homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.180.175
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
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 226 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 226 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 > >     
Google's 950 Penalty - Part 8
annej




msg:3324887
 4:50 pm on Apr 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

< continued from [webmasterworld.com...] >
< related threads: -950 Quick Summary [webmasterworld.com] -- -950 Part One [webmasterworld.com] >

I don't think this is related to reciprocal linking. If it is overdone to the point that Google sees a big red flag some other penalty might click in but not this 950 thing.

Phase based seems a lot more likely. And there may be something about the words or phrases used in internal linking involved as well. Or that could just be a part of the phrase based thing.

[edited by: tedster at 9:15 pm (utc) on Feb. 27, 2008]

 

Miamacs




msg:3333068
 4:51 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

Understanding the intent of Google engineers, and
looking at the data of the Keyword Suggestion tool of AdWords...

... will provide more hints to people at this point than the last few hundred posts of this thread.

You can't possibly solve all cases, they're just too numerous and people will want solutions specific to them.

The problem is:

Your anchor text is seen relevant for a competitive phrase, but you don't have the support for it.

- because it uses words Googe identifies and monitors as a competitive phrase, but competitive for something else ( as in, it doesn't recognize the phrase in the meaning you use it ) ...OR... you used too broad of a relevance... OR... it means something else ( as well )... OR... you knew exactly what it is competitive for, and that you didn't have the inbounds to make you relevant but you thought it was OK because it's on topic ( a human editor would understand, but the semantic analysis of the link-a-holic bot doesn't make much of it )

- because it uses the phrase in context, but in a context that's not understood, or the phrase is more competitive for something else. ( to matt: Tokio Hotel is now identified as a theme of its own. SERPs will not force accommodation sites, neither try to correct the syntax. Not even in other languages. )

You're irrelevant because:

- You don't have enough inbounds to support the phrase
- Don't have enough derivations in your incoming anchors
- Don't have variation in your anchors
- Whatever

It's a dictionary to identify competitive phrases. And not a dictionary to identify several billion non-competitive ones. Annej had the name of the war on the site. From our perspective it's that Google has had yet to identify a word combination as a legit phrase for the website. From the real perspective however... Google didn't identify it as a whole phrase, so the analysis fell back to see if this was to mean something about a different combination of these words, and just about a step back it found something. The phrase was on their list of monitored, competitive phrases. The system works, just not for webmasters.

For this dictionary is built by - guess who - ...AdWords users. That's the reason, the method, and the market where Google has to monitor these things THIS closely. They don't have sets of phrases on themes they don't need to monitor. Collateral is the semantically relevant phrase with a different meaning, or the semantically unrelated, yet very much on topic phrase, that's also competitive because of words Google is sensitive to.

If there's a phrase people bid like hell on AdWords, they won't let you rank for it just because you include it on your site, yet you don't have the inbounds to support it, only a navigation that you invented. But... since this is based on AdWords data, it is for monitored phrases ONLY!

...

They are NOT building an AI to understand themes, they are building a filter to identify word combos that are a query people bid on, and need to be monitored. If they let people rank for combinations with a 3rd, 4th word ( which WE identify as a legit topic, but they don't ) ... one could bypass AdWords.

Check your problematic phrases in the Keyword Suggestion tool thing at AdWords. There's an external one you don't have to be a paying customer.

Those are the relations they know of, and using this data you may rank / be penalized for something related / unrelated, yet semantically irrelevant / relevant.

- What are its synonyms?
- Is it actually identified in whole or in parts as something people bid hard money on?
- Is it identified at all?

End of story

Meaning end of post 151 in part 8. Move on to post 152. Funny. Does anyone remember their OWN posts anymore? This should be read in context of the previous ones too.

[edited by: Miamacs at 5:05 pm (utc) on May 7, 2007]

alvin123




msg:3333126
 6:14 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

why are they hitting information only sites which don't sell a product at all?

I don't agree with this...I've looked at hundreds of 950d sites on Google groups and "end of results" and the vast majority are product and service sites, I've found very few information sites or PAS ( pure adsense sites ).

tedster




msg:3333150
 6:41 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

For this dictionary is built by - guess who - ...AdWords users. That's the reason, the method, and the market where Google has to monitor these things THIS closely. They don't have sets of phrases on themes they don't need to monitor.

That's an interesting idea - and AdWords phrases certainly may be in play. However, the five patenst about phrase-based indexing (five!) do lay out another technology for finding semantically relevant phrases on a page and it's backlinks. No doubt this kind of list would significantly overlap with a list derived from AdWords, but I have the sense that more is in play here than just AdWords phrases.

potentialgeek




msg:3333183
 7:29 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't know what phrase databases Google has besides AdWords except for its Toolbar suggestions. Does it say? I would certainly hope it has more besides these two; however, I forget its self-imposed privacy-related constraints for data collection.

p/g

tedster




msg:3333195
 7:41 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

Phrase tables can also get built according to the five phrase-based indexing patents [webmasterworld.com] that we discussed in another thread. This approach uses Google's crawling data to identify semantically relevant phrases (one or more words) right from the source code of the pages

[edited by: tedster at 8:52 pm (utc) on May 7, 2007]

jdoughs




msg:3333204
 7:57 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

I had 2 sites get 950'd last tuesday, i poured through this thread to find the answers. My main site has been number 1-3 for its keyword for 6 months (very big term). ANd had a nice number of strong rank passing links pointing to it.

My domain was like this www.nonkeywordnonrelated.com. no keywords or "themes" involved, but i noticed i had been linked to lots with the anchor "nonkeywordnonrelated" (my domain name) i went through and added my domain name as a word to my page 4-6 times, to offset the balance.

Did this to both sites that fell last week, both are back up this morning. I had several links to my site with anchor text that included words not even on my main page, and im sure that adding them, made the diferance.

mattg3




msg:3333205
 8:04 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)


You're irrelevant because:

- You don't have enough inbounds to support the phrase
- Don't have enough derivations in your incoming anchors
- Don't have variation in your anchors
- Whatever

Maybe in normal ranking but sites jump back and forth at the END. That's not normal ranking and adjusting. How can you be one day top the next day the ultinate nono, Doesn't make sense.

trinorthlighting




msg:3333228
 8:39 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

The ad words phrases are a good start for terms, the next key is Google labs/trends to see how much keywords are searched and where they are searched at. The part that everyone is missing is bouncing rate data which only Google sees. Example: Neon, could be a car, could be a gas, etc.... Google can see that 70% of people are looking for the car, 20% gas, etc.... So it picks a few of each type of sites and ranks accordingly to the keyword. Over time, that can change. A year down the road people might be searching for the gas because the car was discontinued.

But, the -950 is not about phrase based ranking. If you have a good page that might not quite fit the phrase, you would find yourself in the 20-800 range for the keyword.

The -950 penalty is a penalty and its about a penalty - links, swapped, exchanged, bought, hacked pages, scraped pages, duplicated pages, irrelevant pages, hidden text, use, abuse, not a good page, crappy html, useless content, content built to boost rankings or something along those lines. One thing we have watched and proven is that a -950 page eventually goes supplemental. So, when your page goes that way, itís a warning. Look at your links; look at the page, etc....

Miamacs is right on target when it comes to anchors and how Google looks at them and how the trust rank flows. If the anchors are used and abused to gain some PR or to game Google, they will eventually go -950 when caught. If they are not fixed, eventually they slip into the supplemental or even a complete ban. Itís so stealthy and slow, the webmaster will hardly notice until itís too late. I like to call it the Google subtle penalty.

Ever try to regain trust rank with Google? That will take time. Want to pull out of it, get a link from a relevant page where a user would find it useful and stop tying to game Google. Remember, Google gives every webmaster a rope to use when you build a site as per the MSSA penalty definition, you can properly build the site and rope in some good traffic by using white hat SEO practices, or you can play around with the black hats. Sure it will get you a boost of traffic at first, but in the end Google will figure it out and you will end up hanging yourself.

tedster




msg:3333240
 8:58 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

Trinorth, consider this - the affected urls do not fall a set amount, as they do in a -30 penalty. And speaking of the -30 penalty, that 3-pager is handed out for some of the more extreme violations of Google's guidlelines, but this -950 is affecting some pretty squeaky clean websites, as well as full-out trust violators.

Biggus_D




msg:3333249
 9:06 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

Well, there's a huge blog network that every time that links to another site (like mine) just puts "READ" as the anchor text.

How can you fix what you can't control?

trinorthlighting




msg:3333266
 9:31 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

Tedster,

I have yet to see a good site page that is -950 that has not fallen into one of the following:

1. Hacked page with hidden encryped links (I see this a lot and it is out there and alive and well. Especially on non monitored .edu sites with high PR)
2. Very poor page with little use to the end user
3. Very broken HTML
4. Duplicated content

steveb




msg:3333281
 9:51 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

"Your anchor text is seen relevant for a competitive phrase, but you don't have the support for it."

