Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
As reported by rustybrick below, Matt Cutts and Google now do understand what happened and they are backing out of it, rolling out the changes through their many data centers.
And this brings up a bigger - and for me, even better - question. What were they trying to do? Is Google now continuing to do it, but without "the mistake"? How much "forced position" work does Google do in the top positions, especially now that Universal Search is the rule of the day?
We begin with observations from our community, as the signs of the rollback began to appear a few days ago:
[edited by: tedster at 9:00 pm (utc) on Jan. 29, 2008]
A side effect from something else (like something that was being done for testing purposes) isn't at all the same thing as a penalty.
If so, then my rankings got worse.... underneath people who are less than me. Stinks.
If it's not finished, then that would explain the really weird search results I had today. Was physically trying to find a place to "Buy ____ ____". Google refused to show me a darn retailer... only sites with article reviews, comparisons, etc.... it was stupid.
Since not one site in the niche serps I monitor was effected, and I never saw any site hit with this in thousands of searches this month, and I couldn't get anybody here to send me an example... I'd have to conclude this was industry or site type focused (with non-US IP being the most obvious explaination, even though it seems US IPs were hit too).
Anyway, if the mods were to say it was okay, it would be nice to see some sort of general identifiers of sites hit, like... non-US IP, widget seller with shopping cart, more than 100,000 pages, etc.
Obviously if there is commonality, future algo changes could effect this group again.
We happen to be a manufacturer.
The top ten show a total of two other sites, where the company is from another country. Then it's just directories... ack!
In my previous post, I was keying in 'Buy ___ ___'.... this term had absolutely nothing to do with the industry I'm in. I was actually looking to purchase a product for myself.
wasn't a PENALTY
lol are we seriously having this conversation again AFTER the fact.
Please see my original posts about "WHO CARES WHAT IT'S CALLED?"
Seriously, if it acts like a penalty, walks like a penalty, and quacks like a penalty, then people are going to call it penalty.
(As far as "taking credit", I'll take that medal with it being "human error") :-P
...if there is commonality, future algo changes...
The only commonalty from the brilliant SEO minds(aka, members here, Aaron Wall, Danny Sullivan, Barry Schwartz, etc) was that they were #1, #2 aka "authority" sites ranking for many terms.
I got to personally look at the several of the affected sites. They ranged from competitive to super-competitive to hyper-competitive and as the posts here continually suggested, showed no commonality that we could observe.
They ranged in all manners.
E-Commerce v. Information
Bought links v. all natural links v combinations
Small sites v. large sites v. medium sites
US v UK
etc.
My personal theory is that it had something to do with Universal Search.
What? How? Why?
I have no idea, but it smacks of the past 6 months of Goog clumsily trying to force Universal Search into SERPs with unnatural formats.
However, I was right that it wasn't a PENALTY which all the leading conspiracy theorists were claiming.
Seriously, if it acts like a penalty, walks like a penalty, and quacks like a penalty, then people are going to call it penalty.
[edited by: Marcia at 10:06 pm (utc) on Jan. 29, 2008]
Which makes for good linkbait and delights conspiracy theorists, but still does not make it a penalty.
Well considering I was the first person to publicly notice (and call it) the "-5 penalty" and I haven't written any articles or blog post about it, that theory is rather meaningless.
Even more meaningless, is the fact that my clients didn't care about any of the "definitions" given to it.
#1 to #6 for hundreds of terms affects people's/company's incomes. -.-
If you want to "debate" the proper terminology...Go at it.
But let's not rewrite history.
It acted like a -5 penalty or a #6 position "ceiling". And it was NOT a figment of our imaginations as many people argued.
Call it the "whitenight caused mass internet hyperchrondria effect" for all I care. The effects were the same!
If MC had kindly passed along the little tidbit about it being a "mistake" when he received the information, this would NOT have blow up into the "linkbait" it has become.
Personally I only know this "thing" was not evident at all within my niche. That's commonality in an anti way I suppose.
