Penguin 2.0 is upon us - May 22, 2013

[viral]

Matt has announced Penguin 2.0 (Penguin 4). Either way it is out there and affecting.

Is anyone noticing much movement in the serps? I personally haven't seen much flux but Mozcast seems to be feeling something.

[mattcutts.com...]

We started rolling out the next generation of the Penguin webspam algorithm this afternoon (May 22, 2013), and the rollout is now complete. About 2.3% of English-US queries are affected to the degree that a regular user might notice. The change has also finished rolling out for other languages world-wide. The scope of Penguin varies by language, e.g. languages with more webspam will see more impact.

This is the fourth Penguin-related launch Google has done, but because this is an updated algorithm (not just a data refresh), we’ve been referring to this change as Penguin 2.0 internally. For more information on what SEOs should expect in the coming months, see the video that we recently released.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 12:12 pm (utc) on May 23, 2013]
[edit reason] added quote [/edit]

[ColourOfSpring]

What I'm seeing on all my queries is that the recognizable brands are all at the top, and THEN you get to the independent sites and blogs. It's as if there are two separate SERPs, and if you're #1 for the independent sites, you'll still rank below the brands. Where I'm seeing this, there is NO mixing of the two - the brands stop at some point, and the indies begin.

The only exceptions are the lower volume keyphrases. On those, independent websites can rank amongst the brands, even over them.

Is anyone else seeing a distinct pattern of higher volume keyphrases being reserved for brands first, almost like two entirely separate SERPs for "brands" and "indies"?

Seeing it too, diberry, but even on longish-tail keywords now too. Competitive keywords? It's a who's who of big brands - just as you see it. No independents til the searcher has to plough through clusters of big brands.

Since Penguin 2.0, crowd hosting / clustering is a lot worse in the SERPs I check.

I don't care how innocent some people think Google's intentions are - there's OBVIOUSLY ulterior motives going on here with Google. We can argue what they might be, but there certainly are motives Google have that are beyond the conventional thinking of producing quality SERPs.

[sandboxsam]

What I'm seeing on all my queries is that the recognizable brands are all at the top, and THEN you get to the independent sites and blogs. It's as if there are two separate SERPs, and if you're #1 for the independent sites, you'll still rank below the brands. Where I'm seeing this, there is NO mixing of the two - the brands stop at some point, and the indies begin.

The only exceptions are the lower volume keyphrases. On those, independent websites can rank amongst the brands, even over them.

Is anyone else seeing a distinct pattern of higher volume keyphrases being reserved for brands first, almost like two entirely separate SERPs for "brands" and "indies"?

Absolutely the case; big name sites rule the search results.
This seems to be what quality looks like to Google.

[netmeg]

Nothing's obvious when it comes to Google. Good or bad.

[turbocharged]

On some product queries I am seeing Amazon US in 1 of 3 top paid listings and the top two organic listings. In the organic position of 11, an Amazon UK listing resides and other Amazon UK listings can be found deeper in the organic serps.

Did Penguin 2.0 introduce some problems with geo-targeting (I am US) or has Google's love affair with Amazon hit a whole new level?

I have to agree with ColourOfSpring's statement regarding motives. There is absolutely no way that the serps project quality. A lack of diversity, host crowding and even forum posts with horribly written English ranking in top spots tells me that Google's serps are also suffering from being Penguinized.

[diberry]

I wonder how many queries this is happening on. For the ones that matter to my sites, it looks like the algo is first splitting the SERPs between recognizable brands and indie sites and THEN considering factors like relevance and spammy backlinks and so on. If that's true, then nothing I've learned about SEO matters: all that matters is becoming a recognizable brand.

I can't begin to guess if this has anything to do with Penguin or just the rest of the algo, but it looks clearer than ever since they announced Penguin 2.0.

[turbocharged]

Absolutely the case; big name sites rule the search results.
This seems to be what quality looks like to Google.

Google has long suffered from an algorithmic solution that identifies the best content for a given query on a page level. This is evident in each algo tweak that Google makes that apparently dials up the value of domain name authority, which further distances the best content from the brands that appear at the top of the serps. In fact, domain name authority has gotten so bad that scrapers can easily copy content from weaker/penalized domains and rank it rather quickly.

I think part of what we are seeing in the serps is Google's focus on penalizing instead of rewarding content. By introducing panda, penguin and other penalty based variables into the algorithm, content is no longer king and domain name authority is. I suspect that big brands get a pass on panda and penguin, which is why they are continually climbing in the serps with each update.

