Bouncing in SERPs - If it's not Rank Modification for Spam Detection?

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

There have been a large number of reports of SERPs "bouncing" and settling after changes are made to a page, redirecting, links being added (even nofollow appears to be a possible cause), but the following video seems to imply the Rank Modifying for Spam Detection Patent is not in use: [youtube.com...]

Thread: [webmasterworld.com...]
Patent: [patft.uspto.gov...]

We know bouncing is happening:

All 3 pages had received approximately 50 FB likes, 1 tweet from an account that tweets on this subject, and 1 G+ from an account that shares on this subject.

I then posted 7 blog comments on articles that were on the exact same subject with the same keywords in the title or had close synonyms, with a link pointing to keyword1 and keyword2. I left keyword3 alone. All the links were not keyword laced with 6 being links under my name and 1 a bare url. All of them were "no follow."

Keyword1 dropped from the serps the next day. It reappeared the next day at the top of page 2. It bounced on page 2 for a week then settled at position 13

Keyword2 remained unchanged for a week, bounced to down 1 position for a day then moved up 2 positions before settling back to it's original position at the moment.

Keyword3 remained unchanged during this whole process.

-taberstruths

I've sat and watched bouncing right after changes that stabilize over time.

Me, too. I mentioned that observation too, right after the patent hit the light of day. I'm thinking it may actually be applied, but only in very specific cases. My guesswork, not Google's official statement at all.

-tedster

Above from the Penguin's 1st Birthday Thread [webmasterworld.com].

[After redirecting an EMD] We've not experienced a rise quite so meteoric, but are definitely bobbing back to the surface. 40s last week, 36 over the weekend and 20 this morning.

---

Fell to mid 40s over the weekend. Decided not to touch a thing and hold fast just in case this was some sort of google a/b test. Then we popped up at no.9 this morning.

---

[Less than 1 hour later] Errrr... no.5 now

-overscan

I have gone from page 1 for years and years to nowhere to be found, to page 15, to page 2, page 7, and now whatever page 250'ish is on.


-mihomes

We're hovering around positions 5 - 8 at the moment. We used to be #1 but still many pages to get picked up and redirected.

-lewis1

Above from the EMD Update Thread [webmasterworld.com]

---

And I could go on and on if I "dug through history" here, because "bouncing" in the SERPs has been well documented for years, but I think that's enough background to start, so...

---

[Forgetting for a minute what the name of the algo portion causing it is called]

What are people seeing that causes bouncing?
Personally, I notice them most after changes affecting a large number of pages on a single site.

How long does it last?
Used to be a couple of weeks when I first noticed it, but I've seen it go for over 2 months recently.

How many positions are the bounces?
I've seen from "small" (1 to 5 places) to "all over the place" (gone from the SERPs, then back and forth between pages, then different positions on the same page).

What do you do about it & what impact does your reaction have?
I've found "waiting it out" to be best, because it seems if I make changes either "bounces worse" or the pages will completely drop from the SERPs for a period.

---

[Back to what the name of the algo portion causing it is called]

If it's not "Rank Modification for Spam Detection", what is it then, "Random SERP Position Fluctuation for Finding Reactionary Rank Manipulating Optimization"?

[diberry]

I'm glad you started this. After one of my sites got Penguined, I made some changes (more for branding than in hopes of winning Google back). My lowered rankings fell further, and then some pages dropped out on certain queries entirely. To this day, the keyphrase I used to rank #1 for will show my page at around 150 one day, 650 another day, 450 another day... no rhyme or reason. Every SEO I've talked to, which includes some reputed people around here, said I had definitely triggered the RMSD penalty in addition to Penguin. The description of that patent just matches so clearly what they're seeing that it seemed unquestionably related.

Cutts does not flat out say, "We're not using that patent." I think his point is more that we should NOT read a patent and decide, "Well, I give up." And fair enough.

We've always talked about how making changes such as moving to a new domain with 301 for branding purposes would cause a temporary drop of something like 20%. Some of it could simply be the algo noticing a big change and kinda... I dunno, it almost feels like it flags the site to be checked more deeply, and then after the deeper checks show there's nothing hinky going on, you get your rankings back. So some of the behavior might relate to that.

But it does seem like in some cases (and maybe "Penguin" and "unnatural links" are two of them), this RMSD thing is happening.

