irishsolar - 10:59 am on Apr 18, 2012 (gmt 0) [edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:46 pm (utc) on Apr 18, 2012]
Possible bug in a roll out?
Googler JohnMu last response to the thread was just an hour ago saying they'll look at it. 1 hour 30 minutes later, the 3 users in question all report their sites back up?
For those who didn't read the threads here is a quick update:
Emme Rogers reported her site had lost all its rankings. This complaint was quickly followed by 3 more other site owners.
After a lot of complete run-a-round talk by Google (which didn't go down too well and was not accepted), Googler JohnMu admitted there might be a problem and had a Google team look into it.
After the Google team looked into the problem all 3 sites regained their rankings.
IMO this was manual intervention. It is a bit suspicious that Google looked at the sites and within about 2 hours they suddenly regained their rankings. Some of them regained their rankings after they had even been de-indexed due to the algo updates.
The main site that sparked it all off was [emmerogers.com...] which lost all its positions including the search term "Being Emme" which is the name of the site.
Several professionals looked at her site, including some on the thread, but no-one could see any on-page problem. After a lot of hogwash talk from Googler JohnMu he eventually admitted that it might be a problem on google's side.
After a Google team reviewed the sites they regained their rankings - all within a few hours.
IMO when Google have to manually override their algo for the first 3 sites that lodge a complaint with them then I think it pretty much proves the algo is broken...now what are they going to do about it?
I still think this is a backlink issue. Looking at the backlinking profile of Being Emme in OSE it shows heavy optimization for the term "Being Emme".
From 6,643 links registered in OSE 4,891 are for the main keyword phrase "Being Emme", with 703 for the keyword phrase "Emme Rogers". The rest of the backlinks are shared among lots of other keywords in small numbers.
Obviously that shouldn't be a problem as the website's name is the main keyword phrase but it is the only thing that stands out.
Any of the links I looked at seem natural. There are a lot of social media pages linking to her and blogs from embedded post links to blog roll links but I really can't see the problem or anything that would cause a problem usually.
Could this be about the density of keyword usage in backlinks?
Is there perhaps some part of the algorithm that works out the percentages of the types of links a site has and penalises any site that falls outside what they deem to be "normal"?
For example, in the above site there is very little URL backlinking which could appear abnormal (something which both sites I am personally monitoring are also lacking in).
This may have triggered an automatic penalty and got the site removed from the SERPs for backlink keyword spamming. Upon manual review it is obvious that the backlinks occurred naturally so Google did a manual over-ride.
Sites that seem to be ranking high have a high level of URL anchor text backlinks that either matches or is just above or just below the percentage of backlinks that use their main keyword.
I might be clutching at straws here but it is worth investigating and seems like the only logical explanation that I can come to so far.
Mod's note: Normally, we don't allow public examination of specific sites. We're making an exception in this case because the site received attention in a discussion with Google's JohnMu.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:46 pm (utc) on Apr 18, 2012]