Forum Moderators: open
Hello All,
By now many of you have probably noticed several things.
1. Your not getting as many referrals from me.
2. Your not getting as many referrals from LTWHA.
3.Your not getting as many referrals from Google, Yahoo, AOL.
Here is the lowdown. Late on Friday, November 14th, Google underwent a MASSIVE change to their ranking algorithm. Currently, for commercial search queries, Google is PENALIZING RELEVANT SITES for commercial search queries in which they stand to earn money from Adwords (the results on the right hand side). To verify this, click [url=here to see the current results for 'Lake tahoe weddings' (no quotes). You will not find one of your sites there, including tahoeweddings.com (mine) and tahoeweddings.org. You can also click here to view the sites that are missing from the top 100 since Google's change.
What do we do?
For starters, no knee-jerk reactions. At least no risky, expensive ones. Experts are up in the air over whether Google is temporarily broken, or this is an intentional attempt to increase revenue prior to going public. If it is the former, we can expect relevant results back soon. If it is the latter, we don't need to worry about Google anymore.
Rest assured I (and I assume all my competitors) are doing their best to get back the relevant traffic Google once provided. The quality sites will again rise to the top at Google, or someone will rise above them. Yahoo is poised to drop Google search results in favor of either Alta Vista or Inktomi, both of which they recently acquired, along with FAST and Overture. Microsoft is also expected to enter the fray soon as well with search features integrated into the Longhorn Operating System.
What else can you do?
For now, search with Alta Vista and Spread the Word.
Feel free to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jenny
-asdf.com
info@-asdf.com
867-5309;)
Such a move would have dramatic effects on those sites that have primarily used this method to boost their ranking - I've certainly seen plenty of multi domain (thousands), single page, keyword stuffed URL clowns wiped out of the results.
Of course, this would also affect those sites that hadn't set out specifically to manipulate anchor text. Perhaps Google's presumption in this case is that these sites, over time can garner a richer, more diverse set of backlinks.
Applied site wide, this could also affect internal navigation - I have seen subpages removed while others have remained and in each case the navigation to those pages used very specific phrases - this indicates that onpage will also be taken into account (and perhaps the nature of the other internal pages providing the links)
Centrally, however, I do think that anchor text, inbound links and (*reliable*) flows of authority are the key to Googles new approach.
What if it had made non-commercial SERPs more relevant than before? I believe it was hutcheson who recently commented that on the info searches he had been doing, he found Google much better than pre-Florida. If I were in charge at Google, if improving non-commercial SERPs could be done only by decreasing relevancy of commercial SERPs, then I'd approve taking that action. That a secondary consequence would be increasing Adword sales certainly wouldn't be a negative. ;)
How can relevancy be harmful on a search engine? - it doesn't compute - therefore it is either a mistake, or it is misled.
if your inbound anchor text is too relevant - it is now being suggested that this relevancy could be harmful.
If the incoming anchor text were now deemed as less important in the algo, then it would move index pages down in the serps that were only high in the first place because of anchor text. It wouldn't be a penalty.
For months now, you read in the forums, "anchor text, anchor text, you gotta have it!" Maybe Google decided they were being manipulated more than they like, so they turned that knob down a little. It's hard to see how suddenly changing your anchor text is going to help things now... it might just not help as much as it did.
<edit>typo</edit>
I agree - someone was talking about non-linear feedback earlier: an over fancy term for having a 'cut-off' point (I guess) before penalisation, rather than a non-linear continuously differentiable scale (smooth curve).
I think penalisation is the wrong term - as you suggest - it is merely a downgrading of the value of certain things.
But the problem appears to be the extent to which the downgrading of value has been made.
Posters who talk of tweaking the fine tuning knob too far are almost cetainly closer to the truth than a simple penalty.
(there are a few jokes in there relating to knobs etc. But let's resist the urge)
Google is PENALIZING RELEVANT SITES for commercial search queries in which they stand to earn money from Adwords (the results on the right hand side).
You do not know that for a fact, it's only your guess. I don't think lying to clients is a good idea. That statement *could* get you into hot water with Google if they read it.
What you say IS NOT true, not ALL commercial sites have been lost. I have MANY pages still ranking well that ARE commercial.
It still amazes me that 'so-called' professionals keep trying to put forward their believes as fact.
Dave
ps. I am not saying it is a penalty on anchor text, just that it is a penalty, in that it penalizes.