[taberstruths]

Didn't it used to be called "The Google Dance?"

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

That was a bit different.

"The Google Dance" was when they would update their index monthly and the reason for the "bouncing" was a bit different than what I think we're talking about.

Back before Big Daddy and Caffeine they only updated what people saw in the results once a month and the fluctuations from those updates were generally in the process of once index being replaced by another, but when that process was complete you generally stayed where you were until the next one.

---

So, to "get a picture" think of a "things to do list" and pretend you work in an office with say 10,000 other people who have a copy of your "to do list" uploaded to their computer.

They see the copy you published for them for the entire month, but you have another copy you update throughout the month at the end of the month you republish it for everyone else to use next month. Some things get added, some get deleted, some get re-prioritized, etc.

Now imagine the list is "a mile long" and takes 2 or 3 days to get to the old one all the way deleted and the new one saved to all the different people's computers, but people still have access to it while it's in the process of being updated, because they have to have something to go by.

All different people might see different things during the updating process and being able to access it while it's being updated would have some things in some parts of the list in the wrong order. Like when a priority has been moved down on the list, but hasn't been deleted from "higher up" yet during the process of reading the data, writing the new data, erasing the old data. In that case a priority could appear "higher" for a while to some people than it will when the list is completely changed.

---

What we're talking about seeing isn't them "republishing the order of the index" necessarily, but it's more like them publishing the order, then putting a "note" next to an item and saying "make 27" even though it's in position 3 on the list and changing the position they display it in randomly until time period of the "note" expires.

So, something like this:

Day 1
Item 1 = Page ABC
Item 2 = Page DEF
Item 3 = Page GHI [NOTE: Make 27 - 4 days remaining]
Item 4 = Page JKL
Item 5 = Page MNO

Day 2
Item 1 = Page ABC
Item 2 = Page DEF
Item 3 = Page GHI [NOTE: Make 15 - 3 days remaining]
Item 4 = Page JKL
Item 5 = Page MNO

Day 3
Item 1 = Page ABC
Item 2 = Page DEF
Item 3 = Page GHI [NOTE: Make 19 - 2 days remaining]
Item 4 = Page JKL
Item 5 = Page MNO

Day 4
Item 1 = Page ABC
Item 2 = Page DEF
Item 3 = Page GHI [NOTE: Make 8 - 2 days remaining]
Item 4 = Page JKL
Item 5 = Page MNO

Day 5
Item 1 = Page ABC
Item 2 = Page DEF
Item 3 = Page GHI [NOTE: Make 11 - 1 days remaining]
Item 4 = Page JKL
Item 5 = Page MNO

Day 6
Item 1 = Page ABC
Item 2 = Page DEF
Item 3 = Page GHI
Item 4 = Page JKL
Item 5 = Page MNO

That's about as "English" as I can think of for how to explain the difference anyway.

[edited by: TheOptimizationIdiot at 10:00 pm (utc) on May 4, 2013]

[taberstruths]

I know that the term google dance originated before big daddy and caffeine, however the term seemed to carry on after those updates to describe any fluctuations in serps that happened after making changes or building links.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

I thought it was changed to "everflux" with Big Daddy, but didn't want to confuse anything? But that's still the updating of the index itself, more rapidly and not exactly what I'm talking about it seems like we're seeing.

Say a page goes from 5 to 6, but only 5 and 6 switch places 1 to 4 and 7 to N all stay the same. The "switching" of positions between 5 and 6 doesn't likely indicate a "full index" upadate (imo). I think that's more like an "on the way out" switch of positions by a mechanism in the system.

* And I'm probably not explaining what I'm thinking very well, but there's a bit of a difference in what I'm talking about and "The Google Dance" or general "Everflux" and what I'm thinking, but whether it's only "semantic" or actually "means something" or "tells us anything" remains to be seen.

---

Addition:

What I'm talking about seems more like "publishing the index", then when they go to get the results, pulling one page out of it's "published position" (say #3 to stick with the previous example) and displaying it in a different position when someone searches (say #27).

All the other results stay in the same order as the "published index" but "shift up" a position to fill the gap left by removing #3 and displaying it at #27 instead.

[Leosghost]

zig zag..

You zig..the algo notices and zags..and watches to see if you zig..you do..it zags..the more you zig..the more they zag..this repeats..

Why ?..

Because only those who are changing their sites for the algo would notice when G zags..

Hunters call it "beating the brush" etc..

[aristotle]

The underlying assumption for this patent has always seemed dubious to me. There are lots of reasons why someone would make changes to their website. Just because they happened to do it shortly after a rankings change doesn't mean that they did for SEO purposes. I don't see how it could ever be a reliable signal.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Well, I think it would depend on what the change was, the order of changes made and the frequency of the changes.

So, someone has a title of:
Blue Widgets

Then Changes it to:
Blue Widgets, Blue Widgeting, Widget Made of Blue, Best Blue Widgets

Rankings for Blue Widget related queries drop.

The Title Changes Back to:
Blue Widgets

How is that possibly "just making a change" and not trying to manipulate rankings? If it was really for visitors and their benefit it would not revert. If it was really because it described the page better it would not revert.

###

Link Menu has the text:
Ordering
Details
Reviews
Resources

Changes to:
Blue Widget Ordering
Blue Widget Details
Blue Widget Reviews
Blue Widget Resources

Rankings for Blue Widget related searches drop.

Menu Changes Back to:
Ordering
Details
Reviews
Resources

Did they make the changes for visitors or try to manipulate rankings? Visitors don't need the keyword information in the links in a menu, and if they do, then it would not revert.

###

So, someone has a title of:
Blue Widgets

Then Changes it to:
Blue Widgets, Blue Widgeting, Widget Made of Blue, Best Blue Widgets

Rankings for Blue Widget related queries drop/bounce.

Then Changes it to:
Blue Widgets, Blue Widgeting, Best Widget Made of Blue

Rankings for Blue Widget related queries drop and bounce more.

Then Changes it to:
Blue Widgets, Best Blue Widgeting

Rankings for Blue Widget related queries drop and bounce even more.

Then Changes Back to:
Blue Widgets

Were the title changes for visitors or rankings? If it was really because it described the page better it would not constantly change or revert.

[aristotle]

I still don't think this is the type of signal that a good algorithm should be using. Some novice could be playing around with different titles as new ideas occur to him. What Google should be focusing on is creating an algorithm that is inherently immune to SEO practices and attempts at manipulation. That would be a much better approach.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Cutts does not flat out say, "We're not using that patent." I think his point is more that we should NOT read a patent and decide, "Well, I give up." And fair enough.

I should probably add I agree with this.

And I don't think it's about "oh, you added a word" or "corrected a spelling error" or even "made your headings more concise" or "made the headings more descriptive" type changes that would cause anything more than a "bounce" for a bit, if they even caused that.

I think it's much more about "obvious manipulation attempts", especially when it "actually does something" (penalize, demote, rank lower, whatever) more than "fluctuate the SERPs a bit" to see if you made the changes for manipulation or if you just made some changes you thought were improvements for visitors

One more example of "obvious" based on what I was saying above.

A site has a "average steady rate" of 10 inbound links per month for last year and only one link every 4 months goes to the Blue Widget page.

The Page Has the Title:
Blue Widgets

Then the Title Changes To:
Blue Widgets, Blue Widgeting, Widget Made of Blue, Best Blue Widgets

And 20 new links to the Blue Widget page appear over the next 2 week with random variations of the title text with no other changes to the page.

How did a page that only averages 3 links a year on a site that only gets 10 links a month and has consistent rankings make a change to the title and nothing else on the page then in one month "naturally" gain the number of links it would take the page over 6 years to get and the site itself 2 months to get (based on the historical data) and the all links happen to be pointed to the same page and they just happen to have variations of the new title's keywords in it? Do you really think it was natural?

[aristotle]

It looks like some posts got shuffled into the wrong order. I was trying to respond to TOI. So see my answer above.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

I still don't think this is the type of signal that a good algorithm should be using. Some novice could be playing around with different titles as new ideas occur to him. What Google should be focusing on is creating an algorithm that is inherently immune to SEO practices and attempts at manipulation. That would be a much better approach.

Uh, I may have had an adult beverage today, but I really don't see any plausibility in the idea of Google being inherently immune to SEO (manipulations).

Rhetorically: How can anyone possibly be inherently immune to being manipulated when others have complete control over ever single bit of data they have to use try to decipher/categorize/organize web pages when that data can be changed at any time and a change to the data must have an impact in some way on it's interpretation?

