Why Haven't Sites Come Back from Panda? Matt Cutts Tries to Explain

[walkman]

This is a rush(?) transcript from Dany Sullivan's blog so probably not everything is 100% correct. The italics and bolding are mine.
[searchengineland.com...]

DS: Talking about Panda, says that he’s getting a ton of emails from people who say that scraper sites are now outranking them after Panda.

MC: A guy on my team working on that issue. A change has been approved that should help with that issue. We’re continuing to iterate on Panda. The algorithm change originated in search quality, not the web spam team.
....
DS: Has it changed enough that some people have recovered? Or is it too soon?

MC: The general rule is to push stuff out and then find additional signals to help differentiate on the spectrum. We haven’t done any pushes that would directly pull things back. We have recomputed data that might have impacted some sites. There’s one change that might affect sites and pull things back.

DS: You guys made this post with 22 questions, but it sounds like you’re saying even if you’ve done that, it wouldn’t have helped yet?

MC: It could help as we recompute data. Matt goes on to say that Panda 2.2 has been approved but hasn’t rolled out yet.

DS: Reads an audience question – is site usability being considered as more of a factor?

MC: Panda isn’t directly targeted at usability, but it’s a key part of making a site that people like. Pay attention to it because it’s a good practice, not because Google says so.

Matt mentions 'pull back' but that's nonsense and very disingenuous of him. Pull back to me means letting a previously labeled bad content rank. We're talking about improved sites and content, no need to pull back, just reanalyze it.

So it's clear to me that this is a penalty. Maybe if you got links from every newspaper in the Northern Hemisphere you might escape but for the rest it looks like it depends on Google engineers. It took them 3+ months to admit it.

[tedster]

I like that summary, brinked. It reminds me of someone I spoke with soon after the Adsense program was launched. Their big insight was "now I just build content that is "slippery" instead of "sticky". The lower the value on my page, the more likely I can get an ad click."

There have been many in that boat - for years. And getting paid by the impression makes it even worse. At least in print you needed to get people to buy/subscribe to your magazine full of ads.

Echos of Amit Singhal's opening remarks about Panda:

Singhal: So we did Caffeine [a major update that improved Google’s indexing process] in late 2009. Our index grew so quickly, and we were just crawling at a much faster speed. When that happened, we basically got a lot of good fresh content, and some not so good. The problem had shifted from random gibberish, which the spam team had nicely taken care of, into somewhat more like written prose. But the content was shallow.

I think that is absolutely straight talk.

[crobb305]

I'm currently getting more traffic from scholar.google.com

I noticed scholar results were offered at the top of one of my normal G searches (from my mobile) yesterday. I have never seen this before. Has this been happening for a while?

[walkman]

Obviously ads (whatever Goog counts as such) matter, especially those that overpower content. It was one of the questions in the assessment. But we don't know how Google counts them, area the ads cover, number of links, area ads /content and in relation to location, number of links /content or what?

Has anyone here removed all ads after being Pandalized? If so, did you come back? Fully partially, what %?

Let's not forget that retail stores, magazines, etc etc have also been penalized so there's more to it than just normal ads. IIRC, Dirigodev's site recovered and he has no ads at all. He said he found out what Panda wants and posted about it. My_Media too.

The million dollar question is: has Panda been run in full since 2/24? That will answer almost everything.

Edit: What do I mean by full? Suppose two blocks of ads caused your site to tip the scale to PandaLand. If you removed them right away, would your site be back now (assuming other non-related algo changes haven't effected you since 2/24)?

[edited by: walkman at 10:38 pm (utc) on Jun 13, 2011]

[Whitey]

The problem had shifted from random gibberish, which the spam team had nicely taken care of, into somewhat more like written prose. But the content was shallow.

It took a long time to get to this point, indicating the complexity of the move, but it's clearly far from perfect with a lot of collateral effects on sites that shouldn't have been hit, and sites that should have been hit, escaping.

It will be interesting to see how they rinse and repeat next time around.

How does this compare with other major pushes and issues faced by Google and the community during the "settle down" period? I need a reminder.

[brinked]

I do some reading up on the google help forums where people post there sites. A lot of the time they will post there site and talk about how they have no idea why they were effected by panda and what not.

Most of the time you will check their site and you will see a blog or the usual article site. You click on one of there stories and right above the actual article is a huge adsense block ad thrown in your face. This clearly says "click on my ads" and not "read my article". I think this is the perfect example of intent.

