homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.197.111.87
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 238 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 238 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 > >     
Why Haven't Sites Come Back from Panda? Matt Cutts Tries to Explain
walkman




msg:4323316
 6:49 am on Jun 8, 2011 (gmt 0)

This is a rush(?) transcript from Dany Sullivan's blog so probably not everything is 100% correct. The italics and bolding are mine.
[searchengineland.com...]
DS: Talking about Panda, says that he’s getting a ton of emails from people who say that scraper sites are now outranking them after Panda.

MC: A guy on my team working on that issue. A change has been approved that should help with that issue. We’re continuing to iterate on Panda. The algorithm change originated in search quality, not the web spam team.
....
DS: Has it changed enough that some people have recovered? Or is it too soon?

MC: The general rule is to push stuff out and then find additional signals to help differentiate on the spectrum. We haven’t done any pushes that would directly pull things back. We have recomputed data that might have impacted some sites. There’s one change that might affect sites and pull things back.

DS: You guys made this post with 22 questions, but it sounds like you’re saying even if you’ve done that, it wouldn’t have helped yet?

MC: It could help as we recompute data. Matt goes on to say that Panda 2.2 has been approved but hasn’t rolled out yet.

DS: Reads an audience question – is site usability being considered as more of a factor?

MC: Panda isn’t directly targeted at usability, but it’s a key part of making a site that people like. Pay attention to it because it’s a good practice, not because Google says so.

Matt mentions 'pull back' but that's nonsense and very disingenuous of him. Pull back to me means letting a previously labeled bad content rank. We're talking about improved sites and content, no need to pull back, just reanalyze it.

So it's clear to me that this is a penalty. Maybe if you got links from every newspaper in the Northern Hemisphere you might escape but for the rest it looks like it depends on Google engineers. It took them 3+ months to admit it.

 

Whitey




msg:4324429
 4:41 am on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

From what i can work out Matt says this is the "search quality" teams responsibility. I also get the feeling that the decision to pull the switch was a large commercial directive.

So in the context of this, a reason why sites won't come back is that Google want's to force more sites into advertising with them. Reversing this quickly will potentially be counter productive for them. So folks can carry on about search quality, but i think it has a huge connection with $$'s in Google's bank account and the ever increasing need to raise the share price.

Timing is everything in these updates. Search quality is simply a means to that end.

SEOPTI




msg:4324430
 4:48 am on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Whitey, you are right, Panda is also all about force them to buy adwords, once again force them to buy these damn adwords clicks.

Just f*** organic visitors/rankings for a webmaster or company and this person will be forced to buy the overpriced adwords clicks if he wants to survive. Don't expect your panda rankings to come back, if you are a dreamer you know what to do.

A simple and perverse commercial strategy.

tedster




msg:4324438
 5:22 am on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

I've been hearing that tune since the day Google launched Adwords - and I'm 100% sure it's just not true. The organic search team doesn't even have a KPI that's related to revenue.

Here's the way I see the current situation. Google's organic team took on an immense job with Panda - something that no one ever tried to do before with machine intelligence. And in some ways the results are still very rough. I expect they will stay pretty rough in some areas for a good while longer. That's the way immense jobs are.

But the problems are not showing up on highly competitive search terms. If someone got pandalyzed off page one for a big query, then a competitor with a decent offering just got promoted to page one for that query. That's a zero sum situation - it does NOT add up to forcing more Adwords income.

That said, I really do wish th Googlers would speak more clearly about the situation - especially why so many sites don't seem to get re-ranked no matter what kind of changes they make. There's got to be some plain English available, but this particular exchange between Danny and Matt didn't provide it.

Whitey




msg:4324446
 6:33 am on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

I'm 100% sure it's just not true

I'm not so convinced and indeed the search team themselves may not be focused on that, as indeed you say. With an operation the size of Google's such a shift must follow some authorsiation process which is commercially linked. Timing is critical.

With every adjustment in the organic SERP's there are winners and losers - granted ( albeit Google is occupying more of that space with it's own marketing realestate direct controls ). But with every disruption comes panic and companies question their investment and stability in the SERP's so are more likely to switch budgets across to Adwords.

There has to be a commercial angle on this out of the hands of the purists who do their job in search quality and spam with the best intentions toeing the company line. Maybe Matt wants to tell us the truth and half the Google employees may do as well - but they don't write the communication policy and interviewers are keen not to loose their contact by being too direct or they won't have a second chance at questioning.

