| 9:44 am on Mar 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
This is what I saw on a couple of domains.
1. with lots of backlinks and good PR, not too much change
2. newish domain, few backlinks, good SEO. 50% drop which continued for a couple of says, now slowly climbing back up about 15% down.
I suspect some of these algo changes take some time to settle down as the site is reindexed under the new algo.
Of course what I've seen may be entirely random but fits with some of the above posts. I only checked in here because I thought "whoa, what's happening".
| 11:16 am on Mar 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
We are having a great last 6 days.
Here is the sad part. We are selling the stuff that has 100% generic content right from the web app of our suppliers. No unique content. No unique images. Same exact wording as our other 15,000 competitors. This is "good" content in the eyes of google. Our site has authority so this duplicate content that 10k plus other sites have is terrific.
The unique content where we typed our own descriptions, followed every google best practice and explain what the product is and does got buried by other competitors duplicate content.
we are back to 2004. Duplicate manufacturer content is fine, it's now a contest to see who has the best back links.
| 9:39 pm on Mar 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing a complete mixture of websites with terrible content and lots of dodgy links and link exchanges, to websites absolutely packed with high volumes of text and very few links ranking highly.
This latest Panda update, although good for almost all of my sites bar one, has been the single worst update I've seen since Y2K.
As a user I am struggling to find information now... perhaps I'm too advanced at searching and expect to much, but I am struggling.
| 7:53 pm on Mar 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Traffic down by 30% since March 21 and adsense revenues now at micro levels. No changes at all at a line of rich content media websites that only received regular expansions and more images and info.
| 10:08 pm on Mar 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Our traffic is WAY UP on our ecomm site that was originally pandalized badly in it's first iteration.
With that said we have worked very hard over the last year to flesh out product content more and work more on our internal linking structure.
| 10:27 pm on Mar 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@Bewenched - any chance you could pin your recovery details over here : [webmasterworld.com...]
| 8:45 pm on Apr 2, 2012 (gmt 0)|
That sounds pretty frustrating scottsonline.
| 6:41 pm on Apr 6, 2012 (gmt 0)|
i noticed increase of traffic on two of my sites connected with my google+ profile and 15% loss of trafic on site that is not connected with g+ profile.
also, noticed increase in serps of my competitors who connected g+ profiles to show their ugly faces :/
| 5:36 pm on Apr 7, 2012 (gmt 0)|
paparoysan, how do you connect that with the new Panda rollout last month?
| 7:17 pm on Apr 7, 2012 (gmt 0)|
tedster, my impresion is that linking g+ profile with site has increased ranking of that site in serps.
| 9:08 pm on Apr 7, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I had not checked my GWT in a while, just checked it and on 3/23 I had 2 messages stating that they had detected unnatural links pointing to my site. Will I be penalized? How long do I have to figure out what the bad links are? My traffic has remain normal from 3/23, If anything it has made some improvement.
| 12:37 am on Apr 8, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|my impresion is that linking g+ profile with site has increased ranking of that site in serps. |
That may well be true, but it doesn't mean that G+ profiles are a part of Panda. Panda is a very specific section of the total ranking formula. It's not the whole thing!
| 2:56 pm on Apr 8, 2012 (gmt 0)|
My recent Panda experience:
I have a site that soared through all the Panda iterations of 2011 and early 2012. This is a site that I never touch. It is established, with some useful tools and under 40 pages of content. Then, in February, I thought I would "freshen" the site up by adding two new articles that I had written over the past few months. A few weeks after adding those articles (most recent Panda iteration of March 23), I was hit by a 35% to 40% traffic reduction. My first reaction (perhaps not the best course of action) was to undo all changes from the preceding 30 days. I removed the articles and returned 410. Again, since this site is never touched, I feel like the new articles may have tipped the scales. I had also bolded my primary key phrase at least once in each article (i.e., very minor on-page optimization) which may have rendered them "shallow" or "overly SEO'd" when compared to the rest of the site. Nevertheless, they are gone now and the site is now as it was in mid February. Maybe rankings will recover in the coming months. I've always had luck in undoing changes leading up to a ranking reduction. The alternative is to wait it out, but I don't think that will do any good.
