Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
What some site owners are reporting is that search rankings that have held for a long time, often at #1, were knocked down begun to #6. These reports happen often enough that it looks like there might be something specific going on. However, there are always ranking shifts, so zeroing in on exactly this one thing can be difficult.
-- Here are the main signs --
1. Well established site with a long history.
2. Long time good rankings for a big search term - usually #1
3. Other searches that returned the same url at #1 may also be sent to #6, but not all of them
4. Some reports of a #2 result going to #6.
-- What we can identify so far --
A. It's search term specific (usually the biggest and best converting phrase)
B. Therefore, not a url or domain-wide penalty on all terms
C. A little testing on one site seems to show it's not an on-page problem
D. That leaves off-page but on-site, or off-site, or posibly backlink issues
-- Some loose guesswork and brainstorming --
i. Backlink profiles are not diverse enough - is this a new algo tweak on that factor?
ii. Backlinks are aging or stagnating, with no new ones being added?
iii. I thought about the possibility of paid link devaluation (even going back two or three steps from the site) but that would not consistently place a url at #6, so I've ruled that out.
Is anyone else seeing this Position #6 problem? Something like this could be hard to separate out from all the other movement that the SERPs show.
However, I've now seen it happen to key terms on three different sites operated by the same person (different WhoIs, no incestuous linking) and two corporate sites. Plus there are several other reports in the Decemeber SERP Changes thread. Every one of these cases seems to be hitting the domain root, and not internal url.
I'm not happy with the current level of analysis, however, and definitely looking for more ideas.
[edited by: tedster at 6:28 pm (utc) on Dec. 29, 2007]
Hard to see why only a partial of all keywords would fall to 6, and why that position is the magic number.
I see this for one website affecting inner pages. On the other website it is affecting the root url.
Just to add a few other bits:
One site uses paid links, the other does not.
One website has natural links built (there is no active link building campaign) The other has a small level link campaign going
Both websites get diverse cross section of new links.
[edited by: CainIV at 1:15 am (utc) on Dec. 27, 2007]
Optimizing pages for speed seemed to help improve their lot.
May be that's also a change.. as I haven't seen much on 6th position but definitely Google is doing some vast changes
If there is such a phenomenen then what would be interesting to know is what is replacing the demoted pages as this may equally be a promotion to Position #1 phenomenon.
So many people clutching at straws these days that Google discussions are becomeing more and more pointless, just IMO.
Paul
If there is such a phenomenen then what would be interesting to know is what is replacing the demoted pages as this may equally be a promotion to Position #1 phenomenon.
no that would be something entirely different.
I do not see that my site has changes on other DCs.
Still solid position 6 across the board for a broad combination of 2 & 3 keyword phrases.
For the ranking shifts I've looked at, the previous #2 is what moved to #1 - in fact the rest of the top sites did not shuffle around or see new entries. However, the sample size here is still quite small.
Among those who've recently seen this happen, do any of the ideas I shared hold true for your demoted sites? No recent backlink growth, for instance? Or how about an unusually high number of exact keyword-match anchor text - compared to the website's domain name, which normally would be high in the kind of natural or spontaneous linking that Google likes to see?
I can confirm that this is occuring on a few phrases I watch for. I am in the process of testing for link volume growth for specific time periods to see if this is a factor -- looking at the 1 through 5 rankings, I can definitely say it is not an on-page manner, nor is it something devaluing paid links/reviews.
If anything, the sites falling have a better link diversity profile than the ones not falling (on the examples I'm aware of) so a volume test seems like the best bet.
The first occurance I noticed was Dec 6th; an influx of links resulted in a rebound within 3 weeks (#6 back to 1 and 2)...unfortunately, whether it was the volume or the simple matter of newly acquired link strength is difficult to say. A follow up test is currently in the works.
<edit>5 different phrases which have overlapping keywords</edit>
The position changes appeared intermittently until seeming fairly sustained since Dec 24.
The downgrades were predominantly to 6 and these are the most competitive terms.
We remain at one for <edit>one phrase with a different modifier</edit> which was created using that term in anchor text inbound.
