homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.220.61
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
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 102 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 102 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >     
Hit on 2/24/2011 and come back?
walkman




msg:4310109
 9:44 pm on May 9, 2011 (gmt 0)

According to Amit Singhal, Panda was a specific algo change and after that many others took place. So 'Panda 1' and 'Panda 15' were not actually Panda, but different algo changes while keeping Panda on top of everything else.
Some publishers have fixated on our prior Panda algorithm change, but Panda was just one of roughly 500 search improvements we expect to roll out to search this year. In fact, since we launched Panda, we've rolled out over a dozen additional tweaks to our ranking algorithms, and some sites have incorrectly assumed that changes in their rankings were related to Panda.

Also Matt Cutts said that Panda data is not collected daily but when they decide to run that part of the algo.
short version is that it's not data that's updated daily right now. More like when we re-run the algorithms to regen the data.

So it appears it's like a score /grade and it sticks for a while for those already ranked. How often they do it is everyone's guess but we know it can crush your site rankings.

Now we hear stories about people improving their rank here and there, but most so far have been hit in April and in the following updates, not on 2/24.

So the question is: Has anyone hit by the 2/24 algo made a comeback?A serious one I guess, close to pre-Panda traffic levels not the 10% plus or minus.

I'm trying to see if there's a set time penalty or not. If you came back from 2/24, did you by any change contact Google or posted your site in their forums (I refuse to believe that no manual changes are made to it)

Edit: My 4 sites that were not hit by Panda got an 25%-30% boost today, my one Pandalized site kinda down a bit despite many changes.

 

HuskyPup




msg:4310760
 1:40 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

Do you guys think they ran it on April 11th and May 6th or just added new penalties?


I was totally unaffected by Panda 1 and 2 however 2.1 (V3) has hit my niche trade widget directory basically by about 50%.

My B&M sites were initially hit on the first day however they have come back about 95% BUT with some glaring errors on G's behalf changing some index page titlebars and totally losing my example.com index page!

AdSense earnings and some EPCs have been halved as well, altogether a nice mess for my directory site.

I'm certainly not changing it after 13 years just to please their screw-up, in any case I wouldn't know what to change since there's nothing wrong with it plus I have no intention ever of constructing sites similar to the ones which have replaced me...I just would not know how to make anything so bad and irrelevant!

tedster




msg:4310768
 1:57 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

Two of those additional sites recovered right around the time of Panda 2.1... I made no changes to the sites that recovered

Good to hear about a recovery, Ryan. I wish it told us something about an action others could take, but at least we know that Panda 2.1 seemed to reverse a false positive for two of your sites.

walkman




msg:4310910
 6:17 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

My company had one site hit by Panda 1.0. This site was hit again by Panda 2.0 along with 5 other sites we own. Two of those additional sites recovered right around the time of Panda 2.1. The others saw no noticeable change.

Was the Panda1 site in that recovered mix?

I was totally unaffected by Panda 1 and 2 however 2.1 (V3) has hit my niche trade widget directory basically by about 50%.


Husky, so the site that came back wasn't Pandalized on 2/24, right? Looks like Panda 2x has a mechanism to come back in rankings

indyank




msg:4310913
 6:22 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

Husky, so the site that came back wasn't Pandalized on 2/24, right? Looks like Panda 2x has a mechanism to come back in rankings


i think they must have rolledback something they introduced in 2.1. You are lucky then.

rlange




msg:4310943
 7:27 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

tedster wrote:
I wish it told us something about an action others could take [...]

Heh. Same here. It's a bit of a relief, for sure, but it's also somewhat frustrating in its own way.

walkman wrote:
Was the Panda1 site in that recovered mix?

Unfortunately, no...

--
Ryan

HuskyPup




msg:4310961
 7:59 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

Husky, so the site that came back wasn't Pandalized on 2/24, right?


Correct, no sites affected with either Panda 1 or 2, only 2.1

aakk9999




msg:4310970
 8:17 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think we are in danger calling any SERPs change "Panda Vn.nn"

synthese




msg:4310972
 8:25 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

Was hit by Panda 1, then again with 2. I've done everything possible, but absolutely no improvement at all. I've read everything I can find and done my best to ensure the site meets all the quality guidelines

synthese




msg:4310979
 8:29 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

Uh, correction. My site has been hit by Panda 2.1 as well. Google traffic now just 8-10% of what it was in Feb. No surprise that we've laid off almost 3/4 of our staff.

