Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
My site is an example of this, launched in 2000. At first I didn't know enough to do SEO, and as the business has grown I haven't had time to do it 'properly'. I just do the basics like keyword research to try and make sure content can be found by those who'll find it useful. The nature of the site means that we get a lot of feedback on what people want to know about in the field that we're in. The content is of high quality much of it written by qualified professionals who can write well in 'layman's' terms.
I have beat myself up in the past for not devoting enough time/resources to 'link building' for the site. Now I'm breathing a huge sigh of relief! If anything we have seen a slight benefit from Jagger so far, but not really a huge movement. (site averages 18,000 visits a day).
I think it is this mixture of quality content, and SEO that would probably be seen as 'inadequate' by professionals that has protected us from Jagger fallout.
I put up two small programming example pages last weekend with plain vanilla SEO and today they are #1 and #2 out of 100 mil and 50 mil respectively.
Now I can go back to writing pages without spending all my time tinkering with possible problems that probably never existed in the first place.
it's an interesting thing to think, but I honestly hope that they don't. I have a "related" feature that picks up a few related products (same category) each time the page loads. Why should I penalized for that? What's the reason from G's point of view? Just because some spammers do it?
Almost all news sites run "Related Stories", Latest Stories, Most E-mailed etc that definitely change between Google visits.
currently full of fake directory crap made for adsense ..deja vu ..no out bounds ..apart from the adsense that is ..
just noticed where previously I was showing 117 hard wired links to a small niche site ..now showing 7 incomings ..of which ..numbers 2, 3, and 4 are from a google groups thread from over 18 months ago ( running of course adsense all down the side of said thread ...sorry H ..I know I sort o promised and all but like I said I have no basic disagreement with policy at the plex ..just that being kinda old fashioned in some ways I like my PR men and women to say thats what they are ..and my enlightened self interested capitalistic companies to be open about their primary motivation ..that way I can pretend the world is "does and bunnies"....
maybe it's all just flashback ..
am I glad I don't depend on L and G and mr pension fund for my beer ( in my case vin rouge ) money ..
"Barking Up The Wrong Tree" springs to mind.
The sector i watch is celebs; names, pictures & wallpaper. Probably rubbished by most of you who read this and put it down to "fodder sites" as someone once told me i ran (not on WebmasterWorld).
Anyway the point of this:
www.some-diet-works-.com (fake) ranks #1 - daily cache
www.celeb-name-pictures.com (fake) ranks #30+ - whenever cache
diet site - bs, spam ibl's
celeb site - quality content, 90% that rank above it, link to it.
diet site - buy this, buy that, clickbank special, spam this, spam that.
celeb site - more on site pics and wallpaper than any above it. network ads + amazon.
I have 100+ sites. My main one got the chop on sept 22 for a filter (guessing) that i finally worked out yesterday (i hope). All my other sites so far still sitting as they were.
My main observation is that some things that seem to be true to one sector are blown out by another.
Ive seen a few guys talk about the travel sector, Im just not sure we can tie what they
are seeing to other sectors. I have chatted and discussed points with other WebmasterWorld members and what seems to affect one sector isn't another (Above observation)
They all seem to have their own set of rules / guidlines / policies - call them what you will.
My two cents aint worth much but feel better for saying it.
Carry on......... ;-)
[edited by: djmick200 at 12:06 am (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]
maybe it's all just flashback.
I totally agree. I've seen the same things, with old posts (in a G group) along older sites that have not been updated in awhile covering the 1st two pages of my SERPs. I wonder if G rolled back the algo on purpose, in order to try and let the "crud rise to the top" so they can be skimmed off.
Yeah, that's it - so the further down you are now, the better once Jagger3 rolls on in and skims off the top!
We could think of 4000 things, but just one or two could've caused the drop. Many of those things that Google has on the patent can't be implemented, at least not with the "drop the site to page 15" certainty. You might rank #2 instead of #1 but not outside the 500 range. Of course they could be accumulative: if you match 25 out of 40 you're a "spammer" but even then, not all have the same weight.
Our niche is easy to figure out though, the sites that survived give me very good counter examples to study.
It's not the specifics of the patent application (and keep in mind, that could simply be an enormous red herring filed by google to totally mislead seos. It's not a whitepaper, it's just a bunch of ideas that would be interesting to check out) that I'm interested in, it's the overall tone of it, the feel of the document, what you get if you ignore the words and focus on what they are really talking about in the thing. Same old stuff, people rarely say what they mean, but enough words will generally show what you meant no matter what you try to do. That's why I like it when gguy posts a lot.
Well I manage a major Superbowl 1/2 time website, they get to many darn hits to see any changes so this one does not point to much.
Another site dealing with technology services, 2 actually, got hit about 50-70% drop in total hits.
I think it is about the speed at which things take place on a site, one thing I did notice on another site I manage, (Trance Music Industry) is that I by mistake added many outbound links to another site I manage.
Both sites were hit, but what is odd is that... [one of them] it was a mistake in adding to many new outbound links I think. But hard to say as the other site did get the inbounds from all those mistake outbounds (links) I made.
One thing I wonder about is the site with a Pagerank 5 where I created many new content pages with these outgoing links lost most Google traffic. I would say out of 100 hits 3 are Google hits now (Use top be 1 out of 2), so does this mean it was a penalty or would I loose 100% of Google hits if so (Penalty)? (Never could quite figure this out)
I do manage at least 20 websites, a few of them big players in any industry... I do not tell everyone here all I see and know as it would just hurt each one of us.
I do think Google does his midnight walks on WebmasterWorld to spark new Spam reports to better Google only. I see them making it look like they are helping but I truly ask myself if this is the case; I think they are here for themselves. Now that Google is (GOOG) and at 353+ per share it is now about investors and mostly PPC, I know they want better results (SERPS) but I think fund managers and investors have mixed the milk with the whiskey so to speak. (Not a good combo) Would you drink it?
- Hollywood -
They don't care about any thing but the mighty $$$, plain and simple, if you people don't see this, you are blind!
Why else would they make the money terms hard to get?
If your site is still ranked good, don't worry, it won't be shortly!
All in my opinion of course!
I bet it was a large company or a directory, you know the one that could be found in a phone book or something that people who are searching already know about right?
of course, because that leaves the PPC spots available to collect the MONEY!
-We send google stuff (Spam reports ¦ posts ¦ etc) that help them directly.
-Google is on here each night asking for stuff from us to report DIRECTLY to them, to help them DIRECTLY
-What have they directly helped any of you here with.
Key point is the term directly, this aint no keyword term.
I ask you all this, what directly have they helped us with on any personal level directly? Maybe I am wrong and anyone can sit me down and smack me (smiling - only ladies though) but are there any accounts of direct help for any of us?
In a direct line or manner; straight: The road runs directly north.
Without anyone or anything intervening: directly responsible.
Exactly or totally: directly opposite.
At once; instantly: Leave directly.
Candidly; frankly: answered very directly.
Chiefly Southern U.S. In a little while; shortly: He'll be coming directly.
Amen - Back to my trance jam session and some beer - BIG cheers all in Poland, Holland, Italy and the rest!
[edited by: Hollywood at 1:44 am (utc) on Oct. 28, 2005]
Ive been seeing this for maybe 2 weeks now and the sites sure can't be found in yellow pages or phone books or whatever it was someone suggested.
Total online sites.