homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.21.9.44
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
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

This 343 message thread spans 12 pages: < < 343 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 > >     
Penguin 2.0 is upon us - May 22, 2013
viral




msg:4576742
 12:52 am on May 23, 2013 (gmt 0)

Matt has announced Penguin 2.0 (Penguin 4). Either way it is out there and affecting.

Is anyone noticing much movement in the serps? I personally haven't seen much flux but Mozcast seems to be feeling something.

[mattcutts.com...]

We started rolling out the next generation of the Penguin webspam algorithm this afternoon (May 22, 2013), and the rollout is now complete. About 2.3% of English-US queries are affected to the degree that a regular user might notice. The change has also finished rolling out for other languages world-wide. The scope of Penguin varies by language, e.g. languages with more webspam will see more impact.

This is the fourth Penguin-related launch Google has done, but because this is an updated algorithm (not just a data refresh), we’ve been referring to this change as Penguin 2.0 internally. For more information on what SEOs should expect in the coming months, see the video that we recently released.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 12:12 pm (utc) on May 23, 2013]
[edit reason] added quote [/edit]

 

Garya




msg:4578075
 6:50 am on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

I noticed some websites have now done reversed manipulation before penguin 2.0

Looks like they knew what was coming.

They added links pointing to their important pages with keywords like company name or some other unimportant term so their keyword does not take a hit. I saw one of my competitors doing some strange things before the update. He made all his top pages no follows and added these links. The pages where dropped from the index for about a week.

Then he took the no follows off. Now his site is on top for all his key words makes you wonder?

petehall




msg:4578097
 7:24 am on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Then he took the no follows off. Now his site is on top for all his key words makes you wonder?


No doubt they'll repeat the run soon if this is a widespread tactic...

ColourOfSpring




msg:4578102
 7:49 am on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

hmmm... you mean it puts DIYSEO out of business don't you?


fathom, this is more "just world fallacy" from you. Many victims of Penguin 1.0 or 2.0 were not engaged in "DIYSEO" as you call it. Many have simply been usurped by blocks of host crowding and/or lists of highstreet brand name sites. I think we need to get over the idea of blame and finger-pointing - it's not helpful and doesn't even accurately portray reality anyway.

fathom




msg:4578109
 7:58 am on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Just because you see this and that and then something else occurred does not mean those are all related.

PRWeb once noted a press released put on their website developed 2.5 million views for a video in YouTube. Course if you added up all the views before the press release and projected the growth trend already in Youtube there was nothing left for PRWeb to attribute.

Fiction is already better than fact.

teokolo




msg:4578118
 8:13 am on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

I'm seeing very weird (terrible) results in Italy in a very competitive niche.

Searching for online widget, you find lot of spammers, thin websites and, in page #2, a nonsense page consisting of 3 paragraphs, 300 words stuffed with dozens of keywords. This page has no html tags, just text. The domain is ridicolous, something like TheBestOnlineKw1Kw2Kw3Number-2nd . tld

Backlink profile is 5k+ links from blog/forums/directories/scrapers/aggregators.

Maybe English Serps are better than before, Italian ones are not. I'm guessing if Google need to hire more people for quality testing in country specific serps.

Very frustrating...

fathom




msg:4578119
 8:13 am on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

fathom, this is more "just world fallacy" from you. Many victims of Penguin 1.0 or 2.0 were not engaged in "DIYSEO" as you call it. Many have simply been usurped by blocks of host crowding and/or lists of highstreet brand name sites. I think we need to get over the idea of blame and finger-pointing - it's not helpful and doesn't even accurately portray reality anyway.


Just a world of fallacy from me... Isn't that the same thing you are suggesting? Calling those with loses victims and blaming host crowding and/or lists of highstreet brand name sites and finger-pointing?

Granted I cannot tell who is accountable but I don't see anyone as a victim... Google organic results are absolutely free, surely you can't believe the loses of anything provided to you for free applies to being called a victim.

At worse you don't emulate Google's ideals of a quality site.

Also [searchengineland.com...] suggests SearchMetrics reports some big brands like Dish.com & The Salvation Army are victims as well.

