Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.146.217.179

Message Too Old, No Replies

Do you have to update your site with new content constantly?

     
8:16 pm on Jun 26, 2013 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

joined:May 7, 2013
posts:377
votes: 0



I've moved up in the SE ranks and I've done "something" right, because this week has been on fire.

Back in May, another of my sites was doing really well. Then I made a minor little change to the lay out, and from that day forward, EVERYTHING COLLAPSED.

It still hasn't recovered, no matter what I did to get it back to how it was!

I'm so paranoid and suspicious and superstitious that I'm worried to make ANY changes to my other site that is now doing well.

I've just heard a lot of people say, "Gotta update, gotta post new content, all the time, all the time."

My sites don't have much content to begin with, one or two pages (but at least it's ORIGINAL content).

It's like, don't mess with it if ain't broke, you know? What is the consensus on this? Will Google start to demote your site if it notices it hasn't been updated with new content in a while?
3:31 am on June 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Moderator This Forum from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 30, 2008
posts:2511
votes: 142


Back in May, another of my sites was doing really well. Then I made a minor little change to the lay out, and from that day forward, EVERYTHING COLLAPSED.

It still hasn't recovered, no matter what I did to get it back to how it was!

Have you tried to match the date the site collapsed with any of known Google updates happening in May? It is possible that the site would have dropped without any of your layout changes, i.e. that the drop is result of Google algo change and not because of your layout change.

Especially as you have reverted it to how it was and did not recover. From my experience, if changes are reverted, in most cases the site recovers after a short while - unless you keep tinkering with it.
6:14 am on June 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

joined:May 7, 2013
posts:377
votes: 0


It definitely could have been the changes initially, except the site actually continued to gain in the search rankings and traffic. I suspect it's the ads. I need to tinker with them more (except they are the EXACT same ads in the SAME positions that I have on another site that is VERY similar to this one, and THAT site does phenomenal. It's very odd).
6:45 am on June 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 19, 2003
posts:859
votes: 3


My guess is for whatever reason, your target users did not like the site me that's why it dropped. Not too much you can do about that other than try harder.

Making on site changes will do very little for you unfortunately.
7:13 pm on June 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

joined:May 7, 2013
posts:377
votes: 0


@petehall

Both sites have almost identical traffic each week.

I have a Facebook "recommend" button and comment section. The POORLY performing site has a TON of 'recommends' and almost ALL favorable comments.

The other site has the same, the EXCELLENTLY performing one (and I mean it is on FIRE), and it has almost NO likes and NUMEROUS unfavorable comments!

lol. I don't get it man. I really think it's the ADS that are showing on the sites. The ads on the poor performing site could just be awful, and I think the context of the ad is being misinterpreted by Google a bit (there are a few "key" words on the that are throwing it off or something).
7:17 pm on June 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

joined:May 7, 2013
posts:377
votes: 0


Note: I changed the all-text ads on the poor performing site from standard Google to "all black" and really made them look different.

Got a lot of traffic this morning and NO clicks. So that didn't work!
7:41 pm on June 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Full Member

joined:Oct 29, 2012
posts:255
votes: 13


New content is useful if they are useful. If it's for the sake of having new content it's useless and may drag the entire down down. I have sites with hundreds of content and sites with a few pages only. My experience is that both have their pros and cons. You just have to figure out what your visitors want and need. I opted to have both styles in my holding to lower my risk of google updates. (If google one day likes "more pages on site" my more content site gets boost, if google decides to boost focused microniche, my other site gets boosted).

Seeing that you have two sites, it's pointless to evaluate them on the layout and "shares" only. But more on the underlying search interest, user interaction / value perspective, and content usefulness. And also, compare yourself to the competitors.

My experience is that unless text ads is well matched with the topic such as tutorial, solving particular problems that can solved with merchandises, they bring more to the table.

But if text ads are nonrelated to the purpose of the site, they bring down the overall site value as well as having non existent CTR.

My sites suck for text ads thus I have opted for pure image ads only which triggers more interest based ads in my point of view, resulting in increased ctr and long term earning. My ads are still mostly unrelated to my site topic, but at least visitors still click on them. I killed all my text ads long time ago because they are simply not compatible with my niche space. Unless I start implementing trickery to get people to click on the text ads. which I think is pointless as it hurts long term growth.
8:32 pm on June 27, 2013 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

joined:May 7, 2013
posts:377
votes: 0


@ frankdeeceo

Thanks for the contribution. This poor performing site is doing so bad I might as well just switch to text/image or all image. I've got nothing to lose. The ads are just NOT connecting, something is way off.

And I agree, trickery is pointless.