homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.180.175
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 228 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 228 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]     
Google Goes After MFAs
Brett_Tabke




msg:4272071
 5:45 am on Feb 25, 2011 (gmt 0)

New York Times:

[bits.blogs.nytimes.com...]


Google’s announcement did not mention content farms. But Mr. Cutts has spoken in recent weeks about the problem and said Google was working on algorithm changes to fix it. “In general, there are some content farms that I think it would be fair to call spam, in the sense that the quality is so low-quality that people complain,” he said in a recent interview.


Google Corporate Blog Release:
in the last day or so we launched a pretty big algorithmic improvement to our ranking—a change that noticeably impacts 11.8% of our queries—and we wanted to let people know what's going on. This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality sites—sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful. [googleblog.blogspot.com...]


Demand Media Response:
[demandmedia.com...]
How our content reaches the consumer – whether it’s through direct visits, social media referrals, apps or search – has always been important to and monitored closely by us. We also recognize that major search engines like Google have and will continue to make frequent changes. We have built our business by focusing on creating the useful and original content that meets the specific needs of today’s consumer. So naturally we applaud changes search engines make to improve the consumer experience – it’s both the right thing to do and our focus as well.

Today, Google announced an algorithm change to nearly 12% of their U.S. query results. As might be expected, a content library as diverse as ours saw some content go up and some go down in Google search results.This is consistent with what Google discussed on their blog post. It’s impossible to speculate how these or any changes made by Google impact any online business in the long term – but at this point in time, we haven’t seen a material net impact on our Content & Media business.

 

walkman




msg:4274317
 1:37 am on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

My guess is that they ran into trouble because of the small amount of text on the average page, and/or the extent to which the same topic is discussed on numerous other sites.


I think you're unto something, Bahamas.com has a vendor section which is short on info. The same day this hit I removed my 'tags' section, that had more thin pages than the rest of the site. It was removed by the Webmastercentral on 2/25 so I am hoping.

browsee




msg:4274377
 3:58 am on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

@walkman, did you remove the sitemap in Webmastercentral or added disallow in robots.txt?

I've answers section in my website, for every article we have a question and answer. Question Title may be similar, I believe this caused the problem.

I've few options here:

1. I can use canonical tag, but it is just for the duplicate content. I know that many big sites have comments in a new page with canonical tag. Not sure I can use canonical.

2. Disallow in robots.txt

3. Remove sitemap in WebMasterCentral

Any suggestions?

walkman




msg:4274380
 4:07 am on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

Browsee,
I added a disallow /dir/ and then
went to 'crawler access' and clicked on 'Remove URL'.
Shortly after Google got the new robots.txt I noticed that all pages were gone from the index and it was shown as removed in the dashboard, all in a day. Now I removed the robots.txt, resubmitted a sitemap with their urls, and added a noindex, to let Google grab and see that they are really to be gone. Probably an overkill, but I'm losing money

browsee




msg:4274381
 4:13 am on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

Thanks walkman, please let us know if there is any improvement.

@tedster or other webmasters, any suggestions on canonical?

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4274494
 10:09 am on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

There's basically 2 types of content farms - those that need to pass editorial review and those where anything goes. Those that allow submission with little or no supervision have more crap.

Yes, I mentioned Docstoc previously - they list "documents" with content like ...
i love u dobnjklfnjnonam ik nlkfjfnj innfknfcj jijdj jkl jljlksdja;jfkjd ... etc, etc.

This is on a page with a title about Indian call girls and google ads about Indian dating agencies, how to flirt with women, etc. Real quality stuff!

Incidentally, I posted a link to an example of this on their site earlier. It was moderated out but the one I mentioned has since been removed from Docstoc, which means that they are probably watching this thread and sweating a little like the rest of the content farms that don't care about their content.

[edited by: BeeDeeDubbleU at 10:14 am (utc) on Mar 1, 2011]

asabbia




msg:4274496
 10:13 am on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

The one I mentioned has since been removed from Docstoc, which means that they are probably watching this thread and sweating a little like the rest of the content farms.
lolol
robdwoods




msg:4274894
 9:31 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

My guess is that they ran into trouble because of the small amount of text on the average page, and/or the extent to which the same topic is discussed on numerous other sites.
I've heard this from other people as well. Sites with product pages that were really thin on the amount of copy got hit too.
asabbia




msg:4274896
 9:38 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

I've heard this from other people as well. Sites with product pages that were really thin on the amount of copy got hit too.


it doesn't seem that ehow got that much text

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:4274948
 10:58 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

Incidentally, I posted a link to an example of this on their site earlier. It was moderated out but the one I mentioned has since been removed from Docstoc, which means that they are probably watching this thread and sweating a little like the rest of the content farms that don't care about their content.

Yes, this one is gone now too so I won't be posting any more. They can find the bloody things themselves from now on. Na na na na na na!

mosparrow




msg:4275653
 1:14 am on Mar 3, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding here... the algorithm change is not about websites ,its about content, low quality content and or duplicated content got bumped down, high quality content on those sites was not affected. I saw that when i submitted 1 article to many places it was affected by the algo change , but when I submit an a good article to a single place this article was not affected.

TheMadScientist




msg:4275659
 1:27 am on Mar 3, 2011 (gmt 0)

Actually, mosparrow, that's not what's being reported:

Sites that believe they have been adversely impacted by the change should be sure to extensively evaluate their site quality. In particular, it’s important to note that low quality pages on one part of a site can impact the overall ranking of that site.

Emphasis Mine ... Link originally by Browsee [Thanks!]
[searchengineland.com...]

alecs




msg:4281918
 2:38 pm on Mar 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

"Having scrapers outrank your site for copied content is often a symptom of other issues with your site and not necessarily the reason your site is ranking lower. "

would anyone be able to give some examples of issues.
If you ask me, i'm having the same kind of sandbox feeling i had when i first launched the site.

TheMadScientist




msg:4281927
 2:46 pm on Mar 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

Personally, I'm not sure I agree with that assessment of the situation ... It may be true on occasion and it's always good to review your site, but the recent comments from Google (linked around here somewhere) indicate one of the things they may try is swapping the original source in to the results when a syndicate out ranks it, which to me says they understand there's an issue and it's not necessarily a problem with the original site (page) ... IOW: I doubt most people are going to 'fix their way' into the top spot if they're being out ranked by a scraper.

When the tedsters run into issues with it occasionally, it says to me it's probably not the origination site that's the issue, but rather the weighting system.

[edited by: TheMadScientist at 2:51 pm (utc) on Mar 15, 2011]

TheMadScientist




msg:4281930
 2:50 pm on Mar 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think Jane_Doe replied to this thread (or at least she threw some info definitely about this topic out for people) over in this thread: [webmasterworld.com...] (Page 9 @ 20 Posts Per Page)

Jane_Doe




msg:4281944
 3:09 pm on Mar 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

would anyone be able to give some examples of issues.


Say you have a page on hairless cats and it has suspicious dofollow links to
bobs-free-viagra-and-cheap-mortgage-loans.com site five times. Sometimes pages like this will sink and other sites will outrank you for your own content. But the copied content ranking higher isn't the cause of the problem, it is the result of a spam penalty on your page for the dodgy links.

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding here... the algorithm change is not about websites ,its about content, low quality content and or duplicated content got bumped down, high quality content on those sites was not affected


I don't know if a lot of people are misunderstanding here, but I know there is at least one person misunderstanding here...

The Google blog specifically states -

"In addition, it's important for webmasters to know that low quality content on part of a site can impact a site's ranking as a whole."

rj87uk




msg:4281955
 3:35 pm on Mar 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

Jane_Doe, Do you think having no follow links on all user generated content would help solve that problem?

RJ

Jane_Doe




msg:4281958
 3:46 pm on Mar 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

Jane_Doe, Do you think having no follow links on all user generated content would help solve that problem?


I am not sure what you mean by that. I didn't mean to single out dodgy dofollow links as a probable cause. I just used them as one example out of thousands of possible reasons. You could also have things wrong like a cloaked page, hidden text, keyword stuffing, not enough content, off topic content (weight loss tips on a high ranking site on Dutch painters of the 17th century), duplicate content from another page within your site, etc. Anything that would give off a low quality signal.

indyank




msg:4281995
 4:56 pm on Mar 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

This panda update is definitely a sitewide phenomenon. I know of some great content from casual bloggers who post them among several other things, and all these have tanked.I couldn't find them anyway other than searching for the sitename.

But being a sitewide phenomenon, we aren't going to see such great content anymore.It is always going to be a select set of sites, in every niche, for anything and everything.

I feel google is managing this with "noeffect" flags for their list of sites.

Discussion continues here:

[webmasterworld.com...] (Part One)
[webmasterworld.com...] (Part Two)

[edited by: tedster at 2:19 am (utc) on Apr 7, 2011]

This 228 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 228 ( 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