REPEAT AFTER ME... IT IS A PENALTY
Ok, IT IS A PENALTY.
Powdork, it must be frustrating as he*l, courage, but it might not be anchor text, it might be the linking pattern itself or something else... I was referring to anchor text specifically. Our index has the exact same title in the anchor text on every incoming link and it didn't budge...
I'm sure that if I had all the incoming text changed somewhat, it still wouldn't budge because it's enough of a niche site and has two ODP listings, Yahoo dir, etc.. it doesn't have many backlinks but they're all good ones... but there are tourist joints that appear in our serps and we're #1 and stayed there.
It's not an anchor text penalty, it's a different penalty.
And, on a search of "buy widgets", replacing widgets with any commercial item I can think of, I am getting lots of sites in the free SERPs that sell widgets. If the idea was to sell more Adwords by serving up irrelevant commercial SERPs, Google didn't do this very effectively.
You do not know that for a fact, it's only your guess. I don't think lying to clients is a good idea. That statement *could* get you into hot water with Google if they read it.What you say IS NOT true, not ALL commercial sites have been lost. I have MANY pages still ranking well that ARE commercial.
Perhaps you are right. I should have said "Google is now rewarding relevant sites by eliminating their bandwidth concerns";)
BTW, My capitals are bigger than yours;)
I am not saying it is a penalty on anchor text, just that it is a penalty, in that it penalizes.
No, what you said was....
Google is PENALIZING RELEVANT SITES for commercial search queries in which they stand to earn money from Adwords (the results on the right hand side).
So you are saying that Google is penalizing relevant site to increase revenue from AdWords. Like I keep saying, your *guess* is as good as the many others out there, but it is NOT fact and should not be implied as it is.
REPEAT AFTER ME... IT IS A PENALTY
Maybe yes, maybe no. You can say it as loud as you like but statements don't automatically become fact by repeating the over and over and louder and louder. That is what my 6 year does :o)
I NEVER said anything about commercial sites. I said 'relevant sites for commercial searches
Arrh, the old back-peddle :o) Perhaps you can explain the difference to me? Surely if you search with "commercial searches" you are seeking "commercial" sites?
Even with all the 'bad hype' being bandied around here I *still* find Google head and shoulders above the rest. Sounds to me like you have relied too heavily on inward links and got caught up in the 'anchor text hype' and other fallacies that are often bandied about WW . Any white hat site that has over 100 good content pages will be weathering the storm and still pulling good traffic from Google.
There is really only one word when it comes to Google, 'content'!
Dave
The quote you took from me in message thirty six only applies to message thirty six. Don't try and take my words there and apply it to something else.
So you are saying that Google is penalizing relevant site to increase revenue from AdWords. Like I keep saying, your *guess* is as good as the many others out there, but it is NOT fact and should not be implied as it is.No what i am saying is (as you quoted above) Google is penalising relevant results when a lot of adwords show up. Nothing more, nothing less.
Perhaps you can explain the difference to me? Surely if you search with "commercial searches" you are seeking "commercial" sites?If you search for tahoe weddings you could be looking for
There is really only one word when it comes to Google, 'content'!
Yep.
I wasn't getting log files from Nov 25 until they suddenly caught up this evening. I was pleased to see that we got a "deepcrawl" of sorts on Friday, and that we not only retained all the original search arrivals, we've picked up a lot more through more obscure searches since the end of Florida. We were getting people arriving everyday on 50+ kw combinations, all useful for us, and it's increased the last few days. You want to know why? Content.
We have over 100 text heavy pages, mostly field notes, but a lot of data, historical, guidance pages etc. The SE's love us, not just Google. You type in almost anything along with the country to which the site refers, and we'll show up somewhere. Every page they come in on is interesting and also links back to the main pages.
Our site isn't commercial but it supplies funding. It's important. It's about as .org as you get and Florida has been kind to us just because of some decent links and a whole lot of content.
Dave, now your misquoting me out of context.
I certainly do not believe so, but I'm not going to argue the point.
You have suddenly become very 'fluffy' in regards to the email you sent to your clients. Should they read it in an fluffy ambiguous way?
From my reading of it you are saying that Google has dropped commercial site to increase the use of AdWords. You have no *good* proof of this and is only your (any others) educated guess. Ironically, some of the "You MUST get keyword anchor text" subscribers are now back here saying they have been penalized by Google becuase of it.
