| 8:11 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I think it will stay this way.
Their ignorance is still awful. A multi billion dollar company is not able to communicate a few minutes with the people who provide all the content.
Where would they be without our content? What the heck, what's wrong with these people? Do they also treat their shareholders the same way?
Whoever likes ignorant people, I don't.
[edited by: SEOPTI at 8:16 pm (utc) on June 15, 2008]
| 9:01 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I have faced this problem too... my blog which ranks usually in the top 3 for most search terms related to its topic in my country has disappeared from the front page!
| 9:50 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I would suggest that BillyS is onto something here with post 3674897.
An algorithm that looks at the freshness of topics may be inclined to view old pages as 'stale' and reduce ranking scores for those pages.
This might also explain the resurgence of Universal Search media popping in and out of position 4 and even position 1 for topics, since news would be considered the freshet form of media imho.
| 10:12 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I don't think it is freshness. A new created site has been moved into this penalty during the crawling process, therefore I think it can't be freshness.
| 11:08 pm on Jun 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
1. Since we've been talking about losses on short competitive queries, was the affected url your domain root? Or have some high performing internal urls also been hit hard?
2. For those whose competitors who did not fall, can you spot any key differences between your site and the ones that stayed?
and mostly what we an see as a "cookie cutter" "landing page looking site", text heavy 3 pages including the buy page
starting to crawl back up for five word terms and some four word terms
but was #1` for two word very niche terms
| 6:09 am on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|1. Since we've been talking about losses on short competitive queries, was the affected url your domain root? Or have some high performing internal urls also been hit hard? |
2. For those whose competitors who did not fall, can you spot any key differences between your site and the ones that stayed?
Traffic to the home page was negligible for my website. The internal pages are all those affected. A few of my competitors are also hit. But the grand-daddy of all ( the biggest site in my niche and exact type) still unaffected. It's now around alexa 5000 range with over a million pages indexed.
Running the same forum script and similar content. The main differences i spotted a) Non SEOed standard vBulletin urls. b) Default vBulletin template.
Is over optimization matters?
|The website Iím talking about is a kind of tech community (10 years old domain) with mainly user generated content, with a lot of active members daily. We run similar websites on one and the same server using the same CMS. I do not agree that we have a SEO issue here, nor a server/software performance issue. |
Exactly the same scenario. Same kind of website, same niche. Is your urls keyword rich or 301ed?
|I'm wondering if these "old" and established sites with millions of outdated pages are falling victim to this: |
From the Official Google Blog:
Recently, we improved our algorithms to process new information faster, and the result is quite tangible -- you should now see fresher suggestions for queries on current topics of interest.
I strongly believe this is a relevant factor here. Means it's not a penalty and probably no recovery from it.
|Anyone here affected that does NOT have Google Analytics on their sites ? |
I don't have it. I pulled it out in last December when i got hit by a -950.
| 6:33 am on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
we can rule out google analytics then.
one down, million to go.
|Pass the Dutchie|
| 7:49 am on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If this is an attempt by Google to flush out old content how does one go about dealing with this? IMO this is the kind of information webmasters should also be inform about.
So what's the solution? Do they expect us to rewrite pages for the sake of being fresh! Do we write additional pages about the same topic? Do we write content just for the sake of it? Surly that's not what the end user wants. If a page has been indexed and well ranked for 5+ years why if the end user finds it useful would that be a problem? I agree if our site was a news site or a site that required constant updating then such an algo should apply but I don't think it should apply across the board for the sake of freshness. Water with the baby comes to mind.
If Google does not want us old school, white hat, established sites to go off and mess around with a perfectly good site then why not simply state that older sites should consider xyz. At least then we have an informed choice with the end user in mind.
This reminds me of the issue of speed cameras. If the purpose of them is to slow traffic then why do they hide them?
| 8:24 am on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
this kind of thing also happen to my site also now what should we do can anybody tell me this
| 9:07 am on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Where would they be without our content? What the heck, what's wrong with these people? Do they also treat their shareholders the same way? |
The question is where would they be without "your" content. And I'm sure they'd be fine without it. There are only a handful of sites that are actually "needed" by search engines. The most commonly searched for terms will always have relevant results unless everyone agreed to block Googlebot from their servers ... And that's not going to happen! The smaller terms are no longer a big concern for Google as savvy users will now simply adjust their search themselves rather than curse the results.
| 12:56 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Do they expect us to rewrite pages for the sake of being fresh! |
Very doubtful, my information is both authoratative and evergreen and my two core sites, both 14+ years, have seen nothing discernible other than some longer tail searches.
I have been affected on a couple of small brochure sites, both 10 years old and I really can't work out why other than to assume now that it has been a bad data push since these two sites are either #1 or not to be seen at all.
I'm sure Google's playing hide and seek with some of us!
| 1:05 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I have been affected on a couple of small brochure sites |
I've just been checking my logs and these two sites were first affected immediately after the maintenance weekend of April 12/13th. Since then they've bounced up and down like a yo-yo with +/-50% of the traffic!
| 1:31 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Probably another red herring but I have been playing with Safe Search settings on google.co.uk - If I change from moderate filtering to no filtering then there is no change in the number of total results returned on .com or .co.uk - so Google is telling me that moderate and no filter are identical according to a site: request - that cannot be right!
BUT if I change to strict filtering the the number of supposed results on .com ( as seen from within .co.uk) goes down by 10% but the supposed results on .co.uk goes down by 90%! That is nonsense.
