homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.147.84
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
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 236 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 236 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 > >     
Very Odd - Big Drops in SERPS Today April 26, 06
Big SERP Drops - Odd Fresh Dates
Hollywood




msg:757744
 6:35 pm on Apr 26, 2006 (gmt 0)

Very Odd - Big Drops in SERPS Today April 26, 06

A site we have has seen decent results for over 2 years, all of a sudden today all SERPS have dropped for us by about 4-10 pages lower all at once.

This is very odd, we have worked very hard to put out decent content and relevant content.

Any reasons for this, is their some sort of weird dance taking place?

We adjusted the page two days ago to make it better for the reader and seems we got slammed very badly for this.

Google fresh date (on serps) shows a date April 24, 06 but when clicking on the "Cached" link on the results page it shows a date of April 18, 06

Curious to what the webmasters think of this out there.

 

Hollywood




msg:757924
 11:40 pm on May 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

[I don't want to do a re-inclusion request as that requires acknowledgment of wrong doing]

Yes I agree, I did one but I think it is a sin to admit this when I did nothing wrong, we are still on page 4 on most terms. It is odd that it is across the board on page 4 from all the top spots we had.

Google is broke, I do not care what they say, it be broken! Simple and sad, the broken engine that couldn't is harming our business as any other search engine is functioning correctly with these same difficult indexes to manage.

Nothing is changing here... yet.

Very sad that some of us have such dramatic drops due to an incompetent search company to get a handle on its own data issues.

What a friggin mess! - Thanks Google, for all you ask of us all, what a slap in the face.

All for them, nothing for us!

Wally_Books




msg:757925
 12:18 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

"I cant belive there are not any more people on this thread, why has it gone so dead"

Waiting and praying,

Our site gained a few pages back, from 150 up to a little over a 1,000 but most remain in supplemental h*ll

we don't know where to turn, what to do, wolves at the door

Yahoo, Ask and MSN are not sending enough traffic to make up for the lost Google traffic. It's been a nightmare!

konrad




msg:757926
 12:38 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I always thought, that if I were a programmer at Google :), I would implement this simple test:

if there is a link somewhere on website A to website B
and
vice-versa (back links)
and
the pages in both cases are named "resources" or "links" or ... a few other possibilities
and
Google can find one of the following on those websites: "links exchange", "add/submit link/url" and possibly other

then : let's ban both websites.

does your website comply?

Mine does, at the very beginning I added some links, and it's still there. Maybe now they did something about it? Just an idea. The only problem is that still I can websites which pass the above test but still are going well in SERPS. So maybe it's a stupid idea.

nippi




msg:757927
 12:56 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

konrad

So.... If I've got a real estate site in new york, and i link to an accommodation site in new york recommending them for accommodation, and they link back to my site, recommending it for real estate.... both sites should be banned?

That makes no sense.

konrad




msg:757928
 1:06 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

So.... If I've got a real estate site in new york, and i link to an accommodation site in new york recommending them for accommodation, and they link back to my site, recommending it for real estate.... both sites should be banned?

That makes no sense.

Your example doesn't meet the rest of conditions... besides I wasn't very serious about that - that was just a quick thought, because something happened and there must be a reason.

But I indeed must think up something else.

phpdude




msg:757929
 1:33 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes,

I'm just waiting.

Ranting about is in this thread will not bring my site back.

But, I'm at least glad to know I'm not the only one who has issues with Google.

dudester




msg:757930
 2:38 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

i really think that the fact that adsense-displaying sites are the ones getting hit hardest by whatever is happening with sites dropping out of index is not going to go unnoticed at google. even more likely and importantly, business press will be the one influencing the outcome of this saga, since google is always so secretive about its income projections and the feedback we provide is something that could be usefull for both possible articles and hopefully google's clearer feedback. it really just looks like the thing is broken, and not one of the comments from google directly acknowledges the issue. i wonder why....

as for me, 600 pages on a non-spammy 9 months old site with adsense and product reviews. sitemaps (don't think ther eis a connection with anything there). formerly 100+ pages in index, now down to 4.

Hollywood




msg:757931
 3:16 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Our site pays PPC, I am turning off ALL PPC on google tomorrow this is BS! Going to the Yahoo PPC method, it is better anyway.

Notice to all webmasters, one thing I do know, PPC on Yahoo is much better as I have read and done extensive research that shows Yahoo surfers/buyers are much more doers than Google research brats.

All done with Google and I hope MANY MANY more follow as Google is broken and turning into a typical Govt type of pocketing money. I bet they get along real well with the Enron retirees.

GOOGLE IS BROKEN! - Wall Street Pay Attention!

Hollyweird - ... Pissed!

Go Holland Trance! - At least some knows how to f.in dance!

thatphonesite




msg:757932
 7:20 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Does anyone have this issue and NOT use Sitemaps?

P

tigger




msg:757933
 7:31 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

>i really think that the fact that adsense-displaying sites are the ones getting hit hardest by whatever is happening with sites dropping out of index

its not just adsense sites my own and a load of friends sites have all been hit and none of them are displaying ads

JimLahey




msg:757934
 7:40 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>Does anyone have this issue and NOT use Sitemaps?<<

I do not use sitemaps. thatphonesite - are you still back from the dead?