Shatner




msg:4310992
 8:57 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

@rlange I'm not clear about your post. It sounds like you're saying that some of the sites hit by Panda 2.0 recovered, but not the Panda 1.0 site, right? If so... that means we're still looking for any Panda 1.0 site that has recovered.

HuskyPup




msg:4310995
 9:02 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think we are in danger calling any SERPs change "Panda Vn.nn"


It was first speculated at WebmasterWorld and offically confirmed by Google yesterday that there was a 5/6th May "tweak" that affected a swathe of previously untouched sites and, seemingly, one or two sites that recovered some ground from Panda 2 but not Panda 1.

That's correct isn't it?

tedster




msg:4311000
 9:07 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

Yes, that's correct. At first some were calling it Panda 3, then Google told Danny Sullivan that the change was more like version 2.1 and didn't have the same breadth of effect that Panda 1 and 2 did.

aristotle




msg:4311007
 9:14 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

If so... that means we're still looking for any Panda 1.0 site that has recovered.


What about Panda 2.0 ? Have any sites recovered from it? If so, does it mean that different rules apply to recovering from Panda 2.0 than from Panda 1.0

shallow




msg:4311059
 11:09 pm on May 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

To return to the primary topic of this thread, even with two follow-up Panda changes, it sounds like no one affected by Panda (any number) has actually recovered even most of their traffic, right?



Right! Unfortunately.

whatson




msg:4311079
 12:19 am on May 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

No one seems to be discussing heavy ads so much any more. My brother runs sites with some very heavy Adsense, above the fold as well, and he has seen a slight increase in traffic since panda. His content is all unique, not that thin. I have seen other adsense heavy sites increase in rankings still.

This leads me to believe it is a content thing. There is just a likely correlation between thin content and heavy ads.
So to correct it then you need rework on your content:

For pages that are too similar use canonicalization, or non-indexable links. e.g. an e-commerce site might sell a shirt, and they have a url for each size and color of the shirt, when one url should suffice.

If you are scraping or copying content from other sites, all those pages/or business model is now obsolete (unless you are one of the particularly lucky ones that some how still seem to beat the original writers.) You will need to re-write these pages well, or remove them completely.

How thin content are we talking? E.g. I have a directory of car dealers on my site, each dealer has its own url with name, address, phone and map, I am guessing that this is now too thin content, and will likely have to rethink how I go about presenting this data. Especially when it is not feasible to write a description about 0000s of car dealers.

If you are one of the unlucky people who have scrapers outranking your unique hard work written content, then at this stage I am not sure why you are suffering. I can only think that maybe it is an external factor like links, but I think (hope) it is more likely an error on Google's behalf, which they should hopefully desperately trying to correct. If not then they just don't care who owns the content and the biggest brand wins. But that will end up being very negative press for them when it gets out.

What about image, flash, etc. content, it is possible that these pages have very little text on them, as people visit them to look at photos, or interact with certain tools or whatever. How do these fit in the mix?

Broadway




msg:4311110
 1:55 am on May 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

Whatson,
I agree that it seems that Google only rewards text content. I have a series of pages whose purpose/emphasis is entirely related to the graphic they show.

Each graphic takes two hours (or more) to create. Yet because these pages don't contain heavy text content, I fear that Google doesn't value them.

In general, only related to the way Google is able to evaluate the web, graphics are dismissed. (Google only evaluates text content. Pages heavy in graphic content are penalized because of slow load times.)

The shape of the web is dictated by the way by which Google is capable of evaluating it. Google doesn't reward content, just content that they can interpret.

Shatner




msg:4311124
 3:13 am on May 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

>>The shape of the web is dictated by the way by which Google is capable of evaluating it.

One really good example of this theory in action, is using Google's video search. Google's video search only really searches a VERY limited number of types of video. If you aren't one of their handful of approved providers, you don't get listed.

Worse, even if you are one of their handful or approved providers, Google YouTube videos always get priority.

So really the shape of the web is dictated by 1) The way Google is capable of evaluating it and 2) The way in which Google can promote its own products

What the web needs is an independent search company, which only does search, and is not corrupted by all these other businesses Google is now in... or Bing for that matter.

Whitey




msg:4311196
 7:15 am on May 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

I doubt if anyone will be reporting a comeback soon. My sense is Google wants unique , fresh and linked to content and affected sites will have to wait to win back trust.

