homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.225.23
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

    
New Site After Panda - Planning
LostOne




msg:4488738
 4:23 pm on Aug 27, 2012 (gmt 0)

Okay, Iím near a point my pandalized site will probably never recover. I still make a living from it, but no more steak dinners. Eventually it will probably be laid to rest.

This leads to a new concept/angle in the same niche with a new site. I prefer to use the same content from the oldish site because itís darned good stuff but not in Panda eyes. The newer site is going to be heavy in graphics anyway with video and I was thinking of using PNG files (as long as the Gorg canĎt read themÖyet). Basically the content would be snagged with snagit. A good chunk of content weighs in at 225 kb.

OrÖ is there a way of blocking the actual text without no indexing? I donít want any sophisticated anit-Google stuff. I think they call it cloaking? Sorry, Iím not keen on that stuff. I know all of this probably sounds strange, but I thought best to throw it out here.

There will be additional content (completely unique, canĎt be duplicated easily) on the page to make up for the lack of actual text. In closing, Iím looking at this and thinkingÖĒnobody will understand?Ē

 

tedster




msg:4489154
 4:06 pm on Aug 28, 2012 (gmt 0)

is there a way of blocking the actual text without no indexing?

If you are adding significant content to the page so it is no longer as "shallow", then I don't see a Panda problem with allowing your re-purposed sentences to be indexed. However, I would make sure the former domain is not still indexed and looking like duplicate content.

to answer your question directly, if you are talking about actual text, then there is no way I know of to keep it out of the index. Adsense has a tag that instructs Google to ignore chunks of a page for ad targeting, but that's not organic ranking.

LostOne




msg:4494779
 3:58 pm on Sep 13, 2012 (gmt 0)

< moved from another location >

There will be no content used for the new site from the old, but that was a thought in Part I. Considering the old site has been copied to death I don't want to spread the infection. Content on the new site will come in the form of transcripts and images from video content as each page will have it's own unique video. These videos will be actual demonstrations/applications/how to's done onsite and not in someone's garage. Professional video shot on location in dozens of different locations across the USA. A hefty investment on my part as well.

Estimated number of videos in 18 months is 200 running two to five minutes. Sure there may be some over lapping content. But geez, Mr.Panda, I'd like to create an organized and usable site for visitors. If I follow your 'guidelines' so I don't smell like a content farm, I'll have to put ten videos on each page with 6,000 words of content. Pretty darned ugly if you ask me, not to mention that page speed factor some talk about.

I'm so skeptical of Google these days I want nothing to do with Google properties that includes analytics, adsense, and anything else that says Google on this new site. It's sad, but what recourse do I have? I'll probably never be a big brand, but it will be very unique.
.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 5:32 pm (utc) on Sep 13, 2012]
[edit reason] moved post, cleaned up character formatting [/edit]

Ralph_Slate




msg:4494823
 5:54 pm on Sep 13, 2012 (gmt 0)

What about the googleoff/googleon tags, which are supposed to tell Google not to index portions of a page?

tedster




msg:4494845
 6:53 pm on Sep 13, 2012 (gmt 0)

Those comment tags are for use on a Google Appliance. So they influence the organization's internal site search as ysed internally - on their intranet, in other words. These special tags have no affect on organic ranking as seen by the general public.

LostOne




msg:4494910
 10:05 pm on Sep 13, 2012 (gmt 0)

Let's see if this additional discussion gets anywhere after Robert spliced the thread.

I'm battling all sorts of issues here. For instance, title tags. I have several near repetitious ones on this new site because how else can a viewer bookmark it properly? Sure they can change the title, but how many actually know how? My demographic is over 30 somethings up to age 75.

Example:

I have four geographical regions. The tags are as follows:

Widget Listings East Coast Zone
Widget Listings Central Zone
Widget Listings Plains Zone
Widget Listings Western Zone

I really prefer another phrase instead of "widget listings" but now I'm suddenly trying to accommodate Panda instead of the user. Why? Because the other phrase accurately describes the focus of the website and should be used on a number of pages.

