homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.84.199
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 140 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 140 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 > >     
Google Updates and SERP Changes - August 2009
willybfriendly




msg:3963731
 4:52 pm on Aug 1, 2009 (gmt 0)

< continued from [webmasterworld.com...] >

I just came across another anomolous result, just as I was thinkging things were settling down.

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,490,000 for widget

Only 9 results appear on page 1. We see

"Image results for widget - Report images"

Nine listings, with the ever present wikipedia as #1. (No indented results)

"News results for widget" (One totally unrelated listing)

"Video results for widget"

"Searches related to: widget"

First time I can remember seeing Google count to 9 and call it 10.

[edited by: tedster at 10:29 pm (utc) on Aug. 1, 2009]

 

alahamdan




msg:3964907
 8:44 pm on Aug 3, 2009 (gmt 0)

-350 , -950

I tried to search for "widget" keyword which is my main keyword for a sub domain, used to rand 1-3 then disappeared since 1 month (in fact the sub domain is 3 months age), the keyword keep showing and disappearing.

Results 1 - 10 of about 77,700,000, ok im trying to go further after page 50, i cant, i see a list of pages like 51, 52, 53, but clicking those pages do nothing. this is normal or what!

Hissingsid




msg:3964918
 9:02 pm on Aug 3, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've got a few long time #1 terms for which I've been dropped 2 or 3 places. If I add uk to those terms not only does my page go back to #1 but in some cases I get mini site links and/or a sub listing.

I'm a bit hazy on this but remember something similar happening a few years ago may have been associated with the aftermath of Florida?. Has anyone else seen this?

Cheers

Sid

alahamdan




msg:3964927
 9:13 pm on Aug 3, 2009 (gmt 0)

Hissingsid i don't know if i understand what you mean by mini site links and/or a sub listing.

Before few days, i couldn't go more than page 50, and page 50 was filled with strange link (all the page) with no description, just links.

Today, i cant go after page 50, but page look normal with 10 listing.clicking any page after 50 will do nothing, just keep you on same page.

johnnie




msg:3964934
 9:27 pm on Aug 3, 2009 (gmt 0)

I have this feeling that domain trust is getting more important by the minute. Lately I've been seeing many sites ranking certain pages competitively, based on domain strength only.

Hissingsid




msg:3964935
 9:29 pm on Aug 3, 2009 (gmt 0)

Mini site links are links to internal pages that are listed at the end of a listing in SERPS. They tend to be sites in the top 2 or 3 and not in every market. We have them in the UK on both google.co.uk and .com.

By sub listing I mean an indented secondary listing. For example for some terms I have my home page listed and then indented an inside page which is strongly on that topic.

These things and a 2 or 3 slot boost come to my site when I add [uk] to some terms that I've taken a 2 or 3 slot drop on recently. It looks like a filter on my site and I think mine only for these terms that I can switch on or off by adding uk.

I've not seen what you describe.

Cheers

Sid

PS I've seen this before and was hoping that someone with a better memory than me could remember what it was all about last time.

Hissingsid




msg:3964941
 9:37 pm on Aug 3, 2009 (gmt 0)

johnnie,

I've seen similar but could also correlate it with a change in weighting/understanding of 2 word terms.

For example [widget service]. Previously the emphasis was say 60% on service 40% widget. Now it appears to be 45% service 55% widget. This really stands out visually if I use one of those keyword analysers that produces a keyword cloud.

One site I know well that competes with me has popped up at #2 for the top term [widget service] because it is very strongly semantically linked to widget and less strongly to service.

Cheers

Sid

mkassets




msg:3964990
 10:34 pm on Aug 3, 2009 (gmt 0)

I just can't believe what I see in the last few days. I am monitoring few of our main keywords and what's going on on the 1st page is a total disaster.

The reputable government site that used to be there is gone. CNET is gone. A 1-page website with 12ibl and a keyword-in-domain.com ranks on the first page. And that's for a keyword that gets hundreds of thousands of searches per month!