If your site is focused on trying to get people to click on your ads, you are likely to be pandalised. If the focus of your site is to get people to read your article then that is exactly the kind of signal google is favoring.

Of course not all sites that were hit by panda have ads. This is however a very strong factor, as if I were in charge of finding content quality signals is something I would take a good hard look at.

[Leosghost]

I do some reading up on the google help forums where people post there sites. A lot of the time they will post there site and talk about how they have no idea why they were effected by panda and what not.

Most of the time you will check their site and you will see a blog or the usual article site. You click on one of there stories and right above the actual article is a huge adsense block ad thrown in your face. This clearly says "click on my ads" and not "read my article". I think this is the perfect example of intent.

If your site is focused on trying to get people to click on your ads, you are likely to be pandalised. If the focus of your site is to get people to read your article then that is exactly the kind of signal google is favoring.

Precisely ..describes ( and always did ) perfectly all those "doesn't fit the mold" that some were rattling on about a few months ago..and who have just changed tack so fast here that most of us would need treatment for whiplash injuries if we did the same ..unless we were immune to such ..due to sheer brass neck. ;-)

And the hope that some of us have attention deficit disorder and very short memories of who said what..for the last 3 or 4 months..

[dazzlindonna]

Has anyone here removed all ads after being Pandalized? If so, did you come back? Fully partially, what %?

Walkman, I mentioned in [webmasterworld.com...] that one of my sites that was hit by Panda 2.0 was one that I used as a test. I removed all ads (adsense), and it did recover, 3 days later. It is a seasonal site, so I cannot use traffic as a metric, but the rankings recovered to near pre-Panda levels. In other words, it recovered rankings almost completely, but there were a couple of phrases that came back almost to pre-Panda, but not quite. Hard to quantify as a %, sorry. On another seasonal site (different season), I tested removing some of the ads, and making one of the big block ads into a small block ad. That site had partial recovery. I never felt like anyone really believed this scenario, so I haven't shouted about it much. Still, both of those sites I tested on were hit by Panda 2.0, not 1.0. For some reason, I think 2.0+ have a better chance of recovery (from whatever changes are made) than 1.0 sites have. Just my opinion, of course.

[Leosghost]

The entire aspect and impression of that first site you mention, was different as soon as you made those changes ..from an obvious panda candidate ( designed to get the clicks ) ..to a site that talks about what you offer and designed to get you customers and with the ads now as a secondary item ..

Those of us who were not passing from thread to thread in denial and ranting, had suggested it as soon as the "why have I been hit" threads began..

Its taken a few months for the voices of reason to get heard here..over the noise and the rants and the "evil goog owes me a living "..

Layout, design, and ads proportional to the rest of site content etc, and ads placement .is not all the story ..but it is a really really big part of it ..

[brinked]

Leosghost,

I am in the same boat as you. I was one of the first to point out the excessive use of ads on most of the "sites that dont fit the mold".

A lot of webmasters do not feel like they are doing anything wrong. They feel they have the best site in the world and there is no reason why google should have hit them.

If you look at enough sites that were hit by panda you start to notice trends. It is very important to keep an open mind. Everyone is talking about how lack of content and duplicate content is the reason but its not. If that were the case, duplicate content sites would not still be ranking as well as sites like flickr as MC pointed out.

[Leosghost]

Agreed, as we did previously ;-)

A lot of webmasters do not feel like they are doing anything wrong. They feel they have the best site in the world and there is no reason why google should have hit them.

To paraphrase a frequent comment of netmeg's.."people forget who is driving the bus" ..it isn't the publishers, nor the site owners, nor even the advertisers, in reality its the users..and Google looked at the sites through the eyes of many many users ..and then built panda..and as ted said the time for "slippery" is gone..

Now Google is more "in sync" with the users than it ever was ..and is refining and trying to get closer ,"preview" was the beginning, and now a lot of A/B/C etc, testing and cycling is occurring, every day ..

People can spot "made to get ad clicks" or "exist just to run ads" in a heartbeat ..now so can Google...almost exactly.

[walkman]

Walkman, I mentioned in [webmasterworld.com...] that one of my sites that was hit by Panda 2.0 was one that I used as a test. I removed all ads (adsense), and it did recover, 3 days later. It is a seasonal site, so I cannot use traffic as a metric, but the rankings recovered to near pre-Panda levels. In other words, it recovered rankings almost completely, but there were a couple of phrases that came back almost to pre-Panda, but not quite. Hard to quantify as a %, sorry. On another seasonal site (different season), I tested removing some of the ads, and making one of the big block ads into a small block ad. That site had partial recovery. I never felt like anyone really believed this scenario, so I haven't shouted about it much. Still, both of those sites I tested on were hit by Panda 2.0, not 1.0. For some reason, I think 2.0+ have a better chance of recovery (from whatever changes are made) than 1.0 sites have. Just my opinion, of course.

Very interesting, so Google answered 3 days later and no need to wait for the Panda monthly, or so, runs. If my pandalized site had ads, I'd remove them to test, but it doesn't. My non-pandalized sites do but it's one block at the bottom of the page and they're doing better than ever. Yes, ads were noticed almost instantly, along with too many tags as soon as Panda hit.

Brinked, duplicate content or lack of it seems to have hit e-commerce and other sites. Among other possible things of course.

[dazzlindonna]

Leosghost, while I understand the concept of users driving the bus ... users also have to understand that there "ain't gonna be no stinkin' bus" if the bus can't afford to buy gas. Users don't refuse to read a magazine just because it's mostly ads (and they are). As a user, I'm not crazy about ad-filled sites either. But I don't begrudge the sites who have a lot of ads but give me great content. I understand that the content they give me for free has to be paid for somehow. Could they find another monetization method? Sure, maybe. But would users be any happier with that method? Maybe not, who knows. At some point, there has to be some compromise. Yes, publishers should not overdo it. But yes, users should compromise as well. And for sure, Google, of all "people", should not be throwing stones at glass houses, or calling any kettles black.

[brinked]

Brinked, duplicate content or lack of it seems to have hit e-commerce and other sites. Among other possible things of course.

Like I have pointed out in other threads. I have an ecommerce site with hundreds of thousands of product pages. All are common products sold by thousands of other sites using the same description from the manufacturer. After panda, this site has received a 5-8% increase from google search traffic.

I also have about a dozen or so clients who I built there ecommerce site for them (I used to do a lot of ecommerce development years ago) and not a single one of them were hurt by panda.

I have noticed the ecommerce sites that were hit have put in unique category or product descriptions. They may be unique...but google can see them as useless and the only reason they are there is to rank for those phrases in that small paragraph.

[Leosghost]

Most, in fact the vast majority of "users", don't have sites..they don't think like a site owner..telling them they should "compromise" will get a site owner nowhere..

"Users" don't buy nor do they read, magazines that are full of ads unless they are very attractive ads and the magazines have images or text or other content than cannot be found elsewhere..about the subject .

"Users" decide what they consider "great content" not site owners.

Google are not in business to be fair..life is not fair..

Google make an exchange with "users"..they have something users want ..and users accept the ads in serps..

The "users" decide if what you or Google ( you are both running websites with content and ads ) offer by way of content is worth having the ads with it ..

If the "users" don't think a site is worth having with the ads ..that is the site's problem, not the "users"..

Google's ads are discreet ..they are not "in your face"..they are not the first thing that hits you or "users" when you or "users" go to Google search page ( there are no ads on it ) ..and they are not the thing that hits you or "users" most about the serps returned for any search..

Trying to tell the "users" how they should think..is a recipe for failure.

[tedster]

Google's ads are discreet ..they are not "in your face"..they are not the first thing that hits you or "users" when you or "users" go to Google search page ( there are no ads on it ) ..and they are not the thing that hits you or "users" most about the serps returned for any search..

And here's where the Adsense staff had an unfortunate departure from the philosophy that the organic SERP layout team was following. The Adsense folks really did push for more intrusive ad layouts for a while, and they took some webmasters over the edge with them. I've looked at pandalyzed site after pandalyzed site that used Adsense blocks to push the content down near, or even below, the fold.

Thus proving the that there was a pretty good Chinese Wall between the segments of Google ;)

[edited by: tedster at 2:59 am (utc) on Jun 14, 2011]

[hannamyluv]

Panda is aimed at reducing the rankings for low quality websites.

I don't agree with this and I think this is where many people run afoul of understanding Panda. Yes, low quality sites got hit, but that was part of a bigger picture. Panda is not just about low quality.

Let's think about MC's comment about iphones. Yes, there are many great phones out there that, in theory, "deserve" to be popular in terms of quality of technology and design. But they are not. Why? Answer that and I think you can start to see what Panda is looking for.

And no, it's not just about Twitter / Facebook popularity, nor about stickiness or links or ads or a million other things. But I think there is an element of looking for cult with Panda, which can touch all of those things.

I don't think you should be looking at how much quality your site has, but how much cult do you build?

*Added - oh, and cult is not popularity. They are two different things, but cult can lead to popularity.

[edited by: hannamyluv at 3:09 am (utc) on Jun 14, 2011]

[aakk9999]

I have noticed the ecommerce sites that were hit have put in unique category or product descriptions. They may be unique...but google can see them as useless and the only reason they are there is to rank for those phrases in that small paragraph.

Are you saying that for the ecommerce sites Panda can (or tries to) judge whether the page uniqueness is created solely in order to rank better or the unique page/product content is created/added because of site owner genuinely wanting to provide a better user experience?

[walkman]

Time will sort these out, since they are more than ads involved.

They are a lot of sites that truly had popular content from years ago and said, let me milk it and users navigated through the ads, like science blogs or newspaper archives for example. And then the MFA crap that leaves you wondering at their page not knowing what to do, other than clicking on a link.

People need to make money but I think experimenting with moving the ads in different locations is key. Maybe because I'm aware but I'm more likely to click if the page has less ads. You can have one ad and probably make more than with 4. Experiment! If they are reading they will scroll and eventually reach the ad and one of them might entice them to click. If you have a gazillion ads, it's a sport trying not to click accidentally.

Either way, try no to be worst than your competition on such issues.

[Leosghost]

Matt's iphones comment tells you many things ..some of them more obvious than others..

Then cast your mind back to last year, and the direction that Google is moving in..and where they are trying to take you..and how they are trying to achieve it..and most of all what with..

Google have been IMO, more clear about what was coming, and how they were measuring, and what with, since last year..and Matt again IMO was actually very clear..if you listened and watched with an open mind, and had been doing so since last year ..

Not a "formula", not rules, but as suggy said and brinked has observed, once you have "groked" it ..its blindingly obvious where they are coming from, and going to, and how, and what with,..and if you haven't yet ..then even with it all laid out ..you'd still treat it like a formula, and it still wouldn't work for you.

Reminds me of the way they used to ( and still do sometimes ) hire people ..its a puzzle..except the picture is actually very clear ..

[dazzlindonna]

Most, in fact the vast majority of "users", don't have sites..they don't think like a site owner..telling them they should "compromise" will get a site owner nowhere..

Most, in fact the vast majority of "readers", don't publish magazines...they don't think like a publisher either. Yet they continue to buy magazines that they enjoy reading.

"Users" don't buy nor do they read, magazines that are full of ads unless they are very attractive ads and the magazines have images or text or other content than cannot be found elsewhere..about the subject .

I don't know what magazines you read, but all the ones I pick up have far more ads than content, and no... 2-page ads filled with medical text on the latest drug for fighting high cholesterol doesn't qualify as attractive in my book. Readers do in fact buy all those magazines. And yes, quite likely those magazines do have images or text or other content not found elsewhere, of course! Guess what? My sites do too. I'm not saying crappy content should rank well.

"Users" decide what they consider "great content" not site owners.

Yep. Agreed. No argument from me on that.

Google are not in business to be fair..life is not fair..

Perhaps this was directed at someone else, but I can assure you, I never complained about Google not being fair. Or life for that matter. So if that was aimed at me, please aim that arrow elsewhere. I don't whine about fair.

Google make an exchange with "users"..they have something users want ..and users accept the ads in serps..

That's my entire point. Google is nothing more than a website. All websites have the same opportunity to make an exchange with users...to give users something they want...and expect that users will accept the ads on the site in exchange. If a website gives users what they want, then users should give the website the same courtesy they give Google.

The "users" decide if what you or Google ( you are both running websites with content and ads ) offer by way of content is worth having the ads with it ..

Agreed.

If the "users" don't think a site is worth having with the ads ..that is the site's problem, not the "users"..

No argument from me on that.

Google's ads are discreet ..they are not "in your face"..they are not the first thing that hits you or "users" when you or "users" go to Google search page ( there are no ads on it ) ..and they are not the thing that hits you or "users" most about the serps returned for any search..

Which is why I made the point that website owners need to compromise. I agree that in your face ads need to be pulled back.

Trying to tell the "users" how they should think..is a recipe for failure.

Actually, I don't necessarily agree with that statement, though I understand the sentiment. If that were true, however, there'd be a lot less calls to action on site telling users exactly what to do next.

In any case, I think you've tended to put words in my mouth, and I wanted to clarify.

I'm not arguing for crap content, for bling bling in your face ads, or for fairness from Google, life, or anyone else. But I doubt anything I say at this point will really make a difference, so perhaps a good night's sleep is a better use of my time tonight.