Almost Lost Again. What a mess!

LostOne




msg:4494914
 10:13 pm on Sep 13, 2012 (gmt 0)

By the way. Another issue eventually will be video theft or copying video. It's just a matter of time as videos can easily be downloaded. I've seen it on a small scale over at YouTube. Perhaps it's a bigger issue that many are not aware of. I'm not sure.

I can see that area as becoming the next big mess once all the scrapers and other knuckle draggers become aware how easy it is to do.

LostOne




msg:4495673
 9:16 am on Sep 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

< moved from another location >

Okay I'm taking another stab at Panda. Actually I feel good about it much like I did last October when I combed through my entire site trying to fix what I thought was the issue. Then it was overlapping content I was after. Yes, I did find a dozen or so pages (currently about 400 on the site now) that had the symptoms which were either consolidated or deleted.

I've always been against trying to organize for Panda but I have no choice nowadays or just let a good site die. Yes, I was around well before adsense caused this monstrous problem. The site was originally built out of passion for the business I am in and the creativity it allowed. I had no intentions of trying to get rich overnight. Then it was about getting work in the business I am in.

It worked! Then the site sold product online and did very well for a smallish niche site until 2008 when I saw the writing on the wall. Closed up shop and went to content only by adding adsense and other third party ads. Increased content -- the death nail? All along while I was selling online I knew the site was lacking more content, but I did not have the time for it.

Did extremely well until February 24, 2011

What To Do Now?

I've been so against consolidation because I feel it would create a navigation problem. Hey, I don't have a dozen pages on how to pour a glass of milk (example), but I do have three or four that talk about the types of milk. And there are probably 20 or 30 main subject areas with the same characteristics -- all having title tags with the same major keyword phrases.

So. I feel good about it now, but will I be disappointed in 4-5 months when my efforts show no improvement? I have patience to wait for Panda refreshes.

Oh how I long for 2006 type results again when the phone rang one day. The caller ID said Google. It was a Google person actually wanting to buy something from me, but had questions. We chatted for about five minutes and I just had to get my two cents in about how I was concerned with the Google algo.

"You have nothing to worry about...you have great content."

Perhaps one day I can claim I did get away from the Panda clutches. Oh, how that would be a great feeling.
.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 9:48 am (utc) on Sep 16, 2012]
[edit reason] moved post, cleaned up character formatting [/edit]

Robert Charlton




msg:4495703
 10:20 am on Sep 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

LostOne - I'm taking some wild stabs at some possible problems, based on your descriptions above and how you've titled various posts.

Widget Listings East Coast Zone
Widget Listings Central Zone
Widget Listings Plains Zone
Widget Listings Western Zone

Is this data that's unique to your site, or is this a compilation of material that's out there, though perhaps uniquely compiled? I ask, because that was one of the changes Google's made in the past couple of years... simply having data in a database and re-sorting it doesn't create new content. Your use of the word "listings" sounds like this might be database sorted material available elsewhere.

Also, you're not likely to do well if you have similar content with keywords added to target for different geo areas. Again, I don't know if that's the case, but I get the sense it might be.

Hey, I don't have a dozen pages on how to pour a glass of milk (example), but I do have three or four that talk about the types of milk. And there are probably 20 or 30 main subject areas with the same characteristics -- all having title tags with the same major keyword phrases.

I wonder how you're breaking up your subject. Eg, if you had a site about car repair, and your pages were "Car Repair - Part 1", "Car Repair - Part 2", etc, this IMO wouldn't be sufficient differentiation, not if there were a lot of this in the site. You'd want different topics for different parts of the car... eg (and forgive sloppy examples, but it's late)...

- Tuning a Widget Engine
- Adjusting Your Car's Brakes
- How to Fix a Clutch

Google doesn't want one endless page, but it also doesn't want individual pages that are too similar. Hard to tell without "widget" type examples. Please clarify what you're doing.