Closing Statement On the Point: They don't control the content on webpages. They have to attempt to decipher the content to determine what a page is about. The content can be changed at any time. A change to the content they have to decipher will change the way the content is interpreted in some (possibly small) way but may change the intended meaning, much the way a change to this post could change the way it's understood by people. There is no way they can be inherently immune to changes in the information they have to interpret and categorize to be a search engine. It's not possible.

Beyond That: The point of this thread isn't what they "should or should not" use, but rather what they "do or do not" use, so I hope we can back to "do they or don't they" and "if they do to what extent and in response to what events", thanks.

[aristotle]

In fact it is theoretically possible to create an algorithm that is immune to SEO practices and attempts at manipulation. Absolute 100% immunity might not be attainable in the real world, but that doesn't mean Google shouldn't try.

As for the type of signal discussed in this thread, in my opinion it's unlikely that Google could ever develop it into a reliable enough indicator to include in their algorithm.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

In fact it is theoretically possible to create an algorithm that is immune to SEO practices and attempts at manipulation. Absolute 100% immunity might not be attainable in the real world, but that doesn't mean Google shouldn't try.

This is really for a different thread, but I can't stop laughing, because if search engines have to base where a page ranks (is organized in the search engine system) on the information it contains and I can change the information it contains I can manipulate a search engine, because if a search engine doesn't update where a page is organized and where it ranks and what it ranks for when I change the information presented it would not only be hugely manipulatable, it would be manipulatable in a way that would destroy their business, because I could take a page that ranks for "Disney Cartoons" and if a search engine didn't update where it ranked when I changed the content of the page to pron they'd be done.

Maybe you don't think me being able to add to, remove from, edit or even just change the importance of information on a page is SEO, but we'll have to agree to disagree on what SEO is then. But there is absolutely no way a system that is based on information I present and I can change any time is not influenced by the information I present at any give time. (That means I can change where a page ranks and what it ranks for in search engine by changing the content. IOW: Manipulate it.)

I absolutely can force a search engine to change where a page ranks and what it ranks for by changing the content of the page. I must be able to or search engine would go belly up rapidly.

Since I can make search engine change where a page ranks and what it ranks for by changing the content I can manipulate a search engine and I absolutely have to have that ability for a serch engine to be a search engine and stay in business.

There's no way around it and there's no way a search engine could possibly make it so the current content of a page doesn't matter, so no it's not theoretically possible to have a search engine that's not subject to manipulation. They absolutely have to be subject to manipulation to actually be search engines.

---

So, instead of stopping at saying they can't do it reliably enough, why not tell us what it is we're seeing the effects of?

Why is it if I change the titles of 1000 pages and keep the meaning essentially the same (so I go from "widgets in city", state to "widgets: city, state") those pages will drop in the rankings after the change is picked up and then go back where they were if I leave them alone, but if I make subsequent changes they will take longer to go back and usually drop farther before they return?

And, please, don't tell me I haven't seen it, I've been watching happen for years.

If you're going to say it's not the process outlined in the patent because that's not reliable enough to be used, please, tell us what it is.

[aristotle]

TOI - I'm starting to wonder how you have time to write so many long posts, unless you simply don't have anything better to do. In any case, I would like to suggest that you go back and read some of the older threads about user metrics, the Chrome browser, machine learning, etc. Then maybe someone could start another thread in which all of us could resume those discussions. Unfortunately, I'm very busy with something else right now, so probably won't be able to make any more posts in Webmaster World today.

[Leosghost]

TOI - I'm starting to wonder how you have time to write so many long posts, unless you simply don't have anything better to do

I can assure you TOI writes /types extremely fast, and has sent me far longer replies via sticky mail in less than 5 minutes after my initial mail..

[diberry]

Aristotle, this thread is not about whether the patent would be smart to use. It's about whether it or something else is causing the "bounces" that a whole lot of people have observed. If you don't have anything to add and are using the thread mainly to belittle people who are trying to get to the bottom of this phenomenon, then perhaps your valuable time would be better spent in threads where your input is relevant.

Back to the topic:

My former top page had been #1 for years. At one point a couple of years ago, it slipped to #2, so I made a few changes, and it went back to #1. THAT may be where the algo pegged me as an SEO person. While I never built links or any of that stuff, I had taken steps to keep that page at #1, and reacted quickly the instant it started to slip. Then Penguin demoted it a few positions and again, I immediately made changes (before I even knew about Penguin, actually - I hadn't been to WebmasterWorld in some time), and my rankings just got worse.