The Google Search is broken.

mrguy




msg:3965023
 11:48 pm on Aug 3, 2009 (gmt 0)

The Google Search is broken.

Not according to the egos in the plex at Google.

Give Bing a try, their results are more stable.

Marcia




msg:3965028
 12:00 am on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)

Hissingsid:
I've seen similar but could also correlate it with a change in weighting/understanding of 2 word terms.

For example [widget service]. Previously the emphasis was say 60% on service 40% widget. Now it appears to be 45% service 55% widget. This really stands out visually if I use one of those keyword analysers that produces a keyword cloud.

One site I know well that competes with me has popped up at #2 for the top term [widget service] because it is very strongly semantically linked to widget and less strongly to service.


So Sid, semantically (as in phrase based indexing/keyword co-occurrence), would you say there's been a shift in weighting with regard to IDF (inverse document frequency)? Or IOW, a shift in weighting for less vs. more commonly occurring words within phrases?

Just to give this thing a name:

Term frequency and weighting [nlp.stanford.edu]

Definition of IDF per Stanford Univ. publication [nlp.stanford.edu]

TF/IDF Weighting [nlp.stanford.edu]

RedCardinal




msg:3965089
 2:51 am on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)

Hissingsid I think geotargeting as we know it is about to fundamentally change. We know Google tested the removal of the 'pages from' control recently, and I believe that Google also tested removing GWT Geotargeted content from 'pages from' results during the month of July. I've documented what I saw, and I what I think is happening.

I'd keep a very close eye on what Google displays on their country-level search results. This will be more an international thing, and you might not find too much coverage in the 'regular' SEO places.

[edited by: tedster at 4:11 am (utc) on Aug. 4, 2009]

graeme_p




msg:3965149
 5:26 am on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)

I believe that Google also tested removing GWT Geotargeted content from 'pages from' results during the month of July.

My site (.co.uk, hosted in the UK) did much worse in July in UK search for a lot of keywords that previously came up on the first page but not at the top according to the "impressions" column in Webmaster tools. Globally and in the US I seem to be doing somewhat better.

The keywords that actually brought the most traffic (those in the "clickthrough" column) seem unaffected, even in the UK.

Is Google giving a smaller boost to sites from your (as in which country Google you are using) country.

celgins




msg:3965691
 10:38 pm on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm not sure what's up, but the -50 is in effect for one of my sites.

Actually, it's been slowly falling further to -60 and -70, and I have no clue what the deal is. I do see issues in WMT I need to work on, so I'll check those out.

tedster




msg:3965698
 10:56 pm on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)

Beginning in late May and early June 2009, we've seen many more reports of -50 penalties. These penalties have been page specific or query specific -- not the sitewide -50 penalty that we've discussed in the past.

One member who wishes to remain anonymous asked me to share their good news. After a month of work and a waiting period, they got their rankings back.

Here is a thumbnail sketch:

  1. Penalty began May 4
  2. Link aquisition had been agressive (nature of the market)
  3. Site itself adheres to Google guidelines
  4. Inbound links, and possibly internal links, seemed to be the issue
  5. REMOVED many "looks like paid links" and kw-in-anchor-text links
  6. Total IBL reduction of about 50%
  7. ADDED a nearly equal number of internal links to the affected pages
  8. New internals used very deoptimised anchor text
  9. REMOVED the penalised keywords from the internal anchor text
  10. Tried testing different ratios on different pages, but eventally went with a gut feeling
  11. NO Reconsideration Request
  12. All changes made by June 4
  13. Full recovery of rankings on August 4

[edited by: tedster at 11:41 pm (utc) on Aug. 4, 2009]

celgins




msg:3965716
 11:30 pm on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)

Here is a thumbnail sketch: ...

That's good information tedster.

I've been going over my IBLs and there's a small chance that they are the culprit for my site's -50. In fact, WMT is showing several search query strings (generated using Google Search on my site) in the "Links to your site" section (i.e. link:www.mydomain.com) containing spammy domain names.

