| 9:43 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The same happened to me.
My directory (honest real human driven directory) losed 45% of traffic (mostly G referr.)
My listings dropped from first pages for some keyword to page 4-6 on July 21st.
I did a lot of things in this period including restyling, www non-www redirection, removed any possible duplicated content, and then filnally last week I wrote to G asking if my site was suffering of a penalization (answer has been negative)
Surprisingly on Sept 21st everything has been restored to pre-bourbon update.
Is this because of a roll-back in the algotythm or really a new index update, or a penalty expiration (exactly 60 days)?
Will this continue or should I expect another sad joke from G soon?
| 9:50 pm on Sep 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The same here.
| 12:56 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Also back, really hope this lasts...
(Scared to add content / improve my site, which I've been neglecting, in case it vanishes again, thanks G)
| 1:19 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
15 sites. One lost all its google traffic, so went from 500 uniques daily to 100 and another dead dumped site went from 20 to 2500 daily...
The rest seem a bit lacking but not hugely.
| 1:27 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
which datacenters are we talking about folks?
| 1:42 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, I'd posted about this as well but it took awhile for my post to get the okay.
Note, my suffering began prior to Bourbon in March of this year. My return the other day occurred exactly 6 months following to the day.
Surely hope things stay this way for awhile!
| 2:03 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|which datacenters are we talking about folks? |
never mind ;o)
| 2:13 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Someone in another thread explained it best. Google decided it didn't trust some sites, and whacked them, and now they've changed how they make that evaluation, and some sites are getting un-whacked. Probably added in some more criteria into the evaluation process...
| 3:23 am on Sep 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One of the sites I lost in Bourbon has came back too, starting on the 22nd. Another has not came back though. I made similar changes to both.
|a very difficult 3 months |
actually, its been 4 months, but difficult - yes!
| 1:47 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So is this not a proper update, instead just a few previously penalised sites making it back?
| 1:55 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
how about update katrina?
and yes it seems to me like a real update, a change in the way the algorithmn values internal vs external links
| 3:01 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've also noticed that it seems to prefer individual pages now rather than the index page...does anyone else see this too?
| 3:28 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I happily report the same.
My rankings, from an honest education site which had great rankings for years are now back. I did nothing to my site in the meantime
I hope this last...
| 4:20 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
[I hope this lasts...]
Sorry to say, I hope this doesn't last! My site has been dropped from a high Google ranking again as of Friday/Saturday. Traffic has disappeared.
I was dropped from Google during Bourbon on May 24, and came back to all original rankings on July 7th. I did not make any drastic changes and received the same reply from Google as others, that there was no penalty on my site.
Now my stats show a drop in Google traffic from 2400 a day to 100, and my income has dropped to 1/3 of my daily average. I have a history site of over 500 pages of historical content in over 50 categories and have been online over 9 years. I have had a high search ranking (1-15) with Google, Yahoo, and MSN for years w/ home page, internal directories and individual pages.
There is no reasonable explanation for this new drop in rankings, except that Google is "up to something" again. I plan on just waiting it out this time and hope it takes less than 6 weeks to return to normal. In the meantime, I intend to channel my frustration into adding new pages; I have added 25 new pages of content in the past two days, so you know how "frustrating" this is!
| 4:37 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"I have added 25 new pages of content in the past two days, so you know how "frustrating" this is! "
banging out any old crap won't help you - you might as well jin the spammers!
| 4:45 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"banging out any old crap won't help you"
leaving out the moralistic tone of the rest of this post.
do you have any evidence that "baning out any old crap" won't in fact help someone?
what differentiates "any old crap" from useful content?
esp if its sophisticated "any old crap" and isn't just strings of keywords.
| 4:57 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
[banging out any old crap won't help you - you might as well jin the spammers! ]
That is an incorrect assumption on your part
... I spent 10 hours a day "banging out" relevant historical content on the Sea Islands Hurricanes of 1893, Antique French Posters and Book Covers, 19th C. Indian and US Government Relations, Hat Styles of 1864, Hat Styles of 1890, Hat Styles of 1899, Hat Styles of 1903, Irish Immigration, 19th Century Needlework Patterns, etc.
I said I was "frustrated", not an idiot.
| 8:01 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Sea Islands Hurricanes of 1893"
Jumping on the hurricane bandwagon? God I am glad I'm not American.
| 8:02 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
seems like he's working the 1800's angle to me.
| 8:18 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Is it just me?
I see some movement on this DC
anyone else seeing it?
| 8:31 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|God I am glad I'm not American. |
I'm sure we're glad too.
| 9:19 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
yeah we've been talking about those DCs on another thread. (i call it update katrina)
| 10:09 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
edit: apparently my RSS reader got a stray headline from a while ago...SCRATCH
| 11:17 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I have a history site of over 500 pages of historical content in over 50 categories and have been online over 9 years. |
Going live in 1996 or before with a history site must have been a pioneering experience. Congratulations.
| 11:32 pm on Sep 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thank you... I often felt just as stranded without any decent web page software as the "pioneers" I wrote about, those were the days when you wrote your own code and the server was always down.
| 12:59 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|those were the days when you wrote your own code and the server was always down. |
I can relate to that. Servers weren't down that often though.
About Google: the Google biz is advertising. Midia. Publicity.
They give you free traffic, you drop day job and make a living from your site. Next step : they take it from you.
You buy AdWords.
How GoogleGuy socially engineered his way to get everything he wanted out of bigmouths in these forums is a different question altogether.
Just keep that in mind. Congrats once more on your old-as-the-web site.
| 1:52 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am still not back since May 21st. I can type in a whole unique paragraph from my site, and supplemental pages even outrank me!
| 6:18 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There will always be ppl who are happy with update, and some who are not so happy! The rule of life: what one gains, another loses. Nothing comes from nowhere, if somebody goes up in ranking, another obviously goes down because of that, so there is no such thing as "good" update or "bad" update. It's always 50/50.
The question is: is it REALLY an update?! Coz I don't see any serious changes for any of my sites, on 3 totally different topics. Well, one site moved a position up, another a position down, but I cannot really call it an "update", coz I still see the same set of results, whatever keyword I search for, in all 3 niches.
| 8:42 am on Sep 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree Natashka that I haven't seen any evidence of an algo update - 2 sites positions are rock solid on every phrase I have checked. But I have another site that has been buried since December nad not even ranking for its own name - that site is now back. It looks like the spam filter that Google applies occasionally (catches good sites as well as spam though)
| This 53 message thread spans 2 pages: 53 (  2 ) > > |