Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
The update now appears to be over. So let's discuss the algo.
What I think google changed in the algo this update...
- Backlinks count for less. I see pages with a handful of less than outstanding quality doing well.
- Keyword density counts for more. I see poorly linked pages stuffed with a set of keywords doing well.
- Semantics / LSI - no evidence. If anything I notice a narrowed focus works better. 'clothes for women'!= 'clothes for her'!= 'clothes for woman' in Google right now.
- Hilltop = no evidence. Seeing pages from small, obscure, never seen before sites ranking well.
- On page factors count for more. It's the only way I can explain some pages rankings.
- No evidence of penalising affiliate sites.
There's a start... my tuppence worth.
I look forward to reading your analysis / thoughts.
ps: mods, please help keep this thread clean by deleting rants / moving to other Allegra thread.
and I had Heineken for breakfast the day before my rankings tanked. I doubt Google would rely on a third party to ban sites. Not to mention that e-mail spamming has nothing to do with your site's content
For five years I spent some time every day tweaking on-page stuff, link hunting, and monitoring G's every twitch. The basic Brett's G-in-twelve program. It got my site positioned more or less where I wanted.
Over the past six months I was distracted by other issues and did no SEO on the site at all. New inbound links have appeared on their own, nothing much else happened on the site.
Now, with all the posts about Allegra I thought I had better take a detailed look at my logs and check my list of keywords to see how G was positioning us in the SERPs.
Referrals from G are running at just over double the volume of six months ago. SERP positions for my money keywords are as high or higher (#2, #6, #4, #1...) than when I left them. Inner pages that had never ranked well had taken positions above the fold on page one. Overall, the best situation my site has ever achieved.
Is there some actual benefit to doing nothing?
Is G penalising competing sites for doing SEO?
Even with the filter=0 option I can't find the site. Pages with links to the missing site are showing up, including orphaned supplamental pages.
1)A search for a non-competetive term that I formally ranked #1 for now has me at #13. The #1 spot and three of the top ten are Ebay re-directs. Another in the top ten is an actual Ebay url.
Conclusion?: Whatever they did to try and fix their re-direct problem has really screwed up the serps.
They also haven't done anything to thwart the spam. They're still obviously very susceptible to google bombing and link manipulation.
2) My link count is down from 908 to 714. I'm sure most of the links I've lost were internal links because I've been continually adding links from other sites. Conclusion: Downgrading internal anchor text links would explain a lot of the movement I've been seeing.
Is there some actual benefit to doing nothing?
Is G penalising competing sites for doing SEO?
I would say no to both. The more I change my site the more often google returns for more. And when I mess up a page and the rank drops Google returns right after I have fixed it and boosts the rank again. I can add new pages and within 2 days they are in the serps and usually ranking high for their major keywords. I can also tweak the keywords on a page that isn't ranking well and watch the results in a few days.
I thus say--Google likes fresh content on a well designed page.
1. On one site, backlinks, as shown by Google, were alternating between 49 external backlinks (dec), 89 internal only backlinks (Jan) and 22 external only backlinks (Feb). Now what's that all about?
2. In addition, the Google Dir/DMOZ listing in the Google toolbar for this client went away for a while, only to come back mysteriously about 10 days ago.
3. The PR dropped from 5 to 4 while all this went on.
Something is definately going on and it's not over yet.
Good: on-topic links out
Very, very Bad: irrelevant links out
Good: on-target links in
Bad: impertinent links in
Outstanding: directly on-topic link in from an authority site and containing keyword phrase
Good: directly on-topic link in from a site
Good: directly on-topic link out to an authority site
Ugly: unnatural, repeated keywords in paragraph text
Neutral: keywords repeated in separate anchor texts
Very good: Broad, rich presentation of a topic
Good: Specialized presentation of a topic with authority links out
Good: keyword phrase in anchor text of many relevant pages
I also have my own text on the pages, including drop-down menus for finding stores that carry the widgets in different states, and a line that reads "Click here to visit our Acme widgets page to find information about all models of Acme widgets."
I've done this very same thing with other sites before, and those sites rank in the top five for the desired keywords.
Could this be close enough to duplicate content that the new algo would push a new site such as mine into a black hole, while leaving mature sites alone?
In my niche, 10s of 1000's of template sites put out by a dozen or so companies are very common. In December I saw many of these sites that share similar hosts take big dumbs. It seemed that Google had turned the LocalRank knob a bit too much and filtered out the weaker sites on these IPs. This has definitely eased with this update and many of these sites have come back.
What happened on Feb 2nd? I got killed in the SERPs - my daily referal stats went from this:
Google - 52% (350+ referrals)
Yahoo - 21%
MSN - 12%
to this:
MSN - 38%
Yahoo - 30%
Google - 12% (<100 referrals)
I'm still seeing lots of sites above me that have 0 page rank, off-topic subjects, and sometimes don't even contain the entire keyphrase in their page.
What I do see:
> PageRank mania - almost no correlation - random PageRank for results 1-100
> Longer page titles, de-emphasis on this element
> Less keyword density in overall page
> Higher ranking for pages with keywords embedded in internal hyperlinks
> Possible dupe filter increase
Anybody else?
A week ago:
Google.com and most IPs: #3 in 42 million results
Big Index 'A': position #6 in 60 million
Big Index 'B': position #7 in 64 million
Now:
Google.com and most IPs: #3 in 42 million results
Big Index 'A': position #2 in 64 million <<
Big Index 'B': position #7 in 68 million
One of the "big index" versions has evolved. It has all of the pages of the big index as of last week, but the SERPs order is the same as the older "small" index.
I see a similar pattern with a number of other searches. One IP set looks like a melding of the two indexes and algorithms.