Hit on 2/24/2011 and come back?

[walkman]

According to Amit Singhal, Panda was a specific algo change and after that many others took place. So 'Panda 1' and 'Panda 15' were not actually Panda, but different algo changes while keeping Panda on top of everything else.

Some publishers have fixated on our prior Panda algorithm change, but Panda was just one of roughly 500 search improvements we expect to roll out to search this year. In fact, since we launched Panda, we've rolled out over a dozen additional tweaks to our ranking algorithms, and some sites have incorrectly assumed that changes in their rankings were related to Panda.

Also Matt Cutts said that Panda data is not collected daily but when they decide to run that part of the algo.

short version is that it's not data that's updated daily right now. More like when we re-run the algorithms to regen the data.

So it appears it's like a score /grade and it sticks for a while for those already ranked. How often they do it is everyone's guess but we know it can crush your site rankings.

Now we hear stories about people improving their rank here and there, but most so far have been hit in April and in the following updates, not on 2/24.

So the question is: Has anyone hit by the 2/24 algo made a comeback?A serious one I guess, close to pre-Panda traffic levels not the 10% plus or minus.

I'm trying to see if there's a set time penalty or not. If you came back from 2/24, did you by any change contact Google or posted your site in their forums (I refuse to believe that no manual changes are made to it)

Edit: My 4 sites that were not hit by Panda got an 25%-30% boost today, my one Pandalized site kinda down a bit despite many changes.

[suggy]

After Panda hit the UK (April), some of my main pages went into free fall.

I have been 'fixing' these pages one by one (deoptimising and making much 'richer' and more wordy).

Many have now returned to page 1, but at the bottom, not the top.

My conclusion is that either:-

1) They are subject to a sitewide demotion or penalty and they will improve further when the sitewide data is recalculated or the penalty lifted.

2) Or, they just don't press as many of this algos buttons and hence aren't competitive anymore.

I struggle to believe the latter when I see what's sitting above me in many cases!

Could it be the same for Feb update?

For the record, it's a seven year old site that had tons of domain authority, pre-panda

[Shatner]

>>Notice how dozens of us jumped on "I'm ranking for some keywords" a week or so back? So people talk and we aren't hearing many (or any) conformed Panda 1 recoveries.

I've heard rumors from a lot of people that there are a lot of Panda 1 recoveries, and they just aren't talking because they are hoping to take advantage of their competition in the SERPS (you and me) being down and out.

Combine that with what Tedster is saying... I mean we can't hold on to hope forever. It's starting to become reality time.

[HuskyPup]

My Panadalised 2.1 trade directory has been hit specifically on one section, my Coppermine gallery which has thousands of sample trade images, traffic to that gallery has been 50% for the past week and, I must add, is the largest one on the Internet.

I can only assume that Google in all its wisdom consider those as thin pages, if anyone thinks I'm going to enter a load of text then they've got another thought coming.

It's amazing, after millions of page views Google now considers them as not worthy but has no hesitation with promoting scrapers and MFAs.

What are they on in that place?

[walkman]

Shatner, no one is holding hope to the point of being delusional. It's not like I have spun content or pages with 2 lines on content in each page. I have a killer domain name, decent links and work on my site many hours a day, every single day. It's for something people need and search for, and I provide that, along with other sites of course.

But I don't buy that many sites have come out of Panda. If competitiveness was a reason, no one would have said they came out of Panda 2 or 2.1

[browsee]

As per this thread, you can come back if you move(301) to another domain or subdomain.

[google.com...]

The fact is that I successfully tested moving penalised content to another domain or subdomain - the results were VERY positive, all redirected pages got their rankings back or got even better positions. It's sad, ... really stupid... this is my point; nothing more, nothing less (I mentioned this experience of mine previously in this forum).

No-one knows when a penalised domain is going to recover, that's why it's better to 301 some content if it's worth it (anyway I'm not going to split my domain to subdomains or other domains as it would look unnatural and also bing doesn't like this - tested myself too - I won't change my site because of some maximally retarded algorithm).

I divided my site to 4 subdomains some time ago to test it. Almost all pre-panda traffic was back in 5 days!

[indyank]

I did make a mention of this a few day ago in a thread here that some seem to know how to dodge panda.

This is exactly what I saw with a site that moved from one domain to another domain. The thing is panda tags a url as poor quality and doesn't seem to release it even after the page is improved.But redirecting it to a new url seem to work for this guy.

I am waiting to see whether he gets caught in the next wave.

However, I wouldn't recommend doing it.

[edited by: indyank at 4:43 pm (utc) on May 13, 2011]

[walkman]

Browsee: a 301 takes much longer than 5 days to work.