Are you working with a professional writer or editor... or are you writing content yourself? It's often helpful to have a second set of eyes, to get someone else's input on what you've written.

LostOne




msg:4495857
 5:58 pm on Sep 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

Robert:

#1
Widget Lisings East Coast Zone
Widget Listings Central Zone
Widget Listings Plains Zone
Widget Listings Western Zone


What's a database? That oughtta tell you something. Yes, unique in that I will make the selections not from a list but my professional opinion upon meeting them personally. These are names and locations of individuals/companies in a certain industry. And Iím not talking about stuff that can be copied elsewhere. Some names donít even have web visibility.

Also, you're not likely to do well if you have similar content with keywords added to target for different geo areas. Again, I don't know if that's the case, but I get the sense it might be.


Is that part of #1?


- Tuning a Widget Engine
- Adjusting Your Car's Brakes
- Buying New Car Seats


I like that comparison, (I did change the third entry) but the keyword phrase almost has to be in the title tag for it to make sense. Otherwise it would almost look like this...

- Tuning an Engine
- Adjusting Your Brakes
- Buying New Seats

I did some preliminary reviews of half of my file names and a surprising number are ranking very well with the repetitious keyword phrase at the end of the title tag. I donít think thatís the issue.

This all my writing. Need an opinion? I've had ten years of opinions through the Pandalized site. Opinions that were telling me I had good content. I think we're now mixing up the Panda site and a planned new site. Thanks for chiming in but this thread doesnít seem to get much interest. Either everyone is tired of hearing about Panda, gave up, or just donít care.

tedster




msg:4495894
 7:34 pm on Sep 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

the keyword phrase almost has to be in the title tag for it to make sense.

I'm so glad someone said this. The idea of not including a real "key" word in the title element has always seemed completely whack-o to me.

I did some preliminary reviews of half of my file names and a surprising number are ranking very well with the repetitious keyword phrase at the end of the title tag. I don't think that's the issue.

This also makes sense to me. Many content management systems will automatically repeat the title words as the URL. Google just has to see this pattern and not penalize for it. At the same time, I no longer think "keyword in URL" is a very strong ranking signal. It's certainly not what it was in the past.

Robert Charlton




msg:4496017
 9:49 pm on Sep 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

Rushed reply to many points. Forgive some repetition in advance. When you write articles for your site, you'd want to take more time than I'm taking now....

Also, you're not likely to do well if you have similar content with keywords added to target for different geo areas. Again, I don't know if that's the case, but I get the sense it might be.

Is that part of #1?

I was thinking here that you might possibly be using templated pages, where the only difference in your content might be to drop in a geo modifier. Apparently not what you're doing.

I agree with all of tedster's comments above. To condense a few examples about keyword repetition and also about content repetition, and how I'd look at some issues....

- Buying New Car Seats

vs
- Buying New Seats

Yes, repeating "car" makes sense here.

But... in this example...

- How to Fix a Clutch

You would not want to say...

- How to Fix a Car Clutch

...in order to force a keyword, particularly one that's not generally used in the above context.

It might be OK to divide articles that get more specific, though... eg...

- How to Fix a Clutch for a 2005 Widgetmoble
- How to Fix a Clutch for a 2008 GizmoGlide Roadster
- How to Fix a Clutch for a 2010 Thumper Pickup

If, though, you had a lot of different Widgetmobiles, you might want to have several articles to avoid certain kinds of repetion. I'm here talking about data organization rather than about keywords in specific titles. (That's something for you to sort out, and I really don't have time to quibble about examples. I'm just trying to give you a sense of how you might need to build a range of articles that isn't excessively repetitive)....

Clutch Repair Basics
(an overview)

Widgetmobile Clutches
(the peculiarities of Widgetmobile clutches)

Repairing Widgetmobile Clutches - 2004-2009 Models
(discussing this range of clutches that are substantially similar)

GizmoGuide Clutches
(the peculiarities, if any, of GizmoGuide clutches)

Repairing GizmoGuide Clutches - 2007-2012 Models
(how these clutches are different from previous clutches)

Ditto for various brands and groupings. Obviously, this may not apply specifically to what you're doing, but you want to have your articles contain unique information (unique both on the web and within the site) and to link related articles together.