That said I believe that Google will reinstate results when it wants to and that will need to have some commercial clearances on the back of the technical considerations. But then again, what do i know :)

This is how myths are born - no communication and lot's of imagination.

All i know is Google is increasing it's income in the last quarter - or so i believe.

I really do wish th Googlers would speak more clearly about the situation - especially why so many sites don't seem to get re-ranked no matter what kind of changes they make.

Absolutely - I'll 2nd that - this would be the considerate thing to do for those involved.

MLHmptn




msg:4324478
 8:10 am on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Dunno but maybe Panda 2.2 is in testing phase now as we speak....Check out search.icq.com. Seems to be pre Panda SERP's or as close as I've seen since Panda went into effect.

koan




msg:4324490
 8:37 am on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

.Check out search.icq.com. Seems to be pre Panda SERP's or as close as I've seen since Panda went into effect.


I don't see it. I tried for one keyword and it's the same as Google current results.

zeus




msg:4324500
 9:41 am on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Just made a search, got 148,000,000 results on spot 6 on page one there is a site with about 40-50 link exchanges, 20 images which all goes to a external affiliate link, so no content what so ever, they even have on the right side about 60 different Categories links which would normally go to other internal page, which it also does but with the same images as affiliate link. damn there is 0 content on frontpage , 40 link exchanges and maybe 60 duplicated content pages

The site I mentioned before is now no.1 with 148mill results and as said its almost 0 content and a lot of duplicated content, like the frontpage as example about 150-200, 16 images which are from the affiliate server and 15 words at the bottom the usual copyright blabla, but thats it

Reno




msg:4324531
 12:29 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

That's the way immense jobs are.

So it makes me wonder if this is an example where G took on more than it could handle vis-a-vis a total rollout. Perhaps for a 12 month peridod they could have focused Panda on a thin slice of search queries only, got the fine tuning in place, then made it the default for everything?

Don't know ~ I'm not a search engineer, but this cannot possibly be working as they expected.

We all remember how they almost immediately came out and trumpeted their so-called extensive testing, which was NOT real-world. Laboratory testing and real-world are 2 different animals, as drug manufacturers learned a long time ago. Google had their own people run this monstrosity, thought it was a winner, then released it to the English speaking world, and like a poorly tested pharmaceutical, are seeing side effects that are deadly. Surprise surprise.

If/when the technology bubble pops, look for Google to get hit hard, and the Panda failure will be identified, IMO, as part of the reason.

.............................

rlange




msg:4324541
 1:03 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Whitey wrote:
All i know is Google is increasing it's income in the last quarter - or so i believe.

*facepalm* Which is it? Do you know this to be true, or do you simply believe it to be true?

Speculation is inevitable and not necessarily bad, but too many people are dressing it up as knowledge. This sort of thing is a huge obstacle to reasonable discussion.

--
Ryan

zeus




msg:4324549
 1:25 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

this update has nothing to do with that they want you to spend more on adwords.

what im missing 1 clear point where they say, this is bad for your site, thats our main focus with Panda, be cause the update takes so long and many are in real trouble, as said I have to move out of my new house if nothing changes in the next few Month thats a fact. A normal update fux is about 2-3 weeks, but this time it takes Month, thats way we need ONE point on which we can focus and not all that bull with 20-30 points, when I see the results nothing of that fits.

bwnbwn




msg:4324550
 1:26 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

I can report some progress on the site that was hit. We have come back to the 1st position of a good term. Slight increase in traffic with more and more terms moving in a positive direction.

I am seeing Bing results much better than before and more traffic coming from B/Y search. I know it has only been a week since I completed the rebuild of the site, but a term we had for years was lost and the good news is we have it back. This is a positive sign.

superclown2




msg:4324573
 2:12 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Whitey wrote:
All i know is Google is increasing it's income in the last quarter - or so i believe.


The market doesn't believe this. The shares are still falling.

Shaddows




msg:4324576
 2:21 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Shares are falling because costs, particularly TAC, are up, reducing profitability.

Revenue was still in double-digit growth territory last quarter.

Leosghost




msg:4324615
 3:25 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Definitely is not to designed to "push" one towards adwords, I launched ( if one can say "launched" for a one page site ;-) a single page site , 7 letter.com KW1,KW2 ..both KWs with about 500 mill results for each, and thus nearly 500 mill for the combination.

IT / web sector , specialised services ..went live about 3 months prior to Panda..in at page 2 for each word ..and mid page one for the two together ) ( eleven to twelve slot .so a click through to page two of serps showed it well ) ..I would have expected to have to buy adwords for it ( there are a lot of others buying on these words and the "composite" )for it to do better.. from there ( had no intention of doing so however )..it has moved up slowly during Panda ..

( although , and this is intriguing, when the total results number returned for KW1,KW2 is slightly lower, say 480.000,000 it moves down a couple of spots,..( Google seems to cycle results at around 12 hour intervals,specially since Panda..IMO A/B testing .. total results returned can vary by 5 to 20 mill ) two days ago the returned results started to stabilise near the high end 500 mill..and it went to #1..

Page has around 200 words ..very tight on page SEO..one inbound link from another site I have ( aged since around Y2K ) but whose subject is not connected ( I just use it as a "boost" ) ..I have no idea if anyone else has linked to it as the backlinks commands are unreliable and have been so for years now ..

There are a few sites on the net that are far better indicators of backlinks than any of the SE's.

This is a "money terms"..site ..IMO if panda was about forcing one to buy ads , I'd still be on page 2..There are ads being bought on these KWs..

Similar situation on other sites,old and new, I'm seeing no forcing me to get out the credit card in order to be visible ..may come one day in the future ( although personally I doubt it )..Why sites are not "coming back" or moving ?

I think that

#1 If you don't make real genuine changes to the site that are not obviously just for ranking to drive visitors to click on your ads..the the algo is designed to say "probably MFA"..when the site finishes morphing we'll re-evaluate, but a moving target is moving "this way" to escape panda not evolving genuinely.

and #2 it is ressource intensive, so why would they burn CPU cycles to help MFA's and ad spammers climb back up ..for years Google have said they can see things and do things ..and just the mention of that has kept many in line ..and so they rarely actually needed to run certain parts of the algo ..

FUD has kept many site owners "clean"( er ) than they would have been ..

G has issued a thunderclap from on high with Panda , knocked down a lot of drecky sites..scared many others ..I think the scaring was as much in the intentions as were the thunderbolts.

I think the Panda algo can tell who is making solid attempts to shore up their foundations, and make solid sites..and who are just throwing over a tarp and painting it to look like roof tiles..the later are finding that the the wind and the rain are still coming through and it is cold.

A point on scrapers..yes some scrapers are still there and some have even moved up, no doubt at all Google will be working on this, but reading the threads here, and knowing some of the sites whose owners are complaining, even in this thread ( doesn't mean everyone..but they know who they are..as do some of us ) , and knowing that they are and have been using other peoples content and images etc for a long time and thus are IMO pure scrapers..

Google got some of the scraper part right, and it is a work in progress, the machine has to learn..a "genuine" site will be able to ride it out..and come back up ..one made only to get ad clicks or with other peoples content won't..because how do they replace thousands of pages of other folks stuff with their own, before they go bust..because now they know they cant just take it from elsewhere, the game is up.

How do they remake all their pages from ad ridden tricky click swamps to normal ad supported sites without looking and becoming virtually unrecognisable as the original site..layout changes like that, would do that to them..and their new revenue levels as non tricky wouldn't support the lifestyle they have become accustomed to by being ad swamps.

Why is Matt keeping it vague..because you don't show the picture until its finished ..especially not if the bad guys could see the direction its going and maybe the end point from the underpainting..

There is nothing it for Google, nor those of us who are not "tricky" if they bow to pressure and listen to the wailing..not all of which is innocent by any means.

And yes there are some "innocent bystander" sites, but some of the most vocal here and elsewhere,in the "G got it wrong, and G is killing, me and why doesn't G let me back up" are some of the least "innocent".

falsepositive




msg:4324662
 4:52 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

So let me understand this. Matt Cutts implies that the past Panda runs (Panda 1, 2, 2.1) were about pushing sites out. Does that mean once you've been Pandalized, you have stayed Pandalized? The whole idea that it's a penalty sounds fitting although I know a lot of folks say it is not. So he admits not to have run the algo to release Pandalized sites yet by "pulling them back"? Past Panda runs were just about finding sites that should be Pandalized. Granted it's a reranking, his use of words is interesting.

So this is just speculation, but I ask: if you were recognized as Panda, any past runs of Panda would not have released you and instead would have either aggravated or eased your situation a little via tweaks. But the stigma is there until you are "pulled back" with new recomputations.

