| This 150 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 150 ( 1 2 3  5 ) > > || |
|Is Panda actually the commercialization of the internet?|
It's not easy to get a thread started here but I will try.
This is an analysis on what you think Panda really is. Afterall, we've all read what Google thinks Panda is or should be. And if you take that at face value, they are indicating something a bit scary. This isn't a bash thread. This is an evaluation thread or an outlook thread. You optimistic? You giving up? You think a new era has begun and your means of free traffic is over?
I'm trying to condense this is a compact post as possible. Some disagree but for me, on the surface and from what I've seen so far, the reaching implication of Panda are beyond what some people are willing to accept. But let me try.
In the world, all things are commercialized. Few exceptions but let's say that whatever there is out there, it eventually get squashed, incorporated and then the dollar is the only motivation.
Let's take Panda. Based on the criteria of websites and based on what I see and have been reading about search results in Google, it's about the big sites. If Google put CNET, offical sites, Wikipedia, Amazon, and a few others on the first page or two of results, then the goal of spam free and top notch quality results would be attained.
For my field, I see this pattern of sites. Certainly sites that can crush me like a bug. Beyond comparison. It's like the guy washing dishes asking the daughter of the president out for a date. It's that far fetched.
Some people here go on and on about how we are complaining about drops in free traffic. Perhaps Google now shares your view. Perhaps they feel that the commercialization of the internet (or their search) is just better for everyone. It's like they have said listen, enough with the free loaders. We don't need you guys anymore. If you aren't popular, aren't deep, aren't updating daily, then you aren't catching a sniff of what you used to get in traffic from us. Sure, there will be people saying they are still getting traffic. Great, but understand one thing. If your niche field gets popular and gets covered on bigger sites, the Panda way appears to be that you are going to get swamped and dropped into the ditch where you rightfully belong your freeloader.
So really, what I'm asking is, does Google Panda spell the end of free traffic. We can enjoy crumbs in a few niche markets, but when certain areas you cover become popular, you are going to sink like a rock. Is Google Panda really just Google saying enough with the guys making money online getting free traffic from our engine and who are beating us at the game and who are providing useless blogs and websites. That's what I'm feeling. Moving forward I'm feeling that it's a change in Google philosophy. Under their new criteria I ask how the hell you are going to compete with big sites. I hope my outlook changes on this and that the index gets filled with more variety than what I'm seeing now.
Right now, for what I care about and write about, I see big sites, pro staff, pro writers, thousands of followers, huge budgets, and on and on. And on that level, mission accomplished according to Panda. Therefore, why should I sit here and expect things to turn around?
I'm upset at the stories about people completely screwed by this algo change. It's very upsetting to me. At this stage of the game, Google needed to understand just how deeply people's lives were relying on their search engine. They have disregarded a lot of individuals and have not done a lot currently to offer hope or guidance. Sure a few crumbs, but where are all the turn around stories then?
I've said this. If we learn what Panda wants, then our sites get back in. Then what? Google has the same scum (I'm scum because free traffic something I rely on) getting into the top rankings. Isn't that what they didn't want? Or is Panda so smart that they will keep ahead for the first time in history of the spammers, the freeloaders and the people who's job it is to get that traffic that they ultimately provide.
Back to my point about commercialization. It's about nothing being free in this world. If you're getting something free it won't last. The internet was supposed to be the last frontier of freedom from that world. You can't compete in the marketplace ultimately with Walmart unless you have a bigger budget or you have some small niche that they don't give a crap about. Sounds a lot like Google's Panda direction. It's what I see, not in what they are so much saying. The proof is in the pudding. But if Walmart started selling what you're selling guess what? You're essentially dead in the water. On Google an idiot like me actually might outrank Walmart. That was then but what about now? I can outrank Amazon? How? Their value is in content, followers, size, reputation etc. That's what Panda wants right? Amazon and not some site that is not even a drop in the Amazon ocean of content.
I'm out. Not forever, but I'm in a serious state of transition and confusion. My next move? I have no idea. Am I alone on that feeling? The way Panda is going, are you trashing your online strategy, waiting it out or what?