Thankfully Bing traffic seems to be improving, and their conversion rate is nearly double that of Google. I suspect Google's actual logged traffic is enhanced with excessive scraper/bot activity that is not as profound in Bing.

[fathom]

Is anyone else seeing a distinct pattern of higher volume keyphrases being reserved for brands first, almost like two entirely separate SERPs for "brands" and "indies"?

If this is what you are seeing - maybe "brands" invest in organic links and "indies" invest in inorganic links and that creates a class distinction since PENGUIN targets the inorganic side.

When you see a "big brand" get nailed it is generally from a Manual Review which suggests their style of manipulation maybe more sophisticated than PENGUIN can detect.

In reverse... I don't see any reason why brands shouldn't be at the top of results... surely they are not generally considered "low quality domains".

[rish3]

f this is what you are seeing - maybe "brands" invest in organic links and "indies" invest in inorganic links

In the niches I have experience in, brands invest plenty in inorganic links. Just higher-end ones that "indies" can't afford.

[diberry]

In the niches I have experience in, brands invest plenty in inorganic links. Just higher-end ones that "indies" can't afford.

And many indie sites do not build links at all. But there's no point telling Fathom this, because in many threads Fathom keeps making arguments that rely on the "just world fallacy" - the assumption that anyone wronged brought it on themselves by doing something risky. Also known as "victim blaming."

The problem with this approach (aside from the fact that we all know it's not a just world, I mean, c'mon) is that it relies on the idea that Fathom's understanding of how the algo works is perfect and complete, and if you get into it further with him, he will insist you take his word and refuse to provide any evidence to support his claims. And his understanding of Penguin is that it's all about spammy backlinks, and if you got dinged you must have built spammy backlinks, and that's the end of it. Logic and evidence have no place there.

I'm just trying to establish if others are seeing a clear line of demarcation where every. single. result. is a brand until #X, and then the indie sites begin. If so, this tells us something about the algo and what it's doing, which I thought is what we're all here to learn.

And for all the Google defenders: if Google actually is putting brands up front on purpose, it does not necessarily follow they are "being evil." If you followed how Congress grilled them about piracy links and links to businesses that ripped off consumers, it sounded like Congress expected Google to drop the algo altogether and personally screen each link with a thorough private investigation into their business practices before indexing it. I can totally see Google responding with, "Good grief, guess we'd better make sure the domains that wind up at the top have been thoroughly screened and can be thoroughly trusted."

[ColourOfSpring]

And many indie sites do not build links at all. But there's no point telling Fathom this, because in many threads Fathom keeps making arguments that rely on the "just world fallacy" - the assumption that anyone wronged brought it on themselves by doing something risky. Also known as "victim blaming."

"just world fallacy" - thanks for introducing me to that diberry. Certainly I've been on the receiving end of this attitude from a few people. I guess the wheel is turning. We're going through a transitional phase right now, that's for sure. And I'm talking about everyone who cares to make money on the internet. Even the whitest of white hats who was left utterly untouched by Panda and Penguin are now competing in a completely different internet to the one they existed in 2 years ago. A much more precarious environment, a much less certain one. Even their confidence will be affected. They can see the main traffic driver turning inward, becoming more self-serving. The internet high street is shutting its doors on the independents. It's just a question of time before you get your notice.

[tedster]

I'm just trying to establish if others are seeing a clear line of demarcation where every. single. result. is a brand until #X, and then the indie sites begin.

That's a very good and precise question to look at, diberry. From an initial check, I'd say #X is not the same number from query to query, but something like this pattern seems to exist for the more competitive transactional keywords - and not for informational queries.

I'll keep this question in mind and see what comes up over time.

[ColourOfSpring]

That's a very good and precise question to look at, diberry. From an initial check, I'd say #X is not the same number from query to query, but something like this pattern seems to exist for the more competitive transactional keywords - and not for informational queries.

I would have thought that diberry was talking exclusively about commercial keywords. I know on this forum, I'm only ever talking about commercial keywords. If I'm searching for something non-commercial on Google, I get the "old Google" - bigger variety of sources, much less host crowding. Commercial searches? A narrow range of brands, heavy host crowding, complete lack of variety (for the large majority of commercial searches).

[diberry]

That's a very good and precise question to look at, diberry. From an initial check, I'd say #X is not the same number from query to query, but something like this pattern seems to exist for the more competitive transactional keywords - and not for informational queries.

