homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.67.26
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
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.

 

AlyssaS




msg:4312400
 1:50 pm on May 14, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think that shows a problem with the Jan 28 Scraper Update that laid the early groundwork for Panda. The scraper thing is clear evidence of Google getting something wrong - especially if it's for the main keyword and not for some 28 word exact text search.


As of this moment, I think they've actually rolled back the scraper update.

That update took out a competitor of mine (though he made several reappearances prior to Panda 1 and Panda 2 being released - I think TheMadScientist said that the scraper update was really a filter and they needed to lift it before they made algo changes, before putting the filter back again).

Anyway - my scraper competitor returned on Apr 26th - he's still there, and the scraped material is still there, if you Google it you get lots of examples.

So - either they've lifted the filter and are taking an extraordinarily long time to make whatever algo change they have to make - or they have decided that the original scraper update was inadequate and have reversed it, which means the sites that update took out are restored.

indyank




msg:4312419
 3:48 pm on May 14, 2011 (gmt 0)

or they have decided that the original scraper update was inadequate and have reversed it, which means the sites that update took out are restored.


But they seem to have caught a few other sites with panda while releasing the scrapers that they trapped earlier! Is this why we are finding scrapers outranking the panda victims?

Shatner




msg:4312490
 8:18 pm on May 14, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think @dazzlindonna has the scraper issue right when she says:

"The only reason the scraper sites are now ranking for that content, is because the owner of the content isn't being allowed to rank for it."

I really think 100% that's what's going on with the scraper. Panda is like a penalty, your site is being penalized. The content is still good but you can't rank for it because of the penalty, so someone else will. I haven't heard of any non-pandalized sites, for instance, being outranked by scrapers.

Like I've been saying since the beginning, the scraper thing is just a SYMPTOM of Panda not the cause.

falsepositive




msg:4312499
 8:34 pm on May 14, 2011 (gmt 0)

Like I've been saying since the beginning, the scraper thing is just a SYMPTOM of Panda not the cause.


It would be great if this were 100% the case. If so, then we could just work on our sites to try to get them out of panda and not be distracted by DMCAs, etc. But a part of me still suspects that too many scrapers could have tipped the balance for a site to become pandalized. Is it possible that too many scrapers could be a factor and CAUSE of becoming pandalized? If the answer is NO, then it would be awesome, because then I could just focus on strengthening my site and hoping that at some point, I will be let out of the dog (panda) house.

Whitey




msg:4312511
 9:05 pm on May 14, 2011 (gmt 0)

So what signals is Google picking up to rank scrapers above the orginals? There may be a Panda answer in this. ( Actually i don't think it is specific to Panda - but i think it might give a big clue on how Panda works ) Y/N?

outland88




msg:4312560
 1:03 am on May 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

DD the fundamental flaw I noticed by November in the Panda testing was along the lines you mentioned. If you Panda a page already in 32th position that position is going to be filled by a site below that not above presumably. The algo apparently being self-learning see’s the new lower quality and appropriately fills the area with similar type sites. The originally displaced site eventually drops even more.

Like I've been saying since the beginning, the scraper thing is just a SYMPTOM of Panda not the cause.


So are you ruling out fresher content on the scraper being the cause?

dentistology




msg:4312583
 3:59 am on May 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

As far as Panda update was concerned, My sites did not get affected. The Panda update essentially brought down traffic for many sites, and had more to do with traffic than other parameters. My sites visitors have rather increased from search engine.

However, for some reason, my adsense earnings have drastically dropped. Both CPC and CTR are at their pathetic lowest!

TheMadScientist




msg:4312584
 4:24 am on May 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think tedster, dazzlindonna and walkman are all 3 right...
[Yeah, it's a crazy day here at the computer! lol]

The rule from here on out is this simple "content should not suck." In fact - your pages should be exciting for your visitors.
articles.
- tedster

The content is still ranking, just not on the pandalized site.
- dazzlindonna

As for content, it depends on the field I guess, not every site has articles.
- walkman


Alright, how could they all 'work together'?