That's fully backwards for classic 950 penalties. The "problem" is too much relevance, too much link power, too much authority, too much stickiness, too much everything.

As always there appear to be many ways to get 950ed, but for the most part "too much support" is the principal shorthand for the 950 penalty... deep pages on authority domains that are highly relevant and score highly, penalization for being "too good to be true".

RichTC




msg:3333326
 10:48 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

SteveB

Bang on the money.

We see sites ranking in the serps with next to zero authority and of zero quality.

Meanwhile many sites in the 950 club i would agree COULD be held back because they MIGHT be seen to be to good to be true and lets face it with adwords revenue on the up at google, mediocre wins every time - i think googles serps are now mediocre boarderline poor as a result of harsh filtering.

Everflux = webmasters need to learn SEO because a good site, well linked to, well laid out could be to good to be true and get as good as removed with the 950

tedster




msg:3333341
 11:20 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

The "problem" is too much relevance, too much link power, too much authority, too much stickiness, too much everything.

That lines up very strongly with the majority of what I've seen - except for those cases where an additional inbound link with the penalized phrase in the anchor text was followed by a return to the top. Frustrating! It seems like every good summary (and steveb wrote a very good one) has some evidence that runs contrary.

Pancho




msg:3333346
 11:46 pm on May 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

Two sites I know well returned to the top. The webmasters "deoptimized" them, deleted on-page cross links and returned a clear hierarchical somehow minimalized link structure, reduced keyword density, specially in <h1>, <h2>,... tags. They sized down SEO to a more "natural" looking level.

What analysis makes so difficult, is, that another site came back without having changed anything.

So you will never know, if the first mentioned sites would have come back without changes too.

My site is still far away from former rankings.

I still haven't changed anything, except adding some new pages of content. I decided to wait another week, after that I will "deoptimize" too. All examples of sites returning to top positions which I was able to have a closer look at, have either changed nothing, or deoptimized on page. Adding new quality links as an off page factor might also help, at least that shouldn't turn things worse.

[edited by: Pancho at 11:48 pm (utc) on May 7, 2007]

Miamacs




msg:3333350
 12:11 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Tedster is right, but...
Please read the fine print.

Does anyone remember their OWN posts anymore? This should be read in context of the previous ones too.

This time I was just clarifying what I meant by the word, "theme" ( in Google ). Haven't we discussed theme collision to bits some "parts" ago? Yes, that's also a reason, but it's so obvious ( 3 out of 4 sites that are -950 have this problem, which you can spot within seconds ) I thought we were talking about those who STILL can't get it right, not even after reworking the navigation.

The rest of the reasons however were harder to spot, lack of anchor text, lack of derivations, or faulty - too generic, too specific - navigation.

Also, there's no such thing as "too much linkpower". The "60.000" backlinks a site has could be reduced to 56 and it'd still rank where it does.

...

On another note, it's not like their AdWords sets ( ie. buy computers / PC store... that are KNOWN to them to carry the same topic ) are complete. I think it's still evolving. But there's still some merit in understanding the motive, which is basically...

"You shouldn't rank high, not even with high trust, if the phrase isn't for what you've earned trust for."

"You shouldn't be able to outrank others, and bypass a lot of eager AdWords bidders by crossing over from one theme ( set of competitive phrases within the same sector ) to another."

That's how it reads out to me.
To keep you from being able to create relevance without external support. Or with a page that's obviously a storehouse for money-sensitive phrases... and nothing more.

...

I'm really curious though... for I'm yet to see an example where these theories don't fit. I'm not sure if this isn't inappropiate to ask but, could you pass on some examples that contradict what I'm saying? I mean exact sites, and the phrases they have problems with... IF they don't fit the profiles I mentioned. All the sites that have been stickied to me had fit thus far, and I might be missing important things, which makes me nervous. I'm curious, because I don't want to trip the filters in a way that I wouldn't expect just by coming to the wrong conclusions.

trinorthlighting




msg:3333351
 12:12 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

If the case of "too good to be true" applied, we would be seeing wiki pages ranking -950. So that is not true.