Thank you, Tedster, that's exactly what I'm seeing, except I am seeing it on informational queries. In fact, I just realized I'm seeing it most consistently on queries that use one of the words Google uses as a link at the top of the SERPs (starts out "Web, Images, Maps..."). So it's possible that only informational queries relating to those terms, which Google must index a bit differently, are getting this treatment. I'll have to look into this more.

[purplekitty]

I am not seeing a hard line of demarcation in my industry, instead the big brands are mixed in and do have placing on page 1 for main keyword phrases...actually except for one which now that I'm looking at it, really surprises me since it's the leading publisher in the industry. I just looked for it using wordtracker and it's waaaaaay out there.

Bottom line is I see no rhyme nor reason for what places in Google serps after Penguin for the specific disciplines in my industry.

[Whitey]

I'm just trying to establish if others are seeing a clear line of demarcation where every. single. result. is a brand until #X, and then the indie sites begin. If so, this tells us something about the algo and what it's doing, which I thought is what we're all here to learn.

And for all the Google defenders: if Google actually is putting brands up front on purpose, it does not necessarily follow they are "being evil." If you followed how Congress grilled them about piracy links and links to businesses that ripped off consumers, it sounded like Congress expected Google to drop the algo altogether and personally screen each link with a thorough private investigation into their business practices before indexing it. I can totally see Google responding with, "Good grief, guess we'd better make sure the domains that wind up at the top have been thoroughly screened and can be thoroughly trusted."

@Dilberry +1

Links and link management are a failure. Eric Schmidt practically admitted it when he talked about the cesspool of results and that "brands were the answer" - well I think BIG brands are not the only answer, and no determined small/business owner on the planet with any substance and self belief is going to coin that phrase lying down. What small/medium business want's to be under the brands in a land of opportunity. Listing the top websites in any vertical as a fixed occurrence would take a well organized group of workers a week to compile. Probably Google already did this editorially - who knows. Google is not producing rocket science here. And it's the small/medium business' that have the real deals - they just need the vehicle to deliver. And Google's current technology doesn't hold a mortgage on the air we breathe. Something will happen.

[edited by: Whitey at 11:14 pm (utc) on May 26, 2013]

[fathom]

In the niches I have experience in, brands invest plenty in inorganic links. Just higher-end ones that "indies" can't afford.

If you are shooting in the open is it easy to get picked off... if you are shooting from cover it is far more difficult to determine where the shots are coming from let alone be able to do anything about it.

e.g. Brand based domains have plenty of cover for the reason even you suggest retort... "they are brands".

The cost is immaterial.

[tedster]

OK - we've wandered pretty far off-topic, so let's go back to discussing the recent Penguin 2.0 Update. Thanks.

[fathom]

And many indie sites do not build links at all.

So the rational that PENGUIN devalued them is because ... PENGUIN doesn't work correctly?

I don't see how any domain that:

1. Didn't have clearly defined brand identity built over time from other channels and then was equally adaptive to search when Google aggressively targeted webspam

2. Didn't build search oriented brand value directly which continues to be equally adaptive to search as Google aggressively targeted webspam

3. Didn't do any form of manipulation (as you suggest)

How does one achieve results this way to begin with?

Sounds like the origin of that solution was poorly conceived.

If one doesn't build links, at all, they either have no links or they are a brand value at some level. That is the concept of brand... in this case "link recognition".

[Whitey]

That is the concept of brand... in this case "link recognition".

Google's concept of brand?

IMO Penguin demonstrates a potential weakness in managing the SERP's for all stakeholders and participants. Forget the science for a moment.

btw - This thread is a bit more refined on this topic [webmasterworld.com...]

[fathom]

Google's concept of brand?

IMO Penguin demonstrates a potential weakness in managing the SERP's for all stakeholders and participants. Forget the science for a moment.

btw - This thread is a bit more refined on this topic

The science of brand is the only question here and it does decide the difference between being a winner or a loser.

Google's organic results are absolutely 100% free... it doesn't cost you anything to be #1 - in fact, it doesn't cost anyone anything to be #1 which is why Google isn't hammering out the little guy... the little guy is doing that to themselves.

You can certainly do a fair amount of webspam and get away with it... so can everyone.

The more legitimate assets you have the more cover you have so some can last much longer than others but what you can't do is survive on it forever. Webspam isn't sustainable... so you need to use it as a catapult; to build a competitive advantage so you can build the budget you need to compete at a new level.

[Whitey]

Here it is. Exactly

In massive verticals I watch the low hanging fruit for entry is long denied and tightening further. Not sure which one's you focus on, but you may still see some opportunity left there. Maybe some verticals were less effected by Pengiun 2.0 than others, because there weren't the brands to surface above them.

