Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
So, if I am page 1, #1, I go to page 2, #1. Page 1, #3 gets pushed to Page 2, #3. And so on. Every one I checkd was the same. +10.
Is it just coincidence? Roll out of caffeine? Or is google trying to hint something to me?
The reason I am suspicious is because every time I've "lost" rankings in the past 6 months, the rankings I track for myself have always gone down 10 spots. Every time. I didn't recognize the pattern until now - I never thought there might BE a pattern... Since this is the 6th time in recent months, it seems to me it is too much to just be a coincidence. It really feels like a systematic penalty. And in the SERPs I am tracking, ALL of the other positions around me are static.
Anyone else with this same observation?
Of course, meanwhile back at the ranch, I am panicking, assuming it IS a warning shot, and I am trying to fix everything I can. Literally, as I write this, on my other screen, I am watching a new version of my site get compiled which is adding <cut-and-paste the text I just finished pasting all through my code> rel="nofollow" everywhere I can think of, in addition to noindexes...
So, of course I am not sitting still, hoping for the best. I am being incredibly "proactive", even though I suspect I will get my ranking back in 0-36 hours.
Still, while the right side of my brain frantically directs coding changes, my left side is wondering if I am blowing smoke.
So, that's the question I posed - I keep losing ranking and getting it back. Why? Is it specific to me, or is it just Google goofing around? I have to assume it is me. But... As I make changes, if my ranking keeps yo-yoing, hell, I guess I need to keep looking for more changes to make. Whatif it turned out I made all these chanes and it was google all this time? #*$! I wasted tons of time, and I worried needlessly.
Hence my question here, if it is me, what the hell is it?<grin> The changes I just made this morning, was THAT it? What I "fixed" this morning, was that major and fatal and the root cause, or was it moot? Or is there something else going on? ; )
It is an important distinction, and an important point, because it really does go to is there something I can do, or am I simply a pawn in a larger chess game google is playing with its results?
helpnow,
besides caribguy's good advice,
you are making this waaaay too complicated.
You've been reading too many "Google penalty conspiracy" threads. =P
Your specific pages' issues can resolved with a week.
Since you've read the yo-yo threads,
you'll note how many times I warned against the
"Google is targeting my site specifically" mentality.
Quite honestly, you've been lazy with your SEO for those pages and other sites are passing you by.
Honestly, I am wondering about the 2 options, is it me or is it google? My site is not perfect, I know there are issues. Over time, I've cleaned up lots of issues, but I know there are even more. But no site with more than 100 pages is going to be perfect.
Anyway, I know what you're saying, and I've been drawn into this conversation by others' responses.
Have I been lazy? In some ways, yes. ; ) I have always worked solely on MY site, and have not worried about how my site is regarded externally, or who links to me. To rank well means I need to worry about that? Yes, I have been lazy in that regard - I've made 0 effort in that regard. It is a mind-shift for me. You're suggesting I close my eyes and just jump in, the water's fine... <shrugging> I want to peek at the water, dip my toe in, make sure it makes sense. ; ) SEO is both on-page and off-page - I've been lazy with off-page, that's for sure. It is shocking and disturbing for me to find out it is all about off-page issues.
The reason I am upside down, is, it has never ben about link profile. I never had rankings issues before, and when I did, it was easily attributable, fixed and restored.
This time is different. yo-yoing. No stats are changing for the worse, but still yo-yoing.
So, I hear you on link profile. But why now? Since when was this such a big deal? And why site-wide? I coudl understand page by page, but, site-wide? I am down site-wide. That's the brain-f--k for me, why site-wide? When I see site-wide ranking problems, I assume it is a site-wide issue, not a page-by-page issue. And that's what link profile is, site-wide, really. I mean, I have tons of links coming in to me for pages all over the place, good links, from Pr9, Pr8, etc. They've gathered constantly over the years. Why now, is my link profile causing a site-wide push down the SERPs, now?
I mean, fine, I'll go improve my link profile, but, I don't have that nice and clean feeling I've had in the past about ranking issues, where it was cut and dried, cause-and-effect clear, very obvious. This requires a lot of squinting to see it. ; )
And hence my questioning - if I invest my time on link profileing, page by page, my fear is I am missing the forest for the trees.
Or maybe I don't understand link profiling? Is there a point where, as you work page-by-page, that the effect begins to help your whole site more than just the individual pages? If so, where is the threshold?