SEO is not rocket science, despite what may SEO companies would have us believe. Here is all I have ever done and it has worked well
1) Add content daily.
2) Design all pages for humans (don't get caught up in hype from here and elsewhere).
3) Include a site map to ensure Google finds all pages.
4) Put *relevant* keywords in the Title, and Description tags but *ensure* it is easy to read for humans. *relevant* Keyword or 2 in page names, e.g. [domain.com...]
I don't think those results are crap. The worldweb.com pages didn't come up on the search I just did. However, all 10 that did come up were *relevant* to the query. No sites about breeding penguins or such.
If the incoming anchor text were now deemed as less important in the algo
Is it possible that anchor text has been deemed much more important? I ask because I just realized that my site, which has dropped, has very little, if any, relevant anchor text. My competitor (#1) likely has a lot of highly relevant anchors. This is because my inbound links use my company name, rather than my keywords.
This would explain why major sites like slashdot are still doing well. And maybe the people who say they are being hurt by anchor text don't have enough of it.
Just a thought...
Google will boost others engines in 2004 after the mess of smalls shops who can afford the rush of Christmas after been push in first place with no sufficient handling and good customers services ;-)
Merry Christmas for all the others one for the next years!
PS: This is, in my mind, the worst shift in algo since 2001, but it affect only 2% of my clients. I was always *preach* the good practices, telling all my clients to put good contents with no spammy techniques, but this update is really bad... for a really small amount of my clients, but for a large parts of all the clients of Google, specially the *newbies* in search engines queries.
REPEAT AFTER ME... IT IS A PENALTY
Maybe yes, maybe no. You can say it as loud as you like but statements don't automatically become fact by repeating the over and over and louder and louder. That is what my 6 year does :o)
Hey Dave!
Repeating a point over and over doesn't make it a fact, that's true, but in this case the facts support the conclusion that some form of "penalty" is being applied just like Powdork stated.
I am not debating (in this particular post) the rightness or wrongness of the penalties being assessed, I am merely stating that the penalties exist and are not an illusion.
If there were no penalties being assessed, the results wouldn't have changed for specific popular keywords so much.
Even if you follow the belief that penalties are not being assessed against sites (because you happen to believe that other sites are getting bonus points instead), that still has the same "net effect" of giving a penalty to the other sites.
For example, if there are 2 million sites for a particular keyword and 200,000 of those sites are given special bonus points (that the other 1,800,000 sites don't receive), that has the same "net effect" as penalizing the other 1,800,000 sites.
(especially if those bonus points are large enough that they cannot be "made up" by other factors).
That's not an opinion, it's simple mathematics. I could explain further but I trust that any logical person can do the math.
Again, I am not debating whether these penalties are right or wrong and I am not stating that Google is wrong for doing that (in this particular post;)), I am merely stating that these penalties or procedures which "act" like penalties are present.
By the way Dave, in many of your posts you seem to also repeat the same message over and over (just like your 6 year old;)), and I see you providing little scientific data in any posts.
Instead, I see pure positive google rants which basically say that everybody against google is wrong about everything while you are right, but yet you provide no data to back up that assertion except general "blanket statements" which you purport to be the truth simply because those words were typed by your own fingers. Uhh, isn't that exactly what you are trying to accuse PowDork of doing;) Maybe you should practice what you preach;)
Of course, I welcome your point of view and welcome you to continue stating the same general message that you always state in every post which seems to be:
-------
"google is fine, nothing has changed for legit and honest people, anybody who has fallen just doesn't have great content repeated in over 300+ spamdex pages;), and everybody else please stop whining and take your medicine for having cheated"
-------
Your message (above) is unchanging in most of your posts, it's the same every time but spoken in slightly different words, but yet I don't see you delve into any details to back up anything like others have done.
You can repeat that same general message over and over, but until you provide scientific and detailed facts then why should any newbie believe you? Should they believe you just because you declare it to be the truth? I don't think that's good enough Dave;)
Here is my message to newbies reading about Google's latest update:
Do not take anybody's "word" for it (including mine), but instead read through the many posts in all of the latest threads about Google and then give more weight to those points of view which seem to be more heavily repeated by the widest number of different people (and to those posts which are backed up by the most specific data).
Just like in the real world, there are people who take opposing views on every issue, there are even people who argue that the earth is flat. So I recommend reading all of the posts about Google and then determine which posts provide more scientific data and detailed facts regarding specific google ranking changes (and disregard the posts which give only general "blanket statements").