I do sense some quality link freshness has played a part as well - perhaps in the overall link graph/and build rate. Some folks resting on their older success' have slipped several slots.

The reason, I'm persisting with my stance on Penguin, is that I think the direction of this update is only a band aid solution to a much bigger problem for Google - but that's on another thread.

Was internal linking ever an issue with Penguin 1.0, and has that been part of this update - anyone?

[edited by: Whitey at 1:10 am (utc) on May 27, 2013]

[fathom]

And many indie sites do not build links at all. But there's no point telling Fathom this, because in many threads Fathom keeps making arguments that rely on the "just world fallacy" - the assumption that anyone wronged brought it on themselves by doing something risky. Also known as "victim blaming."

Not to drive things off-topic, I went back and researched your first reference to PENGUIN and found:

[webmasterworld.com...]

I got hit on a site I've barely touched in a year, LOL. No paid links, no SEO tactics, white or black. The domain doesn't have any keywords for my niche. The high-ranking pages were all "link lists" - i.e., "13 resources for widget info" with quality editorial discussion of the content at the other links and some nice photos. These pages were also very popular with human visitors, who love a central and well-maintained (dead links getting replaced/removed quickly) list of resources on their topic of interest. I was cautioned a year or so ago that I was "giving away" my pagerank with these posts, but I didn't care: visitors like them.

I never thought of this as SEO - it was a type of page I created for visitors. And for a long time, Google liked it. Now they don't.

This just reaffirms for me that I made the right call 6 months ago when I decided to forget all I know about SEO and just focus on getting my site in front of people who will enjoy it. If Google's going to punish you for engaging in zero SEO, or even "giving away" your pagerank (isn't that anti-SEO?), then they're just too unreliable to be part of my online strategy.

I may have to build more sites to get the income where I want it to be, if I'm relying on social media and subscribers instead of Google, but it'll be more stable in the end.

I'm not sure how you can say "this page was built only for visitors" and then concede "I may have to build more sites to get the income where I want it to be".

...what happened to the patrons?

That said, "I've barely touched in a year" seems likely the problem. The rest of Google's algorithm didn't stop the day PENGUIN arrived.

Being top dog & complacency are at different ends of the spectrum.

[fathom]

Exactly - and in massive verticals I watch the low hanging fruit for entry is denied. Not sure which one's you focus on, but you may still see some opportunity left there.

Internal Architecture is the gem!

Research Tip:
How exactly does Wikipedia get #1 for SEO and beat out massively more authoritative and highly related to SEO domains with so much more SEO oriented content and SEO related links?

Do they actually need all that much SEO oriented stuff from other domains?

Could it be that external link anchors are becoming increasing more irrelevant to results.

[Whitey]

Could it be that external link anchors are becoming increasing more irrelevant to results.

I don't think so. It ranks mainly because it is Wikipedia. But not sure about general internal linking influence through this update? Anyone?

[turbocharged]

Either way you want to look at it, Google's cute lil cuddly algorithm changes are driving small businesses out of the serps. I suspected Google would gradually move towards displaying big brands because it takes less computing power to do it. In the absence of an algorithmic solution that ranks valuable content, Google gives the positions to the big brands.

Recognized local brands, which do quite well with word of mouth referrals, have also been booted out of the serps. One client we do design work for, as an example, is gone out of the top 100 results. 45 years in business, a rock solid BBB rating for decades and links from some really powerful domains (their suppliers) and they still don't appear for their primary local keyword. And they should. The business is the oldest and most reputable one of its type in their city.

With everyone so afraid of linking to another site, or having someone link to them, the internet's version of word of mouth advertising (link to each other) has been silenced out of fear. Only big brands appear to escape any form of penalty for being linked to. Others, who want to restore their ranks, are told to scroll through the disavow feature in WMT to identify and disavow the bad apples. No small business owner has time for this, and many others that have tried are quick to say it does not work and sometimes does more damage then good. Anyway, there is no amount of disavowing that will improve ranks when the algorithm is severely slanted towards rewarding national and international brands.