I'll go improve my link profile, but, I don't have that nice and clean feeling I've had in the past about ranking issues, where it was cut and dried, cause-and-effect clear, very obvious. This requires a lot of squinting to see it. ; )
And now it's still not enough.
Welcome to the real Goog holidays, where your parents have to pay for those gifts you thought were free.
Or maybe I don't understand link profiling? Is there a point where, as you work page-by-page, that the effect begins to help your whole site more than just the individual pages?
Note that you are still in a better position than most.
It's obvious Google likeD your site, it still does.
It's just starting to like other sites more...
They bought new cars, got better jobs, got makeovers and are more attractive now.
You still get a call for lunch tho'. =P
You just need to remind Goog why it liked you to begin with.
ie.
Have some of goog's closer friends remind them, you're still attractive.
lol enough with the analogy.
Answer is: Yes, there's a cumulative effect but you might not ever get back the original rankings for EVERY page.
Start with the top 10 best converting, then top 50, then top 100.
And realize maybe some lesser pages don't get the same love they used.
The more you start working with this "new" off page stuff,
the sooner you'll start finding ways to get ALL the pages some link love.
Some people on here have hundreds of thousands to millions of pages they would like ranked and get links for.
it can be done.
a bunch of good links to a #*$!ty page?
I'll let tedster and others give you the "do both" argument.
Again, realize you already HAVE the good content.
That's why you were ranking so well to begin with.
Still, while the right side of my brain frantically directs coding changes, my left side is wondering if I am blowing smoke.
How about concentrating on building a stronger website than anyone else, which includes inbound links, content, theming, relativity, outbound links to quality topically relevant pages, etc and let Google play the yo-yo game...
If you really think the 'errors' (rankings / yo-yoing) will be corrected by some onsite coding changes, unless you have redirect issues (including stacked 301's causing you to lose inbound link weight through those redirects and possibly, yet unlikely 302 issues), duplicate content issues (which are generally due to poor server-side scripting or cananicalization) or just plain spam tactics in your source code (including tag stuffing, hidden text / links (which can be 2px text or text of the same or essentially the same color as the background)), then you are IMO sorely mistaken...
I personally think you have highlighted your main problems in your second post:
We don't care at all about SEO
Too many other people do and with the number of pages you state you have I can guarantee you there are a large number of people who DO CARE about SEO gunning for your rankings, probably for more keywords than your care to think about.
we don't do anything deliberate in an attempt to climb our rankings
You better, especially if your rankings are suffering.
We don't add many more pages now, mostly just build content on what we have.
So, you totally changed your growth pattern?
Let's see, you stopped adding new pages, which probably cuts down on your 'fresh' and 'new' inbound link count (they're not the same). 'Fresh' links directly effect the 'freshness' of a page, and indirectly effect the 'freshness' of the other pages on your site. Plus, a drop in 'new inbound links' has a direct effect on inbound link growth rate, which likely directly effects link churn rate... Hmmmm... Both 'fresh' and 'new' links might have something to do with SEO and rankings.
But no site with more than 100 pages is going to be perfect.
LOL. I beg to differ, but I think I read some others posts stating you should not concentrate on onsite code as much as you seemed to be, which I have to agree with, for reasons I'm not sure if I can post... Just know coding is probably not the answer... Fix the issues you have, then move on quickly.
[edited by: tedster at 6:07 pm (utc) on Oct. 15, 2009]
Which is most likely to get a page to #1, awesome unique bang-on content, or a a bunch of good links to a #*$!ty page?
A crappy page with back links will rank MUCH better than a great page with no back links. Obviously, it's still a lot easier to get links to a good page. And If your site has a good internal structure, then external links to other pages and to the home page will circulate their juice to all pages through your internal links.
New links matter, unless your business is a true monster with back links to burn. Some fresh or updated content also matters to maintain rankings as time goes by.
The Google game has always been about back links - they're the foundation that Google was built on. There's been some public comment from the top Google people recently about how many factors they use in addition to links. Well, yes they do. But when you're targeting major search terms, then out of all those hundreds of factors, links are still the elephant and the rest are rather mouse-like.
Think about links as a kind of marketing - if your business were not on the web, you would do some marketing. You would not just build out a pretty store interior and wait for the world to find you. No, you would find a great location, put up an exterior sign, and then take a bunch of other steps to get the marketplace talking about you, thinking about you, recommending you, etc. Link building is the web version of that.
