Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Penguin 2.0 is upon us - May 22, 2013
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]
Then he took the no follows off. Now his site is on top for all his key words makes you wonder?
hmmm... you mean it puts DIYSEO out of business don't you?
fathom, this is more "just world fallacy" from you. Many victims of Penguin 1.0 or 2.0 were not engaged in "DIYSEO" as you call it. Many have simply been usurped by blocks of host crowding and/or lists of highstreet brand name sites. I think we need to get over the idea of blame and finger-pointing - it's not helpful and doesn't even accurately portray reality anyway.
I don't see anyone as a victim... Google organic results are absolutely free
[edited by: RP_Joe at 1:39 pm (utc) on May 27, 2013]
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.
hmmm... you mean it puts DIYSEO out of business don't you?
What evidence would there be to suggest that Wikipedia is not whitelisted?
Was internal linking ever an issue with Penguin 1.0, and has that been part of this update - anyone?
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.
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.
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
This is on commercial/transactional queries? I do see this on some of my informational queries.
People don't look in Yellow Pages anymore.
I can't replace the organic results with some other form of marketing, and it isn't a question of cost.
So why then make it a question of cost?
Even if I get my brand name to the public by peak-time TV advertising, the public will still find me by typing my brand name into Google rather than going to the bother of typing my URL.
Having achieved that position, they have pulled the rug from under a lot of people who were there not by complacency, but because they recognised the fundamental importance of Google organics for their own product placement.
It is disingenuous for Google to claim a crusade on behalf of relevance and white-hat SEO while following a different agenda. If a tourist asks me for directions to the post office and I lie to him, the fact that I haven't charged him for the lie doesn't make much difference: he is still a victim of my deliberate misrepresentation.
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.
What evidence would there be to suggest that Wikipedia is not whitelisted?
If most websites used the heavy interlinking strategy that Wikipedia employs, this would be deemed over-optimization.
If a tourist asks me for directions to the post office and I lie to him, the fact that I haven't charged him for the lie doesn't make much difference: he is still a victim of my deliberate misrepresentation.
Was internal linking ever an issue with Penguin 1.0, and has that been part of this update - anyone?
That's the only thing I changed, and I'm seeing recovery.
Just a world of fallacy from me... Isn't that the same thing you are suggesting? Calling those with loses victims and blaming host crowding and/or lists of highstreet brand name sites and finger-pointing?
I don't see anyone as a victim... Google organic results are absolutely free
That isn't quite right. Google's "absolutely free" results have acheived a virtual marketing monopoly. People don't look in Yellow Pages anymore. As someone implied in an earlier post in this thread, they don't even look on Amazon for their product (they use Google to find it on Amazon). Google has become the way people find things. I can't replace the organic results with some other form of marketing, and it isn't a question of cost. Even if I get my brand name to the public by peak-time TV advertising, the public will still find me by typing my brand name into Google rather than going to the bother of typing my URL.
Having achieved that position, they have pulled the rug from under a lot of people who were there not by complacency, but because they recognised the fundamental importance of Google organics for their own product placement.
It is disingenuous for Google to claim a crusade on behalf of relevance and white-hat SEO while following a different agenda. If a tourist asks me for directions to the post office and I lie to him, the fact that I haven't charged him for the lie doesn't make much difference: he is still a victim of my deliberate misrepresentation.
However, Google has stated very clearly for years that TOS violations will not be tolerated so I don't see that as Google pulling the rug out from under you.
what part of Google's guidelines are lying to you?
Well, victim as in they essentially got demoted not because they did anything, but because Google arbitrarily favour big brands in certain niches and host-crowd these big brands too. If you're offended by the word "victim", then how about I rephrase that for you: they are unfortunate. In any case, you are wrong to aportion blame to these sites or say they got their "just desserts".
hort of investigating all the PENGUIN winners and losers and their strategies and I can't see that depth of research being finished in 5 days... you cannot possibly come to the conclusion you came to with any degree of certainty.
what part of Google's guidelines are lying to you?
However, Google has stated very clearly for years that TOS violations will not be tolerated so I don't see that as Google pulling the rug out from under you.
Are you saying that the only reason any site has lost position under Penguin is for TOS violations? If so, can you tell us how you know this?
I didn't actually say, either, that they had pulled the rug from under me personally, although some of my pages have clearly been penalised for specific terms (which all appear related to backlink anchor-text neither posted nor solicited by me).
And
what part of Google's guidelines are lying to you?
It isn't just webmasters who are misled if some new agenda skews results away from being relevance-based. It is searchers, advertisers, and shareholders. It was relevance-based results that induced them to search through, advertise on and invest in Google.
wilburforce mentioned that Google may be advising us one thing (in the guidelines), while DOING something that works against that advice they give us - that's obviously misleading us if their advice makes zero difference to how they determine their rankings
In that time, there's been overwhelming evidence across many discussion groups, my own experiences directly, my client's experiences, and also fellow developers' experiences (that I know and speak to regularly)...that Penguin affected many sites negatively that didn't engage in any "DIYSEO" (they didn't engage in any SEO) - but got penalty-like demotions.
The lack of a Google acknowledgement is the best evidence. Assuming solid ranks is evidence of whitelisting isn't evidence. It suggests they did as Google wanted... "just make a great website and others will reward you".
Have you actually tried it?
What part of breadcrumbs are consider over-optimization?
You do understand, of course, that even if your experiences and anecdotal evidence covered hundreds, or thousands, or even ten thousand sites, it would still be statistically insignificant compared to the total number of sites or URLs out there, of every type and every topic.
It's really easy to fall into the trap of "because it's happening to me and these hundred other people, it must be universal" and I fall into that trap all the time myself. But it really gets in the way of trying to parse out what's going on, and how to navigate through it. And of course, to figure out what to do next if you can't.
That would indeed be jarring & jolting news and would afford a huge class action lawsuit for unfair business practices.
I am positive wilburforce will seek legal counsel with that tidbit.
Are you saying that all of these sources cannot be representative of a larger constituency of websites?
The lack of a Google acknowledgement is the best evidence. Assuming solid ranks is evidence of whitelisting isn't evidence. It suggests they did as Google wanted... "just make a great website and others will reward you".
Simply taking Google's word for it implies a level of foolishness IMO. Search any of the black hat forums for case studies, and you will be sure to uncover some rather interesting results. Same spam links pointed to different sites and the results are notably different. That's enough evidence for me that Wikipedia is whitelisted. I do however feel sorry for the other sites used in the case studies as they appear to have been hurt pretty badly.
Have you actually tried it?
What part of breadcrumbs are consider over-optimization?
Yes, Mild interlinking is great, but we have removed excessive interlinking as is commonly used on Wikipedia. Of those sites where we removed the heavy interlinking, mild improvements were seen in search positions.
Using a whitelisted domain to develop a strategy, such as Wikipedia, is severely flawed. Because it is not held to the same algorithmic measurements as the majority of sites are, the results are much different for ordinary sites (over-optimization penalties).
Are you saying that all of these sources cannot be representative of a larger constituency of websites?
Pretty much, yep.