[indyank]

Walkman, I can assure you that I am seeing a live example of where this works. But I am also waiting to see whether he gets caught the next time or if he has anything else to keep the panda away.

[walkman]

Indy, they did a 301 or moved (uploaded) all the pages to another domain? Two different things.
I agree with the panda assessment. If the pages were improved they should be golden on the new domain, but you lose any 'juice' from the old domain, when Panda stops being insane.

I have a very old domain, loaded up and just waiting with noindex. But that's my nuke option :)

[indyank]

It is a 301...

I wouldn't recommend it to anyone owning genuine whitehat sites with good content.

The example site is owned by one who is big time into blackhat.He does everything what the panda doesn't want him to do...

[edited by: indyank at 4:59 pm (utc) on May 13, 2011]

[browsee]

If the pages were improved they should be golden on the new domain, but you lose any 'juice' from the old domain, when Panda stops being insane.

How about subdomain? About, webmd apparently doing good because of subdomain structure. We can also mitigate the risk.

[indyank]

It could be that this algo is tagging urls after an assessment and when the content is moved to another url it gets freed from the panda clutches.

Since the assessment is not run often, it will probably take time for panda to catch up with the other url. But we never know how this guy will respond and I am sure he must have something to deal with that too.

[walkman]

Eventually you gotta do what you have to do to survive. Google is being stupid, short sighted, arrogant, vindictive for no reason and arbitrary.

Run the algo, many got penalized for listening to Google anyway and let Google index all pages (Matt Cutts suggested we do that, since 'Google will sort it out'.

If pages rank on another domain name is it bad for search? Nope, so it's white hat.

[indyank]

If pages rank on another domain name is it bad for search? Nope, so it's white hat.

So, what you are saying is improve the content and move to the new domain for quick results.

Moving from one home to another may not be blackhat or bad but what I am not sure is how long will it last on the new domain, if you 301 the old one.Because we are still not sure what exactly google is evaluating in the name of "quality". So, there is no guarantee that the new domain will remain free.

May be, you are better off remaining in the old domain in the hope that they will do a re-evaluation.

[indyank]

I know that google has done a blog post confirming what we all speculated as being evaluated as part of panda but for some reason I don't trust what these googlers say until I see the results somewhere.

I am surprised at myself for having lost the trust I had with Google or what their main PRs say, a year ago.

[dickbaker]

Right now my Google referrals are about the same as Yahoo and Bing combined, plus I have another 35% or so from other sources. Moving to a new domain might help Google rankings, but would lose traffic from every other source.

I would hope that Google is competent enough to see this sort of dodge.

I just think they're going to wait a lot longer than in past updates to give demoted sites a new shot at ranking (if they will at all).

[walkman]

So, what you are saying is improve the content and move to the new domain for quick results.

I do not buy the crap that Google can tell all this and all that. Judging by survivors in my niche and on my other sites, I can tell that most sites got caught for a tiny thing or two and a tiny change can make them kosher.

Blacks hats will love this: rank until the next change, rinse and repeat. Google spreads FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) but a pro with dozens of names knows what to do.

I am screwed since I can't just drop my name

[Shatner]

Here's my question. Google keeps saying Panda is a penalty... but what's the difference between Panda and a penalty? I can't find one. Doesn't that mean it is one? Just one they refuse to acknowledge and that there's no way to get lifted. It's a permanent, arbitrary penalty.

[Whitey]

but what's the difference between Panda and a penalty

... in broad terms nothing, but in key terms, the detail . What , how , why and when. some of the puzzle is answered. We just need to fill in the gaps in the shared analysis.

[walkman]

Shatner, no difference for pandalized sites. Other than you fix what Google decided to hate now but you're still penalized for x months. Let's hope it's just 3 months, but never rule out a longer penalty. Basically the score is frozen until Google decides to unfreeze it.

<sup>Google is making many sworn enemies for no reason. A little use of Bing here, some FB ads there or a bit of _badmouthingtruth-telling there and they'll feel it. It's out fault to be honest, remember Matt Cutts pi**ing Google here in very early 2000? Tech people and webmasters promoted them to the point of dominating too much.

Just read a blog about a xoogler, definitely felt the Google is Evil meme spreading he said, and it bothered him. He mentioned that stupidity not intention to do evil is the root cause but that hardly matters now.</sup>

[suggy]

It's NOT a penalty.

Fix the page and you'll see it come back from the wilderness (that's already happening for me on BIG searches).

OK, so they return at the bottom of page 1 instead of top. But, I anticipate that once I achieve a critical mass of cleanliness (and google recalcs the Panda data), full competitiveness will be restored!

