| 7:59 pm on Jul 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
So I wonder how long it takes on average if you correct an on-page over-optimization before the penalty is taken off?
Maybe there's no simple answer to that.
| 10:48 pm on Jul 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|So I wonder how long it takes on average if you correct an on-page over-optimization before the penalty is taken off? |
Can you define over-optimization for me? I just can't wrap my head around the idea of something being so good it sucks.
| 11:14 pm on Jul 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Think of it as trying too hard. Put the same targeted keyword in the title tag, description, keywords, H1 tag, in on-page text, image alt-tag, as anchor text in a link, in bold, italics, yada, yada, yada, 950 penalty.
Recovery time? Anywhere from a day to a month is common. Depends when Google revisits your site. Matt Cutts says there's a penalty for overoptimization, but said nothing about recovery time.
Anecdotally, I found an old, neglected site of mine 950d yesterday for one keyword phrase and promptly deoptimized it. It was a hobby photo site that had thumbnail pages auto-generated several years ago. Each of one directory's thumbnails had the same "anchor text" (alt tag) which happened to be included in every title tag. Made that gallery without much thought, time, effort, long before new Google spam penalties were created.
Google is funny, though, re. when it decides to penalize. A few years ago when the 950 was killing other sites, Google didn't touch mine. And then all of a sudden, without any changes to my site, it got the penalty.
Can't explain it except I suspect it was after my site moved up to #1 for the biggest industry target phrase. (Competitor messed around with his site and lost his ranking.) Google seems to target top-ranked sites for additional scrutiny. Bam! There are contextual ranking dynamics that we don't always notice or discuss IMO.
| 12:17 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|I'd like to hear more from affiliate marketers on how their visible pagerank changed. |
Not sure. We have some sites that are fully showing PR. Others have the home page raised +1 but internal pages are greyed out.
How long does the roll out take, or is this it ?
| 12:19 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Think of it as trying too hard. Put the same targeted keyword in the title tag, description, keywords, H1 tag, in on-page text, image alt-tag, as anchor text in a link, in bold, italics, yada, yada, yada, 950 penalty. |
I've done some of this for ages without any problem. I don't, however, misuse the alt tag or go crazy with italics and use of bold. Perhaps that's saved my skin.
| 12:21 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
6 year old site. Traffic, uniques, pageviews growing steady. Inbound links growing organically very steady. Site went from PR5 to PR4.
Thanks Google, I think you have some work still to be done in tuning this thing!
| 12:39 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
If I recall right, every so often in time there's an overall decrease of PR across the board, which I believe happens periodically at certain points of growth/increase in the total number of pages indexed and calculated.
| 1:07 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Home page is up from 5 to 6, but no other obvious changes. Green bar is very slow to display in IE, though: there's a definite lag from the time when I load a page until the bar pops into place. (In Firefox, the green bar isn't displaying at all.)
| 1:35 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
For around 8 months I've been really slack with link building, in last 4 months I've got lots of incredibly solid links - which has practically doubled my tally of in my opinion "meeting Google's criteria for valuable" links
No change in TBPR though - and the backlink update shows me to have less than before (even though Yahoo does show more).
Shame you can't always see the fruits of your labour.. but rankings are still good which is the main benchmark!
| 2:39 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Yet another of our sites which suffered the infamous 950 penalty 3 years ago, (no real seo, lots of ibl's) is back on the front page !
| 5:37 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
this is interesting and validates what matt cutts said about reversing penalties.
two sites penalized (no apparent reason - same methods used on many others that were not penalized)
in aug of 2005 have now started what is apparently a recovery process.
one that was given then notorious plus 950 penalty in 2006 is still nowhere.
yeah G has the power......
| 6:21 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Well they do have a power :)
I have learned my lesson!
For some penalties, you can do ANYTHING, and nothing will help you to recover, while for some penalties, you might fix it.
I was penalised late 2005, now i got back (sort of).
Lesson I have learned: Do not exchange links (more then 1 link) between a websites.
I have removed every single link from link-exchange and did not help at all.
My website was high PR8, and had more then ~40000k links.
Alot sitewide link exchanges and that almost killed my website.
Traffic dropped from ~5000 visitors a day to ~500.
One rule which saved me from total disaster = content is a king !
You dont need to buy links, beg other webmasters for link exchange etc. If you have a good content, content will gain benefit by itself.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 6:49 am (utc) on July 28, 2008]
| 10:33 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|Yet another of our sites which suffered the infamous 950 penalty 3 years ago, (no real seo, lots of ibl's) is back on the front page ! |
Kristos - did you add new IBL's recently ; sorry i wasn't clear from your post ?
| 11:22 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
"In what way do you feel hackers could have lowered your PageRank? "
They put invisible outbound links (lot of links) in my web pages pointing to tons of drug pharmacy websites.
Good thing G did not completely ban my website.
| 11:43 am on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm, massive increase of visible PR across many of my sites. No changes whatsoever in the SERPs, so kind of pointless...
My suspected -950 site is still suffering...I wonder if this is it, or if the "removal of older penalties" may still be to come...please oh please...
| 3:47 pm on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
on our sites that are recovering, we cut back our rate of adding advertising ibl's dramatically but did not stop adding regularly a little here and a little there.
did nothing different from the one that did not recover that was penalized a year later for no apparent reason.
we have not done anything different in two years.
IMHO this was definitely a result of mr cutts revealed information about G removing some older penalties
for us, No change in pr at all, just back in the Serps again
[edited by: Kristos at 3:48 pm (utc) on July 28, 2008]
| 6:58 pm on Jul 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Ding Ding Ding...
Marcia, you are spot on.
|If I recall right, every so often in time there's an overall decrease of PR across the board, which I believe happens periodically at certain points of growth/increase in the total number of pages indexed and calculated. |
PR adjustments need to be made as the overall population of the Web increases. If not, google would have a PR of 58 right now ;-)
| 7:30 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Is there a sense of this update having finished yet?
| 7:46 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
How can sites like HGTV or craigslist have a 3 ranking? Just doesn't make sense to me :¦
No changes here.
| 7:53 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
First of all, only urls have PR, not sites. Looking at the Home Page urls for those sites, I see a PR8 and a PR7.
If you do automated PR reports at some volume through your IP address, then Google will sometimes feed back intentionally incorrect data, espcially prepared for such situations. Maybe you're running into that?
| 8:00 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I think it depends on what the content of the site is as to how much traffic comes back.
| 10:40 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I lost 1 level of PR for one of my web site and the reason which I can figured it out could be that 78 hours before that update most of my web sites was down for almost half an hour but that fixed with in that time I mentioned and the result one of my previously PR-3 web site lost i level and for the other site there is no change.
| 10:56 am on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Raheel, the PR data currently being exported is much older than your outage. It is common to see PR slip down one notch as the web grows, unless your backlinks are also growing at a decent pace.
And more than that, because of Google's campaign to discount paid links, they have removed a lot of PR from general circulation. Even if you are not directly involved with link selling and buying, sites that link to you may be, or sites that link to them may be, and so on.
| 12:57 pm on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
We have the green bar 3 levels down now after the first reports of the TBPR update.
How much longer before the grey turns green usually?
| 1:24 pm on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
There's no 'usually' about it, Whitey. Each time is a new adventure.
| 2:19 pm on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Eh, no changes here, except one deep internal page I found that went from 3 to 2. Still have great rankings. My inbound links doubled within the last 45 days, but that's probably not reflected yet. None of my client sites seem to have seen any changes either.
Kind of feels like when a tornado jumps over a house but levels the one next door.
| 5:40 pm on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
<Moved from another location>
In previous update my PR drop 4 to 2 but no serp or google traffic change i face in this period.
In this last update my PR drop 2 to 0 again no serp or google traffic change.
My website has monthly 500.000-700.000 it is not normal such a website has PR 0. Do i facing a penalty? but if it si a penalty why no change in my serp and google traffic?
I have very detailed <popular niche> statistics in my website can say 10.000's of web pages and very crowded forum using vbulletin. I never use blackhat techniques as i learn everything from this forum.
I couldnt find the reason of this PR drop in last to update. My visitor statistics still increasing but i try to find the reason of this PR change.
Sorry for asking a personal question but i cant find any reason for this PR drop. All help appriciated.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 6:36 pm (utc) on July 29, 2008]
| 6:41 pm on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Anil - If your rankings and traffic haven't fallen, there should be no reason for concern. In the past, this was a Toolbar or reporting glitch...
PR drops to Zero for some long established sites
Is this something that's resurfacing in the current update?
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 6:46 pm (utc) on July 29, 2008]
| 9:50 pm on Jul 29, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Two sites at work each gained 1 on their homepages - 5 to 6 and 4 to 5. On the 5 site some internal pages also went from 0 to 4.
| 1:58 am on Jul 30, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Guys, forget PR. I can see for last few months & now that sites with lower PR can easaly beat PR6/PR7/PR8 website.
I also think that if your website has lower PR, but alot of good content, there is much less chance that you will end up getting some penalty or being pushed down in results by filter.
I am tracking few websites at the moment, they are loosing links & PR by every update, but they are going UP in results.
Think for a second, for past X years everyone was chaising PR6/PR7/PR8.
Lets rank webmasters:
PR1/2/3 = New comers
PR4/5 = Webmasters which know what needs to be done but limited by their "resources"
PR6++ = Webmasters which are old players, know both worlds.
What i think that google has done is:
PR3/4/5 sites = needs to walk 3/4/5 miles thrue google mine field and if you step on mine...
Now comes the best part:
PR6/7/8++ sites = needs to walk 10 miles thrue google mine field...
So by having higher PR (looks nice on google bar i must say :) ), you also have higher chance of getting penalty/cought by XYZ filter.
If your high PR website did not trigger any filter, then you rock.
But how many of us did got cought ?
| 2:03 am on Jul 31, 2008 (gmt 0)|
5 days of grey bars where previous green ones occurred on some of our sites which are under filter penalties . The top 2 levels have increased 1 place.
Should i be concerned ?
| This 113 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 113 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |