homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 174.129.80.166
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

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 33 message thread spans 2 pages: 33 ( [1] 2 > >     
Google Should Send Panda Notifications Through Webmaster Tools
Whitey




msg:4329364
 2:01 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

Google Panda Webmaster Notifications:

Google should offer webmaster notifications through emails and Webmaster Tools, like they do so well with since 2007 and has lately bumped up to issue notifications of doorway pages, unnatural links, cloaking, or even generic site issues and wordpress installs being out of date.

So why not tell webmasters if they have excessive or worrisome low quality content and thus need to fix the content on their site in order to regain trust and rankings in Google. [seroundtable.com...]

Well put RustyBrick. +1

Too much pain, confusion and financial hardship for folks out there on this one not to support your view. Any +2's or inputs from others?

 

tedster




msg:4329473
 5:04 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

Given that other ranking changes are happening along with Panda problems, I think this idea would be a good gesture from Google. At least the webmaster would know if a ranking problem is Panda, rather than some other issue.

walkman




msg:4329488
 5:26 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

True but if G says Panda run x week and you got hit with a 60% traffic loss, you pretty much know. Not 100% sure but you can rule out other penalties by filing a reconsideration request. For no penalties it's automated after a few days, as far as I know.

Obviously this would be better but I'm not sure it really makes a difference in the end. Panda is nasty and what Whitey said on fin hardship is 100% true but people hit by panda pretty much already know they got hit by Panda and that Google dislikes /ed their site.

wiseapple




msg:4329489
 5:29 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

I agree. It would be good at least to give some hints of what the issues might. If they want the web to move in a certain way, it cannot be secret. If my internal link structure is too much, let me know. If I have too much duplicate content, let me know. Then at least I can try to figure out a plan. In the current way, I am left with taking things apart without any idea if it will work.

netmeg




msg:4329521
 6:11 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

It'd be nice. I wonder how much it would help though. Almost no "end user" type clients that come to me have ever heard of GWT, let alone Panda or any such truck. All they know is, they're stuffed. The people who already are in GWT probably already know whether or not they've got Panda issues too.

aristotle




msg:4329550
 7:19 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

It wouldn't be fair to notify some webmasters but not others. This would give an unfair advantage to site owners who have GWT accounts. That would be wrong.

supercyberbob




msg:4329562
 7:41 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

My main beef with the lack of transparency from them is that it may result in significant animosity or resentment.

What you might end up with is an "us vs them" perception which is already happening in some circles.

And if things get sketchy enough, there will be a loss of trust and respect.

I'm trying to be objective, but hopefully that made some sense.

What happened to that new "inside search" blog? Can't put a Panda 2.2 announcement on there? mmkay.

tedster




msg:4329639
 10:13 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

What you might end up with is an "us vs them" perception which is already happening in some circles.

That's been going on for years - long before Panda.

This would give an unfair advantage to site owners who have GWT accounts. That would be wrong.

Webmasters who don't have a WMT account have already given up a potential advantage. No one is denied a WMT account - even if the site is banned.

wheel




msg:4329648
 10:20 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

So why not tell webmasters if they have excessive or worrisome low quality content and thus need to fix the content on their site in order to regain trust and rankings in Google

What? no way should google do this.

If you've got crap content, get the he11 out of the way for my website to rank. I have top quality content.

Google doesn't need to babysit you. If you're content or backlinks are low quality, they should ban or penalize you permanently. I fail to see why you should even get a reconsideration - doing so removes the motivation to follow Google's guidelines. "Oh I made money for a while but got busted. Can I clean up and get back again?" He11 no. Goodbye, start over and do it right next time like the rest of us.

Here's your notification from Google: Check the serps, you're on page 8.

aristotle




msg:4329671
 11:11 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

If Google were to do this, they would be showing favoritism to owners of sites with GWT accounts. In my opinion it would be wrong for Google to do this.

wheel




msg:4329682
 11:22 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

They can show favoritism to whoever they like. They already do that. Folks need to get over the idea that Google gives a rat's toot about you or treating you fairly. It's not, and never has been about anything other than their corporate bottom line.