Wilburforce




msg:4578124
 9:05 am on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

I don't see anyone as a victim... Google organic results are absolutely free


That isn't quite right. Google's "absolutely free" results have acheived a virtual marketing monopoly. People don't look in Yellow Pages anymore. As someone implied in an earlier post in this thread, they don't even look on Amazon for their product (they use Google to find it on Amazon). Google has become the way people find things. I can't replace the organic results with some other form of marketing, and it isn't a question of cost. Even if I get my brand name to the public by peak-time TV advertising, the public will still find me by typing my brand name into Google rather than going to the bother of typing my URL.

Having achieved that position, they have pulled the rug from under a lot of people who were there not by complacency, but because they recognised the fundamental importance of Google organics for their own product placement.

It is disingenuous for Google to claim a crusade on behalf of relevance and white-hat SEO while following a different agenda. If a tourist asks me for directions to the post office and I lie to him, the fact that I haven't charged him for the lie doesn't make much difference: he is still a victim of my deliberate misrepresentation.

RP_Joe




msg:4578189
 12:46 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Is it just me or does it appear the brands are less effected by this?
One site I expected a competitor to be hit because I know their profile. Yet because they are a franchise, they seem to be ranking well.

[edited by: RP_Joe at 1:39 pm (utc) on May 27, 2013]

turbocharged




msg:4578207
 1:32 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

It is difficult to compare Wikipedia to any other domain because everyone believes there is a different set of rules for Wikipedia but let's say for the moment that isn't true.

What evidence would there be to suggest that Wikipedia is not whitelisted? All the evidence I have seen suggests otherwise. If most websites used the heavy interlinking strategy that Wikipedia employs, this would be deemed over-optimization. Wikipedia is non-commercial and poses no threat and/or lost income opportunity for Google. I've seen a number of "case studies" before on some less than desirable forums where blasted spam links were pointed at Wikipedia, .Govs and .Coms. Wikipedia has never budged in these supposed case studies, while .Govs fall a bit and commercial .Coms disappeared.

Today it is going to be warm, and the kids would sure like to go for a swim. So I search for a swimming pool. Wikipedia sits at #2. Do people really need a definition for a swimming pool or is just used as filler material to make all of those paid ads look more appealing? There definitely is no shortage of paid ads in Google these days. :)

hmmm... you mean it puts DIYSEO out of business don't you?

Not at all. They just need to follow what the big boys are doing. That is buy links in bulk and have the capability to remove them in 24 hours when caught so their penalties are revoked in a week or two. I can't tell you how many small business websites we do design work for that have corporate competitors that not only have internal SEO departments that buy a lot of links, but also build complete non-competitive websites just for the links. But how well will this strategy work for small businesses anyway when Google's algorithm favors corporate brand over any other signal? I suspect being the first small business website at the bottom of page one or top of page two may have some value, but not enough to be worth the effort to attain it.

tedster




msg:4578215
 2:12 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

What evidence would there be to suggest that Wikipedia is not whitelisted?

Only the likelihood no site is ever 100% "whitelisted". I'm pretty sure "whitelisting" is a matter of degrees and it can always be changed. But yes, Wikipedia is probably at or near the top of any possible whitelist (trust) rating.

diberry




msg:4578216
 2:12 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Was internal linking ever an issue with Penguin 1.0, and has that been part of this update - anyone?


That's the only thing I changed, and I'm seeing recovery.

How do you propose that they are identifying big brands? It's clearly not just a white list. It would be extremely useful to have a clear idea about what factors create a "brand" in Google.


In the queries I track, most of these "brands" have an offline presence - they're related to a TV channel, magazine, known company. Someone Congress would have to acknowledge ought to be a fine source.

I can suggest that a "brand" is created outside Google organic search.
The higher the percentage of direct traffic and from non-Google properties, the better the ranking.
When Google notice a high volume of that type of traffic the algorithm starts giving a positive sign/mark.


Yep, this approach would fit what I'm seeing.

I am not seeing a hard line of demarcation in my industry, instead the big brands are mixed in and do have placing on page 1 for main keyword phrases


This is on commercial/transactional queries? I do see this on some of my informational queries.

purplekitty




msg:4578227
 3:28 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

This is on commercial/transactional queries? I do see this on some of my informational queries.

I'm not sure what you're considering commercial/transactional queries. The main keywords I'm referring to are used for people looking for free and/or to buy.