New links matter, unless your business is a true monster with back links to burn.
I think this is true to a point and for a matter of time, but 'links to burn' are actually like a pile of wood, and if you burn them long enough without replenishing them you're going to run into issues. IMO even more so since the algo has become more pattern based.
In all honesty if I was competing against you I would probably build a number of smaller sites and take your rankings one section at a time, because I think I could present a better pattern of 'current growth' with a number of smaller, more targeted sites than you can with a single big one... (At least right now, based on what you've stated.)
Seriously, if you want to think about pattern based rankings think about having 'piles of wood' (logs, fireplace)...
What does your 'link pile' say about your site:
Is it growing or declining?
What does your 'content pile' say about your site:
Is it growing or declining?
Are your piles 'nice and fresh', so people want to visit them (click on them in the SERPs) and tell other people about them (link to them), or are they 'old and rotting', so people avoid them (click back right away) and don't want to send their visitors to them anymore (remove their links)?
If I have competing piles of wood how could I out do you, even with a smaller site(s)? I could grow my piles faster than you do or decline slower if we are both on the decline, and stay 'fresher' as well as 'more focused' thereby presenting a 'better overall pattern' than it seems you are right now...
C. Google are complete morons as clickthrus are easier to fake than links.
Just because I really enjoy debating...
A click is easy to fake, but would you spoof a click-back?
Click = 0
Click-Back = -1
I think I might be able to find a way to use click-data in rankings if I was really creative...
Click through and then click-back on every site, except yours? Might help a bit, but I think they might be able to find a way to use the information from click-thru, then click-back to some extent. Seriously, think about how advanced Google's algo is and think about all the different factors you could test to see if people were gaming it if you had it set up this way... The click-thru and click-back would have to come from the same IP address, just to start the ball rolling on things you could / could not do to try and 'push sites down' around yours.
<added>
Just so no one thinks I'm going too far OT...
@ helpnow
How's your average time on site?
Has it increased or decreased over time?
Could you make your site more 'sticky' through design or content?
How do you think you compare to other sites in your niche for average time per visit, over time, of course?
There's way more to SEO than just links...
Yes, I'll agree links are most important, but there are other factors in the algo we should not forget about either. If you're a SE, how do you tell if a page in the results with a bunch of links satisfied the search of a visitor? IMO those are some of the other factors impacting rankings.
</added>
what were saying about consdescending?
< pats madscientist on the head while murmuring "that's a nice idea hun" >
Seriously, think about how advanced Google's algo is..
different factors you could test to see if people were gaming it if you had it set up this way
Much learning, you need, in the ways of the dark side, young one. =P
lol, ill debate you on another topic.
Like I said, i made a special consideration for helpnow.
All others must pay. ;)
[edited by: tedster at 7:27 pm (utc) on Oct. 15, 2009]
:) lol, trying to bait me?
I wouldn't post to try and extract information from someone...
How could you possibly insinuate such a thing?
Rude I tell ya... Just plain rude. :)
Making sequential onsite changes because you're in a yo-yo is mad. You're likely to get stung with a -30, especially if you start messing with the <title> element.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't make onsite change, just that you should know what you are trying to achieve before you make them, and that you should make them in one go
You're likely to get stung with a -30, especially if you start messing with the <title> element.
The title element doesn't seem to be as touchy now, at least it hasn't been for me lately.
I've had to change title element a few times lately and had no effect on ranking. One site we even did user testing with 5 different titles over a few weeks and never saw any hit to rankings.
Maybe we were lucky, but it doesn't seem as much a problem...
Like trakkerguy, I made a minor but important site-wide change to <title> the other day. No immediate effect on ranking. (site: command returns 1500 pages).
My "season" is starting Nov 15, and I actually timed it to give the site a month to recover from any potential damage...
It may well be an issue with google.gr algo, but in other sites I work for on the UK SE's I usually do certain things, rankings change to better or worse and leave as is or change accordingly.
The only time I've experienced yo-yo is when an authority site was upgraded to a new CMS with complete URL re-structure and after noticing the site duplicated on examplevariation.com, oh and no URL redirects in place...
But expect this to be short-lived... Especially since I started gathering 404s and start redirection on most.