I'm wondering what he means by the terms he's used here.

Atomic




msg:4324670
 4:55 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

And yes there are some "innocent bystander" sites, but some of the most vocal here and elsewhere,in the "G got it wrong, and G is killing, me and why doesn't G let me back up" are some of the least "innocent".

Glad someone came out and said it. Thank you.

bwnbwn




msg:4324680
 5:26 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

I have no doubt you can come out from under being Pandalized, no doubt. First of this wasn't a tricky dicky click ad site, but with the amount of duplicate and thin content it probably fell in that class.

What Leosghost said here should be taking very serious.
I think the Panda algo can tell who is making solid attempts to shore up their foundations, and make solid sites..and who are just throwing over a tarp and painting it to look like roof tiles..the later are finding that the the wind and the rain are still coming through and it is cold.
Our site is moving out by not a small change here and there but a complete rebuild from the ground up.

This site is nothing like it was, I completely rebuilt it with new content, new layout, new navigation, and new adsense layout. We only had one before and one now but the focus of the site is not adsense but generating leads for our clients, so the adsense was moved to the bottom of the page.

I can see movment on this site as posted above. I can see the good term we lost back, so yes you can come out. Being Pandalized is not a penality but a ranking factor.

Posted here on what chages I did. [webmasterworld.com...]

walkman




msg:4324712
 7:08 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Ok, we need to tone it down, we're getting too emotional :)

The market doesn't believe this. The shares are still falling.

Google stock is going down not because of Panda, but because they need to spend more money to make money and people see that search has matured in USA and EU. Walmart for example has a lot of revenue but their margins are slim for obvious reason. Google was valued at $200+ billion because they made a lot of money with relatively little effort /expenses. That's now changing and the stock will reflect that.

But, no I don't think search team is sitting down and calculating what sites to take down to make Google to make more. On the other hand I don't believe that they are Rambos, working alone with no interference.
In meetings they probably are given guidelines and suggestions about certain types of sites.
There is nothing it for Google, nor those of us who are not "tricky" if they bow to pressure and listen to the wailing..not all of which is innocent by any means.

And yes there are some "innocent bystander" sites, but some of the most vocal here and elsewhere,in the "G got it wrong, and G is killing, me and why doesn't G let me back up" are some of the least "innocent".

I mostly agree with you Leo, most of the sites hit by Panda deserved it and quite a few owners whine for no reason (they know who they are) and others take credit for beating Panda for no reason (they know who they are.) The adage that they guilty scream loudest is somewhat true, but a lot of times it's not. A guilty one usually cries first and then "f$%/ they caught me and aren't buying it." But that's another topic and this isn't as cut and dry as a crime.


Page has around 200 words ..very tight on page SEO..one inbound link from another site I have ( aged since around Y2K ) but whose subject is not connected ( I just use it as a "boost" ) ..I have no idea if anyone else has linked to it as the backlinks commands are unreliable and have been so for years now ...
This is a "money terms"..site

I think the strategy for post-Panda should be like yours, in addition to a major site /s. one should do 200 or so word SEO-ed and pretty mych Made For Google 'sites' that target specific money terms. Link them from your existing one and see if they rank. If they rank, great, if they don't it makes no sense to complain given the amount of time spent. You just try with another money term.

I have two such sites, the hours involved were probably a week since it involved more than 200 words and they provide what the users want and what the title says, but if Google tomorrow demotes them, I could understand why and I got my money for the hours worked long time ago. Yet post-Panda traffic has skyrocketed and so have earnings, I just take the money though, not credit for their success :)

There alone I use adwords, and one block at the bottom of the content. On my 10+ year old pandalized site I don't have adwords, and I don't make a penny unless users find what they are looking for.
I have a very limited number of pages and two people work on it every day. No site will ever be perfect but after Panda it has become a lot better for users and for the spiders, and new changes are coming hopefully next week. Having seen quite a few of my competitors improve their rankings, I can see that quite a few did not deserve it.

I'm objective enough to see what site is much better than mine, like mine or worst. Of course they are pages that are better or worse within each site and we're talking about major traffic downgrade. I've had plenty 10% or even 30% ups and downs last year for example.