My problem is that lifting penalties and notifications gives preference to people 'abusing' the guidelines (or at least doing so in ways that can get you caught :) ). That's the opposite of what Google should be doing.

I can take the 'hard' way and build top content and backlinks. I get rankings and $. Or I can take the 'easy' way and get those same rankings and $ - but when I get caught Google helps me out and lets me start fresh? Why would anyone take the hard way when there's no lasting penalty for taking the easy route, but all of the potential benefits? It's against Google's best interests, and coincidentally would be better for me if they did that :).

aristotle




msg:4329689
 11:33 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

They can show favoritism to whoever they like


Just because they can do it, that doesn't make it right. I still it's wrong.

Whitey




msg:4329693
 11:37 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think RustyBrick's remarks are spot on. Google made a decision to communicate with webmasters via guidelines, WMT , forums and representatives a long way back. And to this extent it worked well as a form of partnership of transparency.

In this context, the relationship with Google is a win/win. In the context of pure self interest, whilst on the surface it can be advantageous to be a "winner takes all" , it's a much more robust situation when folks work together and the economy works in a circuit. Break it and it becomes dysfunctional. So, in my view RustyBrick's comments are spot on and it just may be that Google looks at this and reconsiders how it lifts the levels of transparency to help the net build better content , stronger business' and ultimately a stronger community of business'.

This update is too much of a disruptive jolt to be ignored and relatively silent on with all the consequences it is rendering. Much more info is needed. RB has my support.

aristotle




msg:4329697
 11:52 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

I still disagree. At any rate, I've never asked google for any advice on how to build a website and don't want them trying to give me any.

wheel




msg:4329698
 11:58 pm on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)

Google made a decision to communicate with webmasters via guidelines, WMT , forums and representatives a long way back. And to this extent it worked well as a form of partnership of transparency.

And for the sites that choose to ignore or abuse those guidelines? Now they get a helping hand back into the fold?

That's favoritism alright, just to the wrong set of websites.

ken_b




msg:4329701
 12:00 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

I've never asked google for any advice on how to build a website and don't want them trying to give me any.

That's your choice.

But just because you don't want any advice from Google, you think they shouldn't offer advice to anyone?

aristotle




msg:4329708
 12:17 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

But just because you don't want any advice from Google, you think they shouldn't offer advice to anyone


That's correct. I don't think they should offer advice to anyone, for reasons that I've already explained .

Whitey




msg:4329719
 12:52 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

they would be showing favoritism to owners of sites with GWT accounts. In my opinion it would be wrong for Google to do this.

Do you think this should extend to all forms of communication from Google beyond WMT , e.g. seminars , videos, forums , blogs , MC etc.

aristotle




msg:4329720
 12:58 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

Do you think this should extend to all forms of communication from Google beyond WMT , e.g. seminars , videos, forums , blogs , MC etc.


That raises a valid point. I really don't object to Google publishing general guidelines that anyone can read. But I think it would be wrong for Google to give specific advice on a particular website using GWT or some other private communication channel.

walkman




msg:4329721
 1:04 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

"Google Should Send Panda Notifications"

Did you lose 40-90% of traffic in the week Panda run and stayed that way? There's no need for notification or a Panda bear.

This is a joke and borderline link bait. Google should either tell people if they can /how to get out of it or shut up entirely. Don't give people false hope by making ridiculous statements or try to be 'nice' by telling them you got hit by Panda.

[edited by: walkman at 1:09 am (utc) on Jun 23, 2011]

Whitey




msg:4329723
 1:08 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think it would be wrong for Google to give specific advice on a particular website using GWT

So do you think the tools that Google provides in GWT that get fed through greater conversations in the community be reversed? Most of what Google communicates through WMT on administrative signals on specific sites finds its way out on a general level to the greater community as guidance to build better websites. Generally these would not be spam artists , although a few may exist.

@ Aristotle What's your view on this or how to improve it?

Google should either tell people if they can /how to get out of it

@ Walkman Any thoughts on what they should be reporting back if it were to go through WMT?

walkman




msg:4329734
 1:39 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

@Whitey
I don't have an opinion on that because it's useless and after 4 months frankly it's insulting. Google should answer one question:

Assuming I 'fix' my website today, when will /should I get my rankings back?