The content should 'not suck', and obviously, if the content is ranking on another site, via scraping, the content is not the problem, or is it? What could be different about the content on a scraper site than the original? The template and possibly the inbound link text, which 'counts' on the page it's pointing to ... And what could be included in the template and inbound link text that's 'such a big deal'? Semantically related phrases...

So, how does what walkman says fit in here?

Topically, and 'niche specifically' your content should not 'suck' ... If you have a medical site, obviously your site should be 'written at a higher level' than if you have an 'informal social site' and if you have an 'image driven' site, you would have different 'content needs' than either, so 'content that doesn't suck' would be site specific and 'what doesn't suck' on twitter might well suck on a legal site, but content that would 'suck' on one site, would not necessarily 'suck' on all sites.

I'm not saying this is 'the answer' because I think Panda takes more into account, but I think this could be 'part of' the situation for some sites / pages...

Shatner




msg:4312604
 6:01 am on May 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

>>>If you have a medical site, obviously your site should be 'written at a higher level' than if you have an 'informal social site' and if you have an 'image driven' site, you would have different 'content needs' than either

Here's an interesting twist in this theory. What if your content is written a TOO HIGH a level for your niche? We know that Google will report on the reading level for your site. So Google has a view of what level your writing is written at and also knows what the average reading level is among the most successful sites in your particular niche.

With that in mind I've run comparisons with my site against others in my niche, and my site has a MUCH higher reading level than any other site in my niche... and none of those were hit by Panda while mine was. In fact most of the most popular sites in my niche are written at an EXTREMELY basic reading level. Meanwhile the only other site in my niche which I know of having been hit by Panda also has a high reading level. According to my comparisons our two sites have by a LARGE margin the highest reading level in our niche according to Google.

Could Google be incorporating reading level of the content into its algorithm, in this way?

TheMadScientist




msg:4312606
 6:20 am on May 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

What if your content is written a TOO HIGH a level for your niche?
...
Could Google be incorporating reading level of the content into its algorithm, in this way?

I definitely think it's a possibility (likely) ... That's actually part of what I was meaning by content differentiation between sites: "One man's reading level is another man's gibberish.", so to speak ... And it works both ways ... 'Too high for what the average visitor clicks and sticks with' or 'too low for what the average visitor clicks and sticks with' turns your site (or specific page) into 'gibberish' for the 'average visitor' making the specific query, and 'relative gibberish' is a definite possibility for 'less positive' scoring, imo.

Shatner




msg:4312615
 8:50 am on May 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

That idea basically leads to google rewarding sites for pandering to the lowest common denominator though. I mean, I know they're a corporation and in the end probably don't care about their impact as a society... but as a general policy using their influence that way seems so heinous... you hate to even contemplate that as a possibility. To me that is the very definition of "Doing Evil".

Promoting dumbed down sites probably will lead to much happier searchers though, it's like putting nothing but singing competitions on television instead of smart dramas or serving only really unhealthy food at your restaurant because that's what people want (even if it's not good for them), but long term... that seems like a bad strategy and for society as a whole it definitely is.

But it would be a good strategy for Google, if their goal is only to make their search results SEEM good to the average, increasingly less savvy, internet user. Target your search results not only based on what people are looking for, but what you think their intellect is capable of understanding.

Google knows that most people who search for Celebrity Gossip are idiots, so it promotes Celeb sites written at a fourth grade level, because it knows Celeb sites written at a higher level will just confuse and upset searchers.

We touched on this a little in our "sites that don't fit the mold" thread awhile back and that was something some of those sites had in common, that they were written at a different reading level from others in their niche.

suggy




msg:4312672
 2:59 pm on May 15, 2011 (gmt 0)

dazzlindonna: forget ad to text ratios. At best they are an indicator. Plenty of sites with no ads got pandalised. If they are a common factor in others, it is only that sites that have tonnes of adverts also share other issues

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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved