homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.225.23
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 242 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 242 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 > >     
Major Ranking Losses on 2008 June 4 - 5
confuscius




msg:3668367
 12:34 pm on Jun 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

I can now join the catastrophic loss club! UK site, PR6, rock solid rankings, 400k pages indexed, fast loading - 90% loss of traffic since 2 days ago. Last time the site went AWOL was early February for a couple of days.

Looking up what I used to rank for approx 20,00 medium to long phrases then all top listing just disappeared BUT results can now only be described as awful - in fact on one query results 11-20 contained sites from Poland, Germany, Czech, .info and not a single .com or .co.uk - when will Google admit that they really screwed up big time this time?

As my site is a .com hosted on uk servers then it seems that I have now moved to the index for Mars. Time to move to the dark side methinks rather than stay in the Google lottery.

[edited by: tedster at 7:08 pm (utc) on June 6, 2008]
[edit reason] moved from [webmasterworld.com...] [/edit]

 

trinorthlighting




msg:3676314
 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.

sahm




msg:3676357
 12:26 am on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

If the affiliate does not apply, then it is link devaluation.

For my main key word none of my main competitors have been affected. Most of the sites in the top 10 have less than 30 sites linking to them. Mine has hundreds linking to me. Also, many of the same sites link to mine and my competitors', so it seems to me the links to mine would be valued the same as the links to theirs.

A note about the outdated content - the idea makes sense, but it does seem that it would be really hard to weed through actual outdated content and content that would never change. I don't know how they could ever distinguish that. Several of the pages I am still ranking #1 for are several years old or more...but I do update them occasionally with reader comments. The pages I update with these comments seem to be doing better in general than the ones I don't ever change.

I agree that the only thing we know for sure is the date this occurred.

Hemanth




msg:3676435
 3:56 am on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

I agree that the only thing we know for sure is the date this occurred.

True. It seems there is no other options left.

What do you guys think about a reinclusion request? Or should I wait for a more few days for a clear idea?

masood82




msg:3676455
 4:59 am on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

my site is not hosted in uk it is hosted in usa and major part of its traffic comes from USA but it has lost its google traffic considerably i dont know what google is trying to do this is not good

confuscius




msg:3676523
 8:35 am on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

The craziness continues on pages from the UK on google.co.uk. The latest one is a four word search for a certain colour of a branded piece of clothing. I know for a fact that this query used to return several thousand results - now just 12! 2 pages are from the original vendor, then 1 page from a spammy affiliate site, then 3 auction site sub domain listing, then 1 page of an xml sitemap file, then 2 listings from one of my mini sites, then two pages that do not contain all the words and finally 1 pages from a recently set up blog of mine. 12 results that then expands to 47 but only covers pages from the main domains. 12 results where there used to be thousands. Put another way I now own 25% of the Google listings! Pathetic would be a generous description of what is going on.

Will Google ever recognise that there is 'an issue'?

ADDENDUM - I do not understand this one! I removed the colour from the query and the number of results rose to 170. However, when looking at the text on screen then I can see the 'colour' word on lots of the results so I can see lots of results that contain the colour in their descriptions but when the original search is run then it simply does not return these pages as part of the result set - so I can see that more results exist but Google cannot find them. This tells me that it is Google that is broken for the long tail and would explain the apparent filtering out of my main site for this particular search. Repeat and I know that my site is still there but just not visible because of the incredibly restricted result sets.

ADDENDUM - the three word search now only returns 10 results before the repeat search message appears, 5 minutes ago it was 170!

[edited by: confuscius at 8:57 am (utc) on June 17, 2008]

solutionmaster




msg:3676528
 8:52 am on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

We are back again today (were affected): our site across 11 languages EN, ES, DE, ..., geo targeting, 11 domains (same IP), each domain for specified language, using WMT, analytics, sitemaps, google site search, indexed > 1000/domain, GTPR 5, many sites 4, hosted in Prague/Czech, no affiliate, no adsense, running adwords, google maps, 5 years old, nearly authority sites in our branch, we were no 1-3 for keywords which have 10milons search results (very competitive area), after algo changes dropped -50,100,300. (dropped in google.co.uk, google.com, google.de, google.es, google.cz,......). We lost long tails and also 2-3 words competitive kwp, for some non commercial kwp we were stayed ranked.