This is probably the beginning of the end of organic search in Google. Seeking to monetize everything they can, and use their dominance to expand into other industries that benefit from preferred placement in Google, I'm sure there are enough Adwords bidders to fill up the first 1 or 2 pages of the serps for many keyword queries. Rather than make a switch at once, and cause a huge uproar from every corner of the web, Google is taking gradual steps in that direction. These steps may be needed to not cause a panic among webmasters and to not raise anymore flags with government agencies. Don't get me wrong, I don't think organic search will die. But I believe in the not so distant future organic listings will be on pages 2+, provided that enough people are bidding for Adwords placement in each query. Especially for highly competitive queries, Google does not need organic listings to present information to its users. And with CPC dropping, and many Adsense sites getting knocked out of Google's serps, we may see an acceleration of Google's plans as they must appease shareholders.

[tedster]

I suspected Google would gradually move towards displaying big brands because it takes less computing power to do it.

How do you propose that they are identifying big brands? It's clearly not just a white list. It would be extremely useful to have a clear idea about what factors create a "brand" in Google.

[Zivush]

It would be extremely useful to have a clear idea about what factors create a "brand" in Google.

I can suggest that a "brand" is created outside Google organic search.
The higher the percentage of direct traffic and from non-Google properties, the better the ranking.
When Google notice a high volume of that type of traffic the algorithm starts giving a positive sign/mark.

The problem is that it values brands too high reducing the opportunity to regular sites ti shine.

[Rasputin]

Just to share my own experience in case it helps gain an understanding of penguin. Our main site lost about 20% traffic with penguin 2, and has had absolutely no active link building effort for about three or four years, the entire focus being on making the site better for users.

Several years ago we did some (small scale compared with many sites) directory submissions and article submissions when they were 'popular' and I have never made any effort to remove old links from these or get them removed.

I also never accept 3rd party articles containing links and only occasionally include links in our own articles, and make no effort to use particular keywords in any article. There are no link exchanges on the site.

So I can only accept that

I do sense some quality link freshness has played a part as well - perhaps in the overall link graph/and build rate. Some folks resting on their older success' have slipped several slots.

appears likely to be correct, because that seems to be the only thing remaining - apart from conspiracy theories about googles motives of course...

I note also that the three 'brands' that have contacted us asking if they can write articles for us (we ignored them as we always do) in recent months (promising high quality articles and just one natural link...) do not appear to have been demoted.

[fathom]

I don't think so. It ranks mainly because it is Wikipedia.

It is difficult to compare Wikipedia to any other domain because everyone believes there is a different set of rules for Wikipedia but let's say for the moment that isn't true.

But not sure about general internal linking influence through this update? Anyone?

All of mine for starters.

I wouldn't say I have "brand-oriented domains," nor brand-oriented customers but they are certainly on their way to being that. A couple of startups in 2008 broke the million dollar mark in 2012 doing the Wikipedia approach and PENGUIN 2.0 seemed to magically doubled sales conversions (we'll see as time progresses since 4 days isn't much of sampling rate).

Included in these developments was 50+ domains that got nailed by PENGUIN 1.0 and handed to me by another SEO that lost that link network value (to save his customers I got a bunch of worthless domains) but I recovered all of those domains in a couple of months.

Thus I don't buy that PENGUIN errors on websites tactics.

The solution to recover those was quite simple (for a link providing domain that is)... "delete everything, add original content and let it sit for 60 days"... problem solved!

I've had the opportunity to review and recover a volume of websites that got Manual Reviews... all of which passed by PENGUIN 1.0 with no problem whatsoever so when Matt Cutts suggested PENGUIN looked only at homepages... it made perfect sense that 30+ million links to deep pages easily avoided PENGUIN 1.0 (but couldn't avoid a manual review).

I do work with webspam. I've worked with it for a very long time and have disposed of over a million dollars in expired domains before PENGUIN came along... but I learned... and haven't lost any since 2011.

I don't have a single "keywordy" link from any of websites pointing to any of the others website and that sort of (IMHO) emulates organic links and all domain rank perfectly OK. All the keyword stuff is done internally which is perfectly acceptable to Google as that is simply navigational links and website architecture.

While it's only been 4 days... it makes perfect sense why brand domains do well... their link strategy isn't predominantly based on "get keyword phrase here".

I'm sure It's possible to find lots of example that brand domains are greasing someone palms for link anchors but as I already mention their "click here" style links provide a greater threshold to detection or much more granular cover than websites that don't have much of that brand oriented linkage.

I'm saying you don't need any keyword anchors whatsoever and you can rank extremely well and you'll avoid PENGUIN altogether as well.

[edited by: fathom at 4:27 am (utc) on May 27, 2013]

[fathom]

Either way you want to look at it, Google's cute lil cuddly algorithm changes are driving small businesses out of the serps.

hmmm... you mean it puts DIYSEO out of business don't you?