| 8:58 pm on Sep 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I should have read this thread before posting "Yep, Looks like another MSN Algo Update"
Lowered KW density to rock bottom for Aug 3rd spam shake up and got all pages back to normal. Now losing pages in the last 24 hours.
Haven't a clue as to why...
Hopefully the Cached Page count is just wrong as suggested in the above netmeg posting.
MSNDude needs to comment on this.
We're all trying to play by the rules, but taking 2 steps forward and 1 step back is frustrating.
[edited by: tedster at 5:22 pm (utc) on Oct. 6, 2006]
[edit reason] fix formatting issue [/edit]
| 10:39 pm on Sep 29, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|All the people here saying that their rankings have drastically dropped in MSN recently. |
I'm not writing this to indicate many of you haven't been unfairly hit by this. I think a lot of innocent sites get caught in these filters. But this might add a piece of information toward solving the puzzle.
My site is actually doing a little better with this update. It was pretty good anyway but results on various search phrases seem to have jumped above some of the results on some commercial sites. Mine is a history/hobby site that only earns through adsense and amazon.
It seems like no matter how I write an article or contents page the "hobby" word comes out pretty dense. So that hasn't been a problem for me anyway.
Are we sure density is one of the problems or some other more subtle things that are hurting some sites?
| 5:09 pm on Oct 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think the problem is something other then "Keyword Density". I see lots of Blog Spam Sites with high keyword densities ranking well. For our company name keyword MFAs, blogs and other directory websites rank before our own website. Many MFS sites who have copied text from us rank better then us.
Whats going on with MSN. MSN is getting worse.
| 7:15 pm on Oct 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Mbwto, MSN is not getting worse. IMO you, me and others who don't rank anymore are the collateral damage in the MSN spam war.
| 7:27 pm on Oct 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So does anyone have any kind of clue as to what to do? I'm at a loss.
| 7:32 pm on Oct 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I know this is said more often than it should be, but the site that I am referring to that got nailed by MSN practices no black hat - so I am wondering if it has more to do with on-page stuff or off-page stuff. I also wonder if lots of bad links actually hurt you now in MSN, like someone here suggested. But then you could knock out competitors this way, so I am just not sure what to think.
| 8:07 pm on Oct 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Why does my site have two different listings: http://example.com and http://www.example.com?
If your pages can be reached both ways, people in the google search news forums have suggested consolidating these listings. You can redirect one version to the other using a a 301 redirect.
I wonder if this has anything to do with it.
| 9:08 pm on Oct 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Where are you? Any tips to improve the website?
| 9:33 pm on Oct 5, 2006 (gmt 0)|
look at this results
[edited by: Receptional at 6:55 am (utc) on Oct. 6, 2006]
[edit reason] No Specifics Please. See Terms of Service. [/edit]
| 2:09 pm on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
low keword density - its a joke
A firm of widgetmakers ranks top five for keywords that are absolutely nothing to do with what their site is about simply because they have client pages that contain the keyword and internal links to those pages - thats how bad now live has become!
Meanwhile authority sites that are dediated to the subject matter dont rank, probably because they have to many pages about the subject matter, perhaps to higher density on the pages and foolishly the webmaster has perhaps even (gawd help them) set pages out that say what they are, is using heading title tags and metta descriptions and may have even W3 validated the pages correctly!- Not what msn want!
I think "less is more" has gone far to far now - the serps are boarding on anoying now - its such a waste of what could be a great alternative.
Mind you, msn will pay for it ultimately because whilst they continue to churn out this garbage i for one wont be buying PPC from them or advising my clients to. No one will change to them at this rate.
Msn are still playing at this - results remain absolutely dire in the UK due to this filtering which imo they should scrap and start again.
| 7:17 pm on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Rich, I agree with you completely again. The UK is having is especially rough.
| 10:08 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just to concur with some of the ideas on this thread - my site has received zero visitors from MSN over the last month (normally many thousands).
It's very strange as I haven't done much with the site - just added content really.
However after spending some time researching, I've noticed that over the last 6 months or so there have been a large number of 'dubious' links to the site (from very poor quality sites).
Virtually no outbound links have been added by me - so I have no doubts this is to do with spammy inbound links (not kw density).
This potentially means that if someone can implement enough bad links to your site, they can effectively take you out of MSN - something I'm sure MSN must be trying to rectify.
| 3:42 am on Oct 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you honestly believe that third parties (e.g. jealous competitors) created scores of dubious links to your site solely for the purpose of making you look bad, please send me a sticky with the particulars. We would LOVE to see an actual instance of this -- not just a speculation that "someone might do this."
| 8:13 am on Oct 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I can only assume jkfjkf is talking about scraper sites providing links to many (mine included) sites, and those domains / subdomains are shady, but unfortunately webmasters can't control it if they are being scraped.
What people on here are speculating (on this thread and others on the msn forum) is that perhaps msn might be penalising for bad links to your site, instead of just ignoring them or devaluing the link itself.
It's just very frustrating to think you are being penalised because of a reasonable keyword density, bad links etc, when the serps show there is still a lot of spam around and many websites that used to rank well pre summer have been caught up in what seems to be collateral damage.
| 8:48 pm on Oct 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes it looks to me like scraper sites. That is the only thing that seems to have changed. I understand that ranking changes all the time and thats fair enough.
However it seems odd when a site completely disappears altogether.
| 2:31 am on Oct 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hi. My client is a well-respected hospital and was doing very well on MSN up until recently. The site is managed through a CMS, and we fell more than 20 positions for some keywords. Is this temporary? Something to be concerned with?
| 4:22 pm on Oct 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Now thats real interesting regarding spam inbound links and could be another reason why the msn team are so hell bent on this less is more nonsence.
The thing is the more content your site has the more of it that gets taken by these scraper sites hence the spam inbounds you get and the more likely that msn wont index a large sites content as a result.
Meanwhile a thin site of a few pages or a very new site is unlikely to have been hit by these kind of sites and excapes having these kind of links and ranks well in msn.
Interesting concept, you could well be onto something here.
On another note, anyone know if any progress has been made at msn during the last three month regarding improving the search serps? Its been a while since they did an update i think? They still look as poor as ever on checking again today.
| 7:52 am on Oct 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No, the UK serps still look as poor as they have done all summer. But RichTC, I hadn't thought of it that way. What you say makes sense.
I just find it hard to believe that pre summer one of my sites was #2 for my chosen keyword and now i'm buried in page 6 behind affiliate links (yes, links, not pages) and widgetwidgetwidget type domains.
| 9:36 am on Oct 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thats what i see, problem is that msn team dont see it currently but they will in time. Ive maintained on this thread that the technology cant deep crawl and index a site from what ive seen and as such they cant get the data in to produce even half respectable serps.
Hence, good authority sites with plenty of content either dont show or rank well behind the junk. Ive not seen a site that has had all of its pages crawled yet either unless its a blog or of thin content - You need to be blind not to see these problems.
The recent thought over spam links from scraper sites adds to the problem because imo i think there may well be something in that also.
At some point in the future Bill will turn round and say "what have that search team been doing the last few years?, we havent increased our market share and very few are changing to us from google - who can we sack and who can we buy?"
Until then i dont see any hope in the short term without them having a MAJOR rethink and ditching the current algo - it doesnt work
| 10:30 pm on Oct 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think MSN has just implemented a new algo feature. Penalized sites of mine now look perfectly when searched for using their URL or the "site:" command. However they are completely out of SERPs for anything else.
I can clearly see hundreds of scrapers with my content (or snippets of it) ranking for terms that only appear on my site. They generously link back, some with 302s, some with rel=nofollow. I wonder if it has anything to do with the penalty. Thanks God my sites are still doing well in other SEs.
Msndude, do penalties ever expire? If webspam at microsoft.com never replied to my "re-inclusion request" email what does it mean?
If the only way out of it is to start over on a new domain what is the proper way of avoiding a duplicate content penalty.
Is disallowing msnbot on the old domain sufficient?
Thank you in advance.
| 11:56 am on Oct 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
just been HAMMERED on some of my sites.
and I can't figure out rhyme or reason.
| 2:44 pm on Oct 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Have you lots of original content?
Have you got lots of inbound links?
Is your site over 1000 pages?
Is your site an authority in its sector?
Are scraper sites using some of your content?
If you have answered yes to any or all of these, then what do you expect? - your site is destined to be filtered out of the msn serps.
Best policy if you want some trafic from msn and rank at the top of the pile is to knock yourself a blog together, or a 5-10 page thin content site that points to your main site (best to do this in as fast a time as possible, after about five pints of beer is good, the last thing you want here is a quality resource "remember less is more".
Next, whatever you do dont put to many links on a page to related content or go into any detail about the keywords - kiss of death
Next, make sure the domain name includes the prime keywords in it keyword-today-keyword.com is good and cant fail - no matter what you do. This is vital to ranking well in msn
Then get some backlinks to it from any old site doesnt matter, a load of blogg sites, some paid for links anything.
Give it about five days and your junk site will be king of the serps with all of the other junk next to it.
In the future when the msn search team decide they truely want to offer some quailty serps and ditch the current algo then your junk site may vanish but your quality authority site may come back into the msn serps and start ranking where it should be - we can all live in hope!
| 7:26 pm on Oct 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
RichTC, you summed it up!
At least we are being active in critisizing what seems to be a rather bad algorithm. The thing is I used to really like MSN. It seemed to give hope for new sites as well as keeping the good older ones that had a decent quality and played by "the rules". But now what is ranking is totally ridiculous.
You forgot to mention to not make the pages relevant about the keywords you want to rank them for.
Also spammy subdomains seem to work well.
Maybe in the future it will all get sorted. Should we hold our breath?
| 9:56 pm on Oct 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
i'm kinda thinking that the "less is more" is now being applied to IBL's.
| This 54 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 54 ( 1  ) |