The wholesale move to no. 6 seems too much to be a coincidence.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:27 pm (utc) on Dec. 27, 2007]
[edit reason] removed specifics [/edit]
Tedtster threw out some possible traits, and one we are probably guilty of is no real new back links of any significance. Complacency could be the culprit, but when something’s working you tend to leave it alone. This site also suffered a drop in PR last update, and even then we really began to wonder about age of links. Used to think age of links somehow made them superior to newer ones; but right now we have some doubts about that. Of course we have not changed the content in quite some time, so possible staleness there as well.
They really do seem enamored with these “penalties” or rote, ranking reductions at the plex these days.
Doesnt seem like a coincidence...but very odd.
I will be watching this thread very closely!
One thing I notice is that I do hold alot of supplemental pages in relation to normal 'indexed' pages. ie. similar meta desriptions/title.
In the process of amending these and waiting for results.
Stagnation could be something.internal link structure has noit been amended for a few years...my competitors have been link exchanging like crazy (reciprocal)..in the old days I thought google would have come down on this.
iii. I thought about the possibility of paid link devaluation (even going back two or three steps from the site) but that would not consistently place a url at #6, so I've ruled that out.
We personally in the past few years, have not seen any site that is heavily involved in old school link exchanging, or involved in the paid link market, drop in ranking whatsoever. I know a lot of people recently saw some sort of round of knock downs for sites engaged in paid links, but we did not. Especially during these “penalty” threads, it’s important to mention this. The sites, over the past year that we see doing better, relative to other sites, are in fact those sites that are engaging in aggressive link building tactics, through exchanges, purchases and even interlinking between sites.
“Linking”, of any sort seems to help (despite a lot of “talk” to the contrary). Maybe its time to start thinking that a lack of active new linking, just may be more of a risky strategy.
I have gone the 'old school' route, preferring one way inbounds wherever possible, and having few outbounds on my homepage.
But I have slipped down to 6th. Perhaps heavy reciprocal linking does not now trigger am 'over optimisation' penalty anymore?
No offense, but I often study(and keep databases on) my competitors even more than my actual sites. As others stated in the previous thread, I really don't care what it's called - bug/glitch (we hope), penalty, demotion, filter, "whatever".
A jump from #1-#3 to #6 in almost any niche is a huge difference. I can name only a very few (like 10-20) impossibly competitive terms where the top 5 sites are interchangeable. On the 99.99999999% of all other keyword terms, the #1, #2, and/or #3 pages have a huge difference in overall "ranking factors" than the #4-#10 entries.
To even further debunk the "competitors are just gaining" red herring. For some of my clients terms, they are far and away the #1 "site" by any metric possible. And in no possible way would the #3-#5 site be ranking above them by any human or computer standards -- sans penalty/filter.
(I could see where the #2 might surpass us, but certainly not the other 3 pages)
Which again points to the basic facts tedster laid out in the original post.
Hopefully, we won't need to have this particular discussion again. I can and have ruled this out immediately -- which is why I originally posted it as a "-5 penalty" (aka Position #6 penalty) and not "sour grapes" about the algo changing or competitors being "better"
Now, on to solutions....
------------------------------
Can anyone rule out the suggestion about slow-loading pages?
While it seems unlikely Google would be dense enough to apply the penalty for that reason, they've been known to use odder logic.
Overall Link Growth -- while I can't rule this out with any certainty, pages in question do engage in a steady, but natural link-building process.
Paid Links Devaluation -- I agree with tedster. No evidence of this even following sites 3 back.
Has anyone added new pages which point to the penalized pages with similar or new anchor text?
Has anyone added new backlinks with substantially different anchor text to those pages?
--------------------
Yes, I'm still seeing short burst (about 10 minute periods) of the penalized pages returning to former rankings. (for some terms)
Slow loading is a possibility.
Focus on why the one site dropped -- that is the productive path.
Jim
Is it vanity? Surely it can't be something that I did!
I've just noticed a competitor page with two keyphrases at the dreaded six, but the same site owner at twos and threes with much less optimized sites. Could it be over-zealous on page optimization being dampened?
My own client site has been the subject of recent heavy WPG driven optimization which is doing wonders on Yahoo and MSN/Live and luckily overall our business objectives look in better shape taking all into consideration.
By the way I've been an SEO 6 years full time.