[edited by: JimLahey at 7:45 am (utc) on May 16, 2006]

tigger




msg:757935
 7:41 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>Does anyone have this issue and NOT use Sitemaps?<<

sorry missed that posting - neither do I

wheelie34




msg:757936
 7:59 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I use sitemaps (since they began) but my boats still half sunk

dangerman




msg:757937
 8:00 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>>Does anyone have this issue and NOT use Sitemaps?<<

I did not up till May 26. But did set it up after this date for better or worse.

Still getting no traffic from Google. Site has gone from v profitable to marginal at best. I was running Adsense and Yahoo partner links. I am sure they didnt like the Yahoo links over at the googleplex.

dangerman




msg:757938
 8:01 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I meant April 26, not May 26

simonmc




msg:757939
 8:16 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

No sitemaps here but still have the problems.

thatphonesite




msg:757940
 9:55 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Yes, I'm still (thankfully) back from the dead... in fact ranking better than ever on a whole!

Fingers crossed they get to the bottom of what is causing this and fix it for everyone.

I strongly suspect in my case it was a dupe-content problem due to a subdomain not 301'ing properly (e.g. G would have seen the same content on blah.mysite.com as well as www.mysite.com), but of course, we'll never know...

P

Phil_Payne




msg:757941
 10:02 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

> if there is a link somewhere on website A to website B
and
vice-versa (back links)
and
the pages in both cases are named "resources" or "links" or ... a few other possibilities
and
Google can find one of the following on those websites: "links exchange", "add/submit link/url" and possibly other

> then : let's ban both websites.

?

I have a site about specific computer hardware - majoring on its performance.

A friend has a site about the same hardware - majoring on the financial aspects.

(True situation.)

Why in hell should we be penalised for helping inquirers in this way?

The Register links to me in some of its stories. I link back from the item to give the reader a chance to see a different point of view in their article. Why is that bad?

da95649




msg:757942
 10:05 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

hi all,

I do not use sitemaps, so really what we are saying is are there any people that do user sitemaps that have had the prob since 26th April?

Also regarding the 301 issue, I do not know how true this is.

The simple reason behind this is, take a look at the competitors.

Most of mine do not have any 301's in place regarding non-www and www and https etc etc etc.

Im sure doing it will help, however cannot see this as being the main problem.

I think what we can all do to speed up the process for G fixing this, is all doing a search's for our own company name, and clicking on the link "Dissatisfied with your search results and put your results"

Then put your specific URL, if we all do this every day, do you think this will help?

tigger




msg:757943
 10:05 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't think for one moment these dropped pages are about links or resources section as I have clients sites that haven't lost anything and I have been exchanging links right throughout this fiasco and they all have links sections

b2net




msg:757944
 10:14 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

What a morning again: six sites have dropped way down, one or two old previously penalized sites are up a little. It's going to be a busy week again moving those sites to new domains, updating links and waiting several weeks for them to get fully indexed. Just when I was trying to take a distance from work and forget about Google a new mixup comes along.

da95649




msg:757945
 10:15 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Tigger,

Can you confirm if any of your clients use Textlinkbrokers to purchase links?

I have heard if Google see that links are being bought, this is quite bad?

tigger




msg:757946
 10:17 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

non of my clients have used Textlinkbrokers & my dropped site hasn't either - back to the drawing board

da95649




msg:757947
 10:33 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I dont know about you guys, but I think someone has got it in for my website, my question is what methods could webmasters use black hat techniques in order to drop our websites down the SERPs.....im convinced someone’s playing with my site....

da95649




msg:757948
 10:35 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just one more note to add,
no one has discussed the allinanchor command.

Im sure all of you are aware that where lets say I was in top spot for "red lorry". My allinchor:red lorry also showed me in top spot.

The problem is obviously interlinked somehow, maybe its worth spending some time investigating our incoming anchor links, or the fact the Google have just disregarded them?

tigger




msg:757949
 10:40 am on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

>im convinced someone’s playing with my site....

maybe if someone was buying loads of links from spammy sites this "could" happen but I'm really just guessing here.

As for anchors I always work around 10 or so different keyword anchors and also link to different pages rather than just all index

Silent_Bob




msg:757950
 12:23 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

The allinanchor: command is interesting. I had noticed that also. Even back in the sandbox days when my site was not ranking well, it did still rank well for allinanchor, allintext, allintitle. This is not the case at present. Even when you run the commands with :mysitename we're not ranked number 1.

jrs_66




msg:757951
 12:32 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Does anyone know the Cutts email to report pages gone supplemental? For the first time, as of last night, half my pages are now supplemental.

da95649




msg:757952
 1:17 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

just read this in MC Blog:

[mattcutts.com...]

one chap called T2Dman having similar issues, I have just emailed him for any updates...

Hollywood




msg:757953
 1:40 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

[Does anyone have this issue and NOT use Sitemaps?]

I have used sitemaps since the start of them.

reseller




msg:757954
 2:18 pm on May 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

jrs_66

"Does anyone know the Cutts email to report pages gone supplemental?"

Better to leave "the Cutts" in peace. He is preparing for a 6 weeks much needed vacation away from BigDaddy :-)

This 236 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 236 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 > >
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