homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.42.105
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
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 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]

 

malachite




msg:3334780
 12:23 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

I thought the search folks had more autonomy than that, but maybe I was wrong Maybe it's the AdWords CSR's who run search after all. Wouldn't that be a kick in the head, if all of us have been wrong all this time.

Just to further the debate Marcia, suppose you are wrong? It wouldn't be the first time the subject came up of Google wanting to increase Adwords revenue possibly being directly correlated to demotion of sites with previously stable organic results. There are plenty of webmasters who are only maintaining their former traffic levels by using adwords - ok, I'm sure there are plenty who would disagree too. :)

One of my clients has seen his site tank in the organic results (he was already using Adwords modestly) and has now been 'helped' by an Adwords rep to increase his adwords spend from GBP 500 per month to around GBP 5,000 per month just to retain the previous levels of traffic.

Is that tenfold increase in online advertising expenditure good for his business? Not particularly. But it sure is good for Google's.

mattg3




msg:3334786
 12:35 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

So then, is it safe to assume that Matt and his whole spam_team and quality control people and the search engineers are nothing more than puppets, moving and adjusting search algorithms at the direction of Adwords CSRs based on bids and market share?

Wouldn't it be silly not to, businesswise? Silly would be to admit it.

Imagine Google Gym dressing room, Adword guy moans about the problem have that xyz search causes for them. SE guy hears it. He has picked up subconsciously some information.

Things don't need to be evily preplanned to happen. Bit like scientists finding the results the want to find. There has been research on that. Hence it's quite easy to show that NO evil grand masterplan has to exist to generally move things in a direction.

DO I think they press a button, oh he had enough traffic let him do the adwords thing: No.

But funnily enough it still pops up right before the traffic collapses .. cause the Google Gaia [aka the sum of its parts] is on a roll. Like an ant state bigger than the collection of it's parts [the individual Google employee].

[edited by: mattg3 at 12:39 pm (utc) on May 9, 2007]

Petra Kaiser




msg:3334787
 12:37 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Webmasterworld has a issue too, when logged in I see Google's 950 Penalty - Part 8 with 22 pages and when logged out I see 8 pages, this what Iím talking about just a little mistake nothing else, talk about it and they will find it.

Marcia




msg:3334890
 2:54 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

The problem I see with the Adwords tinfoil_hat conspiracy theory is that if sites get bounced down in order to grab their dollars, other sites will move in and take their place in the SERPs.

I have yet to see an empty first page in the search result. So if I'm missing something, please 'splain.

Marcia




msg:3334907
 3:08 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Webmasterworld has a issue too, when logged in I see Google's 950 Penalty - Part 8 with 22 pages and when logged out I see 8 pages, this what Iím talking about just a little mistake nothing else, talk about it and they will find it.

Part 8 with 22 pages?

Which part of the 17,098 pages in 632 threads would that be?

Would it be somewhere in the 567 threads about the Supplemental Index, or
Will it be somewhere among the 342 threads about the 950+ penalty?

Pancho




msg:3334936
 3:36 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have yet to see an empty first page in the search result. So if I'm missing something, please 'splain.

But there are types of sites that rather would buy adwords than others probably. I'd guess, that an already with adwords experienced webmaster would rather expand his budget than one who has never used adwords would start to do so, no matter how rankings were. So there can be easily set up site-profiles to maximize revenues (Sites to sell prcoducts, shops, etc.), I'm pretty sure that this profiling and segmentation of possible customers already exists, since this is a normal marketing issue, which any marketer in any industry has to do.

So I think there's still a way of maximizing revenues for google, but that would be "evil" and on the long run would ruin their buisiness - or would you put large amounts of money on their table to buy a ticket to -950? So I myself don't believe in this conspiracy. That would seriously threaten the whole adwords buisiness, and there's no need drive towards this dangerous direction.

Biggus_D




msg:3334970
 4:18 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Given the huge number of our algorithms and the complexity of their interactions, it's statistically certain that on any given day, some Webmasters' sites are going to be "moved" to [-x] for various keywords. Sadly, we rarely see "I just got the +42 boost!" from happy Webmasters because for some odd reason, they're just less likely to be posting on this scenario. [webmasterworld.com]

So maybe we are all wrong, it must be totally normal to get half of the Google visits from one day to another (and even double your stats).

mattg3




msg:3335035
 5:12 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have yet to see an empty first page in the search result. So if I'm missing something, please 'splain.

Yapp does that site use adwords and so on?

The point was kinda that it ain't a direct connection, if at all subconscious.

steveb




msg:3335256
 8:37 pm on May 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Isn't the adwords conspiracy thread a few messages up?

mattg3




msg:3335498
 3:38 am on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Isn't the adwords conspiracy thread a few messages up?

It's in a book depository somewhere close to SF.. Anyway got myself adwords as a test but I am to mean to bid the price for my keyword .. please advise.. :)

DXL




msg:3335615
 7:31 am on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Seems to me that Google has taken a page from Yahoo's revenue strategy book: shake up the organic results and watch panicked advertisers increase their PPC budgets. To assume that the Adwords team and search engine team are working completely independent of one another is like assuming the guy selling salty pretzels and popcorn at a baseball game doesn't know the effect he has on the beer guy's sales.

Pico_Train




msg:3335631
 7:52 am on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

well put DXL. I suppose a similar analogy could be nicotine in cigarettes. Now why would you tinker with those levels? The data is just too valuable to ignore.

trinorthlighting




msg:3335981
 3:14 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Marcia,

Why do you think for the keyword "pool" was flagged? Ad words popped up a message saying the keyword was related to gambling and it needed manual review before the campaign started. You want me to email you a screen shot of it? It took a day for a manual review before it started. I saw it with my own eyes. Google flags certain keywords as spam and certain words for safe seach -- adult, gambling, drugs, etc...

[edited by: tedster at 4:50 pm (utc) on May 10, 2007]

tedster




msg:3336221
 7:57 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why do you think for the keyword "pool" was flagged?

So how exactly would that relate to the -950 phenomenon? I lost the thread here somewhere.

Marcia




msg:3336248
 8:17 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why do you think for the keyword "pool" was flagged? Ad words popped up a message saying the keyword was related to gambling and it needed manual review before the campaign started. You want me to email you a screen shot of it? It took a day for a manual review before it started. I saw it with my own eyes. Google flags certain keywords as spam and certain words for safe seach -- adult, gambling, drugs, etc...

No, they are not "spam" in organic search, they just get filtered according to the preferences that individual users set. Nothing to do with spam or penalties.

Besides, that's Adwords you're referring to, which is an entirely different system from Google's organic search. It has nothing whatsoever to do with organic search, or this topic, or this thread for that matter.

Unfortunately, it sometimes seems to be human nature that people can sometimes get so obsessed with their own pre-conceived notions, be it spam or links or whatever else may be their favorite flavor of the day, that they're in danger of completely missing the boat.

Biggus_D




msg:3336276
 8:52 pm on May 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

That's because we are shooting in the dark trying to find a reason, theory, conspiracy or whatever that could explain this phenomenon.

And the same goes for the possible solutions.

< Continued here: [webmasterworld.com...] >

[edited by: tedster at 3:12 am (utc) on May 11, 2007]

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