Answer it in plain English, with no ifs or buts, and enough with stupid teasers and evasions. Or just shut up. This guy wants to let them slide by telling people what they knew already.

rustybrick




msg:4329737
 1:52 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

All I am saying is that since Google does baby webmasters, yes - they send out notifications if your WordPress blog version is out of date - so why not baby those who want them with Panda notifications?

If you do not want notifications then delete your webmaster tools account or don't bother looking at the notifications.

I think, since they are sending out notifications about penalties, advice on optimization, malware issues and out-dated versions of software - they can send out panda penalty notifications also.

My main issue is that there are people assuming they were hit by Panda and they were not and/or they were hit by Panda but think it was something else. These are not SEOs, or maybe bad SEOs, either way - they can't hurt to be babied a bit.

Whitey




msg:4329758
 3:10 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

I'd like to see a few more specifics. In WMT things like "your site" has insufficient unique content - then generic recommendations.

Maybe a quality score by page would be pushing things a bit - but there's no harm in asking. Actually it's probably not a bad idea versus the visible toolbar page rank that get's debated constantly.

Surrounding any WMT communication, which may take a long time to put up, I really think the community needs much more information surrounding specifics. But there's better skills on these threads than me to propose what that information might be best suited to - perhaps some of the seniors and expert lurkers ( readers who don't communicate ) have a view. The suggestion will need a bit of momentum to be of interest to Google i imagine.

Shatner




msg:4329805
 7:42 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

What this article misses is that Google doesn't WANT people to know how to fix it.

The entire premise behind Panda is that they're eliminating not just bad content from the web (even though we know a lot of it really isn't bad content, that's just Google's PR stance), but sites that create bad content. Panda is designed to destroy entire sites, not try to find the best, most relevant content on a page by page basis.

So, if they tell you what you were doing wrong, that would potentially allow that content which they want to be gone forever, to creep in again. Panda is designed to put sites out of business.

rustybrick




msg:4329856
 11:27 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

Shatner, that is wrong. Google does want people to improve their content so that it is worthy of coming out of Panda. They do not want people to abuse the Panda algorithm and just squeeze by.

wheel




msg:4329865
 11:53 am on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

Google does want people to improve their content so that it is worthy of coming out of Panda.

Lots of indications that you're wrong. Google doesn't care one way or the other if you come out of Panda. Google has no interest in your personal problems at the individual webmaster level.

PPC_Chris




msg:4329886
 1:01 pm on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

It's really frustrating because although I can understand that Google might consider some of our pages to be "thin content", these pages were not generating much traffic, have been removed, and were not designed to "game Google's algorithm" in any way.

We were hit on April 11 and since then have been featured in the NYT, Newsweek, BBC, Daily Beast, LifeHacker and tons of other sites... yet it has had no positive effect whatsoever on our rankings thanks to Panda. And I have no idea what Google wants us to do to fix the site or even if that's possible. Most of our competitors don't have anywhere near the quality of links that we have plus we have much more diversified content... doesn't matter though because we were hit by the Panda and even though we have followed all recommendations provided by Google, our penalty remains.

wheel




msg:4329895
 1:08 pm on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

And I have no idea what Google wants us to do to fix the site or even if that's possible. Most of our competitors don't have anywhere near the quality of links that we have plus we have much more diversified content... doesn't matter though because we were hit by the Panda and even though we have followed all recommendations provided by Google, our penalty remains.

I'm certainly no expert on this update however it's perhaps worth remembering the original name for this update - it was called the farmer update, for content farms.

I'm not saying you're a content farm, but perhaps you're exhibiting some symptoms of one.

PPC_Chris




msg:4329910
 1:28 pm on Jun 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

Wheel, we are not even close to a content farm. Like I said, I could see how a lot of our pages could have been considered thin, but they have been removed. Plus, they were not anything that could be considered spam and although they made up a large portion of our total pages, they accounted for very little traffic and were not very prominent on the site. But, if these pages aren't the problem, it would be so helpful if Google could let me know what they have a problem with on our site.

This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: 33 ( [1] 2 > >
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