different view of current things right now, don't you think so?

AndyA




msg:760517
 12:57 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Every result page I see on there I find myself wondering what great sites must be missing through erroneous and OTT filtration.
My thoughts exactly!
stargeek




msg:760518
 1:01 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

"OTT filtration"

what do you mean by this?

patc




msg:760519
 1:02 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

OTT = Over The Top
OTT Filtration = Too many arbitrary filters.

stargeek




msg:760520
 1:41 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ahh, normally I use OOP for Over Optimization Penalty.
err but you mean something else, which i understand.
i should read slower before i post.

ramachandra




msg:760521
 1:52 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

One of my site pages showing as supplemental results except index page and cache date showing January 2005.

What happen to Google Index showing the supplemental pages which do exists, pages not having any duplicate content, well inter-linked.

reseller




msg:760522
 1:56 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Salon99

>>The reason in our opinion is that it is not an update - it is the introduction of a new filter, and the subsequent application of a penalty to all sites that attract that filter.<<

If that was the case, then it should have been very easy for GoogleGuy or Matt Cutts to explain or deal with instead of keeping silent. They just need to post ONE LINE... something like this:

------------------------------------------
Folks! we are not updating, but have just applied few filters.
------------------------------------------

Right?

ltedesco




msg:760523
 1:57 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

What happen to Google Index showing the supplemental pages which do exists, pages not having any duplicate content, well inter-linked.

I heard that if you have same title and description on several pages, Google will consider duplicate content, maybe it could be your case.

soapystar




msg:760524
 1:58 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

edit

djmick200




msg:760525
 2:15 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I heard that if you have same title and description on several pages, Google will consider duplicate content, maybe it could be your case.

In my sector this is definately not the case. sites of hundreds of pages with the same titles and descriptions. One in particular ranking #1 for a keyphrase i follow.

Salon99




msg:760526
 2:21 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

"If that was the case, then it should have been very easy for GoogleGuy or Matt Cutts to explain or deal with instead of keeping silent."

Having just searched on "GoogleGuy" (not using Google BTW) and read a number of his posts, the opposite appears to be the case: he seems ready to discuss "updates" but not so ready to discuss "filters" or other algorithmic details.

And surely no rational update could sensibly not rank us highly for processes we have invented. An out of control unbalanced penalty filter though?

Whatever it is, we are moving now beyond Google, having come to terms with this madness. If they want to exclude a site like ours, so be it.

ramachandra




msg:760527
 2:24 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>I heard that if you have same title and description on several pages, Google will consider duplicate content, maybe it could be your case.

No, all pages have different Title and Description and related to the page content, its plain html pages no dynamic pages used.

pescatore




msg:760528
 2:34 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google the spammers heaven SE

web_24_7




msg:760529
 2:36 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

The silence from the inner circle is deafening.

Its like they have agreed to be silent on this 'update'

Look at how long this thread is..

All the SEO boards are the same - the authority members are not attending - do they not know - or perhaps busy correcting their own serps?

GG and MC where are you when there is an issue to resolve - I know I go to MC's Blog and see nothing but diversions?

No-one has to admit to the screw up just tell us if its an update, roll-back or clean-up?

Ruben




msg:760530
 2:37 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yesterday site:mysite.com showed a lot of result, today it only shows crap from a year or so ago. What is going on?

stargeek




msg:760531
 2:50 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Having just searched on "GoogleGuy" (not using Google BTW) and read a number of his posts, the opposite appears to be the case: he seems ready to discuss "updates" but not so ready to discuss "filters" or other algorithmic details."

I've noticed a similar pattern.
He doesn't comment (At least not untill years after the fact) on "real" things, like bugs (unless its to deny them), filters, the sandbox and anything else that really matters. so when a lot of noise appears and he doesn't comment, its just as good as a confirmation from him. If it wasn't the case he'd just come out and deny it.

europeforvisitors




msg:760532
 2:53 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

The reason in our opinion is that it is not an update - it is the introduction of a new filter, and the subsequent application of a penalty to all sites that attract that filter.

