| This 95 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 95 ( 1 2 3  ) || |
|Recovery from Google Changes on 16 Nov 2012|
| 9:41 pm on Nov 28, 2012 (gmt 0)|
On Nov 16th Google made a change that impacted a good number of sites. Some asked Google if it was a Panda update and Google said it was one of 500 changes Google made per year but was not a Panda/Penguin update, one of those is due out this week. You can read about some of the affected sites in the monthly seo thread here - [webmasterworld.com...]
- The change was not sitewide, it impacted individual pages while leaving others alone
- Unique and on topic content on each page
- Very little else is definitive but we did have pages to compare within the same domains
While comparing affected pages nothing about the page, from an SEO perspective, stood out. Backlink profiles were varied but similar to the non-affected pages. On my own site the pages affected seemed to be more brand/transactional in nature but some of these were untouched as well.
- The one common denominator on all affected pages was medium quality content. The pages I "beefed up" from Nov 17th to 21st have already recovered(as of yesterday).
What struck me is that this isn't the low quality type content you'd expect to see receive a downgrade. 100% unique, accurate, on topic and useful content received the downgrade but in all cases there was either not enough useful information or it was worded a little too generically and would likely get a borderline rating by a human review. Definitely not spam but only of marginal usefulness, too narrow in scope or not comprehensive enough to solve a problem.
The speed with which these pages are bouncing back, and the fact that the pages I haven't "fixed" yet aren't, suggests it's not a penalty but rather a low quality downgrade that can be resolved easily.
I thought I'd share this since some are getting drastic with their changes. "thin" content took a hit a long time ago, I'd say medium content with only minimal usefulness just did as well. Simply being "unique", "original" and "on topic" doesn't mean anything anymore.
Broad quality downgrades are not exclusive to Panda/Penguin!
| 10:03 am on Jun 14, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@n00b1 Of course it's more complicated. I'm sure if they do something like this then it's going to be applied differently for different kinds of queries.
The pre-update flood of traffic has been observed by quite a few people.
Explain to me why Google needs to send a flood of traffic prior to an update if they aren't using it for metrics? I'm not talking about them snooping on Analytics or using Chrome data. I'm talking about them using *their* own site metrics to work out searcher satisfaction.
| 12:52 pm on Jun 14, 2013 (gmt 0)|
That flood of traffic is likely just coincidental. There is always a huge amount of shuffling going on before updates and it always takes a while to settle down. If they were trying to gather user metrics surely they would need a website to stay highly visible for a bit longer than it does during this shuffling process.
| 1:20 pm on Jun 14, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I don't know - there's too many people who have reported this phenomena for it to really be a coincidence. Not sure if this is OK by the mods -- there's a post on SearchEngineWatch dedicated to the "Sinister Surge" - [searchenginewatch.com...]
I think it probably depends on the size of your site. If you have enough traffic then a quick surge will give them enough info. For smaller sites this strategy is probably much more drawn out.
| 2:32 pm on Jun 14, 2013 (gmt 0)|
i think what happen in 17th nov is just a data ( not updated algorithm ) update for google panda
here is the deferent
my site still get reach traffic every day after removing duplicated titles and non-indexing members profiles
now i get 46K visitors yesterday
i now that penalty need 3 weeks to move when using 301 redirect so i will tell you if penalty moved to the new sub-domain or not
| 3:54 pm on Jun 14, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@rango: I think the traffic uptick around Panda and other refreshes is perhaps not just a random occurrence but isn't intended by Google either. I just think that old established forums (which is what I think is safe to assume Panda 21.5 hurt) are just inherently more stable than other types of sites - lots of URLs on a variety of subjects, relatively stable non-search traffic, usually natural gathering of links etc. So, what I think is happening is that many other sites sink around that time and that's how yours (and mine, I've experienced that too) sites are temporarily rising. Once the update had settled, they start to rank where Google thinks they should long term and that, unfortunately is where the problem lies.
Apparently, they don't value UGC much anymore. Ironically, as others pointed out, since they themselves are damn near 100% UGC. If I can temporarily put my cynical hat on, they may actually feel threatened by large UGC sites because many of those have their own well-developed search engines and therefore visitors (especially members) don't need Google much once they've landed on a good large UGC site.
| This 95 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 95 ( 1 2 3  ) |