I am curious like miamacs as well, I have yet to see a good page rank -950. Everyone I have looked at have had some serious issues.

steveb




msg:3333361
 12:32 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Your missing the point. Wikipedia pages DON'T have too much. Not even close. They almsot never are the most relevant, most internally linked, strongest synonyms, most authoritatively deeplinked, etc.

Wkipedia pages are shallow (not meant as a criticism). They are precisely the type of pages that would not be 950ed, whereas an authority site within a niche will be hit, as well as hacked edu pages with gobs of related text.

steveb




msg:3333362
 12:36 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

"Also, there's no such thing as 'too much linkpower'."

Of course there is. Link power penalties were around long before 950 penalties. It's just one of the things now common in 950 situations.

annej




msg:3333464
 4:53 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Does anyone remember their OWN posts anymore

It's all becoming a blur to me. I thought I had at least a sense of what was going on back at your message that included:

- {simple} If the pages did well for one topic ( my-city widgets ), and the site also optimised ( an area, page, subdomain, part on page, whatever ) for another that was "close enough" by previous standards ( buy widgets / othercity widgets / my-city hotels ), pages might now be filtered out for not having enough inbounds supporting the second ( third, fourth, eleventh ) theme on them.

...or worse yet:

- {complicated} If the site had all the inbounds, page had all the internal anchors it needed ( my-city widgets, my-city hotels ), the filter might have ...wrongfully... decided that a page about THIS theme shouldn't include THAT and THAT theme, or N number of "close enough" themes ( my-city widgets / hotels / toothpaste / apples / air conditioners ), because it's unnatural, or isn't that close anyway, or is used 51% of the time in this combo by spammers, and again, penalized the pages for whatever it deemed as spam. ( And let's use the word spam with some irony. )

...and finally:

- {impossible} Google has some weird association set in the brain of its AI for a combination they, you and users aren't even aware of. You have no chance of knowing what this is ( as in guessing from the thematic relevance and using reasoning ), and the only thing you can do is collect data of your pages that work, and those that don't, examine it as if the words were pretty pictures without a meaning, and find the one ( combination ) that the bot doesn't like.

It made good sense at the time but now so many other possibilities have muddied the soup that I am now more unsure than ever. Some people say theming matters others say not. I don't even have a clear idea of what theming is. I thought I knew but it appears I didn't.

I still think this is phrase based and even the things we have found with internal navigation I think are phrase based. I really appreciate the idea of looking at AdWords suggestion not because I think it is Google's only source of filtered words/phrases but it does give us a tool that might help.

The dilemma is when you are pretty sure of the problem but to change the wording in the title, text, links etc will mean the whole page will no longer make sense!

So even if you figure out the problem it may not be fixable. Earlier I put meta noindex on a whole section on one of my sites. Today I looked at the AdWords suggestion and I can see why it's a problem. I guess I'll just have to wait until Google sorts it out before I can let it be indexed again.

I guess what frustrates me is if Google can't differentiate a word in a phrase naming a war from a phrase about lawsuits plus they don't have a clue that the war can be related to a hobby I don't have a prayer.

mattg3




msg:3333526
 7:13 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

All this phrase based thing would be nice if a site wouldn't have jumped back that has half of his page in boilerplate template, 25 keywords in keywords, the rest is snippets from WP, popups, affiliate links and ever repeating inserts from it's measly forum. It's not even an old domain. His 153 inbound links are to 60% from one site sellling some software in english (the target site is German) with czech titles and some forums. The software is a travelbooking site and the lower menus are a mixture of every field known to man.

tedster




msg:3333533
 7:27 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

There are two signs that suggest one of the five phrase-based patents might be in play here:

1. Some people in this thread report that one of their urls went to the end-of-results for one competitive search and still ranks well for a different competitive search. So the phrase itself seems to be in play, at least for some cases.

2. The spam-recognition patent mentions taking the original ranking order and using the phrase measurements to inform a re-ranking of those urls. That sounds something like what we see - not truly a "minus some fixed amount" situation.

Not that this means those patents are a slam-dunk for the mechanism that's really in use. And that spam patent talks about measuring so many different factors that it's almost like a blank check anyway.

mattg3




msg:3333537
 7:40 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Everflux = webmasters need to learn SEO because a good site, well linked to, well laid out could be to good to be true and get as good as removed with the 950

Besides the spam network we have around 1200 links from unis, schools, associations of our theme since 10 years up to now. On 85000 users a day each averaged 6 pages and 1/3 come back quite soon depending on school times (Even now when they come in over bookmarks). What I noticed though is since we had installed new servers to speed things up, adsense dropped. We had the highest adsense rate ever when the server was too slow. The speed up just caused a fall in CTR, 60%. Adsense revenue was in the 5 digits falling back to 4 digits before the 950.

The english site same concept same software but less popular is steady .. it's less linked also also 10 years old. If the 950 would be phrase based I would have expected it to fall too, but it doesn't. We are now in the situation where the site with higher bounce rate less returning visitors and less pageviews per person performs better than the one linked by most sites in the field including long standing WP links.

The megaspammer doesn't use adsense anymore, but ebay and some other affilinet text based ads. Maybe that made him escape the 950 penalty.

mattg3




msg:3333546
 8:01 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

I guess what frustrates me is if Google can't differentiate a word in a phrase naming a war from a phrase about lawsuits plus they don't have a clue that the war can be related to a hobby I don't have a prayer.

I guess Google doesn't even understand that x y and z which seem totally unrelated might be necessary to understand a.

A Biology page could endlessly talk about cars carburettors and so on since it tries to explain Co2 emission. Google wants car sites to talk about cars only which is a ridicolous concept since nearly everybody has a car and that that don't have one will have the strongest opinion about it.

If you can only talk about cars when you have a car website then you can't expand your site to background info. Unlike Google we want to retain visitors.

I don't have a car website btw. just an example.

Pancho




msg:3333593
 9:49 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Everyone I have looked at have had some serious issues.

"Also, there's no such thing as 'too much linkpower'."

Of course there is. Link power penalties were around long before 950 penalties. It's just one of the things now common in 950 situations.

Well that is just what I suppose to be the matter with my site.
I got the suspiscion, that setting up a footer from a site (forum) that is not relevant may have caused this problems, in addition with some expanded text area with links in it within <noframes> tags (maybe the fact, that it is a frame-based site itsself is a part of the problem now, too).

Since the most of us might apply SEO methods close to the borderline, one will always find some problematic issues with any side. If it's ranking well, then you would have some respect for the SEO, seen in the 950-zone the same issues can be seen with fairly good reason as serious problems. How much onpage-crosslinking is too much, how often should the KW be placed in different locations of the site? Ask 10 SEOs and you get at least 12 answers... ;-)

So what really is problematic, depends on the results in SERPs and a subjective point of view.

I asked this question previously, without any real answers to it:

Would it be better to remove "too much linkpower" now that the side is penalized, or better leave things in place?

What's your opinion?

Thank you for your answers...

trinorthlighting




msg:3333637
 11:42 am on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

What is one thing that is in common for 70-90% that show up on the last page of the serps -950?

They are either spam or hacked. If your page is on that last page, its being flagged as spam. Plain and simple

Look for terms on your page that might be similar to:

Buying Cars, save money, get rich quick, ringtones, gambling, porn, etc...

The other day we set up an adwords campaign for "swimming pool lights" Google adwords flagged the ad for review. Why? Pool is related to gambling.

Miamacs




msg:3333666
 12:26 pm on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

annej: Those are still my points.

The dilemma is when you are pretty sure of the problem but to change the wording in the title, text, links etc will mean the whole page will no longer make sense!

Alternatively you could get an inbound from a high TrustRank site ( like someone teaching / studying history who shares the same hobby )... and see how it boils out. Just make sure you have the relevance where it needs to be. ( ie. the link power reaches the proper page with the proper anchor passing proper relevance )

...

All this phrase based thing would be nice if a site wouldn't have jumped back that has half of his page in boilerplate template, 25 keywords in keywords, the rest is snippets from WP, popups, affiliate links and ever repeating inserts from it's measly forum. It's not even an old domain. His 153 inbound links are to 60% from one site sellling some software in english (the target site is German) with czech titles and some forums. The software is a travelbooking site and the lower menus are a mixture of every field known to man.

I'm monitoring some interesting things. First of all, all phrase based penalties are limited to the language the page is in, and the regional Google they target - ie. the region AdWords users target with them, the region they are competitive in. German links won't penalize an english page and vica versa. I saw a site jump to position 1... as in "first" because of different language links. One was in German, the other was Turkish. The page ranks #1 for phrases that are not on the page...

... in Google.com.

