Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
That Live version is the best EVER.
[edited by: Crystal_Pegasus at 3:01 am (utc) on Jun 21, 2011]
my hunch is that panda applies sitewide, unless different sections are clearly differentiated from eachother.
They regard this as a very frustrating problem. They've stated many times that they wish we would all just ignore them. Google wants to be the silent eavesdropper and listen in on the conversation in the room, but that's very difficult because the echo of their own voice is so loud.
Panda 2.2 is official now
[edited by: tedster at 5:31 pm (utc) on Jun 21, 2011]
This article from Danny is worth reading.
Why Google Panda Is More A Ranking Factor Than Algorithm Update
Panda is not a penalty, it is a new scoring strand- like PR is a scoring strand, or TrustRank...
In order to maybe see this issue from another perspective, consider PageRank.
Imagine PageRank became a factor today. Yesterday, everything was onpage factors, with maybe some seed sites giving some weighting, and some semantic relationships being analysed. Actually, many important factors use PR methodology, but try to ignore that for this thought experiment
Suddenly, new sites shoot to the top of SERPs. Studying them for commonalities doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
Some perfectly good content suddenly drops out the top 10. No one knows why. None of the old tricks work- semantic siloing, changing page titles, even Hx schemes.
Funnily enough, sites with a lot of traffic pop to the top. Google must be punishing the little guy. Google only wants people with high traffic. It's all about brands. It's so unfair.
Reports start coming in. Some sites with low-ish traffic have been rewarded. It seems like links are giving value in themselves. There are sceptics:
"Why would just getting someone to link to you give you benefit? My site is MUCH better looking, and uses funky markup. I never needed links before."
Counter examples start being put forward
"No, I comment on lots of blogs and have a link to my pet site, and that has no effect"
"Yeah, and I have a personal blog, with links to all my sites on every page, and that doesn't help"
Eventually, consensus emerges. It takes months. It turns out that links are the key. Positioning, repetition, PR of linking page, quantity of links on the page, templates- so many factors. Strategies change, the world moves on.
Years later, people say: "Remember the Larry update. Before then, you just needed some good directory listings and onpage optimisation. I can't believe people think those things still work- I can get a site ranking with just a few high-PR links"
My point? PR emerges from the system, it's not a tick-list of factors. Losing out to sites is not a penalty either. And while we might not yet have a methodology to exploit the new system, it doesn't mean its random, or unfair. New techniques might be needed, and it might take a LONG TIME to overcome the differentials inherent when the new score came into play- getting 1,000 scoring links isn't easy.
Shorthand for "H1-H6 Header tags", posited as a ranking factor in the fictional world where PR had not previously been invented.Ah, I see. Some terms take years to universal recognition. Could be my fault, too: never seen it referred to like that. Sounds like "H1-6 Header Scheme" would have been easier to grasp the meaning of than "Hx Scheme".
[edited by: tedster at 5:30 pm (utc) on Jun 21, 2011]