That's the scientific method.
By the way, I make plenty of general posts too sometimes (such as this one), but some of my posts are detailed in their analysis just like PowDork's posts (and others).
I haven't seen any pro-google person actually make a detailed post which is scientific in nature, at most they give one example of a SERP and then use that single example as a "blanket statement" that reflects the entire google database.
Hutcheson's post referring to bug-eyed monsters and elves was one of the least intellectual I have seen from such a prestigious meta, since it's based on trying to humiliate anybody who believes Google may be motivated by SHHHHH.... "money"
I am not saying that I think Google is doing this update for Adwords sales (so please don't assume that), but I am saying that if many other big name firms have been caught behaving badly because of an over-motivation to make "MONEY" then it's at least a "possibility".
You could not name one MAJOR firm that hasn't lost a civil lawsuit because of defrauding somebody of money or abusing their power with their customers in some fashion, or a similar case. It's not only a common occurrence, but it's too common. Don't believe it? Do some research yourself and find out.
Elves and bug-eyed monsters have nothing to do with the argument, there is not ONE major firm who hasn't been caught with their hand in the cookie jar by a COURT OF LAW and ordered to PAY FINANCIAL DAMAGES as a result of that malfeasance due to SHHHHHH "GREED";)
Does anybody really believe otherwise?
[edited by: Brenda_J at 5:40 am (utc) on Dec. 1, 2003]
for those of you who didn't lose rank in this update, i'm happy for you. but be careful with your assumptions. next time around, you might be counting on the evidence compiled by those hit this time to figure out why you were hit next time.
In early 2002 if your searching with the only the keyword "verity", -a Google competitor of Google Appliance-, you got a Google Appliance premium sponsorship ads ;-)
What's good for them last year, is really bad for all of us now!
Any white hat site that has over 100 good content pages will be weathering the storm and still pulling good traffic from Google.
This is not true. We have a site with well over a hundred pages of truly unique content, and a PR of 5 across most internal pages. Had maintained top ten SERPs across multiple keyword variations related to our niche, with many #1's.
The only pages that remain on any of these terms are those that I would consider the most 'spammy' and devoid of content. They are the very ones I would expect to lose!
Examining the logs I see we were found for the term "soft natural washcloths". If you can convince me that livestock is relevant to one's cleaning habits, then I will agree that these serps are an improvement.
If there is anyone out there selling washcloths, I have a page that will work for you. It sure isn't working for me.
WBF
I have never been one to simply follow the mob and never will be. This has always served me well in many different areas.
I am merely stating that the penalties exist and are not an illusion.If there were no penalties being assessed, the results wouldn't have changed for specific popular keywords so much.
There could be thousands of reasons for the change and only certain people know the *facts*. I'm sorry to say it you are not one of the privileged few.
By the way Dave, in many of your posts you seem to also repeat the same message over and over (just like your 6 year old;)), and I see you providing little scientific data in any posts
Not in the same thread I'm not. I have no need to supply any "scientific data" as I'm not trying to put forward my beliefs as fact.
Instead, I see pure positive google rants which basically say that everybody against google is wrong about everything while you are right, but yet you provide no data to back up that assertion except general "blanket statements" which you purport to be the truth simply because those words were typed by your own fingers. Uhh, isn't that exactly what you are trying to accuse PowDork of doing;) Maybe you should practice what you preach;)
Same reply as above, gee you are repeating yourself a lot :o)
That's the scientific method.
LOL! These 'so-called' "scientific methods" being put forward are by those that have lost a LOT of traffic from Google and you are telling others to follow them! Good grief.
No scientist worth his/her salt would EVER try to put forward their beliefs as fact *until* they had been proven to be so.
Google spiders something in excess of 3 BILLION pages and you are telling me findings of ( and I will be VERY liberal here) 1000 SERPS makes a case for fact!
I'm honestly not trying to be rude here Brenda, but you are coming across as very gullible and naive.
I believe people are still missing the point.
The wedding industry is just one example where the serps have been filtered to eliminate commercial sites.
I much larger industry has been completely destroyed.
I totally agree - all the good commercial sites are filtered OR pushed down expect Google's parnters cum investors such as ebay, yahoo etc. I want to buy watches - I see three results from ebay of the top ten while others are not worth looking at. Adwords are more useful. Eitherway Google wins...
This is not true. We have a site with well over a hundred pages of truly unique content, and a PR of 5 across most internal pages. Had maintained top ten SERPs across multiple keyword variations related to our niche, with many #1's.
Perhaps you have followed some of the very bad advise found here and been pinged by Google for it. Perhaps you pages are not considered "good content". Perhaps you have been doing too much SEO. Or, perhaps, as you say, Google has made an error. If the latter is the case I do believe Google will fix this soon.
Examining the logs I see we were found for the term "soft natural washcloths". If you can convince me that livestock is relevant to one's cleaning habits, then I will agree that these serps are an improvement.
Oh no, not another! willybfriendly I just did a search for "soft natural washcloths" and did not see any sites related to "livestock". Surely you are not saying this based one single log? When searching with this term exactly what position is your site?
To all
I'm not saying Google is, or is not broke. I am saying I still find the searches I try more relevant that any other SE when the search is done properly. I'm not saying being dropped from the SERPs is the fault of the page or site. I am saying that those who SEO are always going to be running the risk of being dropped.
Posts, like that of Powdork above are based *purely* on his/her mind set only. What he/she sees a "crap" might be *exactly* what another sees as relavent. With millions of searches a day his/her findings mean very little and only confuse the issue.
Dave
Ans: None. --- A single pending IPO will do.
BTW, AFAIKS, if you do not serve AdWords, you cannot be P1 on a 2-word search. I sure hope we all know that 2-words are the most common searches.
Perhaps you have followed some of the very bad advise found here and been pinged by Google for it.
Care to expand on what you consider to be the very bad advise found here?
Perhaps you pages are not considered "good content".
I don't know what "good" is anymore. I can certainly attest that it is unique and relevant content.
Perhaps you have been doing too much SEO.
Like good document structure, good markup, pyramidal site structure, good inbound links, no reciprocal link program with the standard 'links' pages, etc. That kind of SEO?
Or, perhaps, as you say, Google has made an error. If the latter is the case I do believe Google will fix this soon.
Frankly, at this point I don't particularly care. If they fix it, I will be fine. If they don't, ink, AV and others will make gains, and they still recognize and reward quality sites.
Unlike many that have been hammered, we do not live or die by the Holiday sales season.
WBF
[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 12:59 pm (utc) on Dec. 1, 2003]
[edit reason] Fixed page formatting error [/edit]
Do not take anybody's "word" for it (including mine), but instead read through the many posts in all of the latest threads about Google and then give more weight to those points of view which seem to be more heavily repeated by the widest number of different people (and to those posts which are backed up by the most specific data)....[SNIP]....That's the scientific method.
No, it isn't scientific, because it isn't a random sample. It's a sample from a forum whose membership consists mostly of e-commerce entrepreneurs, affiliate-site owners, and SEOs. These folks may have legitimate grievances in some cases, but their view of the Florida update will be shaped by personal experience and financial considerations. End usrs (who, after all, are Google's target audience) are unlikely to feel strongly about the new index unless they hit a really bad SERP. (And yes, there *are* some bad SERPs, but there also are many good ones.)
What to doTo which Dave_Hawley replied
1.Change your title to something with no keywords. I recommend "-Asdf".
2.Create content using the keywords found on this weeks zeitgeist.
3.Put a link with your two word phrase pointing off your site towards some you want removed. ;)
That should do it.
Or you can ride the storm out, look harder for other traffic, pay for other traffic, etc. Also, you can do your part by recomending another search engine to peers when appropriate.
Also, totally ignore Powdork as his advise may well get you penalized. Especially using non-relevant keywords just because they are popular. Hopefully an editor will delete his post and send him a sticky.I would like to reply here so as not to hijack Jessica's thread. You saw the sarcastic smiley, right? Don't tell me your smilies are off because I know you know how to ":o". While the advice I gave does seem to work in some cases (especially the outbound link part), the smiley is there to show it is a ridiculous idea. After the smiley I advised to ride the storm out, try and make up the traffic elsewhere, even if you pay for it. I can imagine how that would incur a penalty (sarcastic smiley). Or are you implying that recommending another search engine will cause a penalty. Personally, I think there are other penalties we should be worried about. In fact, I'm currently recommending an alternate search engine from all of my home pages. Am I concerned about a penalty? No. Iam actually looking forward to ranking well for 'View from Above'.