In Google.de and Google.com.tr these pages are not even in the primary index for the given phrases. In English, these words are more or less meaningless ( well even those who don't speak German may very well guess the meaning, but no one will bid money in AdWords targeting an English audience, hence no ads, no high TrustRank threshold, and thus these phrases are NOT monitored in english regions. Again, use AdWords, set the target language, target region, and it'll give you some hints. )

Easy to check. In Google.de ads pop up for the phrase. In Google.com, they don't.

So this is - again - a rare example.
I mean cross-language analysis.

Also... even if you see 153 links that are of no importance, a single high TrustRank link can make a site an exception. So unless I know the domain, and can track their linking profile, I just won't know what to say.

...

"Also, there's no such thing as 'too much linkpower'."
Of course there is. Link power penalties were around long before 950 penalties. It's just one of the things now common in 950 situations.

Steveb, do you mean the excessive use of same anchor text? Okay, but that's another obvious problem, and not a new thing, furthermore it doesn't apply to most of the sites I saw. You may be right as it may be a POSSIBLE cause. But it's not the only one, and doesn't necessarilly need to be present. ( If you didn't mean "same anchor overuse", then what you're saying just doesn't make sense using my own dictionary for Google. And also it contradicts every single experience I had with Google... even when looking at -950'd sites. )

Look at the example above. That link wasn't just any other link, the German one was from a TrustRank hub. The site could've exchanged half of its linking profile for that single link. Imagine if that link wasn't same-topic, different language, but OFF TOPIC, same language. What would that communicate towards Google which seems to be deciding your theme / topic based on what OTHERS say about you? It'd out-match the site's own relevance. It'd make it irrelevant to its own content.

On this "too much link power" thing being THE reason.
Half of what I saw didn't have too much links.
Some were having 0 as in ZERO with the exact phrase.
They only had derivations for anchor text.

I think you may be right, as in... overuse of same anchor text may result in a -950 penalty. I don't know, but yes, why not, it'd fit just fine... something that's sent as a warning.

But then there are sites which don't have the anchor at all, and that's why they're at -950.

Then there're sites which have misunderstood anchors, bad navigation, too many phrases... see?

All I can do is repeat myself.
This isn't ONE filter.
There's more than a single problem that may cause sites end up -950. The -950 is a new penalty box for high TrustRank sites that are filtered out runtime.

[edited by: tedster at 5:06 pm (utc) on May 8, 2007]

trinorthlighting




msg:3333672
 12:35 pm on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Miamacs,

I doubt you will see counter examples. We have looked at a lot of -950 results and we just do not see them.

mattg3




msg:3333699
 1:06 pm on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

The other day we set up an adwords campaign for "swimming pool lights" Google adwords flagged the ad for review. Why? Pool is related to gambling.

Sorry but this example just confirms to me how rather poor their algos are...

From the limited amount of words that could be offensive one could with a couple of billions in the bank rather easily make a cross checker for word combinations where this word is harmless, if pool is paired with swimming and that the combination with light is rather harmless if the target site doesn't contain the usual poker blackjack.

Unless your landing page has these words, then I withdraw my comment.

RichTC




msg:3333761
 2:09 pm on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Matt,

We see zillions of similar examples.

Im convinced that all this is about is to try and stop websites ranking well on related terms and make them buy adwords.

IE the site ranks 1 in google for "Blues Widgets" yet doesnt rank anywhere for "Widgets Blue Today". If the webmaster builds a page of content about "Widgets Blue today" google sees it as a similar page and whacks both pages with the 950+

On from that the webmaster now finds that his widget site that has sections from Red Widgets, Blue Widgets, White widgets is also boucing around the index because he finds that "Blue Widgets" is somehow now related to "widgets bluish Red" when in fact they are totally different meanings.

Do any search on google today and you will quickly see that the results show web sites that are in the "Ball Park" but not exactly on target. Chances are the page of information you searched for will be off that sites pages somewhere else, not where google has taken you to.

Do a search on Yahoo for "Blue Widgets Today" and you find that the top results will be exactly what you searched for taking you to exactly the right page first time in 70% of search requests.

As i keep saying, search quality is now rock bottom in google due to to many sites now missing

trinorthlighting




msg:3333782
 2:41 pm on May 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Matt,

The landing page is swimming pool lights, no gambling. The campaign is up and running after a manual review.

It shows that ad words flags certain terms; I would say the algo does as well. Google will put their resources of manual review for ad words since itís $$$. For the algo there is probably not as many manual reviewers.

Funny thing is, we rank fine (top 10) for the term in Google main. We were setting up a content network advertising campaign.

This 226 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 226 ( 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