If I put the word "buy" in front of the keyword phrase, I'm still seeing the same thing - mix of brands, pinterest boards, smaller businesses - although the websites are changed up a bit.

In my industry, it's become a bit muddled between commercial and informational because so much more is being digitized and even commercial publishers and suppliers are offering free digitized product online to attract customers.

fathom




msg:4578229
 3:33 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

People don't look in Yellow Pages anymore.


Yellow Pages wasn't ever free. You had to pay for that publishing service.

I can't replace the organic results with some other form of marketing, and it isn't a question of cost.

So why then make it a question of cost?

Even if I get my brand name to the public by peak-time TV advertising, the public will still find me by typing my brand name into Google rather than going to the bother of typing my URL.

Having achieved that position, they have pulled the rug from under a lot of people who were there not by complacency, but because they recognised the fundamental importance of Google organics for their own product placement.

It is disingenuous for Google to claim a crusade on behalf of relevance and white-hat SEO while following a different agenda. If a tourist asks me for directions to the post office and I lie to him, the fact that I haven't charged him for the lie doesn't make much difference: he is still a victim of my deliberate misrepresentation.


I'm sure if you are a false-positive Google will fix that quickly. However, Google has stated very clearly for years that TOS violations will not be tolerated so I don't see that as Google pulling the rug out from under you.

It is difficult to compare Wikipedia to any other domain because everyone believes there is a different set of rules for Wikipedia but let's say for the moment that isn't true.


What evidence would there be to suggest that Wikipedia is not whitelisted?


The lack of a Google acknowledgement is the best evidence. Assuming solid ranks is evidence of whitelisting isn't evidence. It suggests they did as Google wanted... "just make a great website and others will reward you".

If most websites used the heavy interlinking strategy that Wikipedia employs, this would be deemed over-optimization.


Have you actually tried it?

What part of breadcrumbs are consider over-optimization?

fathom




msg:4578230
 3:39 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

If a tourist asks me for directions to the post office and I lie to him, the fact that I haven't charged him for the lie doesn't make much difference: he is still a victim of my deliberate misrepresentation.


I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed so forgive my ignorance... what part of Google's guidelines are lying to you?

fathom




msg:4578231
 3:45 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Was internal linking ever an issue with Penguin 1.0, and has that been part of this update - anyone?


That's the only thing I changed, and I'm seeing recovery.


Here's something we sort of agree on.

The network domains that got handed to me did not have an inbound link issue they had outbound link issues (e.g. paid links)... (quite similar to your link pages) where results & traffic dropped to ZERO from Google.

Fixing the outbound linking issues recovered the domains completely.

taberstruths




msg:4578232
 3:48 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Could it be that we are operating with a paradigm that is antiquated? As much as Penguin is supposedly about link profiles and anchor text, could it be that other factors are used to determine if a site qualifies for a penguin penalty? For instance.....

Anchor text vs. brand name. What determines if people are using your brand for an anchor text? Could it be whether or not people search for your brand name alone or in conjunction with an article they are looking for? If so, then you are becoming or have become a brand.

Amount of links vs. amount of traffic and traffic patterns. If you have 10k links pointing to a site but only 1k people per month, does that look a little strange? If those 1000 people bounce like rubber balls yet the site is linked to all over the place does that look a little fishy? Or if they do not stay to read, read other pages, or there is not any user activity on your site beyond the occasional ad click or sale, but there are bucket loads of links pointed to the site, something is wrong.

Do a little test. Take the top positions in the serps, look at their user metrics, and then ask yourself the question. Based on this information alone, do they deserve to be where they are at? If they have a lower bounce rate, higher time on site, and higher pages viewed per visitor than you do, whether you like it or not, they deserve to be above you.

ColourOfSpring




msg:4578235
 3:58 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Just a world of fallacy from me... Isn't that the same thing you are suggesting? Calling those with loses victims and blaming host crowding and/or lists of highstreet brand name sites and finger-pointing?


Well, victim as in they essentially got demoted not because they did anything, but because Google arbitrarily favour big brands in certain niches and host-crowd these big brands too. If you're offended by the word "victim", then how about I rephrase that for you: they are unfortunate. In any case, you are wrong to aportion blame to these sites or say they got their "just desserts".

I don't see anyone as a victim... Google organic results are absolutely free


That isn't quite right. Google's "absolutely free" results have acheived a virtual marketing monopoly. People don't look in Yellow Pages anymore. As someone implied in an earlier post in this thread, they don't even look on Amazon for their product (they use Google to find it on Amazon). Google has become the way people find things. I can't replace the organic results with some other form of marketing, and it isn't a question of cost. Even if I get my brand name to the public by peak-time TV advertising, the public will still find me by typing my brand name into Google rather than going to the bother of typing my URL.

Having achieved that position, they have pulled the rug from under a lot of people who were there not by complacency, but because they recognised the fundamental importance of Google organics for their own product placement.

It is disingenuous for Google to claim a crusade on behalf of relevance and white-hat SEO while following a different agenda. If a tourist asks me for directions to the post office and I lie to him, the fact that I haven't charged him for the lie doesn't make much difference: he is still a victim of my deliberate misrepresentation.


wilburforce, this sums it up better than I can. Well said.

Wilburforce




msg:4578240
 4:29 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

However, Google has stated very clearly for years that TOS violations will not be tolerated so I don't see that as Google pulling the rug out from under you.


Are you saying that the only reason any site has lost position under Penguin is for TOS violations? If so, can you tell us how you know this?

I didn't actually say, either, that they had pulled the rug from under me personally, although some of my pages have clearly been penalised for specific terms (which all appear related to backlink anchor-text neither posted nor solicited by me).

And

what part of Google's guidelines are lying to you?


It isn't just webmasters who are misled if some new agenda skews results away from being relevance-based. It is searchers, advertisers, and shareholders. It was relevance-based results that induced them to search through, advertise on and invest in Google.

fathom




msg:4578248
 4:32 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Well, victim as in they essentially got demoted not because they did anything, but because Google arbitrarily favour big brands in certain niches and host-crowd these big brands too. If you're offended by the word "victim", then how about I rephrase that for you: they are unfortunate. In any case, you are wrong to aportion blame to these sites or say they got their "just desserts".


I'm not offended by anything.

Short of investigating all the PENGUIN winners and losers and their strategies and I can't see that depth of research being finished in 5 days... you cannot possibly come to the conclusion you came to with any degree of certainty.

I can certainly empathize but empathy isn't going to change your current disposition. (Your - used loosely to represent the alleged victims)

ColourOfSpring




msg:4578255
 4:39 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

hort of investigating all the PENGUIN winners and losers and their strategies and I can't see that depth of research being finished in 5 days... you cannot possibly come to the conclusion you came to with any degree of certainty.


I've had a fair bit of time to analyse things since April 24th 2012. In that time, there's been overwhelming evidence across many discussion groups, my own experiences directly, my client's experiences, and also fellow developers' experiences (that I know and speak to regularly)...that Penguin affected many sites negatively that didn't engage in any "DIYSEO" (they didn't engage in any SEO) - but got penalty-like demotions. Perhaps you may argue they are victims (I think this is the right word in this particular instance!) of negative SEO? Or merely "unfortunate" to be penalised as false positives from a "wonky" algo? In either case, it's not exactly ideal and it doesn't instil much confidence to realise Google can get it so very wrong so very often.

what part of Google's guidelines are lying to you?


wilburforce mentioned that Google may be advising us one thing (in the guidelines), while DOING something that works against that advice they give us - that's obviously misleading us if their advice makes zero difference to how they determine their rankings.

fathom




msg:4578259
 4:48 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

However, Google has stated very clearly for years that TOS violations will not be tolerated so I don't see that as Google pulling the rug out from under you.


Are you saying that the only reason any site has lost position under Penguin is for TOS violations? If so, can you tell us how you know this?

I didn't actually say, either, that they had pulled the rug from under me personally, although some of my pages have clearly been penalised for specific terms (which all appear related to backlink anchor-text neither posted nor solicited by me).


I'm not saying that at all... I'm saying PENGUIN, and specifically PENGUIN 2.0 is about devaluation of unnatural links with a specific lean to deep-links (as Matt Cutts suggests) so that sites that emulate natural linking patterns rise up through the chaff.

If you're seeing signs of loses... I'm betting PENGUIN 2.0 had something to do with that... which suggests an unnatural linking pattern to or from the domain.

And


what part of Google's guidelines are lying to you?


