| 2:15 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Visits doubled, started 2 days ago. It's still not fully recovered, however, the all time high started only ~ 1 month before 27 June.
| 2:19 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I was just about to post to mention that I noticed a lot of junk filter its way into the index as of last night; some people like, some people dislike...sounds like a data refresh to me.
Really though, I took a hit on one of my decent $ phrases (#1 to the top of the 2nd page, so not too serious), but some of the stuff that is ahead of me now is questionable [doorway page type content seems to be thriving].
| 2:33 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We lost yet more sites, to add to the June 27 ones which have never recovered. :(
| 3:25 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
NO. Zero recovery from June 27th. Actually I got hit even before that on the infamouse April 26th. Very depressing.
| 4:02 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Nothing like that. After an almost perfect recovery from the June 27 disaster a large and long established rich content site got dumped completely. Now again zero Google traffic.
| 4:11 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Are any of you (without recovery) presenting websites which might look like "made for AdSense" pages? (pages with little or non-original text, just looking for AdSense clicks)
Our sites have a lot of pages with mostly pictures (from the Taj Mahal, Kew Gardens, St Pauls Cathedral, etc), but with only small amounts of text with each picture. And we had an AdSense ad at the top of each page. So perhaps G thought we were an MFA site...
My traffic was down by 30% - 40% after 27 June, and has now recovered today to being down only around 15% - 20% (initial estimate).
Perhaps the 27 June update hit G revenues too hard, and they're reversed some of what they did? (Black box physics, sigh)
| 5:46 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Our site went back to pre-June 27th rankings last night. Our site isn't "junk" or MFA by any stretch of the imagination. Let's hope it stays in there and the real junk stays out.
| 6:21 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
soooo weird. One site that has a DMOZ link is back where it should be--near the top :-). That site went online in 1997 though.
The other one, that is updated daily, and has 500+ unique baklinks (over the course of 8 years) is still MIA. However, indexing has picked up and now I see less supps there. It could be becuase I have gotten some decent PR5 and 6 links in the last two months. Also, the homepage is indexed daily. I find this odd because with all those links, I still can't get indexed properly. What do I need, a link from whitehouse.gov's homepage?
I will remove adsense too, just in case. Simply not worth taking the chance. I am updating the site daily, only not to have enough people see it.
| 7:08 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Rankings for one of my main sites totally collapsed last night. From #1 positions down to #10 or not listed at all. Adsense earnings down 66% overnight. Site's been up for several years, no spam, etc, 2500+ backlinks still showing in Google, so extremely odd!
| 7:43 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Deinitely a data refresh! Total collaps again.
| 11:08 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We had constant traffic 27 June - 16 August however just noticed today 17.08.06 that one of the keywords phrases I follow - keyword1 keyword2 keyword3 we have appear to have lost SERP position on.
However related pages appear in top 10 SERPS but not the more specific page that actually is focused to the keyword phrase....very odd indeed.
no adsense on page.
not 100% sure I am explaining this well.
| 11:30 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Total collapse again" is exactly my thinking as well.
I have now dissapeared from results 100%. Wow.. for those spam/affiliate/link farm sites that have moved up ahead of me in my niche.. I wish to congratulate each and every one of you. Good Job!
| 11:31 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Big changes with Supplemental Results seen today.
More discussion also at: [webmasterworld.com ]
In his blog, Matt Cutts also confirms a data refresh happened.
| 11:48 pm on Aug 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My site recovered from June 27th too.
Very surprising update.
[edited by: Frederic1 at 11:49 pm (utc) on Aug. 17, 2006]
| 6:25 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yeah my site has recovered it seems too. Still cant find my site in the serps in G for any of my keywords but at least traffic is back to normal. Thank goodness
| 6:44 am on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes, we also back in terms of rankings to where we were previously :)
| 4:33 am on Aug 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Zero recovery from June 27. We are an original content site, 5PR, and nofollow affiliate link section. All pages are indexed in Google, and NOT one keyword referral for any since 6/27. Used to be top.
| 3:06 pm on Aug 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you send me your site URL and "normal keywords" privately, I will see if I can see anything wrong.
|Zero recovery from June 27. We are an original content site, 5PR, and nofollow affiliate link section. All pages are indexed in Google, and NOT one keyword referral for any since 6/27. Used to be top. |
| 3:30 pm on Aug 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Where are they wanting spam reports sent? I am seeing more subdomain spam than I have in a very long time. Subdomains that redirect to really bad pages. There were such vast improvements for a long time, now this is horrible.
| 4:26 pm on Aug 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your offer donelson. first, please tell me what red flags you would see as 'wrong"?