@Planet13, I would counter your point about why would they do that, in the sense that big sites are likely 5% (down from my previous 10% :-)) and the rest at 95%. The collective pockets are much much deeper in the long run than a few big sites. Additionally, it would be hypocritical of Google to say this is what Panda wants, yet show a bunch of crap on page 1.
|Why would they do that? |
That would leave ONLY the big boys in the organic SERPs.
Don't know what they have in mind and for how long. Remember, 'big boy' is relative.
A select group got a huge increase in traffic, regardless of what individual pages are like and are getting more and more long tail traffic.
|But they didn't get hit? |
Are they big business (Amazon/ e-bay/ Walmart) and the likes or...?
I'm saying that whatever my site was in February, now it is much better by any sane person's definition. Yet I keep losing traffic as if I've done the worst. Those that didn't get hit didn't change much, I guess since they have no reason to. So I've ruled content out, you reach a point when you realize you are not nuts. This week I lost a very good keyword to one that has nothing more than I do, other than being a brand...they mention the word once, I have external links to the page, link from my index and the keyword is "widget mydomain name". Now I'm #3--not including G ads--and losing lots of money.
Bing has responded to it, by actually increasing traffic. Obviously they have a much lower share so it bites. By non-pandalized site doign better than ever.
[edited by: walkman at 8:39 pm (utc) on Jul 7, 2011]
OK, since the OP ended with questions...
|I'm out. Not forever, but I'm in a serious state of transition |
To clarify, I'm (seriously) down but not quite out. I'm losing money and do need to turn the situation around though.
I intend to adapt to this update as I have to all previous since 2003. And, not exclusively from an SEO point of view. My business plan has changed; my passion reignited. I was getting a bit bored with the status quo anyway! Also, working on plan B online and have started a new business in the real world. That feels kind of nice.
|I have no idea. Am I alone on that feeling |
Can't say I'm with you. I am working through the pandalized site. Applying my theory. Testing. Just last week I redesigned the whole look in line with new BP. Trade is up this week.
|The way Panda is going, are you trashing your online strategy, waiting it out or what? |
Not waiting -- Panda is here to stay. Not trashing it either, but evolving it. Focusing on not being just another 'X', but adding Y and Z too. Aiming for exceptional. Thinking 'sticky'. Planning on SEO traffic as 'speculative' for growth not the basis of my livelihood. Doing some real marketing. Thinking about google less and my users more. Feels good!
When I quit a career in big business at the tender age of 30, I knew I would have to keep adapting to change until I'd made enough to fulfil my monetary ambitions and retire. Panda doesn't change that. It's just a new reality, a new threat AND a new opportunity.
Walkman -- but are the competitors the real big boys or just other SMEs?
My feeling is that you've bought the content and quality line from Google. But Panda playing 'snap', not spotting quality or content. It's looking for pages and sites that look like pages and sites it thinks it's learnt searchers will like for this query. Are you analysing other signals?
I know what Panda did but for now I'm toast, depending how far the swing the pendulum away from non-big-boy factors. I don't have to be #1 or even #10 for most words to do relatively well, that's the truth. But I feel that panda is not responding at all to my changes.
Am I surrendering, hell no, unless I sell the site for retirement money and then work on other sites. It just sucks that I need to pay bills while trying to do something else and having a feeling that nothing is working. Much of my (edit- Post Panda) traffic loss goes back and forth from a section I don't really care for, at best it made me a few hundred a month.
Bottom line: I need to remove the site-wide dragdown, that's what's holding me down. Even for top referrals I get 1-3 a day for example when even Bing sends more for them, so I know people are searching for it and I seem to rank on G.
[edited by: walkman at 9:24 pm (utc) on Jul 7, 2011]
@suggy, I do respect what you're saying. It's amazing to agree with you on something for a change ;-)
But yes, it's an opportunity in a sense. I told my wife the other day that the game may have changed, but that is expected with the internet. I told her that I'm good enough at this that I can find my way still. It's a matter of adjusting. I'm glad I listened and ensured that I diversified enough as to not become dependent on one thing.