Seriously, if it acts like a penalty, walks like a penalty, and quacks like a penalty, then people are going to call it penalty
Seriously, if you're still in the top 10 it's NOT A PENALTY!
That's why that whole thing was stupid from the word GO!
If you want to see some real penalties, I can show you some, but being adjusted 6 spots and staying on the top 10 SERPs isn't one of them and never was.
FWIW, I never discounted that it couldn't have been a filter or a change in some criteria as several people managed to move up from the -6 filter, but it was simply that, a filter.
The same filter moved other people UP that moved some people DOWN, and now that those other people are moving back DOWN due to the rollback do they now have a penalty being applied?
Come on, lets' call it the ROLLBACK PENALTY (tm), let's get the conspiracy going! ;)
[edited by: incrediBILL at 11:02 pm (utc) on Jan. 29, 2008]
If MC had kindly passed along the little tidbit about it being a "mistake" when he received the information, this would NOT have blow up into the "linkbait" it has become.
Well stated White. It would seem that doesn't fit his particular modus operandi:)
Seriously, if you're still in the top 10 it's NOT A PENALTY!
are you purposely not understanding my point?!
I don't care what you call it.
My clients SAW the effects in their sales from losing 5 spots in the SERPs for over a month.
My clients do not run "hobby sites". They run businesses.
(You know, like the ones you see on the tickers on CNBC)
Believe it or not, a drop of 5 positions for a month for hundreds of hyper-lucrative terms is a HUGE impact for their net online profits. Capeche?!
Again, you pick the word to call it. Any one you want....
This is about business aka making money
- not bragging rights to friends and family,
- not nomenclature of SEO terms,
- nor selling SEO "guru" books, articles, or packages.
1. The term affected is the #1 big $ adwords term for your niche.2. The term has "Searches related to:" at the bottom of the SERPS.
In each of the two following cases in 3. and 4. "Searches related to:" no longer appears at the bottom of the page.
3. If you use a plural word in the search term it pops back in to #1 or #2. For example search for blue widget #6 but search for blue widgets and back to #1.
4. If you reverse the term and search for widgets blue rather than blue widgets it pops back into #1.
#1 does not mean that Adwords data is neccesarily messing into the organic SERPs. High search frequency is really all we know for sure.
#2 shows that user intention is not completely clear (did you want instructions, history, a place to buy?), given the high frequency of searches performed.
#3 and #4 - using the plural and/or reversing the word order - these factors did not always release the url from #6. I only saw that when the "Searches related to" stopped showing, as Hissingsid mentioned.
All the cases I know of were taking online payment - sometimes for physicaal goods, sometimes for virtual services, such as access to data or appplications.
[edited by: tedster at 1:41 am (utc) on Jan. 30, 2008]
All the cases I know of were taking online payment - sometimes for physicaal goods, sometimes for virtual services, such as access to data or appplication
Several of the sites people shared with me, sold "something" but didn't take online payments.
Their websites were just ads for brick and mortar businesses.
My clients SAW the effects in their sales from losing 5 spots in the SERPs for over a month.
I see fluctuation in the SERPs for my keywords every single day as Google is in constant flux in my niche so you think your clients are somehow special that they own those spots?
People move up, people move down, and even Google rolling back whatever change this is may or may not make a change for your clients and if your clients win other's clients/businesses will suffer but then it's someone else's problem which is OK.
This is about business aka making money
Who said it wasn't?
I earn a living from being in the top 10 so I'm totally sensitive to whatever changes happened but some people were able to break out of whatever this thing was, so it appears that SEO changes could still make a difference.
Like I said, if you want to see a real penalty I can show you sites (not mine) that were recently completely dumped from Google's index which used to make lots of money that now only show up in Yahoo, MSN and ASK.
Now THAT's a PENALTY!
Sliding from #3 to #9 may impact sales a little, oh wah, fact of life in any search engine, but sliding from #3 to not showing up anywhere means NO $ale$.
That's why SEO is a continuous thing and I'm always making adjustments when things go down to bring them back up because everyone else is also fighting for the same top 10 spots.