It's worth noting how pages that plunged didn't loose all of their traffic - as far as i know. If I'm correct it's like an initial warning shot and a partial penalty and/or time delay for re evaluation . That's my guess.

walkman




msg:4311209
 7:57 am on May 12, 2011 (gmt 0)


I doubt if anyone will be reporting a comeback soon. My sense is Google wants unique , fresh and linked to content and affected sites will have to wait to win back trust.

Each site has it's specific problem in Google's eyes. Something as simple as forum pages might have tripped the filter. Some internal dupes that Google said let us index them, no big deal or maybe too many ads. Many sites didn't lack content or links, so it's just a matter of time for Google to recalculate. We're all speculating of course but to assume that all sites suck because Google's first-try Algorithm said so is funny.

Check this and he is a brand too:
I was one of the websites hit by the Panda update. I'm the founder of AsktheBuilder.com. What I'm confused about are the comments by Matt Cutts and other Google engineers who were quoted in stories after the update. In their interviews, I routinely saw them say something to the effect, " .... the update is going to reward sites with original content."

Well, I'm as original as you can get. So much so that sites like eHow.com routinely cite my articles in their *unoriginal* content. There are thousands of pages of content at eHow.com with my content on it. Yes, they recently got a haircut from the second adjustment of Panda, but they still show up on page one of Google results.

How can Google think for a moment that any content on eHow.com or any other site that scrapes or uses the Fair Use Doctrine is original when they come to sites like AsktheBuilder.com for their material?

[cnet.com...]

It's worth noting how pages that plunged didn't loose all of their traffic - as far as i know. If I'm correct it's like an initial warning shot and a partial penalty and/or time delay for re evaluation . That's my guess.

That was initially, as time went by a lot of people lost many of their referrals, gained and then lost them again.

rlange




msg:4311309
 1:38 pm on May 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

Shatner wrote:
@rlange I'm not clear about your post. It sounds like you're saying that some of the sites hit by Panda 2.0 recovered, but not the Panda 1.0 site, right?

Correct.

aristotle wrote:
What about Panda 2.0 ? Have any sites recovered from it?

I've had two websites that were first hit by Panda 2.0 recover, but not due to any changes on my part. They recovered around the time of Panda 2.1.

--
Ryan

dazzlindonna




msg:4311311
 1:54 pm on May 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

I saw a momentary comeback this morning for one phrase (the big one), but it was gone again in a flash. So either some server somewhere forgot to include the Panda blockade, some server somewhere was running a quick test, or some some server somewhere is leading the way to a new and brighter future. I'd like to think it was the latter, but probably not. Still, this teeny tiny itsy bitsy ray of light may be a precursor of things to come. We'll see.

Shatner




msg:4311607
 11:02 pm on May 12, 2011 (gmt 0)

So to recap... no one has recovered from Panda 1.0, people are recovering from Panda 2.0

How much longer can Google keep saying Panda 1.0 isn't a penalty?

AlyssaS




msg:4311630
 12:53 am on May 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

Walkman - that askthebuilder site was discussed at length back in March. The consensus was that he had crammed a lot of ads onto his page - tons of them, above the fold.

As for the quality of his content, here's what Leosghost had to say:

[webmasterworld.com...]

Took him an age ( actually I don't know if he ever did) to fix his incorrect spelling ( pedistal ) on a page that was mentioned here ..and if that page was anything to go by it was full of inaccuracies as to the technique of installing said "pedistal" basin..and was so obviously just thrown together to get visitors to then inadvertently click on disguised ads ( there were about 12 ads of various sorts on the page , most of which could only be spotted as ads by watching the status bar at the bottom of the browser "on hover" ) ..I would imagine that the advertisers noticed a very high bounce rate from "mistaken" or "tricked" clicks..maybe Goggle got wise .

The rest of the site gave me the same impression..put together to get tricked clicks ..and far from expert in the subjects..but if you haven't built a few houses for yourself ( and worked as a laborer to pay your studies many decades ago ) you'd never know. ;-)


Just because a site owner "claims" that his material is the builder equivalent to Shakespeare, doesn't mean it is. Often they are shysters who have been found out and are trying to play the sympathy card...

Shatner




msg:4311649
 2:36 am on May 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

@Alyssa and all

Let's stay on topic before this turns into another one of those threads.

