Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Here's what I've observed in the past 2 weeks:
Observation #1: Pre-Allegra, I had over 50 legitimate search terms that ranked in the top 10 on Google, bringing in 70% of my web traffic. These terms have all dropped 100+ slots after the Allegra update, and Google now counts for less than 30% of my traffic.
Observation #2: Before Allegra, I was #9 on Google for the term "widget". After Allegra, I am now #571 in the Google SERPs. (I am still in the top 40 on Yahoo, and the top 30 on MSN).
Observation #3: In Google, I used to be a strong #1 for "mycompanyname" (past 6 years!), but now I show up #4, right under an "AsSeenOnTV" web site that doesn't have a link to me or my name ANYWHERE on their 3-page web site. (But I bet they are on some of the same reciprocal link pages that I am on...)
Here's what I believed caused it: I have been working on an (outsourced) link exchange program for the last 6 months, using the term "widget" mostly for the incoming text. I thought I was being a good SEO.
My Theory is that Google is punishing webmasters who have engaged in link exchange programs to try and improve their Pagerank. At least that's the only correlation I can draw from what I seem to be experiencing!
Think how easy it would be for Google to spot a link exchange program - compare a list of someone's outgoing links with a list of someone's incoming links - hmmmm - he/she has 150 INCOMING links from (slightly) off-topic sites X,Y and Z, and it so happens that he/she has 150 OUTGOING links to the same X,Y and Z! This smells like a reciprocal link exchange program to me! (Sergey – give these guys two cardboard cookies and send them down the river!)
Can anyone provide similar results based on these observations?
.
[edited by: ciml at 4:10 pm (utc) on Feb. 12, 2005]
[edit reason] No specifics please. [/edit]
The FACT is that MSN are right. Google is producing less relevent results and this is because they are losing their way with their continued focus on links rather than site content.
Look at from our point of view. We have a UK job site with Quality pages of long term research and over 80,000 live UK jobs on it. Dedicated specific job type areas etc. It gets listed in DMOZ after about a year because DMOZ is slow. User feedback of the site is superb. We try dam hard to ensure we maintain constant quality. The site is 100% relevent to Job related search terms.
Meanwhile, the site doesnt feature anywhere in the Google SERPS (well not anywhere relevent)no doubt because of some sort of filter because we have to many links to the site in a short period of time. The site has loads of sites that link and loads more that keep requesting to link. We send them our banner or text descriptions if they want to use them. The site is listed in almost every directory, the site features well in both MSN and Yahoo yet Google ignore it.
Frankly ive given up with Google. Whats the point?. Spam sites, directory sites and dire content sites rank higher in the SERPS than we do. Let them get on with it. If they just want to produce an index thats full of cr@p relevent content sites (but are sites that link well)let them do it. This is exactly what we currently see.
It looks to us that relevent content is now so far down the list that unless you are a directory, spam site, newspaper group, government office, uni/ school site etc etc you will find it difficult to list. Even More so if your site is less than 2 yrs old.
Currently the google results have NEVER looked so poor
So here is my analogy... If I were "Google" I would go "fishing" for those trying to game the system. First, I would put out some "chum"... slowly I would just they tell everyone that they (google) "likes" links and it counts as a vote and this will increase your site's position. This causes certain types of "fishes" to get into frenzy and they all try to link to each other (creating patterns). Then I would use the right "lure" to try and catch the fish... the "google toolbar". Those "fish" who are following the "chum" want links would in turn be attracted to the "lure" because everyday they could check the PR of sites they want to link to and their own sites to see if their linking has helped. Once I caught the "fish" using the "google toolbar lure", I can further identify the patterns of natural and unnatural linking because of the data collected. Then, once I have sunk the hook real good, I land the fish and deep fry'em... using a new seasoning called "allegra".
I apologize in advance about my first attempt at a "serious" post.