Not sure what I can do about that.

dazzlindonna




msg:3965722
 11:42 pm on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)

tedster:

Penalty began May 4
Full recovery of rankings on August 4

I would be concerned that perhaps this recovery was nothing more than a 3 month penalty being lifted and had little, if anything, to do with the steps taken by the site owner.

I only mention this because I've seen a site have a 3 year penalty lifted - with absolutely nothing being done during that time to make it happen. But the time had been served, so it was just time to let it out of the penalty box. Just something to consider...

tedster




msg:3965734
 11:54 pm on Aug 4, 2009 (gmt 0)

Definitely worth considering that possibility. It's also possible that the penalty is not time-related at all. The recent jigging and jogging of the update(s) we've been discussing here may have removed the penalty.

Still, as I see it, the information provided has some good detail and is worth adding to your list of "data points".

JS_Harris




msg:3965739
 12:10 am on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

dazzlindonna, I've also noticed a site hit the 3 year anniversary just recently and had it's -950 lifted despite the severe problem still being there (obvious paid links and link requests).

The site is re-included as if it had never done anything wrong and what it did is still there. I suppose it may get knocked out of the rankings again but it appears to be time based at least some of the time.

Marcia




msg:3965759
 12:43 am on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

I recall Danny Sullivan sharing that he'd had it confirmed by someone at Google that there are time sensitive penalties that have an expiration. Like 3 months, 6 months, etc.

I still wonder whether it's possible to tell whether any given penalty is automated or hand-inflicted, and whether that would influence whether penalties can automatically lift after a time spam or need to be removed by a human via a reconsideration request.

doc_z




msg:3965888
 5:47 am on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm seeing the following behaviour for one of my pages: If I'm searching for a phrase with 10 (or 20 or 50) results per page, the page is always listed around position #50. However, for 100 results per page, it is shown on position #1. The total number of results for this phrase is about 80.

In my opinion the reason why the page appear at position #50 in the SERPS is a penalty. However, there seems to be a bug in the algorithm which prevents the results from being re-ordered when the number of results are less then the results per page (thus the page is shown on position #1 instead of #50). If this theory is correct, this can be used to identify at least some kind of penalties.

Has someone else seen this behaviour?

[edited by: tedster at 5:52 am (utc) on Aug. 5, 2009]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]

zoth




msg:3965906
 6:27 am on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

Hi all,

Today is the worst day in my life. 11 year old Pr4 authority website with unique content dissapeared from google last night. I had link exchange only with relevant sites, never bought links and I sold links only once (5 years ago). I haven't changed the site structure since 4 years. The last activity was a year ago, when I set up a 3-way link exchange with a few same niche sites. I just regulary addend new content.

I can't see my site in the SERP any of my keywords.
By using allinanchor:my keywords gives the same result.
PR4 didn't changed ... Now I can find my site, if I type "site name" as a keyword.

The worst is in all, I don't know why this is happened.

Now I really don't know what should I do ... except waiting.

If this is the new SERP of Goolge, then I would close my business ...

What do you think is this a penalty or the new SERP?

WarrenBuffett




msg:3965907
 6:34 am on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

Tedster, when you say total IBL reduction to 50%, is that the entire backlinks to the site, or just the backlinks that have been recently aggressivly built up? I'd imagine not all IBL were the cause of the penalty, but the fragment that was built up too quickly.

tedster




msg:3965919
 7:37 am on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

Well, I'm only a messenger, just a middle man passing on information here. But the way I read it, that means 50% of all IBL's were removed. That's not surprising to me, given the description provided about the highly competitive nature of the market. I imagine there were lots of "unusual" backlinks to deal with.

zoth: 11 year old Pr4 authority website with unique content dissapeared from google last night.

It's a little early to panic - although I fully sympathize with the feeling.

1. Have you tried the site: operator? What results does it give?

2. Have you checked to see if your server has been hacked [webmasterworld.com]? That thread and many others are available in the Hot Topics area [webmasterworld.com], which is always pinned to the top of this forum's index page. I'd suggest a good read-through there.