As far as we can tell, we're legit content with nothing spammy aimed at adsense- just original content for real readers.
The one possible probelm I can see are affiliate links, like CJ and Linkshare. They are nofollow and hand picked by us-- gut feeling that old Googlemeister sees these as skimping profits from adsense and in turn, refuses to acknowledge referrals.
Any thoughts on sites with affiliate links and then ignoring since June 27 and jagger before that?
| 8:47 pm on Aug 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
All of my rankings that got pummelled on June 27th came back on 8/17. Some the same as before, some a bit better than before.
I made no changes to my site during from 6/27 to 8/17.
My site has been online since 1999.
I've never run adsense ads on my site. However, I do have a lot of MFA pages linking back to me as a result of syndicating a bunch of articles I wrote. On the other hand I have a lot of high quality links coming in.
I suspect that those of us who got hit, got caught in some sort of plan to supress the rankings of junky MFA pages.
Right around late June, Google also made major changes to how publishers get charged for Adwords. Many people's adwords bids got jacked up by a factor of 10 or more. The net conclusion by people who have analyzed this is that Google was punishing certain types of adwords landing pages that in Google's opinion gave a lower quality user experience.
It certainly seems plausible that they did a two-pronged attack to improve the adwords/adsense user experience.
I still can't figure out what specifically though was tweaked on June 27, and then tweaked back on August 17th...
| 11:57 pm on Aug 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
my site is providing top quality content and a decline to zero Google traffic had been the result on June 27. After some recovery on July 27 the site went back to zero Google traffic on August 17.
| 7:01 am on Aug 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Primary site has been getting referrals directed to my webhost IIS address since late May, but it's really ramped up over the last couple of weeks, and it's really annoying.
Last time I saw this problem was years ago, and I was finally able to get it retified with a direct email. You'd think they could figure out the difference between a DN and host datacentre url.
Current algo? IMO it's a pretty mixed bag.
Overall ref.s are steady, still around historic levels, looks like localisation has been tightened up again, and noticed plurals/stemming now in use in titles and description (on my test and genuine searches anyway).
D/base/directory style sites, (in my industry at least) appear to be given the guernsey.
One of my regular control searches has *all* directory/d/base style urls/sites in top 40 results bar 1 result for an individual business, used to be much more mixed results. This has affected some of my pages adversely, improved others marginally. IMO it's not what people are looking for in my vertical market when they do a search.
But <shrug> waddya gonna do? Seen it all before, yawn .... stretch ....
Be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
| 10:23 am on Aug 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I suspect that Google got so many complaints, and was losing revenue on the new system of 27 June. They tweaked it on 27 July, but that didn't help them much...
So I suspect the "Publicly Traded, revenue and profit-conscious, falling share price" Google decided NOT to have such a strong wall between "editorial" and "advertising" divisions...
Thus, we're back to the good-old (for Google) revenue generating model (which may antagonise some advertisers).
I suggest you all read this article which I think sums up the dilema that Google has...
| 9:25 pm on Aug 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I suggest you all read this article which I think sums up the dilema that Google has... |
This was a very good article and really does peg a lot of the problems we have been discussing, which is really amazing for a non-web geek publication. The reporter really did their homework.
| 9:57 pm on Aug 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How does a Motley Fool article about made-for-AdSense sites and Google's stock valuation prove that Google has broken down the wall between search and advertising, or that Google has tweaked its search results for better revenues?
| 10:44 pm on Aug 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I support europeforvisitors' sentiment here. This thread is about 17 August changes that restored some sites to their pre-June 17 positions. Let's keep to the topic, thanks.
| 3:49 am on Aug 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm hoping we can focus this important conversation into one thread. Right now we have several going and that makes it too easy to overlook patterns and insights -- let's take it here: