Forum Moderators: open
What about this scenario:
Your site has all its pages indexed in Y, but suddenly dropped 300 positions in the serps.
Your domain name, title tag,h1 tag, kw density (onsite factors) are very similar, with very similar inbound anchor text.
Could this trigger it?
It depends also on what you mean by Over Optimization. Give me more detials and I can better answer the question.
In short yes it can. But once again I've seen both sides of the story. I have a site that is so damn keyword and text link heavy it's rediculous. I did it as a test and the site ranks extremely well in Yahoo. I would penalize the thing if I were Yahoo but the site kicks but.
I also have seen several sites though that look to be banned from using the same technique as above.
I can't really give you a definitive answer other then I know you can get banned from this.
Maybe it wasn't the keywords?
i see that all the time. The site that does well, does it rank only on limited terms?
My kewyord density was exactly as you described.
I didn't change a word on my site. What I did was:
I had like 9 links pointing to the different sections of my buddy's site. I removed 8 of them and left just 1.
After I've done that, my site returned back into yahoo serps in 3 days! I think you should carefuly check everybody you are linking to, but it's just one of the possible reasons. There are soooo many different reasons why your site may be penalized.
My title tag was changed and I added "online widget at online widget.com"
I added a H1 tag "online widget"
2 days later the site sent 310.
The site has been growing over months now.
My site repeats my widgets 4 times in title: free widgets, online widgets, widgets at widgets etc... lol :)
Yahoo ignores my "widgets storm" though, and replaced it with the title from the directory, but still ranks me #3 on my beloved widgets.
I have detuned the site, let's see what happens.
The strange thing, some of the top sites used the same forumlua as I did, however , I probably had too much so I triggered something.
Two sites, same structure, optimisation and links. One gets binned the other doesnt.
Regarding message #3:
The reason I remarked that it doesn't make sense is that it was posted in the context of a discussion of an Over Optimization Penalty, which means an automatic function of the algorithm. If it's an automated process, then you will see it applied equally across the board.
It just doesn't make sense to claim that keyword spamming will get you banned, while admitting that a similar site that is doing that is doing exceptionally well. If you're seeing it both ways, then it's something other than an automated OOP at play.
If two related sites are keyword spamming and one gets booted and the other doesn't, then the logical assumption would be that it may be something else, like a manually applied ban.
So in the context of an automated ban, the above scenario doesn't hold water. Which is why I remarked that it doesn't make sense to claim it's automatic while simultaneously refuting the thesis by demonstrating that a similar site didn't get the ban.
It doesn't hold water in a historical context either, because Inktomi has always been partial to keyword density, and I might add, from where I sit, it still is.
I am not denying that it's possible to rank well in the algo then get a hand check that causes the site disappear. On the contrary, that's an entirely plausible scenario. But that's not an OOP. It's just quality control.
An automated filter that starts its filtering by going through (targetting) high achieving or over acheiving sites and comparing that to scale of other factors before carrying on the filter.
Soapy,
You are talking about something completely different that has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. Let me explain.
OOP (Over Optimization Penalty) is a theory that came about with the Florida update. During Florida many members believed that Google was penalizing sites that were optimizing too much, and therefore looked less natural. When anyone talks about an Over Optimization Penalty, that is what is being spoken of.
You are talking about a scenario where a website that ranks well and receives clicks, and subsequently invites scrutiny because it is successful and is punished by Yahoo for being successful. That is NOT OOP. That is not what is under discussion.
The scenario you are talking about is the theory that Yahoo bans websites that compete with it, bla bla bla. That is NOT an OOP penalty.
OOP has nothing to do with how successful a site ranks, and how many clicks it receives. An OOP filter will wipe that website out BEFORE it even has a chance to rank- so it's not what you are talking about.
Let me repeat, a site caught in the OOP filter will never leave the gate, so it will never be successful to begin with. That is the nature of an OOP.
OOP (Over Optimization Penalty) is a theory that came about with the Florida update. During Florida many members believed that Google was penalizing sites that were optimizing too much, and therefore looked less natural. When anyone talks about an Over Optimization Penalty, that is what is being spoken of.
Correct.
I will let you know if there is any change on this. I have taken out the the elements that could of caused it. We will see if anything happens.
Soapy,
You are talking about something completely different that has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion.
Wrong. I am talking about oop in Yahoo and why two sites with the same optimization can be treated differently under different scenarios.
OOP (Over Optimization Penalty) is a theory that came about with the Florida update. During Florida many members believed that Google was penalizing sites that were optimizing too much, and therefore looked less natural. When anyone talks about an Over Optimization Penalty, that is what is being spoken of.
Yes I know that.
You are talking about a scenario where a website that ranks well and receives clicks, and subsequently invites scrutiny because it is successful and is punished by Yahoo for being successful. That is NOT OOP. That is not what is under discussion.
No I’m not. I was giving you an example of how an automated filter can treat similar sites differently in Yahoo. You missed my point totally. You guys are assuming the starting point for all optimization filters is the optimization itself. Im suggesting a filter can start by targeting a particular set of circumstances and use a reference index to decide if the site is organic or not or simply not in compliance with guidelines. All totally automated. For example it could run through a list of money terms looking for sites with more recips that one ways or linked from dodgy areas. It could use a whole set of reference points to decide if it over optimized or not. The balance being between the target of the filter and the optimization score. So a less achieving site could go unfiltered for the same stuff that sees a high achieving site binned. When I talked about clicks I was making a small simple example, it wasn’t the basis of the whole idea. This IS OOP. It is under discussion.
The scenario you are talking about is the theory that Yahoo bans websites that compete with it, bla bla bla. That is NOT an OOP penalty.
Not at all. Where did I mention sites competeing with it? As far as I can tell it wasn’t mentioned till you brought it up. Of course that wouldn’t be OOP and that’s not what I set out.
the only reason i am putting this forward is because you said if two sites with the same optimisation are treated differently it shows the filter is not automated. I strognly disagree with that.
Every site that I have used too many similar internal content templates I have been reduced to the 2 pages listed syndrome (2 home pages) that others speak of. This is automated and I suspect quite tight a penalisation.
For the innocent guys out there - unlucky, a poor judgement call for you - but how do the SERPS look?
If you are reading these forums then don't do anything remotely similar in content if you want traffic from Yahoo long term - I say long term because short term any type of content can get a ranking.
Removed the H1 Tag, Recovered 300 positions!
Happy again :)
the way up in yahoo and the newer bl's have move down.
You mean new bl's to new or old sites?
Some ranking changes seemed to be triggered by page changes (tweaking of SEO related page elements can certainly be viewed as attempts to manipulate the SERP's).
Some ranking changes seemed to be triggered as new filters were apparently instituted, where no site/page changed occured, offering clues to the sorts of things being targeted.
Of course, this all broadly speaking falls under the category of algo evolution.
IMO, Y is getting more like G over time ... not always in the end results (as reflected by the SERP's) ... but rather more in the way Y approaches their algo development over time. Y seems to take pages from G's book from time to time, just applying different choices and values than G does.
My 2 cents, and probably worth about that much. ;-)
I am playing things safe, this is a fine case where cloaking would be beneficial.
I am now at the point where have an H1 tag made me #2 on Msn, but out of Yahoo.
I'm not sure what else you have on your pages, but based on my experience H1 (one per page) is not a problem on Yahoo.
The site is highly optimized. One other point, I experimented with duplicate keywords in the title tag.
widgets at widget.com , this could also be an issue.