It's a matter of watching and listening to what's happening and whether the face of Google has changed forever or not. Perhaps it has, but I still have faith that the is an evolution and that the results are possible going to stabilize. I have faith that Panda is not the end of organic search, but with each passing week my faith cracks.
I think a lot of people are doing the wrong thing in that a lot of sites lost out right now, giving some people a false sense of security. Those other guys start popping up and you know where you're headed.
But yes, since nobody really knows right now, it opens up the opportunity to know something others do not know. It's called advantage through knowledge. Is that really what SEO is about? I think of it as taking something as good as the other guy, but doing something a bit extra that puts me above them.
I do appreciate reading opinions on this Panda situation. I can't think there is a better source for really knowing what's going on out there than here and the people that post. Am I'm talking on the planet. There are some brilliant minds here and certainly I'm okay with being your dishwaher.
Ah yes, the old Google fanboy argument. Whenever someone tries to suggest that Google is maybe NOT rubbing its hands in glee over the damage it has wrought with the latest algo change, they get called a Google fanboy. Been there, seen that. Most people here know me better than that.
I started a long reply your other arguments, but realized there's really no point.
The google fanboy crowd can't really say much now but they were in full force a while back, with glee and a sense of superiority too. Search is your friend. Almost 5 months later in panda, it's obvious something else is at play. Especially since as far as we know very few, if any, original Panda sites came back, despite changes.
To top it all up Google actually lost traffic share in this time, or at least didn't gain. Kinda funny, if not for the carnage they caused.
|The google fanboy crowd can't really say much now but they were in full force a while back, with glee and a sense of superiority too. |
I suspect that's a finger that's getting pointed at me, and I have neither a sense of superiority nor am I a Google fanboy. I just am prone to telling things in a fashion that I consider straight up.
All the panda sites are commisserating. No, that's not the word, they're whining and complaining. The fault is being laid entirely at Google rather than on their own doorstep, and for help, they're looking to other people that also got hit rather than people that didn't get hit.
Shrug. there you have it. Lots of people around here didn't get hit, and none of them are basking in their superiority.
Frankly the best thing anyone can do is forget a panda'd site, start fresh, and do it right this time. You do have a bunch of sleeper sites right? That's a tactic that's been discussed here for years. Because - and I suspect this is lost on most folks - the REASON you got busted by the algo is that you're catering to it. And you're continuing to cater to it in looking for an algorithmic solution. THere's a very good chance that nobody's going to come up with an easy step-by-step solution to get out of this.
The sites that were built to ignore the algorithm rather than exploit it, they got through panda just fine.
|The sites that were built to ignore the algorithm rather than exploit it, they got through panda just fine. |
Wrong and I personally know because 2 of my sites have had major increases in panda. You are just...guessing and assuming Google got it right. Your guess is as good as any else's at this point. I have the benefit of seeing my 1 pandalized site, my many non-pandalized ones, my changes, and my competitors that are doing just fine.
And I never mentioned any names, in fact someone else opened this line, not me.
[edited by: walkman at 10:21 pm (utc) on Jul 7, 2011]
It's been 5 months and I have around almost 2000 pages to wade through. The truth is, I see many places for improvements. I've raised my standards and by doing so, notice that many of my own pages no longer meet those standards. So as someone hit badly by Panda, I am trying to rise up to the challenge and acknowledge that even what seems like "great" pages may use a lot more tweaking.
My guess is that those sites that are likely to come back sooner tend to be smaller (relative to how many people are manning them). It's pretty difficult to ensure that your site is truly high quality through and through without investigating each and every page. And given I am one person facing a site built over many years, it's been overwhelming to go audit each page.
I am particularly surprised that there are site owners who say that their site has not come back despite massive changes. This is worrisome. I would think that if you raise the bar for each page/section of your site, that somehow you'll break free from the Panda grip. It would surely help to hear more encouraging news by people who have recovered, it will certainly help me to keep plugging on and not think all this work is in vain.
I just wish there was more acknowledgment somewhere that we are on the right track. I am certainly pulling out all stops to achieve recovery some day. I'll settle for any positive news anywhere.
I look upon insights from folks like wheel and netmeg to shed light on this from the perspective of "winners" in this algo change. Any little bit helps and I thank you for your thoughts.
@netmeg, sorry for that reference and no insult was intended. I'm essentially trying to say that people shouldn't ignore the reality that decent sites have been nuked. To say Panda was a good and fair is true? I guess there is two mind sets. One would believe that if you followed the 15 Panda commandments, then you weren't hit. If you haven't been following those Panda criteria, then you were hit. I'm saying based on what I'm reading and hearing it's not that simple and it's not that cut and dry. If it was cut and dry, it would just be a simple matter of following the principles. There wouldn't be much to Panda discussions or debate. The answer and solution clear as day!
In my opinion Google Panda is the greatest shift that the internet has ever seen. It's by far the largest and widest ranging alteration in history. Shouldn't there be some debate or discussion about it? I don't think I'm overstating the extent of the shift it creates on the internet.
Some people are seemingly above Panda and what impacts it has dished out thus far.
In simple terms, take life as you know it.
It's like the land you live on now and have been living on for years. Suddenly one day it becomes covered by water, and the water now becomes the land. There are those who point and say shame on you for adapting to live on that land! You should have known that the land would become water and the water would become land! I knew this was going to happen and that's why I built my house with a hull. It's your fault for not predicting this would happen!
Let's not take it too seriously, it's a discussion.
[edited by: MrSavage at 10:24 pm (utc) on Jul 7, 2011]
|All the panda sites are commisserating. No, that's not the word, they're whining and complaining. |
There are a few exceptions to that. I was hit bad. I don't recall whining/ complaining. Though I totally agree there's an awful lot of it.
Have you also noticed that some of those hit (ironically) still think they know more than everyone else put together and are still more prone to ranting than listening?
Trouble is, most attempts to have a serious discussion about Panda get hijacked and overun by anti-Google vitriol or laughable conspiracy theories or thinly veiled aggression at anyone who dares be constructive.
Panda obviously learned the first rule of tyrany: divide and conquer. Seems the webmaster community would rather bicker and sling insults at each other than work together to give a panda a damn good beating.
|Is Panda actually the commercialization of the internet? |
I've been looking at the title of this thread since it started and I guess I'm a bit confused by it.
Panda is a Google deal, and Google is not the internet.
So it seems to me that while Panda might bring more commercialization to Google properties that's Google, not the internet.
Too picky? Maybe.
@suggy I completely agree that creating content is more productive. My wife keeps getting mad at me for typing when it's not adding content to my site.
Trust me I've been a bad boy in the past and been spanked on the arse royally by Google. I also know the feeling of helplessly trying to address issues and never really knowing whether I was on the right track or not. Regarding Google Panda, yes I will certainly openly discuss successes in a separate thread when the time comes.
But I hope this is more about what you think Google Panda represents and how the face of the internet has or will change because of it. So yes that's opinion based conversation and not troubleshooting as it were. I think this is pretty darn huge news and I would expect debate to get hot from time to time. Afterall, we're talking about lives and incomes being affected by something that came without warning but apparently with much pent up cause and justification.
THIS: "I'm saying that whatever my site was in February, now it is much better by any sane person's definition. Yet I keep losing traffic as if I've done the worst."
Google fanboys keep ignoring that part of it.
I've moved on, my site is growing again without Google. But I haven't recovered or improved in any way, Google just takes a little more traffic away from my site every day... even though my site is MUCH better and cleaner than it was when I was first Pandalized on Feb 24.
I don't care anymore, I creating a way to live on the web without needing any Google traffic at all.
But, by any definition, this is not right. This is wrong, by any measure Panda isn't working when this is the case.
Using a name like "fanboys" is a way of telling anyone with an alternate viewpoint to stay out of these threads. That's not a professional discussion -- it will not lead anywhere productive for anybody.
People have posted here that they recovered major parts (or in a few cases ALL) of their lost search traffic. They were ignored or denied in almost every case. Then they stopped posting. Think about that.
In the interest of making Google "wrong" and expressing your understandable frustration and anger, are you also silencing the voices that you most need to hear?
I'm not trying to be an alarmist here but there are many webmasters in my mind who have not yet smelt the Panda brew. In other words, taking myself as an example, thought nothing of my recent drops in traffic. I took that as the ebb and flow of Google. I'm not exactly a rookie and I'm sure there are plenty of folk who are just starting to question their organic traffic drops. I think after all this discussion I'm leaning towards "is Google Panda the end of organic traffic." I'm not talking everyone or every shred of organic traffic, but I'm talking about enough organic traffic loss that people will have to close their business, shut down their site, get a job a Denny's, or resort to Adwords or similar advertising to get traffic.
I think the part some people are missing is that what you have now, how confident are you in the organic numbers lasting via Google? I bet your long term plans are changing as you read various experiences around the web. Go to Google webmasters forum and see the "Hey where the heck did my traffic go? What just hit me?" There are many skeptics who would suggest that it's the webmaster at fault and Google Panda has just outsmarted and out witted the sites that got the organic traffic number for which they weren't really entitled to. Google might have you believing that, but personal experience says otherwise thus far. And I'm not completely out of hope. These things can take time and for me, I'm waiting about six months before hitting deep depression.
The deeper issue I really have is for those folks ripping up their sites in hope of changing things. I've had a bit of reconsideration request heart break in the past and I can tell you first hand that altering of fixing and then waiting for that penalty removal is NOT FUN. In fact it's down right painful unless the fix is obvious. I think with Panda the fix is not obvious and nobody here can say there is a fix. So I agree with advice given out thus far. Get on with another site or project and don't get caught up in chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. It's a waste of your emotions and your time. You get dumped by the girlfriend who walks out of your life leaving the keys. No note, no message. Oddly enough things were going perfect. Now she is gone and you are left with questions and no answers. Her name? Google Panda.
The issue at hand is that Google feels they got it right. If that's the case, then no need for a Google Panda reconsideration request form.
Hugs to everyone!
@tedster, I need those links, but I'm doing a search right now for those positive messages of hope. Seriously, I'm looking for optimism right now.
|It's like the land you live on now and have been living on for years. Suddenly one day it becomes covered by water, and the water now becomes the land. There are those who point and say shame on you for adapting to live on that land! You should have known that the land would become water and the water would become land! I knew this was going to happen and that's why I built my house with a hull. It's your fault for not predicting this would happen! |
You could also look at it this way: Why, oh why, did you build your house in the flood plain?
>>Using a name like "fanboys" is a way of telling anyone with an alternate viewpoint to stay out of these threads.
Apologies. There is a group of people though, who are very on Google's side. Google fans? What's the polite term? It is fair to address that group, it does exist.
>>People have posted here that they recovered major parts (or in a few cases ALL) of their lost search traffic. They were ignored or denied in almost every case.
I would challenge you to point to a single case in which they were ignored. I do not believe that has ever happened on this forum. It is DEFINITELY not something I have ever done.
Speaking for myself, every time one of those people has posted I have instantly responded with interest, and asked them tons of questions. I will continue to do that with each new case.
In every case I received no useful information from those people and moved on, but it wasn't for lack of trying. And just because they didn't have any useful information to offer, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I know that some have questioned whether recoveries are real recoveries. I think that's valid. If someone posts that "I recovered fully from Panda!" and then the next day Matt Cutts posts and says "no one has recovered from Panda yet" then I think it's probably fair to say that person's issue wasn't Panda. That has happened in a few cases.
There have definitely been a few real recoveries posted here though. I know I've tried to learn everything I could from them, but one of the frustrating things in all cases, for me, was that there was nothing to learn from the recoveries, either because I'd already done everything they did and got no result, or because the poster wasn't forthcoming at all.
In the end, none of this addresses the same old issue... why are sites which have made massive improvements seeing no difference at all, 5 months in, while some see full recovery?
That doesn't seem right. I'm not talking morally, I'm talking alorithmically that seems wrong. It tells me that no one understands what's going on... still. It tells me that what Google says it is doing, isn't really what it is doing. And trying to understand what's really up is the central issue.
|There is a group of people though, who are very on Google's side |
Seems to me like there's a group of sober, considered, measured, professionals (the fanboys -- of which I suspect I am one). Oh, and a pack of wailing ranters who cannot limit themselves to constructive argument and resort to name calling.
I'm sure google have changed to have bottom line profits as their primary goal but I don't think that panda specifically cares whether the sites in the SERPS are big advertisers and / or carry adsense.
Their future profitability is essentially dependent on (1) maintaining or increasing their share of the search market and (2) keeping people on various of their own sites, products and pages (or sending them directly to ads). Both of these are much more significant to their profits than the number of sites carrying adsense in the results.
(1)is achieved by providing better search results, which they are struggling with and starting to lose market share so they move to (2) - more ads, a bias towards their own products (youtube, places etc) and lots of links on to their other products in the search pages as a means to increase profitability.
Of course if the search results are all from the same handful of companies then the ads around the results start to look more interesting.
Also webmasters learned a long time ago that if the content of your page is not what people are looking for they are more likely to click on the ads, guess the same applies when G show results from one company 3-5 times on the first page.
(2) works in the short-medium term at boosting profits and keeping shareholders happy, but ultimately reduces market share - which leads in turn to even more ads and google products being shown...so I wouldn't expect changes for the better any day soon.
|why are sites which have made massive improvements seeing no difference at all, 5 months in, while some see full recovery? |
I can't help but think some site owners wouldn't know good content from...something else. And how much improvement can one make in 5 months that can be fixed after years of posting on Craigslist for $5 an article? Pulling a couple ad units off certainly isn't going to be a silver bullet. I've seen some before and afters out there and I'm not terribly impressed.
|I can't help but think some site owners wouldn't know good content from...something else |
Added to that webmasters seem to have developed a very narrow perspective on the possible causes and fix: add more 'quality' content.
'Quality' is a misnomer. Google's really talking about 'utility' - usefulness of your page for the searcher.
If you are serving up reams of content, but sell nothing and Google thinks the searcher wants to buy something, your usefulness in that search will be low, however much you write!
|There is a group of people though, who are very on Google's side. Google fans? What's the polite term? |
Are there really "sides"? Is this a polarized "either you're with us or you're with them" situation?
I know it's tough. I know some businesses have watched bank accounts drain, they've laid off staff, and are facing real business failure. And it's happened every year, even before Panda, too. I had clients who had to lay off 90% of their staff in 2009 - and from everything I could see it was a false-positive penalty.
I also know that Google needs to get on top of their search results - they have been gamed and have not been what they really should be, and what they were pre-Caffeine. I've seen a lot of Pandalyzed websites up close at this point. I have not yet seen an example that I feel deserved their pre-Panda level of traffic.
A harsh assessment, yes. But I'm not on any "side", here. There is an extreme situation, and I'm looking to understand it. Polarization doesn't help.
|and then the next day Matt Cutts posts and says "no one has recovered from Panda yet" |
I may have missed that - where did Matt say it?
And, to return to the topic of this thread - the World Wide Web was DESIGNED so that commercialization could appear on the Internet. That is the process that has been unfolding.
The whole arena is really young - not even two decades old so far, as opposed to centuries of offline business history. We should not assume that anyone really knows, at this point, what it is that is emerging in our day. One thing I know for sure - it's not the same game.
The businesses who can weather the monthly and yearly changes in the online environment will be astute, or in some cases just lucky, but continued adaptation will be required for several generations at least.
It's only going to get tougher, all around. And yes, it is commercial. The smaller businesses will need to stay agile and be "smarter than the average bear." Google needed to do the Panda Update. They will need to take other disruptive moves in the future. I'm certain of that.
Tedster, I think they only case when someone was questioned was maybe the person that posted traffic for the day after, i.e. tomorrow.
|I've seen a lot of Pandalyzed websites up close at this point. I have not yet seen an example that I feel deserved their pre-Panda level of traffic. |
Are you saying that you would not be happy if most of their pages were #1...#2...5...10...15 or traffic wise? Because everything is relative, and they are more than one top spot and more than the first page. And then you move into different word combinations. If we were to judge 'deserve' it's a slippery slope: Is there a traffic level CNN or NY Times don't deserve for example? Why not give them another X million visitors a week and even more the next?