If you're not seeing any improvement, then you're not addressing the page level factors that saw those pages banished AND contributed to your site wide demotion of authority/ trust.

[tedster]

It's NOT a penalty

How funny, I was just reading this thread and thought I should post the exact same words. I've been saying this since the beginning - we must get rid of the penalty model in our minds. It is a new element in the algorithm. The more we align to that algo, the better we can rank - but it will not be like "removing a penalty".

I don't know how most people have "learned SEO", but if it was just by following the steps or recipes that someone else taught second or third hand, then you are now in a position to learn the new rules for ranking all on your own. That's just like the first SEOs did, back before SEO became a buzzword. It took (and still takes) testing and savvy, probing actions to fuel a real analysis of the situation.

I've recently been asked to check out a few more Pandalyzed sites, and all I can say is "it's the content." Really, strong, well written content that is enjoyable and even exciting to read is what's missing on all of the Pandalyzed site I recently checked out. As a visitor, I look at those pages and go "eh?" or even "blecch!"

I'm not saying that Panda doesn't have any problems - but I am saying that in a lot of cases, Panda got it exactly right. No matter how well those pages ranked or for how long, they really shouldn't have ranked at all because they really sucked.

The rule from here on out is this simple "content should not suck." In fact - your pages should be exciting for your visitors.

[edited by: tedster at 12:57 pm (utc) on May 14, 2011]

[santapaws]

tedster how does that fit with scrapers ranking above the original site? same content. Original site not one or two places lower, but totally pandalized?
Can i suggest the sites you work on in your professional role are not a representative cross section , its a particular type of site.
Im not sure having put forward the idea of certain pages leading to a demotion score for otherwise fine pages does not amount to a penalty?

[indyank]

Fix the page and you'll see it come back from the wilderness

Suggy, would you mind sharing the details? What was wrong with your page and how did you fix?

[indyank]

all I can say is "it's the content." Really, strong, well written content that is enjoyable and even exciting to read is what's missing on all of the Pandalyzed site I recently checked out.

Tedster, I do agree that panda has something to do with content. Many believe that it has got to do with duplicate content or content copied to other sites causing Google to ignore the originals.

It is interesting that you use "enjoyable and even exciting". Can you share some details on what was missing to make it "enjoyable or exciting"?

[walkman]

Suggy and Tedster,
the problem is still this: Goog needs to run the algo to include the changes. Until the run the algo it's a penalty, that's what I said. Normally you got indexed a few times and via, Panda is manual and until then the bad score stays. That's the penalty aspect.

As for content, it depends on the field I guess, not every site has articles.

It's quite possible what Suggy said or suggested, the 'site score' alone needs to be re-run, not the page score. Even a relatively small boost from a re-run score could very easily make up the traffic. There's a huge difference between a few ranks in traffic.

[dazzlindonna]

As for content, it depends on the field I guess, not every site has articles.

Right, exactly. And in one field where that applies, the sites that are ranking aren't any better or different than pandalized sites, in terms of content. Typical page of image thumbnails, with little to no content beyond one small introductory paragraph, captions, and links to full-sizes (sometimes onsite, sometimes offsite).

[Whitey]

Really, strong, well written content that is enjoyable and even exciting to read is what's missing on all of the Pandalyzed site I recently checked out.

But the eye can play games. Is this really the only thing? If it was that easy folks would be pumping out quality content ( as I'm sure they are ) and numerous reports of "come backs" would be seen.

[tedster]

tedster how does that fit with scrapers ranking above the original site?

I think that shows a problem with the Jan 28 Scraper Update [webmasterworld.com] that laid the early groundwork for Panda. The scraper thing is clear evidence of Google getting something wrong - especially if it's for the main keyword and not for some 28 word exact text search.

[dazzlindonna]

It's not often I disagree with tedster, but I do in this case. I believe that since pandalized sites are effectively "pushed back", then scrapers using the content that would have ranked for the query on the pandalized site, now have no choice but to be found and ranked from another site. It tells me that the content itself isn't really an issue. The content is still ranking, just not on the pandalized site. The only reason the scraper sites are now ranking for that content, is because the owner of the content isn't being allowed to rank for it. So someone else, with the same content, is filling the hole left by the pandalized site. I just seriously think this shows that it's not really about content. Perhaps "content as a whole", in that some percentages of thin pages vs. thick pages, ad to text ratios, etc. create some kind of judgment upon the entire body of content, but I don't think the actual content is in play. If it were, the scrapers couldn't rank for it any more than the content producers do. (Just my opinion of course, and I may be wrong).