Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 34.204.173.45

Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi

Message Too Old, No Replies

The "Minus Thirty" Penalty - part 2

#1 yesterday and #31 today

     
1:49 am on Nov 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:July 2, 2006
posts:24
votes: 0


< continued from [webmasterworld.com...] >

Hello All.

After some time after my site was affected by the -30 penalty, and after reading the latest posts left after my last message I did some research on my own site and site of my competitor which was affected by this penalty in the same day with my site.
I'll try to summarize all of our latest thoughts on this topic and real data from our sites and SERPs.

1.

Even a few affiliate pages that go to those CJ, LS links. Remove them!

As I said earlier, my site is a 5-year old resource directory and consists of 5 pages.
Top ranked was always ONLY Index page. No other page was shown in top SERPs ever, and
this Index page was penalized.

The Index page has 84 links to external sites, 4 link to internal pages, and 9 links to affilliate sites.
The second content page has 161 links to external sites, 4 links to internal pages, and 0 affiliate links.
First Information page has links to 30 product pictures, 3 links to internal pages and 11 affiliate links.
Second Info page before penalty had links to same 30 product pictures as on the first page, 2 links to internal pages and 8 affiliate links. (To avoid dup. content issue I had yesterday replaced thease 30 links with links to other, different product pics).

Each and every link from our site, regular or affiliate is highly relevant to our site's subject and SE keywords, with no exceptions.

And after I had looked over all this data I see only two potentially thin affiliate pages on my site:
First and Second info pages. But honestly, I'm not sure can thease pages be classifyed as thin affiliate pages or not.

Okay, perhaps we found one potentially reason for -30 penalty, but IMHO it's not a reason.

2.

Excessive anchor text (using same anchor text) about 1000 times.

Which exactly anchor text? Anchor text on my site for outbound links or text of the links to our directory from oter sites?
If outbound links - there are only 2, maximum 3 combinations for each SK phrase in anchor text on the Index
page and 8 repetition of one of the main keyword for this phrase. (97 links total on the page).
Is this excessive anchor text? I'm absolutely not sure.

About inbound links - I don't think It can be the reason. If it could be, then I can downshift my competitors site in SERPS just if I'll add hundreds of links to his site from different pages on different domains. I don't think G can be so easily tricked.

So, my site is not overloaded with excessive anchor text, but it still penalized, so perhaps it's not the main reason for this type of penalty.

3.

Also, if there is in fact a -30 penalty that is manually applied, it could be something as
simple as - Writing a script to list all the top 15 sites for a previously specified selection of
search terms. (could be generated via another program, or by hand) Then, remove all sites that fall
into #*$!x parameters. (could be shopping cart based, or whatever. Pick your poison) The ones that
are left are used to fix the natural search... just in time for the shopping season I might add.

Not so simple. There are to many parameters. One site is about literature, other is about car tuning,
third is about history of art.
How to define what each surfer want to find? If I'm searching for "antique literature", it's does't mean
that I want to buy such books, maybe I'm looking for online texts or history of some books? If I
searching for "red cars" it doesn't mean that I want to buy them, perhaps I just want to find some
kind of online catalog of thease cars, or want to read about work process and how thease cars where
built. How can G knows what is inside of my head. If they run such algos, they incur to much, and finaly -
they can not make it just due to human nature. Of cource this is IMHO.

4.

>>>>>>>>But the content is not exactly what user may want to see.... like page made xyz-pictures
has no pictures in it instead it has content which say xyz-pictures etc.

And finally as I think very interesting idea.
As I said, our site is a DIRECTORY. It consists of descriptions and links to other sites higly relevant to our narrow subject. In other words, we actually do not have on our site "red cars", but we exactly know where they are, and surfer can easily find them in our directory. But our directory is all about "cars", we have info where to find "cars", we have links to sites only about "cars" e.g. site is highly relevant to this SK, BUT site hasn't "cars" on it, and perhaps this is the possible reason for penalty.
More, my competitors site which was penalized in the same day with my own site, is the Directory site too, with the same subject and the same "problem". It has only links to SK's, but not the SK's by
itself.

BUT. As I can see from current SERPS, there are enough directories with our subject left in top SERPS, and they are not penalized due to it's nature. So, the truth is out there..... :)

[edited by: tedster at 1:54 am (utc) on Nov. 14, 2006]

7:02 pm on Nov 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 1, 2003
posts:303
votes: 1


europeforvisitors, if you read careful what you qouted me on.. I was specifically talking about reviews and consumer feedback on products, vacations, etc. Not the actual item. Significant difference. I was clearly referring to "widgetco wc-1 camera reviews" or "hotel widgetville consumer feedback"

Google isn't a shopping guide, no. It's a search engine. But it is used tremendously as a shopping guide, an incredible one that I myself use.

< continued here: [webmasterworld.com...] >

[edited by: tedster at 11:40 pm (utc) on Nov. 22, 2006]

This 151 message thread spans 6 pages: 151