| 4:15 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I'm down 50% today from yesterday.
| 5:03 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Fridays are always much lower than Thursdays for me.
However, comparing this Friday to last Friday, I'm seeing a 16% increase.
| 5:29 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Gyppo: Is that dollars, clicks or traffic. There are advertisers who pull their ads on the weekends, beginning on Friday. A one day traffic drop could be anything. CTR is not always a good indicator either.
| 6:08 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I can confirm that there is some sort of update which has happened in the past 24-48 hours. Traffic down 30% since yesterday and 45% since day before. Disastrous
| 6:23 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|why am i getting non-video results when making a video search? |
Because Google knows what is best for you :-)
| 7:16 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I wouldn't call it a song, but rather a concept. There really isn't much point in bashing what Google provides as results. If people want to focus on individual results, good for them.
I look at referrer traffic and expand on what I'm provided with. Always based on what the user is looking for. Isn't that what publishers should be doing?
| 7:52 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Yet more reports of the mysterious 30% traffic drop after Friday update. I don't dare look this weekend... the roller coaster continues.
| 9:25 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@bluntforce, how do you know what the user is looking for?
| 9:51 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing two quite different data sets - one appears to have up to twice the volume of pages found on searches than others.
Also, the rankings on the larger data set appear to be significantly different.
| 10:08 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@petehall seeing the same thing. The larger set actually looks closer to what I was seeing on Monday.
I think it's exactly what I thought earlier, a two week rollback and then slowly putting the updates back in place to take care of the problem they had.
| 10:15 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@garyr_h what do you think to the quality of the larger index? It doesn't look great to me, but presume there is a lot to come on that one. I'm a little disappointed about the setback as things were looking up, but such is life.
| 10:17 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@petehall @garyr_h guys, care to explain what you are talking about? larger set? rollback? Thanks in advance!
| 10:31 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@tarzan007 Matt Cutts announced that they 'lost' a large number of websites during the update. So the data (we think) has been rolled back to before this loss.
And a new index is being built with the data included. When searching, the results are switching between these two indexes.
The way to tell is look at the number of results returned on a search. You should be able see two very different figures if you try the same search on different browser sessions.
| 10:46 am on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@petehall Better results mixed in with not-so-good results. Things seem to be slightly less dependent upon keywords in the domain, but I doubt that lives long as the update continues to be pushed out.
Some results which were showing only the homepage are now showing the better suited inner-page result. But I'm still seeing profiles, blogs, old news articles taking up spaces along with non-English tucked into English results.
Overall it is better than a couple days ago, but that's not saying too much.
| 12:04 pm on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Lets see, one of my sites which has remained on the 1st page for 5+ years just got knocked back to page 3 for its main keyword. Only to be replaced by tube sites. In the UK it looks a bit better.
I would really love to know what these guys are trying to do. Bing's results have been consistently better since Panda. If I can tell that shouldn't a building full of PHD's?
| 3:04 pm on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
If you wish to see high quality Google SERPs, please visit our beloved Google Hong Kong [google.com.hk...]
| 4:13 pm on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
"Matt Cutts announced that they 'lost' a large number of websites during the update."
@petehall Do you have a source for this?
| 4:25 pm on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
See his Google+ page - it's currently the 3rd post down.
| 10:01 pm on Apr 21, 2012 (gmt 0)|
UK results are now very close to the state they were at before the lost sites incident. This is the larger dataset, which is now served to me every time I search.
| 12:08 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@petehall well, I hope the UK results aren't the ones which we are going to see on .com. The 1 year old blog which steals content I mentioned earlier, is now #2 in the UK results.
| 5:42 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Our traffic was up 35% vs this same day last year, bounce rate down 20%. Google orangish up 25%.
Conversions down sharply. Us Ecom site.
| 5:51 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone else seen their traffic take a steady nosedive since Sunday of last week?
I'm up ~100 visitors today (Saturday) from my lowest point ever (yesterday).
I'm wondering if this low traffic I saw over this past week was due to Cutt's admission there was something wrong.....and am wondering if this signals the end of it?
| 8:35 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Horrible at the minute, no matter what you try it seems to have a negative effect on your serp. Got my bouce rate down to its lowest in 2 years and engagement at its best ever, yet yesterday was the worst day since being hit by panda.
| 9:02 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@BaseballGuy my traffic did dip slightly from Sunday last week and yesterday was also my worst ever traffic / sales day since 2005. Like you, I'm hoping this has bottomed out and will climb. Yesterday the SERPs looked good which is what I find really confusing, although thinking about this, with web history etc I would imagine it'll take a while to recover back to 'normal' levels.
| 11:05 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|EDIT: Definitely seeing a huge mess right now. Is this what G was talking about when mentioning they want non-SEO sites to get more attention? |
|After over 10 years of consistently ranking between position #1 and #3 on page one for a single four letter word search term |
After enjoying #1 ranking for 8 years sites have been dropped to 3 and below, replace by complete, Zero effort, non seo sites that seem to be glued together as they came up the rankings.
With all of Google's Penalties do you think they have one for sites being #1 for x number of years?
Do we undo every thing we have learned about white hat SEO?
Is the New SEO, No SEO?
| 11:17 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Google lost the war with SEOs and now they try to intimidate anyone. This is my opinion, sorry for my english but is not my native language.
Hope this is positive criticism.
Google is a search engine for rich people in the first place and only after for those with great ideas 1-5%.
Explanation: It's obvious those with money buy backlinks and reviews, they look clean because they can, using money you can buy anything and make it look natural. Without money to invest in backlinks and reviews (not in your content) you can't rank.
Google said they fight against paid links, they don't because they can't prove it in most situations and the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
Many of those who rank for regular keywords are ranking not because their sites have value but because their paid "propaganda" is better.
Google a webmaster search engine
Explanation: You are a regular visitor of my site and you like my site, how can you "vote" for my site if you don't have a blog or website or if you don't use any forums to place my link. You can't that is why there are many non-relevant results, because almost anyone buys links and reviews, or spam while the visitors that are the real target of the site can't "vote" because they don't have a website. How many visitors of a site about pets even if they buy a lot of products and are satisfied have a website to link to your site, and then answer to yourself how representative and relevant is Google, how representative is the sample they choose (webmaster only search engine) when they rank the websites. As comparition is like the period when only white people or only men had the right to vote even if all lived in the same society, non-webmasters have no right to "vote". Is like you have to own a car, a house (comparision with website, blog) to be able to "vote".
Using this algorithm (80-90% backlinks) they can't be relevant, representative because our visitors, our clients can't "vote" for the website. Most of them use Facebook, Twitter to share a link but for Google doesn't matter, they use backlinks, but backlinks are not proving the value of a site, are showing the financial power of some companies or people. SEO is simple, not a big deal when you have money, give me 50.000 USD and I will buy backlinks and reviews with them for a very bad site, in a normal situation I will rank in the first 10 positions while those that work hard but don't have mega ultra awesome content will rank nowhere.
Spammers, those without money to spend to buy backlinks or reviews are spamming, they are not always the bad guys, they are somehow like Robin Hood, fighting agains all these people who think money can buy anything.
They should not penalize anyone, they should improve they algorithm to be more representative, relevant, a social +1 search engine for example with a good and complex anti-fraud system.
| 11:28 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Looking over returned results on Google on wide range of products and services and comparing them to Bing and Yahoo,maybe we should wait for Google to drop in ratings as our sites have.
Bing and Yahoo seem to have it right.
Looking over my log sheets B & Y are sending more visitors every day.
For those of you that have seen sites drop or dropped, how are they doing on B and Y?
Is this G algo screwup the right time for Bing to launch a marketing campaign?
| 11:39 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The new SEO is reduced SEO.
I've already seen an increase in rankings by reducing / focusing the on page factors... only now I've reduced the scope and taken a considerable traffic hit on 'other' phrases we used to rank for.
Collectively these long tail variations were really valuable to us. Going down the route of keyword domains to cover gaps seems to be the way forward - this is not something I wish to do though.
| 11:48 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Many of those who rank for regular keywords are ranking not because their sites have value but because their paid "propaganda" is better. |
Probably true with the top brands it does seem like the net is beginning to be "Paid Advertising" instead of finding good information on a subject.
Although, in my nich the sites that google has run to the top are built on free web-building platforms with no real money out their pockets, they really don't have any back-links, so not buying links. I know these guys they have no knowledge of what we once considered good seo.
| 11:51 am on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Collectively these long tail variations were really valuable to us. Going down the route of keyword domains to cover gaps seems to be the way forward - this is not something I wish to do though. |
Agree Petehall. If we did G would would find fault and change it.
| 12:14 pm on Apr 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Would people here generally be in agreement that one should submit a request immediately once bad links have been removed? Or is it better to wait and see first if google "removes" the links from their index?
We are getting some mixed messages. Some people seem to suggest submitting a reinclusion request is a negative thing ie you are admitting being at fault and could permanently damage your site?
Logic would suggest that it makes sense to submit the request once links have been deleted?