Now, has Google run the full Panda since Feb 24th or will it be run on Panda 2.2? I think it's answered by Matt clearly.
Google and every search engine tells you that if you do a good site or improve it a lot it should rank well. Their whole mission is to rank well good sites. Matt said that if you did exactly what Google told you, the site COULD rank better with this Panda 2.2 update.
If Panda is not a penalty, and if the site is done exactly as Google wants it, Google sees and indexes it, why isn't it a "should" improve? Of course relative to other sites. Time will tell this.

Anyway, peace and love.
Yes I see several keywords moving up and down but they aren't enough to statistically see a difference page wise and total traffic is still at the same level.

We all should agree that after google should be a bit more open, after telling people to remove 'bad' pages and do this and that to see your pages improve in rank.

What Tedster said about others taking the place is true, but Google can probably penalize 50% of the web and most people would miss it after a few days, as long as sites like Amazon, 1-800Flowers, Sears and the likes are still in.

AlyssaS




msg:4324738
 8:02 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Why sites are not "coming back" or moving ?

I think that

#1 If you don't make real genuine changes to the site that are not obviously just for ranking to drive visitors to click on your ads..the the algo is designed to say "probably MFA"..when the site finishes morphing we'll re-evaluate, but a moving target is moving "this way" to escape panda not evolving genuinely.


I don't think it's anything to do with that - it's to do with the types of changes people are making. Sites that are re-writing content and sorting out their site structure are coming back - but sites that simply deleted content are not.

With the latter case, it's because while their actions may have lifted the Panda penalty, they hurt them with the underlying algo.

Suppose you have 1000 pages on your site and delete 750 of them as they are thin. Well those 750 pages would have been supporting the rest of the site, and the loss of those internal links hurts you with the underlying algo, unless you have gone out and got new external backlinks to replace the lost link juice.

It's better to re-write content then to delete it, but I think a lot of people immediately post Panda 1 were looking for a "quick" solution. Re-writing loads of pages would take months and months (maybe up to three months!). Whereas deleting meant you had the potential to come back within weeks. Well they may no longer be under the Panda cosh, and traffic will have risen from the lows - but they won't be "fully restored" like they expected because they hacked away at their site too much.

Leosghost




msg:4324742
 8:15 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Ok, we need to tone it down, we're getting too emotional :)


Few here were..but if "they" want to "tone it down"..great ..good idea :)..better for clear discussion. ;-)

Maybe I should make it clear ,( although I never said that my 200 word single page site mentioned above, had adsense on ) ..it doesn't, never did and never will ( so not sure why you apparently assumed it did )..it is a pure description of an IT / web related service that I offer ..very, very competitive niche which many here are in.. I used the skills it offers, to get it where it is..it didn't get there accidentally , nor is its Panda "proofness" accidental..you can build "solid", even without knowing what may be coming, and that way be 99% sure you'll ride out whatever does, and positioned to be above the waters if the "flood" happens, and washes away others.

The boost site has no ads either, never did , never will..it could, and they would do well, but I'm not greedy, putting ads on would devalue its use to me ..

Neither of those two were built for search engines,( I don't build especially for search engines..just build "solid" ) or Google in particular..but they do use what I have discovered about search engines, and Google at the moment the dominant one, to make sure that they are not and will not be vulnerable to algo changes, and if they ever became temporary collateral damage of an algo, I have other sites, and other business , both on and offline..

I, and many others here I think, work this way, we dont keep all our eggs in one basket, don't depend on Google or search engines for a living,and our sites are varied in subject, type, niches and size..

I've got adsenses sites, direct ad sites, aff stuff , mixes of all three ..plus services sites ( no ads ) and ecommerce sites..( no middleman, not selling other folks stuff..and no ads ) ..and some "just for fun" or "just because" sites..and some gallery /portfolio sites, a healthy spread, I think that most of the others who haven't been hit ( or who if they have know why and it isn't their only "income" site ) probably have "spread" site portfolios too..

I've got no problems about Google keeping vague about how their algo works, using their engine and others to search, and watching the shifts, one can relatively easily, IME, work out the "whys", and the "do's", and the "don'ts"..and thus do the things which allow one to take both the money and the credit ; -) for what one knows and does and which renders one Panda or other algo proof..

zeus




msg:4324752
 8:34 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

as said before 1 site with absolute no content other then links to affiliate sites, link exchanges bla bla, now I saw another site placed as no.6 of 145,000,000 results, front page only links, 2 sentence of text, a lot of link exchange, thats it, when you then click a category, you see the images not much els, but thats perfectly ok be cause users search for that, but when you click those you get to #*$! sites, so when i see SUCH bad results i have no doubt i will be back to my old rankings

shallow




msg:4324770
 9:25 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

Can someone define "thin?"

Many of the articles in my site, which is educational in nature, are 300-400 words; some are 600-1000 words. The very purpose of my site is the help novice users learn about a particular widget. Articles are purposely non-technical, easy-to-understand and quick reading.

I take an approach like USA Today is known for: synthesizing information down to easy-to-read-and-comprehend articles.

I've played by all the rules and, through the years, have used talented, knowledgeable people working on and advising about the site.

I have no idea why I've been Pandaized so severely, even after reading many articles on the subject here at WebmasterWorld.

[edited by: shallow at 9:48 pm (utc) on Jun 10, 2011]

zeus




msg:4324771
 9:41 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

I dont get this "thin page" when I search for some info I want a short and precise description as possible, not to much bla bla, many articles are SO boring be cause they stuff the pages with so much text that you go to another site. I always make a description as short as possible, so a user get what he wants in a short time or when you have a image site you dont want to much text be cause the user just want to get to that image.

freejung




msg:4324777
 9:53 pm on Jun 10, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think the Panda algo can tell who is making solid attempts to shore up their foundations, and make solid sites..and who are just throwing over a tarp and painting it to look like roof tiles

That might depend on whether you had solid foundations to begin with.

I think you have to start by taking an honest look in the mirror and deciding whether you are a false positive or a true positive. Nobody likes to admit that their content is "shallow" but you probably know that it is.

In my niche, that involves an aesthetic judgment call as to the quality of my own work, which is hard to make. My visitors seem to like it, many give me positive feedback. I'm going to assume for the time being that I'm a false positive, because otherwise I may as well get out of my niche altogether, and I'm not ready to do that yet.

If you're a real positive, then yeah, you'd probably better rework your site and your business model from the ground up, as if you were starting over from zero. Keep the domain for the link juice, but essentially build a new site on it. Otherwise, maybe you can find some trick to get around this particular algo change, but the odds are good that sooner or later G will find a way to correctly identify you.

But if you're a false positive, what do you do? I can't just re-create my content, it took years to accumulate what I have so that idea is a non-starter.

However, I have to admit that because I use adsense and get lots of search traffic, I've adopted a number of tactics commonly used by MFA sites. There's a reason those sites use those tactics: they make more money. I had ads above the fold and content below. I fixed that and a few other things of that nature.

However, that's exactly the sort of superficial, cosmetic change that MFAs are probably making to try to escape the net. So by your logic that won't work.

So what to do? I have a plan to radically revamp my URL structure, but I'm not ready to pull the trigger on it yet. I've thought about it a lot, and the structure I have now actually makes sense. I have separate URLs for each item and it would be fairly easy to consolidate them onto the category pages -- but they should have their own URL, particularly because of the Facebook Open Graph, which expects an "object" to have its own URL. Most of my items have "likes," some have quite a few -- do I just ditch those and delete the URLs in a possibly vain attempt to please Google? That seems silly, and it won't do a thing for my visitors, they probably don't even notice whether each item is on its own URL or not and I can't imagine them caring even if they did notice.

I said before that I don't like making changes just for Google that don't help visitors. So for now I'm going to sit tight and see what happens.

The only other thing I can think to do is post a lot of new content. I can do that, I have content in the queue. It'll take time, but it's worth doing in and of itself so that's probably the way to go.

Whitey




msg:4324826
 12:11 am on Jun 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

All actions have a commercial consequence at Google. There's no way the the search teams can predict precisely their outcomes. So I 100% agree with Tedsters assertion in the context that search doesn't measure to $$ KPI's.

They would have quality KPI's though.

But Google deals in big numbers and they have told the markets that they are taking steps to secure long term growth. Search quality is a consequential concern. Revenue is a major concern and their market already sits in the SERP's - so disrupt it , perfect their direct platform and drive a tiny proportion of siteowners onto Adwords and you have a big lift in income.

These results only hit the tail of the quarter when Panda hit
Q1 Financial Highlights
Revenues – Google reported revenues of $8.58 billion in the first quarter of 2011, representing a 27% increase over first quarter 2010 revenues of $6.77 billion. Google reports its revenues, consistent with GAAP, on a gross basis without deducting TAC.