3. You have several ways of communicating with Google - they are all mentioned in the Google Forum Charter [webmasterworld.com] and you may want to make use of them if you can't figure out what's going on. But do make a good faith effort to understand what might be a problem and correct that first.

cangoou




msg:3965930
 7:48 am on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

Puh, I always thought deleting so much links would Google make it all suspicious. If it's a high-competive market, I guess we are talking about manipulating more then 1000 links.

mkassets




msg:3965932
 8:03 am on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

tedster,

One member who wishes to remain anonymous asked me to share their good news. After a month of work and a waiting period, they got their rankings back. Here is a thumbnail sketch:

Looking through the sketch and noticing that the IBLs anchor was the root cause, I am thinking once again about how a malicious attack by a competition can be used to damage someone's rankings. This is connected to the other thread running in parallel in the forum ...

Do we have enough reliable data to conclude that IBL anchor over-optimization can get you a penalty? Even if it happens now, it is hard to believe this situation is permanent. It will start a WWW (pardon the pun) war and internet will be a total mess.

Do you know of anyone who's got a definite answer on what's gong on from google or MC?

sem4u




msg:3965937
 8:10 am on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

If it's a high-competive market, I guess we are talking about manipulating more then 1000 links.

I would guess so, but without more facts about the site it is difficult to tell. I would be interested to learn the age of the site (when it obtained its first IBL) and what the link profile looked like when the penalty was applied.

Martin Ice Web




msg:3966003
 10:32 am on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

A new theory:

Cause google bases their algo on IBLs, they manipulated the internet by their serps. E.g. sites on pos. 1-10 will get more BL from users than sites pos. > 10. So their on system will be undercut by their own serps. Natural Link building is not given anymore. Strong sites will get stronger and other sites will not get enough BL to get on page one.
While google now rotate the serps or limit the users for a site the IBLs would get more "real". Besides this would give google a more clear view of real BLs and bought BLs.
Maybe its not an update, maybe its reality....

Block19Row13




msg:3966005
 10:45 am on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

Jusr read a post in this thread about G dropping sites that use irrelevant blogs, forums, social networks.

since late may we had a period in the doldrums where our main keywords were languishing in the depths of the serps.

this (we think) was down to us changing the sites homepage and adding a different navigation.

we didnt panic and 2 weeks ago our main keywords were all ranking in the top 3 pages with a handfull on page 1.

it seems that last tuesday / wednesday these rankings got hit and are again languishing.

the main keyword is now bottom of page 20, uk results only.

now, back to my original point.

we run an affiliate marketing campaign, and every week we post to the affiliates our best offers, best sellers ect with a couple of links to the site so they can see the products / categories in question.

will this be harming us?

WarrenBuffett




msg:3966041
 12:38 pm on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think more homepage links are required within the BL profile to look more natural. I know for one use a variety of anchor text, however they are all optimized and hardly ever use my domain name as the anchor. Perhaps Google sees this and issues out a penalty.

Time to find out, I will be removing as many backlinks as I can, while at the same time build links with anchor texts such as 'www.homepage.com', 'http://www.homepage.com', 'visit homepage', 'Homepage', 'homepage' etc etc, to try and dilute the optimized anchor text.

cangoou




msg:3966042
 12:43 pm on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

Don't forget to use "here" and "click here" in anchor.

Optimus




msg:3966045
 12:59 pm on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

My main site is largely unaffected by the current google update. However, I want to make a small change to the title tag on the home page. Anyone have any experience of making meta changes during this update? Did it impact at all on rankings?

Just worried that at times like this even slight changes might have an adverse effect...

Shaddows




msg:3966073
 1:18 pm on Aug 5, 2009 (gmt 0)

The title element is NOT a meta tag.

Changing the Title is the single most sensitive change you can make to your site. However, unless you changed the MEANING of the title, or added or dropped keywords, I doubt that changes would be worse now than normal.

Changing back will probably hurt more. Google seems to equate fiddling with Titles to being unworthy of a Page 1 site (occasional, difinitive changes to individual pages tend to be fine)

This 140 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 140 ( 1 [2] 3 4 5 > >
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