Long story short, my BEST-performing sites with respect to Panda are those that I never touch. Old sites that are never tweaked/changed have fared well. There have been a lot of Google algorithm changes in the past month, so it's hard to know with certainty what lead to the traffic reduction, but it correlates well with the date (March 23) of Panda 3.4.
| 12:01 am on Apr 10, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Long story short, my BEST-performing sites with respect to Panda are those that I never touch. Old sites that are never tweaked/changed have fared well. |
Funny that you mention this as the EXACT same thing has happened to me. I have a 6 year old site that always ranked well for its keywords for years and is one of my most profitable sites.
Since the Panda roll out in 2011 my site seemed totally unaffected. The site had remained pretty much untouched for about 2 years.
In February I decided to add some new content and touch up the header a little bit. On February 29th my conversion rates on my most visited pages literally dropped in half overnight and stayed that way. Then on March 21-23 my traffic dropped by about %30.
I also have another smaller site that did something similar. Had not been touch in a year and then I changed the template and reorganized some of the content and now I'm also down about 30% traffic on that site too.
I guess it could just be a coincidence, but it sure seems fishy.
| 1:14 am on Apr 10, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@shredtone that would explain why some old angelfire sites are ranking. They look like they haven't been updated since 1998. I'm not even kidding. They even have site counters and use the lime green on black background we all use to love.
They didn't use to rank well, though. But have been the past few weeks.
I haven't noticed anything else long-term. All the sites are being frequently updated.
Nonetheless, I have noticed something else before over the past few months perhaps relevant to what you are stating.
I have had pages which ranked decently for a period of time and then made a change on page. I've seen the page drop 100+ spots in a few hours and take anywhere from a few days to a couple months to get the ranking back. That doesn't happen all the time, but it has happened enough for me to be wary.
I've heard similar stories when people make mass changes. It could be on a page/total page percentage basis or some nonsense to control people trying to data-mine.
| 2:40 am on Apr 10, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@shredtone - it doesn't sound like Panda to me, more likely something you did in the adjustments. I'd suggest you get some skilled eyes across your changes to narrow down what was likely to have caused it and give you confidence about where to apply yourself.
| 1:07 pm on Apr 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Im not sure, but since april 2011 I was hit by Panda, but none can be 100% sure if it Panda. Today I have seen something strange, I seem to be no.1 from page 4, im not loged in and I have deleted cookies, but im only no.1 on IE8 not firefox, also phoned 2 to check and there im also not no.1.
What can this be, a start of good ranking again or something els.
| 1:18 pm on Apr 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Zeus, I imagine it's something else. Have you +1'd the page in your Google account or anything like that?
| 1:24 pm on Apr 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@zeus Settings > Web history > Disable customisations based on search activity.
| 1:25 pm on Apr 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
no dont have a google+ or any SN
Web history is also off, also not loged in
| 1:31 pm on Apr 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Sorry but I had to suggest web history as it's caught me out so many times.
I quite often see different results across different browsers. Perhaps this is a glimpse of the future for you...
| 1:38 pm on Apr 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
petehall - thats my hope then I could also say what I have done to escape Panda, so all of you could follow
| 2:19 pm on Apr 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Now im gone - tried through a proxy then i was gone and then again deleted cookies, cache... and now im also gone on my normal ip. Still I have seen my keyword no.2 rank on page 3 and I think that that was not the case for a long time. OK I have to see whats going on, be cause I dont see any spike in traffic which tells me that nothing positive is happening right now.
| 12:21 pm on Jun 3, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Hi there, Everyone:
Were you hit by the March 23rd Panda update?
If so, have you made any changes to your site that led to any recovery?
There HAVE been Panda refreshes / updates since then, right?
I lost about 30% of traffic on March 23rd, and have yet to see a recovery. (I was also dinged by Penguin - or some other tweak that occurred on April 26th, not on the 24th of April.)
If you have any insights as to what exactly was the focus of the March 23rd Panda update, or any ideas on how to recover, please share them.
Thanks in advance.
I had a SMALL directory which was an adjunct to my site (not the main focus); We sell widgets, and we had a directory of about 100 places where you could take classes on making widgets. It wasn't paid, and it wasn't a reciprocal directory per se, but it did mention that we would appreciate a link back.
I have since noindexed that directory, but seen no recovery. Wondering if I should just get rid of it? The thing is, I think it actually added value to people who liked our products.
[edited by: tedster at 12:26 pm (utc) on Jun 3, 2012]
[edit reason] moved from another location [/edit]
| 12:43 pm on Jun 3, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|I had a SMALL directory which was an adjunct to my site (not the main focus); |
Was it an "add on" to the main site ? or was it a site in it's own right on it's own domain ?
The latter would be better ..linked ( maybe just the one link, of the "If you'd like to know more about "widgets or how to make them" type link ) from the former ..and the directory linking back to the widgets site again, maybe just the once, with a "you can buy high quality widgets here"..
Make the directory site more of a general information "widget how to" site..
And your "widget site" into more of a "commercial and information about widget" site..
I hope it is clear what I'm getting at?
| 1:01 pm on Jun 3, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Hi there, Leosghost, and good to hear from you.
|Was it an "add on" to the main site ? or was it a site in it's own right on it's own domain ? |
It was a separate directory on the main site, which is an eCommerce site with a blog.
The directory was a bit thin: Because classes were listed by city, one page might have the title:
Widget classes in New York
And the description:
Find a widget class in New York.
While the page for Los Angeles would be the same, only with the different city name.
It has been no indexed for about a month or so now (I know I should note when I make changes to my site - it's a bad habit of mine that I often don't).
|I hope it is clear what I'm getting at? |
If I understand correctly, you are saying to more clearly define what each site is by segregating content. Is that correct?
|..and the directory linking back to the widgets site again, maybe just the once, with a "you can buy high quality widgets here".. |
I am thinking of doing that and then "advertising" my widgets eCommerce site on my directory site (with banner or other graphic ads). I am assuming that if I nofollow the graphic ad links, that should be ok?
| 1:30 pm on Jun 3, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|If I understand correctly, you are saying to more clearly define what each site is by segregating content. Is that correct? |
That is exactly what I was getting at :)..( I've seen your widget site briefly :)..the "no follows" ought to be OK for Google ..
Personally I think the idea of having to "no follow" such things just for Google, shows that they have truly warped and distorted what the internet is, was, and should be..Was a time ( back in the days of "Netscape" and geo-cities etc ) everyone* linked to what they liked or what they thought was potentially interesting for their visitors or ( heaven** forbid ) to commercial sites ( either their own or others )..joined in "webrings" even.."shared the love" ..Then Google decided to use links as votes, and SEOs decided to game that aspect of Google, Google retaliated, etc etc and we are where we are today ..a totally artificial world worried about "link juice" etc and hording same..and Google refusing to disregard "hostile" links just makes it worse for us and the visitors, but suits Google and their FUD machine and their bottom line perfectly :((
But given that for now Google is the only game in town, if you can't afford to be penalised by them for "following" then you'd best "no follow" links to your own properties..
Visitors, thankfully, will flow through no follows..it is another way to get some within clicking distance of your "buy now " buttons :)
* I still link to what I like or to what I think is useful or interesting to my visitors..
**In internet terms Google have become "God"..we invent "Gods" in our own image..and then reap what we have sown..
Edited for speeling
[edited by: Leosghost at 1:33 pm (utc) on Jun 3, 2012]
| 1:30 pm on Jun 3, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|...surveying the industry for information gaps and writing articles that fill those gaps... |
I hope you won't mind sharing a few insights about this:
1) How does one go about finding information gaps for their own niche? (I am assuming social media plays a part). Are there specific tools that can help expedite the process?
2) After identifying the gaps, what tools were used to determine whether it would be profitable to fill those gaps? (i.e., how was potential ROI determined?)
3) How was the site you mentioned monetized? Would it be less profitable for sites that aren't monetized to follow this method? Would the methods you suggest work for only one kind of revenue model?
Thanks in advance for any insights you can share.
| 1:34 pm on Jun 3, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the follow up explanation!
Your advice - and your rant - were BOTH appreciated!
| 3:32 pm on Jun 3, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I have made 1000 of 301, but is that enough or must I also delete the pages on wmt and/or server
| 8:31 pm on Jun 3, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|I have made 1000 of 301, but is that enough or must I also delete the pages on wmt and/or server |
where did you redirect the pages to?
Did you move them to a different domain?
Or did you get rid of the pages and redirect to a different page (like the home page)?
| This 91 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 91 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |