steerpikegg - 8:46 am on Sep 19, 2011 (gmt 0) [edited by: tedster at 3:10 pm (utc) on Sep 19, 2011]
Thanks for all your replies. I'll try to answer some of the things you've mentioned.
@mirrornl - I haven't done any link building - if there are any links to the site they would be natural
@sgt_kickaxe - The site follows the guidelines pretty well - there's enough to it to be breaking any rules.
@mrsavage - I didn't expect the position to hold particularly well against more established competition, but also never imagined dropping to position 750+
@tedster - I can see that perhaps one long page wasn't the best approach, however for the subject at this stage, there really isn't enough to build a full site. I didn't want to pad it out and make it look like spammy repetition and also didn't want to split it over several pages, as each page would then be pretty thin.
The way I'm looking at it is this: As far as I am concerned the page is of good quality (even after the announcement). I knew there would be a sudden interest in the subject and that established sites would start ranking for it soon after the announcement, in which case I expected to drop down the results as the site was replaced by pages with better in-links and more trusted source.
What I didn't expect was to go from page one to oblivion behind pages that are any combination of a) nothing to do with the subject b) outright spam / mfa junk c) not even in the English language or even in the Roman alphabet (don't forget we're talking about google.co.uk here) d) scraping my content into MFA junk
As I mentioned in the OP, this was really more of an experiment for me to see how advance planning and securing an exact match domain of a very new search term worked out. If the site tanks in Google it's no big deal, but I would just love to know why. I thought a 950 penalty (which is what I assume the site has) was for really breaking the guidelines by some margin like malware or something equally terrible.
[edited by: tedster at 3:10 pm (utc) on Sep 19, 2011]