| 5:15 pm on Dec 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
it seems the theory of twiglet is correct.
We've checked weeks ago a drop down of our sites in the serps by 100-250 positions. We think the indicator could be a "unnatural" growth in incoming links. Especially such with a higher page rank.
Unfortunately we can't say anything about the period of this "penalty".
1 domain was back in higher ranking after a period of approx. 4-6 weeks.
-- Sorry for double posting
[edited by: DConductor at 5:16 pm (utc) on Dec. 13, 2006]
| 5:52 pm on Dec 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I suspect that that may be my problem too. I get my links from publishing articles and I have published more articles over the past 30 days than ever before. It's all white hat but I think I got too aggressive and it tripped a spam filter.
I submit to about 15 of the larger article directories and I just found out that one of them was holding all my articles and then suddenly decided to publish them on their site all at once. That can't look good to Google.
Do you guys think explaining this to Google on a reinclusion form would help?
| 6:10 pm on Dec 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So what you are saying is, if one or two template type sites add you to their frame over a short period, you may be zapped? But couldn't that be used the other way round, to attack other people's sites? If that is the cause of it, it's really pathetic. I'll use the word eye opener again about Google.
What do they expect us to do? Put a box on our site asking people not to link to us from template sidebars? And there was I in a world of my own, just adding information to our site. Those guys have a real problem, and it isn't my site.
[edited by: Pamela2 at 6:16 pm (utc) on Dec. 13, 2006]
| 8:06 pm on Dec 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have two sites that I think may also have been penalized from unnatural link growth. I received links from related sites (without putting reciprocal links on my site) a few months ago and my ranking dropped like a rock.
Does anybody find it ironic that Google says the most important thing for good ranking is to have other sites link to yours, and then when you get more incoming links, you get penalized for it?
Any Google feedback to dispell this theory would be appreciated.
| 8:14 pm on Dec 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
@ hett1618 - Hyperlinks, the new tool to kick the competitors away?
No I don't thinks so, but if some backlinks are added to fast in a short time and they have to much PR, maybe it could be deadly...
Ohterwise; on the same way it would be possible to influence competitors pages too. That's would be a none progressive way and not desired by Goggle...
| 8:34 pm on Dec 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There's been a lot of talk about link growth causing these issues. We've had a few sites affected by this, and have not been getting any new links recently.
| 9:13 pm on Dec 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
186 posts and counting, this thread is big and this is without being a "Featured Homepage Discussion". Clearly this update / glitch / whatever exists and it is not just a problem of a select few. Hate feeling this negative about things but can't help it under the circumstances. I thought we were going to leave all these botch ups behind when the BigDaddy infrastructure was rolled out. C'mon Google give us the scoop!
| 9:48 pm on Dec 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As of right now, I'm no longer seeing the 'old' results on any of the DCs.
| 10:34 pm on Dec 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My results came back on Monday evening UK time, lasted for about 5 hours and then vanished again!
Google.co.uk is showing a massive movement in my sector, I thought this was a glitch as my home page still had a cache date of the 4th, but last night it updated to the 10th.
The keywords I follow have certainly been shaken up. I am seeing some very small sites which have relevance but have never been near the top ten before.
to heavy on keyword density and keyword clustering (like red widgets) seem to be tripping filters, I was going to wait to see if it reverts but tonight I figured there's not much less to loose, so I've done some optimisation to fall inline with the current top ten's keyword density etc...
I don't think inbound links are causing much of an issue in my sector as the current top ten don't seem to have many inbound links at all
I'll keep you updated, if the changes work
Ps. my site is not a directory, it's a gift site which has been indexed highly in google for the past 4 years.
| 10:56 pm on Dec 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
@ Inspired - Yes that's true, all DC's shows the new bloody values right now :o( They're synchronising all DC's in oder to release the christmas update ;o) ... Then it will rain the big money, gold and diamonds... (* continue dreaming*)
So we unless know, that we'll have all the same problem, but completely different structures and conditions. One reason more to believe it is an error and there is no system behind it (depressant or not?). If not, it must be a very ugly system or bad faith behind it.
;o) Regards Fibalogger
| 11:29 pm on Dec 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Interestingly enough, I am working on a site who's index.html cache, yesterday, rolled back from 12/10 to 12/5 (skipping a 12/8 cache that appeared briefly). The 12/5 cache reflects a markup error that compromised some rankings and the 12/8 cache corrected the error and resulted in an immediate rankings up-tick. Now, while the cache has rolled-back to 12/5 the rankings have not reverted. They are holding strong. Hence I have to deduce that Google's servers are ranking this web site based on shards from the 12/8 or 12/10 cache. This is not something I've really tested so I am wondering if this matches your experience?
| 12:22 am on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
When I can't find an on-site reason for a drop then I look at scrapers/hijackers. Have you folks affected by the Dec7 drop in rank checked to make sure it wasn't scrapers that have affected your sites or hijackers via an Open DNS server?
I manage over 30 websites from 7 years to a few months in age and from PR 6 to 0 for the newer ones, with very little link growth going on and never use a link submission service, and none of them have been affected by this Dec 7 drop in rank (or any of the other ups and downs of recent months). About 2 of them add a new page per month otherwise very few changes on the rest.
When I take over a site I move it to a host that doesn't have Open DNS servers, install base href tags, full urls and 301 redirects to the www version of the domains. All of these are designed to protect them from scrapers and help enable Google to determine the owner of the content.
Scrapers can cause your site to go supplemental.
Matt said Google hasn't done anything to cause this so scrapers and Open DNS would be the next thing I would check on or maybe there is new method of hijacking..
PS. I have one client that published an article on Google and Yanoo news and it said it would be around the internet. While the links have exploded the site is still ranking at the top for practically all it's major keywords. So far, anyway.
However a competitor could do this to a site also.
| 1:25 am on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
@ Lorel - Thanks for your statement, but I knew about that.
After dropping, my first guess was hijacking, so we looked into the logfiles, but we found no such referers.
| 1:47 am on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|After dropping, my first guess was hijacking, so we looked into the logfiles, but we found no such referers. |
I think referers can apply to one type of hijack. But does not apply to say a proxy hijack. I am looking at this but if you see a blank referer in your logs you can assume it is suspect as well, just finding a method to track them.
| 2:04 am on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ok, thanks a lot, we'll check that tomorrow (it's very late right now in Germany).
| 2:36 am on Dec 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I simply don't buy the logic that a sudden growth in one-way links can hurt someone. That way a spammer can destroy all the good websites with automatically generated one-way links.
Actually, we are finding that there is no better way to improve your ranking than one-way links from good websites.
< this discussion continues here: [webmasterworld.com...] >
[edited by: tedster at 3:37 am (utc) on Dec. 14, 2006]
| This 196 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 196 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6  ) |