Based on that *timing*, in both cases, would the algo be wrong to assume I was making changes to get back my rankings? Not at all.

Since then, the page has bounced all over the place in the SERPs. Is that the sort of behavior we'd expect based on this patent? I'll leave that to the people who've been doing this longer than I have.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

...so I made a few changes, and it went back to #1...

A bit of process of elimination here.
What did you change then that did not cause it to bounce?

I immediately made changes (before I even knew about Penguin, actually - I hadn't been to WebmasterWorld in some time), and my rankings just got worse.

Did you change the same things here as before or something different?

---

LG, you're way too observant. First somehow you picked up on the writing style even though my posts look different, meaning rather than capitalize for emphasis I use bold, italics and hr's now but never consistently have before, now you're making notes about how fast I can type? Way too much lol.

I'm glad you didn't say anything about how I often work 80+ hours a week and sometimes run database updates that take 6 to 9 hours to complete and many have to be run in 10 minute "pieces" or they clog up the server memory, so in addition to being about to type rapidly I often find myself at the computer with a few extra minutes to try and give back to the community I've gotten so much out of over the years I've been here, rather than playing the "too busy and important to contribute card" and just "taking away" from here, because I don't recall telling you that part! lol

[Leosghost]

I figured out much of that already ..your odd hours..and by reading between the lines..and some unusual "unless it was to do..aahh got it ;)" code that you post..Writing styles ..many here have been and gone and returned under many names ..some still use multiple nicks..some nicks have multiple people posting behind them..

But "styles" always give them away..;)

ps ..your "multi-post "time" ..fell upon stony ground..I was watching ( saved it ) and rather thought it would ..nice though ..;)

[diberry]

What did you change then that did not cause it to bounce?

I added even more links. I believe I also added some more stock photos.

Did you change the same things here as before or something different?

After Penguin, I reduced the number of links from over 100 to under 50. I tried to deoptimize some language, especially in the H1 and H2 headers. Then I changed the domain name for branding purposes, and that's when it all really went sour. And then I got rid of all my stock photos on that site and replaced them with originals - that took a few months.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Okay, so in your case we have:

A normal flux that dropped you to #2
The addition of outbound links that brought you back.
That means you "diluted" your internal PR and increased your position, which is contrary to what "everyone" says you should happen.

Then we have an algo that's not run often that demoted you again.
It's been stated it's very difficult to reverse engineer.

Then you "did what everyone said" and removed links and deoptimized.
Didn't help.

Then you changed domains and that started the real bouncing.
But people have said redirecting was a way to get out of Penguin -- Sounds refuted.

Then you made your site more original like everyone says.
To no avail.

---

I guess the questions I would ask right now off the top of my head are:

Why would "doing what everyone says" seem to have no effect?

What would be very difficult to reverse engineer?

Why would more "uniqueness" not have a positive impact?

How did diluting your internal PR distribution by adding outbound links help initially?

Why did increasing your internal PR distribution by removing outbound links not help or have any noticeable impact?

Why would Penguin not need to be run very often?

I'll try to think of more later.

---

BTW: The best I can guess right now that makes the any sense to me is it was Professor Cutts in the Kitchen, but to confuse everyone, rather than the knife, he used the candlestick.

---

@LG I've tried to figure out a way to say something in small at the bottom of a post without saying something in small through 3 user names and still can't figure it out. Suggestions? Ideas? It's such a f'ing give away LOL

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

What would be very difficult to reverse engineer?
Why would Penguin not need to be run very often?
Why would more "uniqueness" not have a positive impact?

It's based on historical data.
Best answer to those I have right now.

[diberry]

Why would "doing what everyone says" seem to have no effect?

Because we haven't "cracked" Penguin yet. That's my conclusion, anyway. OR, de-optimizing was smart, but I ran into this ranking detection thing.

What would be very difficult to reverse engineer?

Personally, I think Penguin has to be more sophisticated than just groping in the dark for links and optimization - things the regular algo had been handling for years. Why invest resources in creating Penguin if it was just going to do what the algo's always done?

Why would more "uniqueness" not have a positive impact?

It could simply be I'm in some kind of sandbox where Google isn't even going to look at my site again for some period of time, so nothing I do will have positive results until they look again. But I doubt this, because recently there have been some minor ranking changes.

Or it could be that uniqueness is a Panda thing, and Penguin doesn't care. Or again, it could be that what I did IS positive, but I'm up against the rank detection thing.

How did diluting your internal PR distribution by adding outbound links help initially?

I can't guess. That page didn't gain any new inbounds or anything. *I* thought I was just making my page an even better resource for visitors - I wasn't thinking of pagerank or anything, or I probably wouldn't have added more links. At the time, I just assumed Google agreed with me that the page was an improved resource, LOL. I doubt that now!

Why did increasing your internal PR distribution by removing outbound links not help or have any noticeable impact?

I think this is where everyone concluded it was the ranking detection algo at work. The only other possibilities I've thought of are that Penguin targets certain keyphrases, and decides certain sites just can't rank for them anymore. It could be those no-follow links the page generated (by linking to Wordpress blogs and getting trackbacks) originally are now something that's going to hold this page down until it gains more natural inbounds.

Why would Penguin not need to be run very often?

Because it's accomplished what they wanted from it, whatever that is. This is the one thing that makes me wonder if it's some kind of permanent penalty.

BTW: The best I can guess right now that makes the any sense to me is it was Professor Cutts in the Kitchen, but to confuse everyone, rather than the knife, he used the candlestick.

LOL, we should make a special version of Clue where it's all about figuring out which algo hit you, and how, and where.

[gouri]

How many positions are the bounces?

I've seen from "small" (1 to 5 places) to "all over the place" (gone from the SERPs, then back and forth between pages, then different positions on the same page).

Is the amount of movement related to the amount of over optimization on the page and/or site? The more over optimization there is, the more movement there will be.

[TheOptimizationIdiot]

Is the amount of movement related to the amount of over optimization on the page and/or site?

Not for me and what I've seen it seems to be more related to the "amount of change", but not necessarily optimization or over-optimization.

So, if I edit the title of one page to be something more "click friendly" it doesn't bounce much, but if I were to edit 1000 titles exactly the same amount as the one, it seems to get bigger.

I don't know if "over optimization" is what I would call it at all, because "over" implies too much, but if I keep the "general meaning the same" and try to make something more "click friendly" there seems to be bouncing related to the overall amount of change, not the degree of optimization.

So for example going from [widget in city, state] to [city, state widget] seems to have little impact on a single page but if I make exactly the same change on more it seems to "bounce" harder.

[gouri]

Thanks.

[FranticFish]

Interesting thread. I don't work on a huge number of sites, or very large sites, so I lack lots of data of my own, but I made very significant changes to a geographic directory type site recently (pretty much a complete overhaul: new urls, new titles, new meta data, new headers, new content on 40 'category' pages and about 120 'product' pages) and saw only immediate improvements that stuck as soon as they were spidered.

We added new text to the 'category' pages - a few paragraphs.
We added/amalgamated a lot of content into the 'product' pages.
No new links at all.
This was the first time any part of the site had been changed in 4-5 years.

But on other, smaller, sites I have seen wobbles that settle after making smaller changes to only one or two pages.

The only difference I can think of is that the directory-type site has been first for its main (non-geographic) term for years and still is. Other sites I saw wobbles on were on page 1 (but not at the top) or page 2.

If this part of the algo is in use then perhaps:
(a) if the site is trusted enough then it gets a bit of a free pass when making changes?
(b) how often 'SEO' elements like the title tag have changed in the past come into play?

The amount of volatility in the SERP might come into play too.

[MarkOly]

Maybe it's important to make sure you always add new content to go along with your SEO changes. If the only changes you make are things that Google has tagged as 'SEO-centric' items, I can see how that could be a problem.

Who knows, maybe in their algo, the part that asks "Is there new content?" is higher up in the code. If the answer is yes, then 'let's check that out' - then the if-then closes and doesn't even check for target SEO changes - or looks at SEO changes differently somehow. Just a very uneducated hypo. But I think I will follow that advice since I thought about it. That is if I plan to change SEO items, make sure I add new content along with it.

[taberstruths]

It could be also related to the frequency of changes. It there seems to be a lot of attention being paid to small changes or tweaks then that could raise a flag.