Page is a not externally linkable
-- Google SEO News and Discussion
---- What is your best question about Google SEO?
hitchhiker - 10:58 pm on Jun 16, 2013 (gmt 0)
If our analysis is accurate, naturally based on only a small number of total sites, we see a sharp and sudden decline in UGC traffic. Given the 'free-speech' nature of UGC it cannot be analysed under the same umbrella as 'editorial' content. Is there a case of some sites perhaps being mis-identified?
First off, thanks for supporting this. Here are the questions, relieved from their cumbersome thread. Please edit or delete where appropriate!
Regarding Webspam, I might ask:
With the apparent 'confusion' created around requiring webmasters to 'nofollow' a lot of links (to play it safe in light of so many penalizations). How useful is link data, can it be trusted at all now that the organic reality has been so dramatically skewed?
I believe 'Negative SEO/toxic links/disavowing' should have been something vehemently guarded against. (The concept of any link or relationship as being 'negative' rather than 'ignored') By allowing SITE B to hurt SITE A - control was taken away from whitehat players. It has now clearly resulted in a new, more powerful way, to game the playing field. Why did this happen?
The latest slew of updates has brought a great deal of webmasters out of the 'woodwork' in terms of SEO. Assuming the primary function of a search engine is to reduce the effect 'players' have, and reward those who are 'focused on their content, site, products, users' - how does this benefit the internet in general?
There's a great deal (thousands) of whitehat webmasters who are being penalised to non-existence (or the effective equivalent). Sites that have demonstrated good practice, satisfied audiences and neither betrayed or mislead users. This is unacceptable, what can be done about it?
Following on from a 'Webspam' statement confirming 'brands are not favoured': High levels of instability favour only those with 'deep pockets' or short-term-goals. Given the current, exceptionally unusual, and well documented turmoil hitting some 'whitehat webmasters', isn't that indirectly favouring 'brands' and 'blackhat'?
While it's understood that age shouldn't be a ranking factor. Given the enormous amount of random links older sites can *unwittingly* accrue, they are far more likely to be hit by penalties. Has this been properly factored in?
Specific to a small group only: On November 16-19 2012, an unknown update (Panda 21.5 ghost!) caused a lot of forums to begin experiencing a sharp then sustained drop in traffic. Some of these were sites that otherwise benefitted from Panda, and most 6/12/15+ years old. The penalisation did not (in some cases) match the quality, level, or sophistication of the sites in question. A lot were previously considered 'authorities'. Can anything be said about that update?
[edited by: hitchhiker at 11:33 pm (utc) on Jun 16, 2013]
Thread source:: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4584711.htm
Brought to you by WebmasterWorld: http://www.webmasterworld.com