You don't want to go over the same material over and over and over. That said, each article needs at least a brief intro so you're not coming out of nowhere.

Beware of articles that are too short or too long. That should tell you something. Also, you can't simply create a different subject by changing the title. The content and the title need to work together, and organization overall is important.

My point was less about keyword repetition than it was about lack of content organization and differentiation.

I don't have a dozen pages on how to pour a glass of milk (example), but I do have three or four that talk about the types of milk....

As I note above, if you are breaking these up simply to target keyword variants, and the articles are otherwise similar, this may be a problem area. It's very possible that the three or four that talk about types of milk all belong in one article with subheadings... as with the 2004-2009 Widgetmobile clutches.

...And there are probably 20 or 30 main subject areas with the same characteristics -- all having title tags with the same major keyword phrases.

If you repeat everything for each main subject area, and you've got a pattern of very similar articles, this would probably lead to problems.


What's a database? That oughtta tell you something. Yes, unique in that I will make the selections not from a list but my professional opinion upon meeting them personally. These are names and locations of individuals/companies in a certain industry. And Iím not talking about stuff that can be copied elsewhere. Some names donít even have web visibility.

Geo division of "directory" type pages by geo area makes sense, if the content itself is sufficiently useful. What you describe would probably look like database driven content, even if you'd put it together with a database.

"Names and locations" by themselves don't work for Google any more. Even if uniquely gathered, they will still be looked at as raw data, as distinct from useful content. You need some unique description that you, not the individuals or companies, have written. I'd say something like 15-30 words for each listing.

Hope this helps.

LostOne




msg:4496040
 11:16 pm on Sep 16, 2012 (gmt 0)

When you write articles for your site, you'd want to take more time than I'm taking now....

True. On average I probably rewrite articles at least 5-6 times, sometimes more. Iíll get a general idea, put it together, sleep on it a few times and go back to it. I also go back to it a few times before itís published for grammar and punctuation, but Iím not perfect by any means.

As far as message boards Iím not as selective but do proof read a few times.

You would not want to say...

- How to Fix a Car Clutch


I guess Iím not very smart..hehe. What other kind of clutches are there? <joke>

Also, you can't simply create a different subject by changing the title. The content and the title need to work together, and organization overall is important.


Completely agree. I have to get off that title tag addictionÖitís a tough one.

As I note above, if you are breaking these up simply to target keyword variants, and the articles are otherwise similar, this may be a problem area. It's very possible that the three or four that talk about types of milk all belong in one article with subheadings... as with the 2004-2009 Widgetmobile clutches.


Iím beginning to see a pattern here especially with pages where the time spent is less than one minute that appears to be in the 12% range of the site.

"Names and locations" by themselves don't work for Google any more


That is not the purpose. Itís more about book marking or social sharing. Titles should be somewhat descriptive donít you think? I agree with the unique description. Specialization features of what each company or individual is involved in would be a good addition.

Iíve learned not to chase the algoÖbut I did get sucked into it in the summer of 2010...smallish scale. I donít use content management systems (unless Iím considered one) but in order to organize where certain files are I have run into a repetitious problem. Iím not a Phd like many of you guys <joke>

However, a good portion of those pages seem to be unaffected judging buy the fact they do hold decent positions in the SERPS. IE: not page two, but positions on page one. Several up in the #1 to #3 slot but theyíre table scraps. Not bad as far as time spent on those pages averaging almost two minutes.

Robert:

As far as other items youíve mentioned; Iím there. Introduction, get to the point. Use headings, break it down into an organized manner and so forth. Links to related pages. Itís all there. That is not a problem.

Thanks for your time. Same for Ted. Go engineers.

