homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.148.191
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe and Support WebmasterWorld
Visit PubCon.com
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 192 message thread spans 7 pages: 192 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >     
27 June screwup - theory
donelson




msg:705439
 10:26 pm on Jul 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

We have a bunch of sites that have been badly affected by the 27 June screwup.

However, we have one site that is still #1 for the two main keywords.

I have looked at various theories, to no avail so far.

Here's another ---

Do any of you have badly affected sites in which the home page has AdSense with pictures right above the AdSense banner?

I have four pix semi-aligned above the three- or four-text AdSense listings.

Google actually wrote me an email a while back saying this was okay as long as the pictures were not intended to mislead visitors, just to "draw the eye" to the AdSense area.

BUT, the site I have that's not affected by the 27 June screwup does NOT have these pix above the AdSense area.

Yes, another screwy theory --- anyone else think this might be a problem?

 

kidder




msg:705440
 12:07 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

No - sorry at least not form my site, I have one site running adsense that is fine. I was starting consider the fact that the 3 sites of ours hit the hardest are the same sites I spend money promoting them with adwords.. Lots of money... Maybe they want me to spend more..
But serously if you play around with the site: command and mix it with your domain and few keywords you will find if your site is one of the ones in the toilet? then pretty much no matter what data center or IP your looking at your going to get a bunch of supp pages coming up where they are not welcome. To me this is still the biggest clue. If the Google's site command can't generate the best & correct results for your domain what chance does it have competing in the index? Did someone say "enema"

bruceh




msg:705441
 12:13 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

adsense & adwords are both unrelated to search results. To allow either to influence search results would be at odds with googles core principles.

AustrianOak




msg:705442
 1:04 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

Great to see this june 27th thread back.. let's keep it going not merge it with datacenter watch which is a topic on its own.

gidspor




msg:705443
 3:33 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

Ok, here goes, my first post here. Look guys, its been two weeks of nothing from Google. Google and Cutts are obviously ignoring even talking about the issue. I am a VP of a company that spends over a million dollars a year in Adwords listings and you want to know something amazing about that? They are extremely arrogant to even my SEM manager! Why on earth would they care about SEO webmasters? They just don't and this is a fine example. The biggest personal site I have that was effected is a 5 year old domain, one of two authority sites in my niche and tons of unique content. No funny business, just pure content. I like others have lost 80% to 90% percent of my Google traffic.

I have read and read theories and the only one that makes any sense is that Google screwed up and their engineers are so arrogant (like the rest of their company) that they think either it isn't actually broken or they can work their way out of problems.

Oh, one side note. The site I built that spends a million dollars a year with them in adwords didn't take a hit at all. ;-) go figure.

Ok, I feel better now. Thanks. lol

jetteroheller




msg:705444
 4:45 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

I once read a SF roman.

There was a planet with a population and an ancient tech level.

Strange accidents happened. People suddenly flying in the air and falling down.

After each fatality, all the people in the village come together to resarch all the life of the deceased.

They discussed as long as they had been able to find a new rule, why the deceased made the gods so angry to kill him.

As the accidents happened by machines below the surface from an other civilication long time ago, all the accidents had been simple coincidence.

But the people created an immens rule book about what is not allowed.
They gave nearly an development helper from earth not knowing all the rules the "big present"

Big present?

To kill a rule breaker before the gods kill him.

Great SF, we should think of this roman, when we discuss to much here strange Google accidents.

SuddenlySara




msg:705445
 5:25 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

you are game spot on...

elbimbo




msg:705446
 5:39 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hi I too lost some white sites at 27th ,what is tricky and probably the reason that Google faces huge problems is that .info spam attack with billions of pages ,who knows if that spamer keeps on throwing thousands of new junk domains on a daily basis? who knows that the above spamer have crack the Google's indexing priorities and he can index daily millions of new pages.Have you noticed that even long established and huge websites they don't have anymore fresh catched date (use to be on dail basis) .Google is under attack that is my theory ,an as far as now we know only that spamer ,who knows how many others are out there with diferend registration names.

dolcevita




msg:705447
 6:31 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think that is bizar that googleguy (i do not know of it is Matt or not) ignore all this discussion about june 27.
Com'n guys from google... Someone can explain a thousands
innocent sites (it is not 5 or 10) that has been affect by june 27 and thats are usually older than 4-5 years...that never ever before has been affected by any google changes, didnt change anything and still dissapeared on 27 june.
I think that it is at least questions of morally responsibility to explain us why.

jetteroheller




msg:705448
 7:01 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think that it is at least questions of morally responsibility to explain us why

I tried 4 different lines to discuss with Google the problem.

It's a wall of silence.

But what's more important?

The central theory of Google, that all can be done by algorithms?
The trust of all the surprisingly loosing webmasters in Google?

Why can an AdSense manager not look at a site reduced some $1000 a month?
Oh, the new anti spam algo hit by accident this site, I remove manual the penalty.

I feel like in a SF roman with the robot regent of Akron.
For people unfamilar with the Perry Rhodan SF series,
Akron was an empire. As the people degenerated, they decided that at a certain point, a big computer should take over the government and rule the whole empire without any human intervention.

dolcevita




msg:705449
 7:21 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

I just did asked same question on Matt blogs and what i could find from Matt reply with (referering url to another discussion) is:

Matt said:
"Bontar, I believe any changes on the 27th were refreshing data used by an existing algorithm."

It is not true because of dissapearing thousands sites that never before has been afected.

Matt said:
"AKA, thatís what happened. Arubicus, the change went through evaluation just like any other change and showed a positive improvement. This is not something thatís radically new; this set of algorithms has been live for a while. Iím pretty sure that there will be another refresh of that data in the next 2-3 weeks, so we keep iterating to improve things based on our evaluation and the feedback that we get.
"

It look as we must wait next 2 weeks to see another refresh.

Matt Said,
"I wrote that before I read your most recent comment, Bontar. It will continue to be refreshed (just talked with someone about it few minutes ago), but not with data from the 26th. We keep iterating based on evaluation, the changes that we see, and the feedback that we get as well.
"

I have hope again. I can see through the lines that we are victims of experiment that will be probably very soon over.
We need a little patience and wait on another refresh.

tigger




msg:705450
 7:38 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

nice to see another 27th thread back up and running

I'm still running with the theory that G has made a massive CU with this but what if they haven't

I think the adsense route is off the mark as I'm seeing those sites still ranking and everyone I know thats been hit has no adds on the site

What I am seeing is affiliate sites dropping like flys and my own sites that have been dumped along with friends are affiliate based

So I'm wondering if this update inst an attack on sites that have the following

1- affiliates links
2- a percentage of unique content verse affiliate content
3- looks at the amount of affiliate links that leave a page

So, this could be a two fold attack using a new affiliate filter in conjunction with a duplicate content filter

Now please someone tell me I'm wrong so I can carry on saying its a G CU :)

P.S just to strengthen the webmasters that are on the CU theory I just ran a search on one of my keywords and found what looked like a good linking partner - no PR but what the heck I stopped looking at that a long time ago, then checked the cached info nothing! and the site is ranking well someone pls tell me how a site can rank but according to G the page exists

[edited by: tigger at 7:52 am (utc) on July 9, 2006]

bontar




msg:705451
 7:48 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

Tigger, I don't have any affiliate links, nor duplicated content.

tigger




msg:705452
 7:54 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

cheers bontar thats what I was hoping someone would say - mind you read my P.S putting more weight onto the fact G has a problem how can a site rank with no cached info!

topr8




msg:705453
 8:14 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> how can a site rank with no cached info!

maybe i'm missing the point tigger but it has always been possible to prevent google showing the page cache and have the page rank, this isn't anything new. i think this is a red herring.

jetteroheller




msg:705454
 8:20 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think the adsense route is off the mark as I'm seeing those sites still ranking and everyone I know thats been hit has no adds on the site

What I am seeing is affiliate sites dropping like flys and my own sites that have been dumped along with friends are affiliate based

Wrong theory.

My 5 best earnig AdSense sites have lost more than 80% at Google search at June 27th

www.example.com since 1997 very stable
n.example.com since April 2002
a.example.com since March 2004
w.example.com since October 2004
b.example.com since July 2004

www.example.com nearly no new content since years
n.example.com few new content
a.example.com everal 100 pages new content in last half year
w.example.com several 100 pages new content in last half year
b.example.com some pages added half year ago

It's no pattern to see. All practicall AdSense only sites.

[edited by: jetteroheller at 8:26 am (utc) on July 9, 2006]

bontar




msg:705455
 8:25 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

Let's not confuse 'cached pages' and 'indexed pages'. Page cache is just an additional feature of the search engines, but it is not used for ranking or searching (well, it shouldn't).

tigger




msg:705456
 8:26 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't mind my theories being provide wrong heck I'm happy to see it as it just confirms that theres is no pattern to this update as I don't have a single adsense link - so whats left other than a G CU not unless someone else has some other theory

jetteroheller




msg:705457
 8:48 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

happy to see it as it just confirms that theres is no pattern to this update

From my main domain, 3 subdomains are still working fine.

So I check each theory against my working and not working sites.

To much new content
a.example.com lost traffic
c.example.com the English translation of a.example.com works fine

To big pictures, only few lines of content
a.example.com lost traffic
c.example.com the English translation of a.example.com works fine
both use the same pictures

www.example.com has very few pictures and lost traffic
p.example.com has very few pictures and works normal

To much keywords
www.example.com has no keywords and lost traffic
all other have much keywords and are on both sides.

WWW and not WWW indexing problem:
some domains both indexed www, no www lost traffic, some not
I have also examples with only correct indexed lost traffic and no traffic loose.

There is no pattern.

Remember, program bugs can be hard sometimes.
In the first golf war died 27 US soldiers because of a software bug in the Patriot defense system.

Phil_Payne




msg:705458
 9:02 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

> maybe i'm missing the point tigger but it has always been possible to prevent google showing the page cache and have the page rank, this isn't anything new. i think this is a red herring.

Tried it later?

I did a robots nocache on a page that gets a lot of traffic. A hobby page, not part of the business.

Just after the next crawl it tanked. It has highly unique keywords on it, but no matter how I tried I could NOT get Google to serve it up. Interestingly, Yahoo and Ask did the same thing - MSN didn't.

Site: showed it as still indexed.

After I removed nocache, carefully making no other changes, it bounced right back.

Nocache certainly works, but it is also not SERPs/neutral. Try it.

donelson




msg:705459
 10:24 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

I am a VP of a company that spends over a million dollars a year in Adwords listings and you want to know something amazing about that?
If I had your power, I would suddenly withdraw from AdWords and go with Yahoo or some other advertising system. Then, Google would certainly contact me and ask, and I'd say - You scr*wed us, so now we're scr*wing you.

BTW- Are any of you shareholders of Google stock?

ScottD




msg:705460
 11:21 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

donelson - the big spending site wasn't affected. It was his own project that went tits up as I understand it

gidspor - I've looked at quite a few sites that went 27ish, and most had adsense - does yours? Care to sticky me the URL?

Let's get this in context too - maybe thousands of sites have been affected but that still leaves billions that weren't, so there's nothing to be learnt from which sites are not affected

Matt cutts has said little, but a he has said something, and specifically acknowledged a change at least. I understand him as saying it's not the algo that changed - it's the data that the algo runs on. So something has changed about the way these sites are perceived.

What data might that be? What is Google measuring? Who knows, but we know what they want from us - good sites that make the searcher happy that they clicked on them

I'm also glad to see the 27th thread back on its own. All those datacenters were making me dizzy.

Chico_Loco




msg:705461
 11:37 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have another question...

Of those that dropped by 75%+ in traffic, how many of you are using a global template... and if more than 1 template, how many templates, and what is the maximum no. of pages using a given template?

My question comes from having read a recent post on Matt Cutt's blog?

snook




msg:705462
 11:41 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

thanks for bring back this thread.
going from 300,000 pages in google, to 30,000 is killing us.
Somehow I find some comfort knowing were not alone...

tigger




msg:705463
 11:46 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have a global template on my site and if by global template you mean a standard design theme then surely this would apply to any site?

after all you don't want to confuse surfers by offering different design themes throughout a site and doesn't this then smack in the face of Google saying you build sites for surfers not SE's! - so how to completely confuse someone you throw up different looking /design pages so you please G

The only thing that is different on my pages is I tend to change the navigation around so surfers can find relevant information

donelson




msg:705464
 11:54 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

What about cross links between your own websites?

Perhaps Borgoogle is discounting crossed-links between own sites?

Chico_Loco




msg:705465
 11:56 am on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hello Tigger,

I don't want to suggest for a second that Google are actually punishing any sites that use a global template, but one of the comments that I have seem from Matt on his blog suggest that it's one of the criteria that they look for in order to detect "doorway pages". I guess that if a given site has more than x pages with a common template then it may appear as though the pages are "doorway pages".

Obviously it's more complex than just that though, because the majority of sites use a template of some sort. But, if there are more than x pages under a certain directory, and if the words appearing on the pages consistently apprear in their urls', then that might be one way of detecting doorways, so I'm just asking!

In essence, this might be a problem for some of us with high pagecount sub-directories that have a common directory and meet certain other criteria.

tigger




msg:705466
 12:01 pm on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

>What about cross links between your own websites?

nope not doing that

Hi Chico

I can see where your coming from with the common template that these could be viewed as doorways but surely if that was the case just about any 100+ site could fall into this trap - after all its not hard to produce a 100 pages on a subject? or maybe thats it make your doorways look different LOL

donelson




msg:705467
 12:02 pm on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

Another thing....

3 of our badly affected websites are now presented by Borgoogle with their DMOZ titles, NOT the ones showing on the actual pages themselves.

This started happening around 6-8 weeks ago, and was intermittent for around 2 weeks at first, but now solidly DMOZ titles.

( I hate these titles as they are 5 years out-of-date )

Perhaps DMOZ is being discounted now for page rank, and those sites punished by forcing out-of-date titles onto them in Borgoogle?

Chico_Loco




msg:705468
 12:19 pm on Jul 9, 2006 (gmt 0)

after all its not hard to produce a 100 pages on a subject?

No, it's not, but if each of those pages (or a large portion thereof) also had other criteria that might seem suspicious, then that might cause a problem.

This 192 message thread spans 7 pages: 192 ( [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >
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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved