| This 41 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 41 ( 1  ) || |
|Zero backlinks, Zero content, just Google+ page showing in top 10|
| 9:18 pm on Jun 8, 2013 (gmt 0)|
My parents have a business, been online since 1994. They've been ripped to shreds lately, they just have a website that simply shows the necessary content - nothing special, not really any SEO for a long time. Just a vanilla site, doing its job.
Here's the problem:
I just did a search for 'learn widgets in country' (5 euros per click adwords - They were number one from 2001-2007)
I found a website, at #7 that has: No content on the homepage, is not in the country in question, is not in the business in question, has NO backlinks at all (from what I can see) - and only a single EMPTY google+ page.
It's in that block of 'google places' results that takes up the top 80% of the serp (after the 3 large adword blocks) My parent's business is #12 on the first page.
What do I tell them to do?
| 9:41 am on Jun 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Update: The 'blank page' is slowly moving up the ranks. It's now at #5. Current cost per click of that query around $4.
Parents' company now middle of second page.
| 10:16 am on Jun 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Seriously, why would they not add a single line of code to filter blank pages? I am struggling to understand the logic.
| 10:37 am on Jun 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I shouldn't say 'blank' really (as in my OP 'No content on the homepage') it has:
'[name of company] company created in 1997...'
The name of the company is 2 slovakian words not in anyway related to the key phrase. Imagine something like: "jebiga sad"
It's also an EMD - first two words of the 3 word search term eg: 'learn-widgets'
This is after 2 straight years of Panda and Penguin.
To me, perhaps I'm just crazy, this is complete confirmation that the underlying algorithm is struggling at a fundamental level. I am really trying to understand how we've all let this happen.
Shouldn't we be screaming this at the top of our voices, even those with sites that are currently doing well. I guess I'm probably over-the-top.
1) Target: 'buy widgets in country'
2) Register foreign domain 'buy-widgets.pl'
3) Add very little content, perhaps 3 words, unrelated
4) Register google places page, in the country.
5) Do not get any backlinks.
Achievable: #5 position.
1) Target: 'buy widgets in country'
2) Setup business in 1994 as one of the first.
3) Get mentions in newspapers.
4) Spend 20 years as a legitimate business.
5) Promote your site offline and online organically.
6) Never do anything to harm the long term reputation of your business.
Achievable: #20th position.
| 1:49 pm on Jun 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Register google places page, in the country. |
Maybe a hint?
| 2:00 pm on Jun 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
You show that it has Poland extension. Have you looked in your backlinks and seen many .pl sites? I seem to see these things popping up a lot. Do you have the Russian sites too. Look in Awstats and see if you have Russian sites showing up as referrers.
| 2:01 pm on Jun 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
If you found 100,000 of these, it still wouldn't represent a measurable percentage of the URLs out there.
Do you really expect Google to get that right every time? You're more optimists than I am.
| 2:24 pm on Jun 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Iit was not .pl - i just used that as an example - don't want to give specifics, not allowed etc.
@netmeg - I realise you are happy in your current position (as you stated earlier). I too am relatively satisfied with my gargantuan traffic.
|If you found 100,000 of these, it still wouldn't represent a measurable percentage of the URLs out there. |
If you found 100,000 of these it would represent a catastrophic failure is underway. When you find ONE of these (especially in a highly contested context) it demonstrates a very serious signal flag relating to the underlying algorithms in play.
Algorithms are not like widgets, they are like waves. They interact with each other in extremely complex ways. Those interactions creating other interactions. The resulting waves normally intersect creating newer ones, at those points you get 'the interference patterns'.
The point of these algos is to create the appearance of organic evenly weighted SERPS. The effects should target specific areas, generally those that are not wanted in the final pattern.
This is no longer happening, the interference patterns created have formed their own strong (gameable) pattern. I could introduce you to smarter people than I, who would explain why that's 'really really bad.'
| 3:47 pm on Jun 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Thanks, but I'm pretty comfortable with my take on it.
| 4:05 pm on Jun 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|To me, perhaps I'm just crazy, this is complete confirmation that the underlying algorithm is struggling at a fundamental level. |
I agree with this, and it's not a bad reflection on Google. I think what they're trying to do with the web simply can't be done with the ludicrous volume of information that's now on it. I also think they realize this and it explains some of the changes they've made in recent years. Based on Matt's "what's coming in the next few months" video, it sounds like they're working feverishly to find more effective ways to accomplish their goals.
| 4:50 pm on Jun 13, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Thanks, but I'm pretty comfortable with my take on it. |
Then I wish you all the best, and hope you continued success. Sincerely!
Yep, there are indeed a few indications now that they're aware of the situation. Matt's position is difficult, he's the PR captain of a huge expensive ship - he must be aware of the responsibility he holds. I would like to think he's concerned but optimistic. (Strikes me as a good guy in general.)
He has 100s of trolls on youtube (awful to watch considering this was originally a specialist subject). It probably further hardens his resolve to stay on the 'best available topic'. I hope they consider communicating with forums like this one, it would do them so much good - at least there'd be 0 trolling!
| 9:09 am on Jun 19, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Google has NEVER listed itself first for "search engine" |
I'm sure that's on purpose.
Curious, what would be that? :-)
| This 41 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 41 ( 1  ) |