LostOne




msg:4496148
 7:56 am on Sep 17, 2012 (gmt 0)

Site Assessment - Affected By Panda I

After analyzing nearly all files on the site Iím noticing this:

Major keyword phrases (one keyword does not work in this industry) that were well positioned before Panda not showing on the first five pages of Google. Prior to Panda nearly all were on page one resulting in better quality traffic and time on site. 2008 and 2009 most were #1 to #3

Secondary queries on the site have dropped on average 2-6 positions with a majority still seen on page one. A very small number still maintain a number one spot. Another small group of files falling to pages 2,3 and 4 with only a handful going off ďthe radarĒ (my benchmark page 5)

Iím thinking the focus has to be on those major keyword phrases (that seems to be the tough part) and the ones that have fallen back past page two and beyond (easier). Some may be affected by Googleís focus on brands and increased competitiveness on the web. Like I said earlier, I do see a pattern.

Admittedly there are several on page 3 and beyond that are rehashed content. They number less than a dozen and can definitely be considered ďweakĒ judging by the average time spent under one minute. Thereís no reason these cannot be deleted or consolidated into an appropriate related page. Even if they did rank high, the numbers would almost be meaningless.

A little background. Iíve never chased things like keyword density because it looks stupid. Title tags are rarely changed except I may move/delete/add one word or phrase here and there, but the frequency is once every year or greater. I rarely used meta keywords or descriptions (most pages), nor do I use any heading tags except for the H1. Iíve always been against following the crowdís latest SEO gimmicks, but did participate in some link exchanges back in 2004 and 2005.

My only problem could be from chasing the algo in 2010?

LostOne




msg:4496224
 11:43 am on Sep 17, 2012 (gmt 0)

A few more items to add. I hope Robert doesn't get flustered because I'm bouncing back and forth from actual "site planning after Panda" to why my bread and butter site was panadalized. However, I have to find out why before I can go forward with the new site. My apologies, but I did attempt two separate posts.

Looking at site analytics of those coming in on the major keyword phrases before Panda.

There are basically four major phrases.

On average they are down 98% in so far as the number of direct visitors landing on the home page from search.

Pre Panda keyword phrase numbers:

Page Views per Visitor- 8.0
Time On Site - 8:00 minutes plus
Bounce rate - 16 %

Good numbers the way I look at it.

Post Panda. The numbers (what little I have to analyze) are halved.

Okay. I'll go rake some leaves.

diberry




msg:4496360
 6:36 pm on Sep 17, 2012 (gmt 0)

LostOne, just throwing this out there: it IS possible to inadvertently offend the algorithm. Google does not carefully spell out every single thing it considers a bad/SEO practice, and these things are NOT obvious to everyone. You also can't tell much by looking at which sites got hurt and which didn't, because there are so many factors involved in Google's ultimate ranking of a site.

(Example: brinked was saying in another thread that buying domains and redirecting them to your domain can get you in trouble with google. Yet, many people do this without trouble - it's the online equivalent of buying your competitor's shop and amalgamating it into your brand. But is it possible to go about this in a way that Google *thinks* is all about SEO rather than just smart business? Sure - and then from your perspective you've been penalized for genuinely pursuing new visitors rather than rankings.)

LostOne




msg:4496386
 7:42 pm on Sep 17, 2012 (gmt 0)

dib:

Anything is possible. I can almost find a site on Bing and classify it as a Panda sufferer. All it needs is original content written by an enthusiast/expert, or one that clearly knows what theyĎre talking about, and has a circa year 2000 design or before. Itís not perfect science but it really astounds me. Of course my method of ďcheckingĒ isnít perfect either but it screams at you.

They come from looking at twelve month compete.com charts. Now being 18 months since the first Panda one cannot really see the first big hit. I have a few dozen screen shots from June, July 2011 that I refer back to now and then; checking to see if these sites have made any positive moves away from Panda. Many are in a similar industry as I and I donít see any recoveries.

That's what concerns me. Maybe it's not possible in some situations?

