Forum Moderators: open
Anyone else noticing any major changes?
I know of sites that rank well with link spam, I also know of sites that rank well without link spam. What I am suggesting is.... figure out what you need to do and do it.
Google will never reveal exactly what is most important in the algo this month or next month or ever. If they did, it would be open season and would quickly put them on the search engine trash heap.
I have been watching Google closely for more than four years. For a couple of keywords (over 7 million results each) I track very closely over that period, it is basically the same group of ten sites in the top ten. We all take turns at the top and at the bottom. So what does this mean, build your site for the long term. Add quality and unique content. Get quality and relevant links.
That is the best advice I can give. By doing this (and/or follow Brett's 12 months list) you will rank well and outlast your competition. The most successful SEO's on this board spend very little time worrying about every little hiccup in the Google algo and instead spend their time building more pages for the g-bot to inhale the next day.
I can't find the IP where google.com is connected to. www2 and www3 return the new set of back links, www return the old set. Update still in progress?
[edited by: AthlonInside at 7:43 pm (utc) on July 20, 2004]
Too many people get bogged down with short term thinking (algo change this and indexed backlinks that...)
The SEO field is like the sales field:
If it was easy everybody would do it!
Wow, why didn't I think of that. Since nothing changed on my side before G deep-sixed my traffic overnight, maybe you can point me to a page that lists what Google expects to see now?
I've noticed several posts in this thread about how lost rankings have affected bottom-lines, why doesn't G list what they expect to see in pages they "like", etc., etc.
First, I do feel for anyone who works hard to achieve and then sees their hard work wiped out by a change in G, or their hard work eroded by spam sites grabbing top positions. As someone who has been doing SE positioning work since 1996, I can assure you the same things have happened to me many times over.
Perhaps it might be useful to take a bit of a historical look to set things in perspective. While there are many in this forum as, or more, experienced in SEO as I, there are also many who grew up doing SEO during, and after, the establishment of G as the dominant SE on the web and the resulting relative stability that has existed since G became the dominant SE.
Prior to G, there were three major SEs - AltaVista, Excite and Infoseek (I don't count Yahoo as they were primarily a directory and not a Search Engine). Rankings on these three fluctuated constantly. For those around then, we still remember posting a page that would rank #1 on Infoseek, only to see it drop to second page in a few hours (back when you could submit a new page to Infoseek and their database would add it in an hour, others would "see" what you had done, do it "one better", submit and in the next hour replace your top page with theirs). If you didn't constantly make appropriate changes, your #1 wouldn't be in the first 50-100 before the week was out. Back then no one complained about the affect on their bottom-line because this was the "norm". No one mentioned that these SEs should post a list of what these SEs "expected" because that list was likely to be out-of-date before the day was over.
During this time, I learned to develop solid strategies that worked well across all SEs (such as Magellan, Webcrawler, HotBot, Lycos, NorthernLight and about a dozen others), not just the three major ones. I came to realize that at any given point in time I'd usually rank well on two of the three "biggies" and reasonably well on the others such that my traffic would be fairly stable, even though there continued to be major fluctuations day to day, week to week, month to month.
When G started up, I didn't pay any attention to them as they were just another Internet startup. Over the months I noticed more and more traffic coming from G. Still I never did even one thing to rank well on G. The months continued and my traffic from G continued to grow as G became very popular. I still didn't do a thing to influence my ranking well on G as there was no need. I was in the top positions for the majority of the search phrases I follow, so there wasn't a need to do a thing. The "solid strategies" I had learned to implement during the 90's resulted in my not needing to do squat to consistently rank very nicely on G until Florida.
These were not low competition search terms. They were in industries such as car stereos, home electronics, women's clothing, furniture, real estate and vacation accommodations. After Florida, I could see certain things that G now seems to like and, for the first time, made changes to help my G positioning - which was to do the things that make me more of an "authority" in my field. Again, no tricks, no quick and dirty schemes - just "solid strategies" that involve hard work, smart work, and a guiding knowledge that these weather the "storms" and will result in a good ROI (long-term positioning that results in profits).
I, and many of my competitors, were soon back in our accustomed positions after Florida. Did my work, and continuing work, to become more of an "authority" make the difference? To be honest, I'm not sure as many of my competitors didn't do anything and they are back to more-or-less normal positioning. But it sure didn't hurt to do what I did, and I feel it is likely to help me weather future storms because that is what implementing solid strategies does.
However a part of my strategy isn't to rely upon any one search engine - so even with Florida, my over-all traffic dropped only about 20-25%. What are the "solid strategies" I learned back in the middle 90's that have worked so well for me over the years? They are most of the same strategies Brett, and others, variously talk about in such things as "26 Steps to a Successful Site on Google in 12 months", "Search Engine Theme Pyramids" and such. There really aren't any secrets, unless working hard, working smart and doing what others have found to work over the long haul is a secret. It is no secret the SEs algorithms are highly proprietory. So do you honestly think the SEs are going to post a list that basically says "this is what our algorithm looks for"?
Even if the SEs did post such a list, how long do you realistically think that algorithm would survive the SEO onslaught before it'd have to be changed (which is why I believe we saw Florida - G became too easy to "game"). This post isn't to debate the relative merits of G's SERPs, of the link spam, etc. - because these kind of things are a "given" (to me) since the mid-90's. They've always existed in one form or another, and I assume they always will. This post is about accepting these kind of things as "inevitable" and moving on to doing something that succeeds, survives and profits in spite of the spam, in spite of changing algorithms. If moaning and groaning makes you a profit, then you are better than I - but if it doesn't, then maybe it is time to move on to stategies that will make you profitable.
I'm under no illusion many will read this post and de-bunk it because these kinds of posts are made regularly in this forum and yet the same complaints, groans, moans, and calls for G to post lists of what their algorithm looks for continue. However I do post this in the hope it will give a measure of assurance to some that hard work, smart work and solid strategies "do work" in spite of all the spam, artificial links, etc. - and there are many on this list who can attest to this.
yup, I'm not saying you're wrong. However please don't suggest i worry about every single algo change, i don't. I am only commenting on a continuing theme, where content counts for less and less. All i asked was for a logical explanation as to how a sophisticated algo can let a frame domain compete with content sites, that was my point. Obviously it can only be through its backlinks, so my point was to highlight an increase in the dependence on links to a page for relevance and less regard to a content page. Its more a point of interest than a worry about every single change.
>>>don't suggest i worry about every single algo change
I was not refering to you specifically, just the general tone of the discussion. I quoted you because I thought it represented the general frustration with this and other "non-updates". Do not feel I was picking on you, I wasn't. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
With Google it is like driving on the highway. If you are staring at the road just in front of your car you will be constantly adjusting your steering wheel. But, if you are focused on the horizon, it makes driving less stressful and requires less effort.
Just coined a new phrase, SEP, search engine philosphy.