Google Sites Revenues – Google-owned sites generated revenues of $5.88 billion, or 69% of total revenues, in the first quarter of 2011. This represents a 32% increase over first quarter 2010 revenues of $4.44 billion.

Google Network Revenues – Google’s partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $2.43 billion, or 28% of total revenues, in the first quarter of 2011. This represents a 19% increase from first quarter 2010 network revenues of $2.04 billion.

[investor.google.com ]


All actions of Google are geared towards it's growth and sustainability in the market.

So at the lowest end of the Google food chain where folks all justifiably worry about their efforts and existance , and when and how they might get their Pandalized sites back, all i can say is, Google will decide when it suits them.

They will be wanting to see how the Panda search quality effects their overall results. Did advertisers switch etc.

One thing is for sure , bad implementation of search quality strategies will not occur at Google. I'm talking large scale. And nobody implimenting large scale elements would be exempt and able to make free wheeling decisions without consequences if it went wrong - even if it meant a roll back. This is part of a a large scale interwoven strategy.

Even if we take different views, and a valid emphasis of each and everybody's interests, to create combat strategies folks really have to understand what Google wants and respond accordingly to remain more sustainable.

However, i really uphold the view that Google could do to be a lot more honest and open on Panda etc. given it's dominance and effect on the landscape. The reps and interviewers seem frightened to be straight ... why wouldn't they be. Google pays the bills ultimately -you don't want to upset it.

This is a business. I don't always like it , but that's the way it is.

My view only [ and honestly what would i know - i ] - this is why Matt can't report on when sites will return. It's not his department , he will get told even though he may contribute, and the search quality team will have a line to upper management before any button get's pushed. Small changes -no - but a huge algorthimic change like Panda - absolutely. The bean counters will be watching.

Whitey




msg:4324829
 12:38 am on Jun 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

Digging a bit deeper :

Google Sites Revenues – Google-owned sites generated revenues of $5.88 billion, or 69% of total revenues, in the first quarter of 2011. This represents a 32% increase over first quarter 2010 revenues of $4.44 billion.

Google Network Revenues – Google’s partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $2.43 billion, or 28% of total revenues, in the first quarter of 2011. This represents a 19% increase from first quarter 2010 network revenues of $2.04 billion.


Google Places ?

Panda ? 12% of search results effected [ Google ] - across claims of 40% of sites effected ( not directly - but certainly indirectly per community estimates )
The resurrection of Pandalized sites isn't going to be re run without very extensive thought behind it. Certainly not before the next round of sites get hit to compensate for the returning ones - to maintain quality and secure revenues . Watch Q2 results

Fiddling at the edges and tweaking sites may be expensive and risky, but what choice do folks have. Until we know - everything remains academic and speculative for siteowners on how they can respond with a degree of certainty. Hats off to those who are preparing.

Leosghost




msg:4324831
 12:47 am on Jun 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

The only other thing I can think to do is post a lot of new content. I can do that, I have content in the queue. It'll take time, but it's worth doing in and of itself so that's probably the way to go.


Sometimes putting your thoughts down on paper, can help you see what you should be doing, and where you should be putting your efforts, in your own best interests.

I think during your post ..you talked yourself into the best thing for your site, and you, and your visitors.:-)

Then do it again ..with another site, rinse and repeat, vary..play a spread.

fakedsysadmin




msg:4324892
 4:01 am on Jun 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

Suppose you have 1000 pages on your site and delete 750 of them as they are thin.


The 750 pages also seem like spam to me.

AlyssaS




msg:4324893
 4:32 am on Jun 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

^^^ Perhaps they are.

The point I'm making is that if you are in that situation, it is better to painstakingly go through all of them and convert them into real useful unique pages, then to simply hit the delete button. Because those pages will have been linking to other pages on your site, and zapping them without getting fresh external links will leave your remaining pages dangerously unsupported.

tedster




msg:4324895
 4:37 am on Jun 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

I'm with Alyssa. One reason that websites got into the Panda pickle is taking shortcuts with automation rather than really considering their visitors. If they try to "fix" the situation with more of that kind of "easy way" approach, all kinds of other repercussions are possible.

fakedsysadmin




msg:4324901
 5:54 am on Jun 11, 2011 (gmt 0)

I've always built websites following Brett's "Successful Site in 12 Months with Google Alone".

My websites were not affected by Panda.

IMHO, I think now it's easier to build websites a la Brett and at the same time get good rankings without having to use tricks to compete with spam.

This 238 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 238 ( 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