LostOne




msg:4496597
 8:27 am on Sep 18, 2012 (gmt 0)

The ongoing saga in trying to overcome Panda..before a new site

Condensing pages. There are a few areas that have limited, if any visibility with Google search. Admittedly, I feel they are some of the best pages on the site because of the uniqueness only I can establish through actual field experience. Online sites will not include this information because it places doubt in consumer eyes about buying the product. Those in the marketing world know well what I am talking about.

Why They Donít Rank?

Could be a similarity in Google eyes, but they are distinctly different. However, they deal with the same two word widget phrases talked about in previous discussions. Those same phrases that now seem to be ďpoisonĒ within the site and Google.

Okay. They will be consolidated under a main page that sits back on page three of Google search. The main page did quite well before Panda but there are many similarities of other sites ahead of this one. Few, if any were around when the page was originally created in 2002.

Weíve Talked About Size Of Pages

The consolidation increases the word count from 935 to nearly 2500. Is this considered long? Another issue from a users perspective could be that the pages being consolidated are linked from numerous pages within the site. They will still be linked though an anchor point link that leads to sections of this page. Does anyone see this as being a problem for users? Letís forget about the SEO aspect because I really do not care.

Rosalind




msg:4496615
 9:31 am on Sep 18, 2012 (gmt 0)

The consolidation increases the word count from 935 to nearly 2500. Is this considered long?

Yes, although if it's broken up with enough images and subheadings it should be readable. But at 935 words, I don't think length is your issue, it's something else. I have non-pandalised sites which rarely go above 600 words per page, and often much less.

How much are those pages duplicated across the web, or on your site? When you take a random quote from them, how many results show up?

LostOne




msg:4496721
 11:48 am on Sep 18, 2012 (gmt 0)

How much are those pages duplicated across the web, or on your site? When you take a random quote from them, how many results show up?


Rosalind:

Site? That's the reason for the consolidation/condensing...similarity within the site.

On the web? It's a massacre in my opinion, but probably not as bad as others. Dozens in the main content areas, but the site seems to come up #1 when using the quotes. Most of the content theft comes from from mom and pop operations. I did a study a few years back on this (spreadsheet) and the count was over a hundred or so pages.

Rosalind




msg:4496738
 12:18 pm on Sep 18, 2012 (gmt 0)

In that case you probably need to get a handle on the plagiarism. Get some DMCAs out, lock down your server from scrapers by disallowing cached pages and bad bots. Ban the internet archive bot. The No Archive initiative has some good details explaining why this is essential.

Watermark your images. Write text that only you could have written, and create hard-to-scrape content. You can't do much to prevent mom and pop operations from cutting and pasting by hand, but it might help to reposition or re-emphasise your copyright notice and see if that deters a few more people.

IMO, until you make a good defence against plagiarism re-jigging your content isn't going to help much, because this is just going to happen to you again.

LostOne




msg:4496901
 4:12 pm on Sep 18, 2012 (gmt 0)

I appreciate your input Rosalind, but Iíve had scraped/stolen content problems well before Panda. Staying on top of it is not a priority, nor do I think it has much if anything to do with Panda. Whacking moles is also no idea of fun at the moment. Maybe down the road. I just want to see some life again with the site.

LostOne




msg:4499621
 8:26 am on Sep 25, 2012 (gmt 0)

Some Questions

In doing some consolidation and my attempt to get out from under the Panda grip Iíve come across a few interesting items. I have a few pages that have become playgrounds for copied content. The result is I donít rank in the first ten pages for these terms pointing to these pages. Prior to Panda, no problem.

The biggest problem seems to be that Google doesnít recognize me as the original source in one case. This is seen by copying the first ten words of the article in search. But other content within the page when placed into Google search by itself does show me on top (and far fewer copy cats) or what I consider to be their method to distinguish the original author. I realize by no means is this a perfect method, but it does seem to be the best for the time being.

Iím trying to avoid consolidating this page into a larger one that will reach 2700 words. Removing the first paragraph (where the bulk of the copied material rests) is out of the question. I could reword itÖbut then thereís that spun content concern?

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