It isn't just webmasters who are misled if some new agenda skews results away from being relevance-based. It is searchers, advertisers, and shareholders. It was relevance-based results that induced them to search through, advertise on and invest in Google.


You didn't actually answer the question... you actually avoided answering it (must be a politician)

What misled of webmasters are you referencing?

fathom




msg:4578263
 4:58 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

wilburforce mentioned that Google may be advising us one thing (in the guidelines), while DOING something that works against that advice they give us - that's obviously misleading us if their advice makes zero difference to how they determine their rankings


That would indeed be jarring & jolting news and would afford a huge class action lawsuit for unfair business practices.

I am positive wilburforce will seek legal counsel with that tidbit.

netmeg




msg:4578265
 5:08 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

In that time, there's been overwhelming evidence across many discussion groups, my own experiences directly, my client's experiences, and also fellow developers' experiences (that I know and speak to regularly)...that Penguin affected many sites negatively that didn't engage in any "DIYSEO" (they didn't engage in any SEO) - but got penalty-like demotions.


You do understand, of course, that even if your experiences and anecdotal evidence covered hundreds, or thousands, or even ten thousand sites, it would still be statistically insignificant compared to the total number of sites or URLs out there, of every type and every topic.

It's really easy to fall into the trap of "because it's happening to me and these hundred other people, it must be universal" and I fall into that trap all the time myself. But it really gets in the way of trying to parse out what's going on, and how to navigate through it. And of course, to figure out what to do next if you can't.

venti




msg:4578269
 5:15 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

@netmeg

Exactly! Every time I see these threads about how the results are terrible for XYZ term and Google is out to get them... you realize Google looks at the dataset as a whole. If they can roll out a change that improves the index by 1%, it's a great addition. We are not at the point where you can say every Google query will be perfect. But we can say on the whole, the index is getting better. As proven by their analysis and metrics. There will always be outliers, and with Google it could be a huge number due to the reach it has. Be careful of confirmation bias.

turbocharged




msg:4578272
 5:21 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

The lack of a Google acknowledgement is the best evidence. Assuming solid ranks is evidence of whitelisting isn't evidence. It suggests they did as Google wanted... "just make a great website and others will reward you".

Simply taking Google's word for it implies a level of foolishness IMO. Search any of the black hat forums for case studies, and you will be sure to uncover some rather interesting results. Same spam links pointed to different sites and the results are notably different. That's enough evidence for me that Wikipedia is whitelisted. I do however feel sorry for the other sites used in the case studies as they appear to have been hurt pretty badly.

Have you actually tried it?

What part of breadcrumbs are consider over-optimization?

Yes, Mild interlinking is great, but we have removed excessive interlinking as is commonly used on Wikipedia. Of those sites where we removed the heavy interlinking, mild improvements were seen in search positions.

Using a whitelisted domain to develop a strategy, such as Wikipedia, is severely flawed. Because it is not held to the same algorithmic measurements as the majority of sites are, the results are much different for ordinary sites (over-optimization penalties).

ColourOfSpring




msg:4578280
 5:34 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

You do understand, of course, that even if your experiences and anecdotal evidence covered hundreds, or thousands, or even ten thousand sites, it would still be statistically insignificant compared to the total number of sites or URLs out there, of every type and every topic.

It's really easy to fall into the trap of "because it's happening to me and these hundred other people, it must be universal" and I fall into that trap all the time myself. But it really gets in the way of trying to parse out what's going on, and how to navigate through it. And of course, to figure out what to do next if you can't.


Over the last 14 months, it probably falls into the "thousands" range. However, the aggregate knowledge/experience is from a wide range of sources, both related to me and also unrelated. Are you saying that all of these sources cannot be representative of a larger constituency of websites? Perhaps it's just a wild coincidence that all of these sources experienced the same types of demotions for sites that had zero SEO work done on them?

That would indeed be jarring & jolting news and would afford a huge class action lawsuit for unfair business practices.

I am positive wilburforce will seek legal counsel with that tidbit.


I agree, but I doubt it would ever be provable - the algo isn't open to any kind of scrutiny as we all know - how can you possibly "prove" something when the evidence isn't available to view?

netmeg




msg:4578283
 5:52 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Are you saying that all of these sources cannot be representative of a larger constituency of websites?


Pretty much, yep.