It isn't that simple. Consider:

The number #1 result for one of my major keyphrases (where a guidebook publisher and I have been playing leapfrog with the #1 and #2 positions for much of 2005) is now from an "open source" site with very little content on the topic that wasn't even in the top 10 results until now. If a filter were all that had changed, the site wouldn't have risen to the top unless the sites immediately below it had been filtered from the index (which isn't the case).

Granted, that's just one example of a change that can't be explained by a filter, but it is an example.

There's a tendency here for members to assume that one factor or another is responsible for all their troubles or joys. IMHO, blaming a white-hat site's loss of rankings (or disappearance from the index) on a filter is likely to be an oversimplification when Google's "100 factors" can interact in so many different ways.

wiseapple




msg:760533
 3:04 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am monitoring the following problem:

I ran into this on Matt Cutt's blog.
---------------------------------------------------
The only things we can think of (since we don’t use any black hat SEO) is:

1.) We use titles and descriptions in our sub sections to introduce contents of our articles which is the same as the title and description on the top of our articles and related articles as well as the meta title and descritpion.
---------------------------------------------------

I am monitoring many sites with that use this same structure that have all been dropped way down in the serps. I have the feeling that these sites also suffer from a great deal of scraping. Therefore, Google has dropped the sites along with the scraper sites. It can no longer tell the difference between the real site and the scraper sites.

soapystar




msg:760534
 3:21 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

EFV
if filter=0 brings back the usual serps then indeed it is a filter and not the 100 ranking points. Its a demotion penalty but of course not applied in such a linear way that you drop x points. The filter seems to be aimed at several factors, none of which are about relevancy or content. Its about whether youve hit their pattern of markers for spam.

JuniorOptimizer




msg:760535
 3:33 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm so upset I couldn't even read Matt Cutt's "Fun with Zip Codes" article, and usually something like that perks me right up.

I agree that this smells like a stinking sitewide spam filter and I resent the fact that a site with 248 original 300 word essays would be considered spam by anyone. Add to that 2,500 individual backlinks and I should be collecting my dough in peace. The funny thing is, my revenue is not down anywhere near it could be based on traffic figures. At least the Yahoo and MSN is traffic. And bless MSN's little heart because they are at least sending a visitor every 5 minutes or so whereas Google has slowed down to about 1 every 8 hours.

poppymccool




msg:760536
 3:38 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Wiseapple - That would suck if using the same words in the Title, Keywords and on the Page were penalized. That's simply good html so that your information can be found!

On a search engine you often get only the title, so for an article the title should be there.

If the title of your article is NOT keywords, then why is it the title of the article?

And how can you not put a title at the top of the page?

The reason why this helps you with Google is because they used to reward good design. If they are penalizing this now then the whole world is upside down.

wiseapple




msg:760537
 3:50 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>if filter=0 brings back the usual serps then indeed it is a filter and not the 100 ranking points.

I can confirm this. If we use the filter command, everything returns back to normal. Pages that are in the hundreds return back to top ten. Whats up? Anyone have any good ideas?

modemmike




msg:760538
 4:07 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Anyone else's index count jump *again* over night? I must have been real busy in my sleep adding another 150 pages. I have even added noindex, nofollow to pages that could be adding to the bloated count (dynamic pages with dynamic links etc...)

Being that my site is no where to be found in the index at this time, do you think it would be even more damaging to block my images folder from Google or better yet do a frames breaker? All of my Google hits are coming to my images and it's really just fanning the flames of my frustration to see all of that bandwidth being consumed without a second look at my worth while content.

I also want to use the removal tool to wipe out my old domain but from what I'm readking and learning is that the removal tool doesn't work either.

I think this year I will send my kids out trick-or-treating as Google being that it's the scariest monster I know of, ROTFLMAO!

wiseapple




msg:760539
 4:18 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Things I learned from being in this situation for about 7 months.

- Do not use the removal tool. Better to 404 the pages or use the "noindex" meta-tag. Removal tool hides things. They will just reappear in the index in six months to haunt. I also have the sneaking feeling that even if you use the removal tool - these pages can still count against you.