So, if the whole UK had had strict filtering turned on then 90% of my pages in the UK would no longer be visible on .co.uk but 90% would be visible on the .com option with google.co.uk - that is just a plain crazy set of figures.
I am wondering if a load of images have been tagged as adult for some reason and this had then led to my pages being classified as adult and then no longer visible, etc, etc. BTW 90% of my images are NOT adult but they all have alt tags and if the alt tags were being used to identify an adult image then clearly pages with no alt tags would benefit!
| 2:44 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Me too my site is 16 month old and some 1900 pages indexed all gone it shows up in indexed pages but significant drop in traffic since june 4 a sudden drop as if some kind of server down
| 2:53 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Your ranking is based on pages satellite and links exchanges?
It could be that values where is the link, top (my principal menu), left (all menu), center (content), right (blogroll!), bottom (exchange)
| 3:04 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
This recent downfall is a combination of a devaluation of links and a swipe at affiliate content.
| 3:05 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
We havent been effected by this latest change with our oldest property but I would like to relay some things that have come to my attention.
In the last week GWT is reporting a 20% drop in backlinks to our oldest site which is in the hundreds of thousands for backlinks so this is a large amount they have cut out. To me this is a good indication of new filters being applied.
Our longtail has changed by a large percentage to completely new phrases never before seen.
Our spidering has increased dramatically.
Our traffic is unchanged.
| 3:27 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If it is some sort if link devaluation big sites should see less URLs in the index, but this is not the case.
[edited by: SEOPTI at 3:27 pm (utc) on June 16, 2008]
| 3:31 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I don't think its a swipe at affiliate content as our site is 90% affiliate content, non of the affiliate links are hidden and the site recovered fully yesterday and now ranking better than ever.
I agree that most older pages do lose rankings but do improve if you update / re-write the content.
| 3:37 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
"This recent downfall is a combination of a devaluation of links and a swipe at affiliate content"
My affected site has no affiliate content at all, has been around for years, has adsense and display ads and is a directory site. My unaffected site has also been around for years and has lots of affiliate content. The main difference is the affected site is a .co.uk domain, totally UK centric content and aimed at the UK but hosted in the US, the unaffected site is totally international in content, is a .net site and is hosted in the UK.
Not too sure what to make of this, so far I have sat tight to see what happens but am beginning to think I need to do something!
| 3:57 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The one website that was hit is hosted in the US, but gets a lot of UK traffic. The one that was not hit is also hosted in the US, but gets traffic only from the US due to the website's type of business.
My guess after reading here, they might be trying to filter UK related results. We can rule this out if someone got very few UK results in the past, and was also hit.
| 3:58 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Do you use private whois registration?
| 4:01 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
No... Neither domains are privately registered. My names shows on the whois.
| 4:50 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I have seen through all the posts almost I am sure this is nothing to do about affiliate content , or old pages because one of my competitors pages are older then mine but they show up on top right now.
Even some of the older pages on my site are working well and appearing on top yet but most of the new pages that used to come on top are gone and nowhere to be found.
My site is hosted in Canada and the content is US centric I used to get 500 unique visits per day and this has come down to 50 from Google Search with this said I am sure it has nothing to do with US or UK hosted sites .
By going through all the posts we could not come to any logic behind the drop in traffic and for sure this could not be a Algo tweak if it is an Algo tweak there would have been a good trail of similar affected sites.
Only one thing is common amongst all the affected sites that is the date 4th June and nothing else to draw a conclusion except for the date and time of the event.
I feel GOOG has lost trail of rankings of the affected sites and need to re index before every thing comes back to normal this should take about one to three months.
If any one else has a different opinion then mine please post back I would be very thank full to you
| 6:31 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
What about pictures/videos and the way these are presented on the site ? I have seen a competitor with less pictures SERP raising. Could this be some testing (including non-expected results) based on the fact that G has said videos ? will make changes in the serp in the near future (the way I understood info in another thread)
| 6:34 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I would hold tight Martin9325, making a big change could hurt more right now then help.
| 7:53 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|First one similar to this one happened almost a year ago. On June 29th 2007 the traffic from Google dropped for 50%. By July, 1st 2007 the loss increased to 80%. It had last for 2 months and then it started slightly to improve on September 1st, 2007. Everything get back to normal on October 1st, 2007. Then on March 2nd, 2008 we experienced similar drop with 4/5 of traffic got lost over night. However, 10 days later (on March 12th ), we turned back to normal. Everything was pretty normal until the June 4th following with June 5th we just lost 80% of our Google traffic. |
Guys, can you check your stats and confirm this above? I suspect this could be the same scenario like the year before. Anyone else?
| 8:28 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
"Guys, can you check your stats and confirm this above? I suspect this could be the same scenario like the year before. Anyone else? "
well its a sort of similar pattern over here although the dates dont correlate exactly (but do roughly)
| 8:30 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
oh and I reckon drall is right Martin9325 - only ever make changes if you KNOW what the problem is. Significant traffic lssues like these - shared by quite a few of us - rarely stick for long
| 9:45 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Another google.co.uk crazy moment. Just did a search that returned approx 2 million results for the web and 15 of the top 50 results were from books.google.co.uk - so much for limiting the number of times results from one domain get shown. On pages from the UK then about .5 million results but not one result from books.co.uk in top 50 - this just gets crazier by the day.
| 10:23 pm on Jun 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If the affiliate does not apply, then it is link devaluation.
It is either one or the other mixed with some geo-location type of influence as well.
| This 242 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 242 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6  8 9 ) > > |