Awarn




msg:4578284
 5:55 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

I read someplace a week or so ago that they felt Google was using some form of a switch method. They described it as where a site was supposed to rank in say position 4, if Google imposed a penalty for some reason, Google would instead penalize the site maybe 10 slots and instead Google would fill slot 4 with a result from either Ebay or Amazon. The more I look at the results this does seem like a somewhat accurate description. The real question is what is the cause of the penalty. Look at your results and see if when you see Ebay or Amazon if exactly 10 to 15 positions below is a site that you think should be in that position Ebay or Amazon is in.

fathom




msg:4578291
 6:10 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

The lack of a Google acknowledgement is the best evidence. Assuming solid ranks is evidence of whitelisting isn't evidence. It suggests they did as Google wanted... "just make a great website and others will reward you".


Simply taking Google's word for it implies a level of foolishness IMO. Search any of the black hat forums for case studies, and you will be sure to uncover some rather interesting results. Same spam links pointed to different sites and the results are notably different. That's enough evidence for me that Wikipedia is whitelisted. I do however feel sorry for the other sites used in the case studies as they appear to have been hurt pretty badly.


I am not simply taking Google word... I am saying I am not going to jump on the bandwagon of taking the word of someone else in the other direct either.

You cannot prove a null, a null merely suggests there is lack of evidence. According to your theory, I also must be whitelisted.

Go figure.

Have you actually tried it?

What part of breadcrumbs are consider over-optimization?


Yes, Mild interlinking is great, but we have removed excessive interlinking as is commonly used on Wikipedia. Of those sites where we removed the heavy interlinking, mild improvements were seen in search positions.

Using a whitelisted domain to develop a strategy, such as Wikipedia, is severely flawed. Because it is not held to the same algorithmic measurements as the majority of sites are, the results are much different for ordinary sites (over-optimization penalties).


I am not sure what mild and excessive interlinking are but since only the first link on any page is credited you cannot go beyond every page linking to every other page and I do not see how internal links cause you any harm.

I also do not see Google suggesting internal navigation is a bad thing.

So maybe your correlation does not imply causation.

ColourOfSpring




msg:4578294
 6:27 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Are you saying that all of these sources cannot be representative of a larger constituency of websites?



Pretty much, yep.


Then you really need to read up on random sampling - like I say, many sources whose experiences matched my own were unrelated to me, plus there's the added randomness of various developers having all kinds of clients who are not related to one another in anyway (same with my own clients too). When you add it up, it's a large random mix of thousands of sites. BUT...."pretty much, yep" they are all somehow related to one another - granted, statistically this is possible in the same way you may win the lottery twice in a row, but I'd (understatedly) say it's unlikely that you are right.

fathom




msg:4578295
 6:28 pm on May 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Talk about sitting on the fence.

You do understand, of course, that even if your experiences and anecdotal evidence covered hundreds, or thousands, or even ten thousand sites, it would still be statistically insignificant compared to the total number of sites or URLs out there, of every type and every topic.

It's really easy to fall into the trap of "because it's happening to me and these hundred other people, it must be universal" and I fall into that trap all the time myself. But it really gets in the way of trying to parse out what's going on, and how to navigate through it. And of course, to figure out what to do next if you can't.


Over the last 14 months, it probably falls into the "thousands" range. However, the aggregate knowledge/experience is from a wide range of sources, both related to me and also unrelated. Are you saying that all of these sources cannot be representative of a larger constituency of websites? Perhaps it's just a wild coincidence that all of these sources experienced the same types of demotions for sites that had zero SEO work done on them?


That would indeed be jarring & jolting news and would afford a huge class action lawsuit for unfair business practices.

I am positive wilburforce will seek legal counsel with that tidbit.


I agree, but I doubt it would ever be provable - the algo isn't open to any kind of scrutiny as we all know - how can you possibly "prove" something when the evidence isn't available to view?


First you suggest that all that stuff is evidence and cannot simply be wild coincidence and then you say none of it proves anything.

What you mean to say... you do not have the expertise to determine what is and what is not evidence and all the other references that are suggestive facts are not immediately available to you thus that is why you cannot conclusive prove anything to a preponderance of evidence which is all that is needed to file a suit of this nature.

This 343 message thread spans 12 pages: < < 343 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 > >
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