Your clients are no more entitled to the top 10 than I am or the other 100 people jockeying for position.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 11:30 pm (utc) on Jan. 29, 2008]
And no offense to you or all the mom and pop owners on here, but big business can expect that when I've given it to them for several years
If you're upset that I'm calling a reduction of 5 spots a "penalty" then that's really not my issue.
I'm no Google lover and in another thread, I will (and DO) rant and rave over Goog's nonsense "penalties" for mom and pop sites/niches, but that's really truly NOT the debate of this thread.
Now, can we move on.
(again, give it whatever definition you like, but let's stay on track)
And no offense to you or all the mom and pop owners on here, but big business can expect that when I've given it to them for several years
I think you forget that the internet is the great equalizer that puts "mom and pop" owners on a level playing field with "big business" in the organic search results.
My point wasn't that I took offense of it being called a "penalty" so you're obviously missing my point. My point was, and is, that I've seen many fluctuations in Google that could result in this much shift (or more) in the SERPs and other SEOs already found ways to circumvent the issue this time as well.
It was a simple situation of separation of the SEO men from the boys because the men went about figuring out and fixing it while the boys sit back and complained.
FYI, you shouldn't make assumptions about who's a mom and pop owner or who doesn't have corporate clients unless you like the taste of foot-in-mouth.
in the SERPs and other SEOs already found ways to circumvent the issue this time as well.
Who?! Where?! When?!
There was NO evidence of anyone "working" their way out.
In fact, Cain and I were the only 2 posters seeing rankings jump back and forth between #1 and #6.
And certainly, not a single person spoke about moving to #2, #3, #4, or #5 on this board or any other board when I issued the challenge.
So what revisionist history are YOU talking about?!
Trinorth talked about added content and yet NO OTHER PERSON could duplicate his results
One example does NOT make a "solution", it makes it an anomaly...just like Cain and I seeing our sites jumping back and forth.
All other "reports" of people working their way out were happening when or AFTER i had spotted the DCs flickering back and forth...
There was NO evidence of anyone "working" their way out.
OK, Aaron Wall claims he broke out to a #3 spot, it's on his blog and discussed all over the net. The only thing I took Aaron to task about was he did a shotgun approach and changed multiple things so he wasn't sure exactly which change got around the problem.
He's not the only one but if you only think that just because you never saw anyone discuss it on this specific forum that it didn't exist then that's just silly.
Think about this, if I or any other SEO knew the solution, would we:
a) tell you and everyone else we had a solution or,
b) make money taking advantage of the situation while it lasted and others didn't have a solution
I'm sure you know the answer ;)
Read the dates of all the internet posts by Aaron, Danny, Barry, WHOEVER, and compare them to my posts in the 3 threads (starting in the Dec Serps changes).
This isn't CSI, my friend. Simply follow the trail of dates and WHO was saying what....
You can claim "you had it figured out" all you want.
Feel free to claim your success AFTER the fact.
That's absolutely laughable.
There was NO evidence of anyone "working" their way out.
In fact, Cain and I were the only 2 posters seeing rankings jump back and forth between #1 and #6.
Trinorth adding content is NO proof of *anything* being a penalty, nor is it proof that simply adding content is any kind of a remedy for correcting the "mistake," nor for that matter, is it proof that anyone knows what they're talking about (or doesn't).
IMHPO, one of tedster's points a few posts back (re hissingsid's comments) is hitting a significant algo factor (anamoly if you prefer) right on the noggin. Which has been discussed here a number of times in recent months, but I suppose not really taken seriously for practical application.
Added:
Someone thinking they "own" any places in the SERPs and have a *right* to them, has about as much validity as someone claiming to *own* the Brooklyn Bridge and put it up for sale.
[edited by: Marcia at 12:19 am (utc) on Jan. 30, 2008]
The phenomenon continued, and people (including myself) mentioned at various times of breaking out of the phenomenon at the time, which in fact I believe they did not.
