How do small sites suddenly gain high ranks

[MustardDan]

Hi everyone, I just want to share a finding and perhaps ask if anyone has noticed the same and found any reasons behind it.

We have held position 1 on Google UK for a certain keyword for a good year or so, we have over the past couple of days dropped to P2. Thats not a huge issue but we have been replaced at the top by a site that is keyword stuffed, only has 7 backlinks to their entire domain from 2 other linking domains....A very low quality site indeed. The site in question has never been on the radar before and it has suddenly appeared from nowhere.

Also, on another site I work with, we generally hold top 5 in Google for out main keyword, 2 weeks ago, a domain less than 2 months old, suddenly appeared straight at position 3. Again their site is keyword stuffed and all there inbound links are footer links that seem to be from a link network.

Isn't this the sort of stuff Google is meant to be preventing? It seems the extreme low quality is starting to get back up there.

Any thoughts?

[Kelowna]

If you've never keyword stuffed or bought links you deserve ranking, and a medal. I want my medal.

You have got to be kidding, right? You want a medal?

Quit complaining about Google does wrong, Google is Google, and will always be Google, deal with it. Instead of doing what YOU think is right, study what actually works and make some $$$, how hard is that to understand?

[tedster]

google should stop punishing spammers and instead concentrate on rewarding sites...

As I see it, Google is already trying to do both. It's just that they don't reward sites for "following their rules". Rather they try to reward sites for being solid businesses that give their users an experience that they like. The idea of punishing spammers was not part of the original picture at Google and it's still not their main focus. Finding the best results they can is their focus.

Some of the algorithm shifts in recent months only make sense if I look at the ranking shifts from that angle. In other words, I didn't "lose" five positions - Five other sites got rewarded in the algorithm shift. Understanding why the other sites got rewarded can be hard, but sometimes it's not so hard at all.

[lucy24]

Instead of doing what YOU think is right, study what actually works and make some $$$, how hard is that to understand?

"understand" <> "agree"

How hard is THAT to understand?

[Naj0rt]

It's not enough to just follow the rules.

Also replying to robdwoods, I just want to say that no of course I'm not saying you should rank for just following the rules. That would be silly so of course my medal comment was tongue in cheek. I don't think either of you actually thought I was saying that, just sayin for the record.

I'd go into more detail but the discussion has degenerated. That wasn't my intention so sorry to the OP, admins, everyone.

The short answer is that Google loves spam.
....
Quit complaining about Google does wrong, Google is Google, and will always be Google, deal with it. Instead of doing what YOU think is right, study what actually works and make some $$$, how hard is that to understand?

So, you're just a dirty spammer rinsing and repeating? Get off my Internet.

[HuskyPup]

Instead of doing what YOU think is right, study what actually works and make some $$$, how hard is that to understand?

Whilst I don't always agree with Kelowna, this is correct and it doesn't matter whatsoever if one is building sites for making $$$ or not, one has to know what works and how to implement it and, believe it or not, it can even be done "white hat" :-)

So, you're just a dirty spammer rinsing and repeating? Get off my Internet.

I believe Kelowna's probably in the dirtiest part of the Net and I certainly wouldn't want to be there, let them fight it out amongst themselves.

[heisje]

in the dirtiest part of the Net

and at this time by far the largest part of the Net, care of Google policies.

Like with state taxation, when over-taxing state ends up with *fewer* taxes collected, due to the contraction of the economy resulting from over-taxation, likewise with over-fighting spam you end up with more spam in return, because non-spam sites are burnt along with real-spam sites, rendering the risk of creating an expensive non-spam site unacceptable, therefore reverting to techniques of all sorts to remain viable.

Simple "Economics 101".

.

[diberry]

Kelowna, if your business model is "build sites that exploit a flaw in Google's algorithm", I hate to break it to you but you are not hatless. You are still building a business around Google, like so many others here. And that's great - I'm glad it's working for you, and if Google has flaws, why shouldn't people like you exploit them?

But being truly "hatless" means trying to bring real readers to your site and convert them by any means that's legal, regardless of whether it's Google approved. That's the model that doesn't focus on Google at all. Without Google, you couldn't make any money at what you're doing.

The "mistake" most people make is on focusing on Google traffic instead of just converting traffic. When Google all but stopped sending traffic to one of my sites after Penguin, part of me was relieved because the traffic they'd been sending was so wrong for the site.

With or without Google, people are getting better and better at recognizing crap sites and avoiding them. Long term success is in building sites humans actually are glad to have visited.

[moxie]

Long term success is in building sites humans actually are glad to have visited.

Hear, hear. This is the real answer in all this.

[HuskyPup]

This is the real answer in all this.

Unfortunately I have to add ... If they can be found!

[Kelowna]

So, you're just a dirty spammer rinsing and repeating? Get off my Internet.

How is this spam? Someone is looking to buy a fur sink, I build a site that sells fur sinks and get it to rank. The user likes it, I like it, where is the spam? That is a good user experience is it not?

If someone was looking for their favorite teen star, and then gets redirected to a #*$! site then that is spam, not giving the user what they are looking for will always be spam and should be slammed hard.

Having ehow, wiki and about.com ranking for ecom terms where the user is looking to buy is what I call spam. Just because a site has 10 billion articles should not make it an authority so it ranks for everything.

To me its always about the end user, giving them what they want, I dont care that other webmasters complain, they think content is king, I say ranking is king. Again, I only deal with ecom where people are looking to buy and not looking to read some fancy articles about what the hell a fur sink is.

You think that doing what it takes to rank is spam, I disagree. Giving the end user what they want will never be spam in my book. And if next week Google changes their algo you wont see me on here crying, I will just change with it. You fall in love with your old outdated site and cry when it does not rank and say Google is broken... Google is never broken, Google is just Google, get over it, or get off my internet!

[Kelowna]

Kelowna, if your business model is "build sites that exploit a flaw in Google's algorithm",

Now that is a stretch... I never said anything about any exploit, not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. Do you know of a flaw that everyone can exploit, please share... :-)

[jonathanleger]

Rank and Bank, Churn and Burn, call it what you like, many in the tough niches are doing it because it works. Don't believe me? Go check out what the payday loans serps look like.

Kelowna,

I just looked at the first two pages for payday loans in the serps, and none of the results redirected to any domain other than the one shown to be ranking.

Am I missing something, or are you mistaken?

[vic_mackey]

all this self righteous white hatness is just too much to take. not only can I outrank most of you without breaking a sweat, I'll bet my conversion rates are x2 most of you as well. If you spent half as much time figuring out how to get visitors to do exactly what you want them to do, as opposed hanging on every word matt cutts spews, and pissing and moaning about how the evil spammers are outranking you, maybe you'd know the feeling of making more money in a month than most people make in a year.
.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:21 pm (utc) on Mar 29, 2013]
[edit reason] edited for TOS and charter violations [/edit]

[Leosghost]

I do hope you are not going to try to sell "most" of us your ebook "guide to success with Google" ( or was that just a drive-by rant second post for it's own sake )..some of us know very well how to "work" visitors..including that one catches more flies with honey than with bile..;)

Sipping champagne on the deck of our yachts moored in Caribbean paradise paid for with our websites profits would have "most of us" in a sunnier mood than it apparently does for you..

[edited by: Leosghost at 4:30 am (utc) on Mar 29, 2013]

[vic_mackey]

I was going to post a link to my <snip> guru ... guide, but I figured mods would remove it.
.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:38 am (utc) on Mar 29, 2013]
[edit reason] per forum charter, no search terms either [/edit]

[vic_mackey]

also was a rant mostly triggered by Naj0rt

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

It's cool. If you can get your guru guide past the mods I'm gonna post a link to a brochure I have about a bridge for sale lol

[edited by: TheOptimizationIdiot at 4:35 am (utc) on Mar 29, 2013]

[Leosghost]

Naj0rt, apparently frequently forgets to use the <tongue in cheek> tags ;)

mods would indeed..

[newsnshop]

It's true that Google get confused with new sites but slowly and slowly after having a proper look, they will be analyzed properly, for time being they are ranked well.

[Robert Charlton]

It's cool. If you can get your guru guide past the mods I'm gonna post a link to a brochure I have about a bridge for sale

TOI... I'm making a special exception in allowing your "bridge for sale" search terms ;)

[Kelowna]

Kelowna,

I just looked at the first two pages for payday loans in the serps, and none of the results redirected to any domain other than the one shown to be ranking.

Am I missing something, or are you mistaken?

Ya you are missing something, the main something.

Anyways, I was bored for a while and came back here to see if there was anything new at WW, I see nothing has changed, most of this board still appears to be the blind leading the blind. Too bad... back in the day WebmasterWorld was a great resource, now, not so much. Even Cutts seems to have left, or is keeping quiet. Dont want to lose my Junior Member status so I have to go back to lurking again. Good luck with all of your talk about hats, hope it helps all new readers.

[jonathanleger]

Ok, after rereading your post and looking back at the results, you do seem to be correct. Time to run an experiment to know for sure.

[heisje]

The idea of punishing spammers was not part of the original picture at Google and it's still not their main focus.

Beg to differ, on the part "and it's still not their main focus". They have gone at "punishing spammers" like crazy. And who is to define what a "spammer" is? They have stuck a "spammer" label on anything they do not fancy, legitimate or illegitimate, including direct or indirect business competitors (ex. affiliates) and have persecuted them with an unprecedented ferocity and vengeance. Commercially useful sites have been obliterated, by the vicious monopoly, and thus crap has floated to the surface. Good overall for selling Google advertising of all sorts. Regrettably, their SE competition is beyond pathetic. No contest, really, so they have got a "license to kill".

(Talk of the blind leading the blind, how true, back to lurking).

.

.

[Pjman]

See if you guys agree with this:

1. Short Success (<6 months)= Rank and Bank

Pros: Great ROI + You will see a trickle of money long term.

Cons: You Are Constantly Building Sites


2. Long Term Success

Pros: Long Term Moderate Income That Plateaus

Cons: ROI not always the best. Algorithm Changes Can Kill You.

I have never seen any value in short term success, but I can say @Kelowna : I see your point.

[Dymero]

Anyways, I was bored for a while and came back here to see if there was anything new at WW, I see nothing has changed, most of this board still appears to be the blind leading the blind.

I think you're encountering resistance because most people here are looking for different things than you. You want to make the most money you can, no matter what the cost. And that's fine, if you want to put up with creating a new site every month.

That's not the long-term solution most here are looking for, though. If their goal is to create a business that has name recognition a few years down the road, your short-term strategy won't work.

You say people shouldn't fall in love with their sites, but if the goal is to create a long-term business, we must.

Addition: Also, another problem is you promote massively buying links to get your site working. Most here are definitely going to shy away from that because while it may work, the PR nightmare for getting caught is more than most are willing to deal with when they could be doing better things, like selling their products/services.

Also, I agree with Pjman

[moxie]

Unfortunately I have to add ... If they can be found!

For sure; and this is where great marketing/brand messaging steps up to the plate, away from search engines.

[vic_mackey]

define "short term success". If you're talking the lifespan of a particular domain (notice I said DOMAIN and not site), then yes I run the risk of a domain only lasting a few weeks to months. However I define my success based on the checks I receive every month and I assure you, I've been receiving large ones for quite awhile.

now for those looking to build a brand, or an on-line presence around a brand, obviously your seo options are more limited, however I would argue that anyone counting on "long term" income from google organic, has been missing the writing on the wall for the last several years.

[netmeg]

(bear in mind, talk, on a mostly anonymous forum, is pretty cheap)

[plc90210]

OP: Is the site an exact keyword match domain?

[ColourOfSpring]

Like with state taxation, when over-taxing state ends up with *fewer* taxes collected, due to the contraction of the economy resulting from over-taxation, likewise with over-fighting spam you end up with more spam in return, because non-spam sites are burnt along with real-spam sites, rendering the risk of creating an expensive non-spam site unacceptable, therefore reverting to techniques of all sorts to remain viable.

heisje, GREAT comment - deserves a thread of its own (if a similar one hasn't already been started).

The cost and effort involved with starting up a new "proper" business online is much greater than starting up a new "non-proper" / spammier rank-and-bank site. Purely in terms of organic rankings, BOTH sites carry a high risk of being penalised by Google in some way. The "proper" non-spammy site is STILL high risk because it can easily have its content scraped by another site with more authorative links pointing to it, and be penalised for duplicate content, OR some outsider can spend $5 blasting it with crappy links and it gets penalised/penguined for unnatural links. For the spammier site, the cost and effort of starting again is a LOT lower and it can take greater risks, which mean better short-term rankings. Even if the non-spammy site never takes risks, it's STILL high risk - it won't have a decent link profile to protect it from spammy links, or for being seen as the canonical reference when it's scraped. This is why we're seeing more and more spam in the SERPs - genuine businesses just can't keep starting again.