nomis5 - 9:37 pm on Oct 27, 2012 (gmt 0)
I have five EMDs and all of them now have been affected to differing degrees. Looking back over the stats (I previously just ignored all but the two top performing EMDs) the drop occurred on 29 September - as clear as the sky is blue.
I beg to differ with G that this has anything to do with site quality. All those sites are excellent quality but it's clear to me now that site quality played no part in the demotion of my sites.
First, they ARE top quality.
Second, analysing which pages have been affected it becomes clear only pages with EMD keywords in them (to a significant degree) are affected, Other pages are unaffected.
This leads me to believe that this is a cheap fix by G with little analysis behind it other than, let's hit EMDs by demoting pages in them with EMD keywords.
There is absolutely no difference in quality, design and links between the pages that have been hit and those that haven't been hit.
I think that sometimes we give G far, far too much credit for the thought and work that goes into their algo changes. The EMD algo update is a huge blunt hammer which is totally indiscriminate as far as site quality is concerned.
If this is the case, then recovery without significant changes is just not going to happen. What might work is to increase the number of pages, on affected sites, with content not related to the EMD. But if my EMD is about blue widgets I don't really want to take the time to include twenty new pages about flying kites in outer Mongolia. I know about blue widgets, but I know nothing about flying kites in outer Mongolia.
The stats are so clear to me on this that I will remove the content from the sites and republish them (with amendments) on my main site to make use of the content, the pictures and illustrations.
Pissed off from Basingstoke aka David Marks