All they seen was a switch to difference DC's and different SERP's as I did. Once I tracked this carefully I noted three major SERP's at that time, one of which had some previous (aka no-6 results) and the other two which has this issue.
At that time, I felt it was a bug or error, and that it was likely nobody at Google HQ was going to acknowledge it.
As much as I respect Aaron and the contributions he has made to our community, he did not "break out" of anything. The phenomenon has been fixed, and had nothing to do with anything he did on his website, even if that seems to correspond to when the changes took effect. If he seen changes earlier, it was because three days before the issue was announced, more DC's were switching already.
Ok, marcia, bill, and whoever else wants to say they had it figured out and were quietly racking in the dough, but not posting at the time, and now suddenly are posting like gangbusters.
You all have fun! I'm Audi.
Ok, marcia, bill, and whoever else wants to say they had it figured out and were quietly racking in the dough, but not posting at the time, and now suddenly are posting like gangbusters.
>>You all have fun! I'm Audi.
[j/k]And I own the Brooklyn Bridge.[j/k]
tedster:
#2 shows that user intention is not completely clear (did you want instructions, history, a place to buy?), given the high frequency of searches performed.
[webmasterworld.com...]
If it indeed was some kind of "filter," then rather than filtering sites for "spam" or something worth of a penalty (which I assume the spam team would have been aware of - but wasn't), what are the possibilities of what some pages hit filters for? Could it have been because they were throwing off signals of ambiguity? And that the SERPs were being filtered for reasons completely unrelated to spam filtering (aka penalties)?
Read Ted's #2 again, a few times. Sometimes hindsight really can be 2020.
[edited by: Marcia at 12:40 am (utc) on Jan. 30, 2008]
You can claim "you had it figured out" all you want
Did I claim I figured anything out?
It would sure be nice if people could actually read what I write.
The appropriate phrase was "IF", as in "If I or any other SEO" and you also assumed that anything I knew, assuming I knew it, was known AFTER those posted dates.
Did I not say that not everyone posts what they know?
How can that be a post-mortem?
I love watching spin.
I would still not call this a penalty by no means, if you’re in the top 10 you are already doing very well. A -30,-950, a ban now that is a penalty!
1. Position 1 has not been recovered in every case. I see #4 relatively commonly, or bouncing between #1 and #4. In another case, the url is now at #2. So there is some residual effect carried through from this episode. These urls absolutely ruled their niche for a year, or two, or more.
2. Universal Search entries now appear on several of these searches where there were none before.
3. In one case, the number of "Searches Related to" is down to three entries from eight. In another case the "Searches related to" entries have vanished altogether.
3. In one case, the number of "Searches Related to" is down to three entries from eight. In another case the "Searches related to" entries have vanished altogether.
There are now 8 "related searches" listed at the bottom of the first page in the SERPs, and while they're definitely "related" to some greater or lesser degree, none are synonyms, and not all are expanded derivations of the two-word search term (only two are, they're 3-word).
I think a guess that this was something phrase-based wouldn't be too far off the mark, and neither would a suspicion that there's "query expansion" based on word sense disambiguation be without foundation. Just looking at "related searches" is enough to assume that a two-word search term may not be focused enough to meet users' needs. There's also possibly co-occurrence at play, as evidenced by those eight, which I believe could well be why trinorthlighting experienced a positive result by adding content.
If I can bend the rules a bit by using "skiing" as an example (definitely not me, I'm deathly afraid of heights and the very thought of a ski lift makes me dizzy - I wouldn't even look at such sites), a search for skiing would be WAY too general to meet user needs, who may be looking for ski equipment, resorts, gear, boots, jackets, etc. So while that word isn't ambiguous, the search itself is ambiguous because it doesn't really specify what a searcher is looking for.
That's where "related searches" can come into play, and why for example a search for ski vacations could pull up a related search suggestion for "ski boots" - because it's liable to have co-occurred within a certain threshold of times on pages/sites.
I don't think anyone could know with any measure of certainty what happened, but the idea of it being a penalty just doesn't line up.
