Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google SEO longterm?

         

layer8

8:57 am on Nov 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member




I had a site, SEO was done, was in top rankings for about 2 months then overnight for no reason site was positioned way down the rankings. All practices were ethical and it seemed no point or logic to this what happend to me.

If you speak to all the best Internet Marketing Pros they tell you SEO is a waste of time longterm, everyone in the industry has lost their position at somepoint from what I gather - or am I wrong?

I want to hear from anyone who has had long term success with SEO say for 6 months or longer....

c1bernaught

8:48 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Caveman:

Hard to argue with that. I agree it's a problem and I hope the "big brains" at Google can figure it out. I'd hate to see this ground leveler simply become another business catering to big business....

Another problem I see. If you take the travel industry as an example... there are really only a couple of big players. These guys own just about every affiliate maketing program and they book zillions of $ for the businesses they represent.... If Google were to "thin the affiliates out" in the travel market, what repercussions would that reap...?

How about other manufacturers and distributers. These guys are making a pile of cash from the web... probably huge sums from affiliate programs as well... what do you suppose the ripple effect would be if 20% or 30% of the sites selling their products simply went away?

lgn1

9:09 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



One thing I can think of is that our site is dynamic and Google can only index our home page due to a complex url query string (Like I said I develop sites for content not SEO)

Anyways, my home page dropped from #2 to infinity for my popular two keyword phases.

I wonder if google is taking other pages in account when calculating its score for displaying results for 2 word keywords.

Can anybody have a dynamic site with only a home page spidered in google that has not dropped in the rankings.

Terrier

9:10 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



NFFC pointed out that a search on country specfic Googles highlights the situation!

Spot on.

This is not a case of a few seo types hitting filters, this is a case of .... rising to the top.

It is also a window of oportunity...

merlin30

9:26 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



You know, these results make a lot more sense when you view them horizontally.

ronhollin

9:26 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I think that G has been loosing ground with AdWords over the last 6 months. Think about it. My site for instance was optimized about 6 months ago and over course of about 4 months we rose to the 3 for about 15 very important kw. So what do we do? We canned AdWords. Completely shut it down. How many of you out there have done that? I'm sure a large % of you have. If not completely then some at least. And G's income from AdWords dropped, probably substantially.

too much information

9:46 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Although I don't suspect some big conspiracy by G, I will agree that I did exactly that. Got to the top of Page 1 and dropped AdWords. Why pay for placement when I can get the same spot (actually better) for free.

I'm sure there are a few AdWords accounts that have been reactivated, but I'm not sure it was Gs intent with this update. After all there are still only 10 spots on page 1. If they reduced this to 8 then you may have a point.

I do have to say that I am showing up at the top of a wider range of searches than I was before. I don't know why, but I'm not complaining.

Tropical Island

9:47 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Throwing in comments about the Adwords conspiracy (?) is not very constructive and does not add to the thread - Google SEO longterm?

We are strong Adwords clients both before and after Florida. I do not believe that this mess has anything to do with that.

We need to be focussing on what changes are necessary in our sites to bring the serps back to relavancy.

If we could just figure out why our sites return with the
-foofoo trick. What is it that triggers the "filter"?

Napoleon

9:51 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)



GG: "We want search results to be relevant for both info seekers and product seekers, and everything in between. If there's a search that you consider less relevant than before, send it to us at webmaster [at] google.com with the keywords floridaupdate or floridaquality. "

Crickey... I thought we were WAY past that.

"GG, just as a general pointer your user support guys & gals would be wise to run some searches at the various country specific Google's. It seems the relative lack of web pages magnify's the quality problem, makes it much easier to see."

You must know how much me and NFFC love each other, but again, I really hate to say it, but he's right.

If Google can't see this by now... you guys really do have REAL problems.

GG: Sadly, I think your superiors already know this, and frankly it really makes me weep. The heritage of what you built deserves MUCH better than this type of sell out.

You guys painted a genuine masterpiece and now have scribbled all over it like a kid. Someone there needs to stand up and tell it like it is. A fantastic technical achievement being torn apart.

Yes maybe it's emotional (I always have been, sorry), but I really admired what you had and how you stood against short term buy in, to produce something built on genuine effort and value. Brilliant.

Now someone there has reversed it. I'll never buy into that... and I guarantee it will be your achiles heel. There's still time.

[edited by: Napoleon at 9:52 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]

pmac

9:52 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



That 'inkjet cartridge' example actually yields a link farm particpant as the number one result. 'phentermine' shows a guestbook and blog spammer. #2 for 'canada pharmacy' is a keyword stuffer and blog spammer.

At least the results returned are relevant.

herewego

10:48 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



True pmac, but as miss understood says
<Popularity vs. Relevancy>
did you search "gourmet lunches" as someone mentioned earlier. Surely Googles restaurant isn't the world's most relevant return on the subject at #1? Introspection to the point of disappearing up it's own...

Papadooloo

10:53 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)



I have been reading now for a week but I am still confused.

I think I understand that people are saying that the new algorhythm favors more specific searching over general searching.

IE 4 word search will bring up more specific listings, but a 2 word search will likely be a broad match that brings up authority type high PR sites.

But my index page has been optimized for some time now for

KEYWORD1 KEYWORD2 KEYWORD3 KEYWORD4

and had been #1 for a long time.

Since Florida it has spent most of the time at #189.

If there is no "penalty" as GG stated, shouldn't I have just held my rank considering it is such a specific search.

Or am I misunderstanding what people are saying?

Thanks for any advice.

netnerd

11:24 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Ah - but optimising has just changed! Google is now looking for a more natural site, even as far as backlinks (in my opinion).

So the thing is that your site WAS optimised, but now might not be.

frup

11:24 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I think the point is that Google doesn't punish your site and mark it as bad. However, if its algorithm determines your site is somehow spammy, you'll get knocked down or into oblivion. But (hopefully) you can redeem yourself by getting rid of whatever spammy things are going on.

[edited by: frup at 11:45 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2003]

troi21

11:26 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



Are we back to continuous update mode?

steveb

11:31 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



"But because there are so many, many sites selling the same products and services, the SERPs become cluttered with thousands of virtually identical pages,"

I think there is widespread denial about the future of search on the Internet, and its centalization around big/trusted/successful players. We have people here complaining that they lost their top ten placement for two million or more word searches. Think of that. Millions of sites could be ranked in the top ten. Google somehow manages to rank sites well (choose your word) some/most/alot of the time. This despite an ever increasing amount of pure crap that is put up online for anything that might possibly earn income, plus ever increasing non-crap that is put up also trying to get a buck.

There are only ten sites in the top ten. As has been said before, if you are selling a widget, and millions of others are selling a widget, to think that you should have a ranking in the top 1000 even is hard to justify. Google doesn't rank widget selling sites based on price, or customer service, or pretty pages.

Google SEO in the longterm has to be built on a foundation of information. That's what people want. Price and ability to order online and how to do it and all that stuff is just one aspect of providing information.

Google has made a great step with Florida in more highly valuing sites that are authoritative information sources. Just because you sell widgets doesn't mean you can't be an authoritative source. But if you aren't, you are going to lose out to other information sites on the information web. If you are losing out to an edu-type site that is only marginally on topic, then you need increase your own authority within your niche and assume Google's knob turnings will appreciate that more (and more and more) sometime soon.

Unfortunately for some people though, they want quick and easy answers: more anchor text, change their heading tags (egods), talk about absurdly conceived penalties, and whatever other quick fixes might come to mind. It's not that easy.

This 408 message thread spans 28 pages: 408