The thread, as I read it, is about whether money spent (other than outright buying links, I suppose) will influence organic serps, meaning the end of 'free' traffic for small businesses. So suppose my page on air conditioners is better, do I have a chance in post-Panda or post-Whatever, to actually beat Home Deport or Best Buy or will their brand power drown me. That's how I read it and everyone has their opinions on that, just as we do on what Panda should be, could be, should have been, it is etc etc.
|I can't help but think some site owners wouldn't know good content from...something else. And how much improvement can one make in 5 months that can be fixed after years of posting on Craigslist for $5 an article? Pulling a couple ad units off certainly isn't going to be a silver bullet. I've seen some before and afters out there and I'm not terribly impressed. |
Atomic, it all depends on what type of sites people have and how many pages. Many, or probably most don't 'content' in the article sense. But even articles or stubs can be had anyway you want, just open your wallet and PHDs in English will describe your widget for you if it's a well know one. Or you can have a different level that costs much less. Or pay people /offer contest for reviews...but that's hard to do fairly since you cannot prescreen if they actually used that item and might mouth off just to get the money.
Is there a general consensus of which types of sites were Pandalised by the average webmaster here?
For example, none of my B&M sites were hit, well one a little but nothing worth worrying about, and throughout all this I have been constructing a new site which is storming the SERPs yet I see another site, a regional widget retailer, actually climb the SERPs to nearly top positions for all keywords even though the pages are definitely "thin". They are not meant to be full of information, just quick customer comparison/reference pages.
Realistically they could all be called brochure sites.
My Pandalised site is a widget trade directory, it's unique, there is not another one like it on the Net, yet this was hit and I assume for the lack of extra descriptions for its many images.
Well, I'm not filling in those descriptions. I started constructing this site 14 years ago for the benefit of both trade and retail visitors and bearing in mind very few people click on any ads, it's financially not justiable.
What can I surmise from this?
My template is fine, ad placements are fine, navigational structure is fine, even the "thin" retail site has nothing wrong with it yet my directory site was hit for image "thinness"?
What can I learn from the sites that have pushed this directory site from #1/2 to #12? It's very easy for me to see.
Whereas previously the big search term was widget+keyword Google has now taken sites which have widget+keyword and broken them down further into several sub-categories of anotherkeyword and also promoted other trade widget directory sites that have endless listings of potential suppliers worldwide...mostly Chinese sites I must clarify.
In my situation what is important to note is although many of these image references have been demoted in the regular SERPs they still rank extremely well in image search.
So, can any of the Pandalised sites compare like I have? Can you see where or why you have been hit or what the sites are doing you have been replaced by? Ok, we know there's some garbage out there however I am seeing a cleaning-up of that s time goes on.
Until you look at what Google is now displaying you will not understand what needs to be done. We're all running totally different widget sites, supposedly we should all know our own industries well enough to identify the problem areas?
|yet my directory site was hit for image "thinness"? |
Simplistic. It's not a blanket set of rules. I would theorize it was hit because it wasn't very useful for those searches/ searchers. In other words, it lack signals of utlity (utility = quality in search results) that the Panda winners for your lost phrases have. You've got to stop thinking blanket rules.
|You've got to stop thinking blanket rules. |
I'm not, re-read what I wrote. I know why those pages were demoted in preference to what is now displayed in the regular SERPs.
Then what's the point of this question:
|Is there a general consensus of which types of sites were Pandalised by the average webmaster here? |
I try not to think too hard about motives of panda or even the direction of Google search since I get easily confused and depressed. I would like to relate one small success trying to come back from Panda.
I have many article pages. I also had what might be called executive summaries of these articles. The summaries were a couple of paragraphs of highlights often including some of the same sentences from the main article. The article pages were way down in the serps after panda. I used the canonical thing to point summaries back to main articles. Within two weeks I see in WMT positions jumping by even 10 and 20 slots - often bringing these pages back within the top 10. I've used canonical, noindex, robots, complete deletion of 1/3 of all pages and only these 8-10 articles have come back.
| This 150 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 150 ( 1 2 3  5 ) > > |