Topic: Has anyone hit by Panda 1.0 recovered?

tedster




msg:4311665
 5:14 am on May 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

I now have a report that one site hit very badly in Panda 1 has recovered to almost pre-Panda search traffic levels in the recent 2.1 update. They did a pretty thorough clean-up in several of the Google recommended areas - including making sure that content loads visibly above the fold.

walkman




msg:4311681
 6:40 am on May 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

AlyssaS, like shatner said but some nitpickers will say that "but your article is bad...too short, blah blah" but the same article ranks high on another site. In this case his articles served as a starting and probably ending points for eHow so that point is MOOT. And yes, everyone is a better expert than others becuase their uncle showed them:). This guy, however, has all the 'brand' signals google would look for, including a radio show. I sincerely doubt Google hired a building PHD to analyze his claims so signals matter.

Back on topic: Tedster, is that person on WebmasterWorld ? I read one report on Google support that a history site hit with 30% came back. He didn't change much so far (too many pages to do fast and he is still working on them) but he posted his site there so Google might have looked at it. Yes he does have a 700+ pixel adsense on top and the pages are on the short site, almost like 200-300 condensed words for students to remembers.

Daniweb still massively hit last time I looked.

This looks to me like a penalty. Assuming you have fixed things you will comeback but only after Google hits the 're-generate' button. True that many sites had thin content, too many ads but quite a few have added good content, removed ads, deleted pages and still nothing. 5 million page site might take time, but not a 100 or a 1000 page site. We would have heard a lot more cheering.

Remember one thing: the sites have to be 'good' relative to others. It's easy to try to find something wrong. Like, oh but you have a 404 links on x page. And?

tedster




msg:4311684
 6:48 am on May 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

No, that site owner is not a WebmasterWorld member. I'm not free to disclose the site - but I do trust the report to be accurate.

As I understand it, the traffic volume has nearly returned to pre-Panda levels, but it is not the same query terms distribution. In other words, it's not like a penalty was removed. Instead it's like a new quality score was generated and is now factored in, and the overall "complexion" of the traffic is changed.

walkman




msg:4311686
 6:56 am on May 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

As I understand it, the traffic volume has nearly returned to pre-Panda levels, but it is not the same query terms distribution. In other words, it's not like a penalty was removed. Instead it's like a new quality score was generated and is now factored in, and the overall "complexion" of the traffic is changed.


Weird, no? Before Panda he must had he PageA, b and c...as the most popular ones, with more links, more text, social signals, internal links etc etc.
Why aren't they still #1 in his site if a new score was created? Unless he changed the text and titles that much or Google looks at radically different signals.

I said penalty in the sense that you're stuck with the old 'quality score' (which penalizes you) you until a new score is generated.

Shatner




msg:4311719
 8:58 am on May 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

@tedster Thanks for the info. It's good to know that at least. It's depressing since I've done everything Google has suggested and more and haven't come back, but at least I now know that I'm probably not going to come back now, not unless I find some way to make other changes (though not really sure what else I can do... out of ideas at this point).

Walkman and everyone else who is Panda 1.0 penalized and hasn't come back... you should probably start proceeding as though you will never come back, or you need to make even more massive changes than you have.

With proof of one site come back, that really puts the nail in the coffin and I think we can trust Tedster on this.

walkman




msg:4311731
 9:24 am on May 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

Shatner, I'm working on it daily but content wise now I'm confident, when compared to competition.

I wouldn't call it proof and it doesn't mean that someone is lying either. Possible but hardly proof.
We don't know if it was really Panda.
If Google was made aware of his site etc etc.

Notice how dozens of us jumped on "I'm ranking for some keywords" a week or so back? So people talk and we aren't hearing many (or any) conformed Panda 1 recoveries.

My site sure got better than it was in every aspect, so why no bump, not even a 10%-20% ?

suggy




msg:4311737
 9:54 am on May 13, 2011 (gmt 0)

After Panda hit the UK (April), some of my main pages went into free fall.

I have been 'fixing' these pages one by one (deoptimising and making much 'richer' and more wordy).

Many have now returned to page 1, but at the bottom, not the top.

My conclusion is that either:-

1) They are subject to a sitewide demotion or penalty and they will improve further when the sitewide data is recalculated or the penalty lifted.

2) Or, they just don't press as many of this algos buttons and hence aren't competitive anymore.

I struggle to believe the latter when I see what's sitting above me in many cases!

Could it be the same for Feb update?

For the record, it's a seven year old site that had tons of domain authority, pre-panda

This 102 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 102 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >
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