- Make sure to do you 301 non-www to www (or vice-versa).

- Check for bad outgoing links on you site. Bad people buy up expired domains often and turn what was a good neighborhood into a bad one.

- Use Xenu to look for broken links, etc. Correct these issues.

- Look for any blatant issues. These can be found in the Google web guidelines.

If all the above is correct and your site seems clean. Wait it out.

disspy




msg:760540
 4:44 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Guys,

This has nothing to do with your optimization. Google is just screwed up. There's no logical pattern to say anything. Now searching with Google you can find SERPs with old cloacking techniques, old-banned spammer sites and also a lot of dynamic pages with "broken links" or no relevant content.

This means Google Guidelines has really nothing to do with this current "update" or how do you want to call it ...

reseller




msg:760541
 5:01 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi Folks

I wish to thank Danny Sullivan for adding to the list of comments of the SearchEngineWatch blog, a reference to my today´s Open Letter to Google Chief Eric Schmidt (with a direct link to our current thread):

Roundup Of Google Size Announcement Coverage
[blog.searchenginewatch.com...]

"Open Letter To Google Chief Eric Schmidt is from WebmasterWorld member reseller who has issues with Google's claims of being larger in terms of "unduplicated" pages. My story above gives examples of how some duplicate pages are already in Google. The complaint in partiular covers the fact that while duplicate pages exist, de-duplication efforts may also remove the original documents from Google, rather than mirrors."

arubicus




msg:760542
 5:10 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Personally I believe the screw up started a year or two ago and it has just progressed from there. At the beginning of this year is where the poo hit the fan and major declines in search quality (ex. Well known authority sites took a nose dive) were VERY evident. Mid summer things started to look up again but still not a vast improvement to want to consider Google as the highest quality SE (my opinion). I think now Google has put itself in a VERY close race with Yahoo with what has been happening in Googles results. Google is now showing more junk in its results for the hundreds of keywords I follow than I have ever seen (Even Yahoo does not show crap this bad). This opinion of mine is not base any on what has happened to our major site. It is just an un-biased opinion of quality.

Now for a biased opinion:

To say that my site is out and this other junk is considered higher "quality" is almost saying that a Fillet Mignon is of lower quality than a Mc hamburger. To keep the analogy going the Fillet was prepared according to the quality and health guidelines and the hamburger was not cooked at all, thrown on the floor, spat on, smashed on the bun, and served up under a pile of trash fixins.

taps




msg:760543
 5:27 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

wiseapple

yep, the removal console is quite dangerous. I made a change in robots.txt after removing the old stuff. And after that change Googlebot came along crawling duplicates again.

This will not happen again. This time I use robots.txt and .htaccess to block the dupe files...

texasville




msg:760544
 5:39 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, something is definitely happening for me. My site that has been sandboxed forever has just made an appearance. It's now in the top 300 for several key phrases. While that doesn't sound so good, it is the first time in the top 1000 for anything but very obscure searches that returned only 200 results or less. Here is hoping that it is on the way up.

stargeek




msg:760545
 6:12 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

texasville: on what IPs?

Iguana




msg:760546
 6:22 pm on Sep 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Aug 10 2004
Aug 25 2004
Sept 23 2004
Dec 16 2004
Feb 01 2005
(some others here but I don't have dates)
July 22 2005
and now Sep 20 2005

These were all dates when Google applied their Filter Updates (Allegra was also an algo update). Some sites dropped out of sight, some reappeared.

I'm very tempted to say "where have you all been for the last year?". There have been threads that have discussed this phenomena after each filter update. I don't think anyone has figured out exactly what the filter is (we all have our pet theories) but every thread has talked about the devastation to traffic of dropping 100+ places even on your sites own name.

If this is the first time you have been hit then you have been very lucky up until now. Some of us have been buried for a long time and have come back into Google over the past few filter updates. Whether our re-appearance is related to whatever actions we have taken is uncertain.

This 1014 message thread spans 34 pages: < < 1014 ( 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 34 > >
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