Solution: we deleted duplicate content (we have some), deleted titles in internal urls (was helpful for users) and also deleted alt"" in images (was also helpful for users, but there were keyword phrases), also we were overoptimized a bit, so also we lowered keyword density. Also changed anchor text in some back links, where we can do it quickly. Than resubmit sitemaps in WMT and we are back, I hope not only for today.

tedster




msg:3676531
 8:56 am on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google's approach to search results is not what it used to be. For example, text match, on its own, is no longer a factor.

Old approach - we'll serve you results for what you typed
New approach - we'll serve you results for what we think you mean

Better for the average person, but disturbing for long time tecchies.

MattT




msg:3676538
 9:07 am on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

We made a very slight change to make our keywords tags better and page headings better, but I don't think they made a difference. It was several days later that we came back up and I am sure we had been crawled several times before there was a change

I think Google either made a mistake or tried something new as a test

So even though we are back up now, I am not sure for how long it will last

I think the comments pasted into disspy's entry on p7 are most telling

Hemanth




msg:3676544
 9:31 am on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

We are back again today (were affected)

Wow.. That's great. :)

Solution: we deleted duplicate content (we have some), deleted titles in internal urls (was helpful for users) and also deleted alt"" in images (was also helpful for users, but there were keyword phrases), also we were overoptimized a bit, so also we lowered keyword density. Also changed anchor text in some back links, where we can do it quickly. Than resubmit sitemaps in WMT and we are back, I hope not only for today.

Titles means < title> tag or heading tags?

Pass the Dutchie




msg:3676581
 11:58 am on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

What do you guys think about a reinclusion request? Or should I wait for a more few days for a clear idea?

Re-inclusion requests are really only a last resort and should only be used if your site or pages of your site are no longer in the serps when searching for unique content only found on the affected page.

Before making any re-inclusion requests you should really make sure that you have done your utmost to correct any possible problems like duplicate, internal linking structure, hidden text etc..

There is lots of information about how and when to make a re-inclusion requests here on WebmasterWorld.

Pass the Dutchie




msg:3676582
 12:00 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

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.

14+ years....what are you Al Gore?

chelseaareback




msg:3676592
 12:22 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

also now back to pre june 4th (not pre march 16th)

and we did nothing !

disspy




msg:3676610
 12:38 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

Iím a little bit confused here. Some people are talking about re-inclusion here? Iím not sure that we have one and the same issue here. Iím talking about sudden drop on SERPís although the site is still in GGL index, so itís silly to request re-inclusion if you still have pages in GGL index.

I would ask moderators for intervention here. We need to clearly resume this issue since we are going OT, or maybe Iím posting in the wrong thread?

Back to sudden SERPís issue... I wouldnít recommend any radical page/site changes since all other web sites in our network have the same methodology & SEO and still stay unaffected. The same was last year. This drop last for 2 months and then everything got back to normal. However, we never found the reason why.

Regarding the freshness theory ... I donít think this idea is sustainable. It could be another SPAMer heaven, and old reputable websites with valid and relevant information could get sandboxed. It could be very dangerous to play with this, and Google is not on this path so far. E.g. Google News works similarly, but tweaking regular search engine to show Ēthe freshestĒ results could change the web inside and out. Correct me if Iím wrong, but it seems they changed only the algorithm for related searches.

Someone said, my site was overoptimized. Hehe, I do not agree with that. From my point of view, another word for overoptimization is SE SPAM ;)

BTW. I donít see anyone (except some rough patterns by ďchelseaarebackĒ) confirmed the drop-dates match with experiences in the past:

... the first drop 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 gets 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 ...

chelseaareback




msg:3676650
 1:22 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

DISSPY - have you recovered a bit today then ? as we have, basically looks like june4th 'blip' overturned. It would also be interesting to know your location and niche

disspy




msg:3676662
 1:47 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

DISSPY - have you recovered a bit today then ? as we have, basically looks like june4th 'blip' overturned. It would also be interesting to know your location and niche

We noticed slight negligible change already yesterday. However, we still miss 5/6 of our GGL traffic, so I wouldn't count it as a recovery.

Site/server is located in Canada. Traffic is mainly US/Canda/UK. It's an IT-related english-spoken 3 year old community with 10 year old domain with unique and user-generated content.

Kristos




msg:3676675
 1:59 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

or at least something vague about your niche....

saxman




msg:3676679
 2:02 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

I caught this thread out of the corner of my eye. I just wanted to put my two cents in real quick, but from what I can gather most of your sites here are Adsense revenue generating sites... Correct?

Google actually warned us a couple months ago about this in a warning that they posted in all Adwords accounts. They said that they would reevaluate all Adsense driven sites for original and relevant content. If you search other threads at WebMasterWorld, I believe that I had read another thread about it here also.

I wish you the best - Saxman

MattT




msg:3676680
 2:03 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

My site is not an adwords driven site

doughayman




msg:3676774
 4:06 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

No Adwords here, Bubba. The sites that have survived this debacle in my space, don't use Adwords either.

The only things that I have seen in this thread, IMO, that merit possibility for the June 4th cataclysm are:

- Fresh content issues (distinct possibility here)

- Bad Data Push (time will tell on this one)

chelseaareback




msg:3676802
 4:26 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

no - not adsense driven either I am afraid

and only thing in common with disspy is 10 year old domain.......

ichthyous




msg:3676851
 5:28 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

No adsense here...7 y/o domain. I turned off data sharing (benchmarking) in google analytics as well as advanced image search. I have noticed several times in the past that whenever my google search numbers hit the skids my google image search numbers seem to skyrocket. Oddly enough I have seen a concomitant surge in MSN Live traffic just as my google numbers have dropped. It's been 5 years since I got any traffic from MSN at all, but in one week it's suddenly shot past my Yahoo traffic and keeps going up. It'll never make up for the 35% drop in Google traffic though

doughayman




msg:3676869
 5:48 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

12 year old domain, by the way...........

SEOPTI




msg:3676970
 7:12 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'm sick and tired playing Sherlock Holmes, anyone else?

chelseaareback




msg:3677004
 7:48 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

yes seopti - me too

but then again its my fault for basing my business around google clicks

cant say I blame them really for taking them away when they fancy it

in fact in some ways it seems only fair - I mean how difficult must it be for brand new sites to break through now?

dbcoders




msg:3677047
 8:31 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

One of my sites made to page 1 for a few days, then went from page 1 to page 9. Not sure why. I had posted a couple of comments (unpaid) in relevant forums and published a few articles. Don't think that affected it though.

Reno




msg:3677068
 8:45 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'm sick and tired playing Sherlock Holmes, anyone else?

We are chasing a "shapeshifter" -- that is to say, it appears to me that the current Google is almost continually morphing as it makes its rounds. We go to grasp it and it moves behind us in an entirely different form, so we turn to get a look and once again it changes its shape. First it's this over here, then it's that over there. As soon as we think we know it, it is something different.

in fact in some ways it seems only fair

By changing its shape Google becomes a dynamic almost "living" thing. What it shows its viewers (most people doing searches) depends on what it is at any given time, so these folks at least can get a slightly different view of the WWW almost every time they go to Google.com.

And you're right -- maybe that's not such a bad thing.

....................................

HuskyPup




msg:3677079
 8:51 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

14+ years....what are you Al Gore?

Whoosh...that's gone straight over my head!

outland88




msg:3677164
 11:25 pm on Jun 17, 2008 (gmt 0)

I can't help but wonder since many of these reports seem to be for older established sites whether Google has changed something in the algo, filters, or crawling that doesn't favor code in aged sites.

HuskyPup




msg:3677189
 12:29 am on Jun 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

doesn't favor code in aged sites.

Not in my case, everything is CSS based upon my own template design.

grant




msg:3677220
 2:37 am on Jun 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

Most of the posts here are of the nature, "my site suffered losses and here are the attributes of my site".

I think a more effective analytical approach is, "my site suffered losses, here are the attributes of my site, and here are the attributes of the sites ranking for the terms I am no longer...".

doughayman




msg:3677223
 2:42 am on Jun 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

One other observance of mine. On the major site where I have exhibited major traffic loss, my informational "money page" (containing affiliate links) has been getting spidered by Google at a much higher rate than normal (usually twice in a 24 hour period). This is quite bizarre - normally, it was spidered about once a week or so, before these recent events.

Of note, is that within 12 hours of spidering, this "money page" (which was normally Page 1 for many search terms), rises to the middle of Page 3 (for these same terms), only to fall off to Page 4 or Page 5, after another 12 hours elapses. This observance is repeatable since Black Wednesday (June 4th). So, it appears that the spidering (and perhaps re-indexing) initially lifts this pages' ranking, and then some additionally applied filters, knock it down once again.

This 242 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 242 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 > >
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