Forum Moderators: open
We always maintained at least 2 domains for each subject matter we were interested in to guard against hard times when Google might remove a site from good SERPs, accidentally or on purpose. We never considered this spamming - just insurance.
Last night I noticed that Google seems to have identified our whole network of sites. We don't have a ban, but on most searches now only one site will show up in the top 50.
The sites aren't cross linked in any identifiable way. So I think they have some way of aggregating all links between the sites and determining which sites are most likely to be connected.
Anyone else seen this?
Chubba, thanks for the attempt to get us back on topic. Sounds like your situation is quite like that of many in here since Florida, although Brandy seemed to (temporarily?) loosen up on the geo issues a bit. The LSI thread is most informative in this regard. Hilltop too perhaps.
What we're talking about here is not geo related however.
Could be something to do with our links directory. The top level looks the same on all sites, although the links inside are specific to each site.I have a gut feeling it's not though. We are renaming our products on one site now to see if LSI might be the culprit.
Other than that I can only blame the incoming links. Our sites often get listed alongside each other in pages linking to us. We don't have much control over that.
SlyOldDog, sounds like you've got enough factors in play that any one or combination could do it. I'm extremely curious to hear, if you're willing to share, whether you think that changing product names helps, only because I think there are lots of sites out there that discount that theory. But then again, with the potential issues you describe: similar content, common link directories, some cross links ... perhaps all of that together could be causeing your problem, and perhaps removing any one or more of the issues might therefore fix the problem. So often, it's not one thing; it's one thing and how it relates to related things!
Meanwhile we still have not sorted out our own problem.
If it's true that G no longer likes one site being a more detailed subset of another (with the 'subsite' providing related but more thorough information), and if they would prefer them to be combined, then we're in a pickle, because the one they blasted is the larger one that would have needed to absorb the smaller one, which is still alive. I feel that headache coming back...
Might be Google is loving those Reports and ....
On the contrary, I think this algorithm is brilliant. Of course I am not happy about it, but it has definately cleaned things up. We'll be back though. As always Google makes the first move and we respond. It's an evolutionary process.
Caveman - of course we will let you know anything we find out. I'm pretty confident if we remove specific product names/information and delink the sites we will prevail. We are trying the product names first. If that doesn't work, the next step will be delinking.
In the meantime, we must pray Adwords keeps us afloat :)
ADDED> Just an afterthought. Company name might also be a common theme between SEO sites on a common topic.
This seems to be the only common denominator in my scenario;
Same "look & feel".
Maybe the algo/filter mechanism really has smartened up..?
Maybe the algo/filter mechanism really has smartened up..?
This is very different from site operators who use one template for numerous sites, simply to attack a single topic with nothing more than variations in kw's.
>Google will never do a good job as long as the web community does not design for them.
Au contraire. Google does best on websites that were not designed for Google, but for users. I would have regarded this as indisputable ... except that some webmasters regard "Google does best" as "Google puts them first" rather than "Google puts them where they deserve.
>There are very few sites that actualy put even the smallest amount of thought into being indexed for a search. Most of them might even tell you that designing a site like that is the stupidest thing they ever heard. All you have to do is put out an ad to hire a web developer and you will see what I mean.
Agree with that. You can find a LOT of totally clueless designers that know how to use a paint program and nothing else on earth -- having no useful skills whatsoever, they go into website design or advertising.
This, is, of course, not Google's problem; these idiots create sites that are pretty useless for anyone; and Google almost gives them all the contempt they deserve.
>The Internet is slowly moving away from being text based.
So are television commercials. That's fine: nobody will ever want to search for them. I notice even Google's image search doesn't allow you to say "I want to look for a picture with lots of red and some mauve." No, they search in the titles of images -- the text.
Search is text. Text is searchable.
What these idiots want is couch potatoes chained in front of their website -- that is, wannabe-television executives. But even the Big Guys in couch-potato-control have to face the fact that remote controls are changing the landscape. The users are taking control back. The dinosaurs are going extinct, and the rodents who survive will be the ones who can provide content people can find when they want it.
Search engine friendly design DOES NOT equal ugly design. Actually, there are some really beautiful examples of search engine friendly designs at CSSZenGarden.com. Of course, with CSS Design you have to look at browser compatibility but if your user base uses the latest browsers than you should be ok.
Well that's just my 2 cents. ;)
The reason it is not easier is because of those stupid spammers that want to have the top 10 for every search to return their site only. I would like to see a SE that only returned sites that had SEO done on them. Have a little spam detection but only return site that meet certain good SEO practices. Leave out all other sites. A reverse Google filter.
Well, the technique works for them: they get business that their skills could never provide. But the poor client gets rooked, if not pawned.
It is not Google's problem, though. It is the pages that ARE SEO'd that are Google's problem. And, as you say, if all pages were SEO'd, the net would fall apart and no search engine could work.
Which should lead any SERP to carefully consider the Categorical Imperative.
