waYss
Joined: Mar 13, 2002
# Posts: 209
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 07:43 am
yeah, unless google is trying to bowl a googlie at us.
Anyway, major worry I have is one of my clients lost a 1st page position for secured loans, and believe me that hurts. Site has a page rank of 5, no spamming whatsoever with good incoming links. Now why this site has lost its rankings, is outta my reach. Just encouraging me to spam!!!
|
 |
pjnunn777
Joined: Jul 17, 2003
# Posts: 381
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 08:18 am
LOL I think Google has already bowled that Googlie...
|
|
rocket_rob
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 156
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 08:27 am
I had a 2 word phrase I was #1, never understood why since the word was in my domain name and appeared just once on my home page. Now I understand why - anchor text in my links. Now I do not show up for that phrase at all. So google has decided somehow that having links with anchor text that exactly match the name of your site is bad, or spam? So if my domain is www.oak-tables.com, and I have many links with text of "www.oak-tables.com", and I sell oak tables, that google will ignore my site when someone searchs for "oak tables". So in effect links are useless, because what good is a link using ANY text if the text is ignored? Or perhaps you get credit for using totally unrelated anchor text now - credit for the link but no plus or minus for the text itself????
So anyone out there with links that list your domain name in the anchor text - google apparently believes you to are a spammer.
|
|
drongo
Joined: Jun 28, 2000
# Posts: 511
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 08:36 am
and what about people with keywords in their company name?
I mean how do you create a link to, say
Cool Drinks Ltd
without using the words of the company and perhaps mentioning what it is they sell???
Great move Google!
|
|
pjnunn777
Joined: Jul 17, 2003
# Posts: 381
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 08:43 am
If that were true Rocket_rob, then certain sites like the BBC would also fall foul. After all I would think that anyone linking to the BBC would use BBC as the anchor text. At the moment BBC is still No. 1 when doing a search for BBC.
The links to my site are quite varied as I have experimented over the years with different anchor text. For my main search phrase - blue widgets = disappeared. This phrase appears in a fair chunk of my links but inside a three or four keyword phrase, ie pretty blue widgets in country. My site is still No. 1 when I search for the phrase pretty blue widgets, or for that matter any of the other anchor text combination.
Still puzzled.
|
|
waYss
Joined: Mar 13, 2002
# Posts: 209
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 08:50 am
Yeah anchor text is nothing but a good thing, unless ur misusing it. Besides, I wouldn't go that far assuming google could use such a filter. Na they aren't a bunch of numbptys.
On the other hand, is this change in google algo permanent or its a bit of experiment aimed at shaking our lives for a while? Does anyone has any info on that. Sorry, if i am asking a repeat question unless noone thought of it as yet!
ta
|
|
john_dush
Joined: May 07, 2000
# Posts: 144
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 09:02 am
I "look after" 20-ish sites, and the thoery of some kind of penalty for high incoming links with anchor text is a good one. The sites which had that are now gone, ones in a less competitive arena are still there.
I am seeing some competitor sites with high incoming links / low outgoing links taking up top spots. Virtually all have some content in terms of text / pages, might not be good for the reader, but content nevertheless. Many other well placed sites (not 100% but high enough to take notice) do reciprocal linking but have many "relevant" link arrangements to complementary businesses. They have smaller amounts of linking to total crap.This theory of relevant linking seems to hold some weight from what I see.
Google using old data? Maybe, but I can't see that as the main reason. Some sites now gone for me were fine a year ago as well, so something more than old data has made them disappear...
|
|
rocket_rob
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 156
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 09:23 am
Just reporting what I see personally, and that is a fair amount of my incoming links use a 2 word keyword phrase that is part of my domain name. Whereas I used to be #1 for that phrase I am only google knows where now.
|
|
john_dush
Joined: May 07, 2000
# Posts: 144
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 09:25 am
Having said that, a penalty for high amounts of incoming links with anchor text? - hmmmm. Competitors could just upload loads of links to your URL & tip you over the edge. Google surely wouldn't open their results to that kind of abuse? I don't know what to think.
|
|
DANXtendlife
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 09:26 am
The anchor text link theory, after I reflected on it last night, does not seem plausible.
First, it would be purely assinine for Google to penalize them for reasons already cited here.
Moreover, I've seen too many examples of sites that have almost nothing but anchor text links still doing fine.
The person who owns this site was unaffected by the recent upheaval. The URL of his site is nothing more than the keyterm for which he is #1. Every link I can tell going to his site has the keyterm as the anchor text because that's the guy's blasted URL.
Also, one of my other sites whose index page fell very far for no apparent reason with this latest update -- the URL of the site does not contain the main keyterms the index page is optimized for.
All of the links going to his site are using only the URL of the site. Not the keyterms I optimized for.
In short, I am disregarding the anchor text link theory.
Not only because it doesn't hold up, but because I think Google can't be that dumb to penalize them.
The old data argument in the one that holds the most weight in my eyes right now. I think everything will revert back to "normal" in time...maybe not in days, but several weeks.
In the meantime, I'm sure I will continue to grow more agitated as X-mas season nears and spammers, no-content sites, and redirects get all the traffic and sales.
Thanks Google.
-Dan
|
|
john_dush
Joined: May 07, 2000
# Posts: 144
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 09:31 am
Rocket, we've got several sites with incoming links using keyword phrases that match part of the domain. They still have their rankings & are just not affected. They are all in reasonably uncompetitive markets, however. It's the big boys that just fell to God knows where.
|
|
cabbagehead
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 532
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 09:42 am
Actually the anchor text theory was not simply that anchor text was bad but rather that *stuffing* anchor tags was bad. By that I mean using the same keyphrase (that you your site is optimized for) over and over again. It's a common SEO technique but I've always wondered if it was a matter of time because it seems very spammy. All the same, its just one of many theories.
What I *DID* notice in the analysis reports I posted (see page 5) is that all of the pages ranking in the top 10 for the two phrases I looked at (e.g. discount hotels and denver hotels) had almost *NO* mention of the keyphrase in their titles, and only 1-2 references in their text. This could imply many things ... but could also imply that either (a) the bar for density has been lowered as some have suggested and/or (b) this could affect anchor text sutffing.
I don't know. God, there's just no clean cut observation so far.
|
|
ferret77
Joined: May 31, 2002
# Posts: 354
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 09:59 am
only applying the penalty to more competitve terms would elimante people gettting knock for there business name
unless of course there business name is a search term, but that itself is sort spammy
in response
"First, it would be purely assinine for Google to penalize them for reasons already cited here. "
If your site was now number 1 you wouldn't think it was assinine
"Also, one of my other sites whose index page fell very far for no apparent reason with this latest update -- the URL of the site does not contain the main keyterms the index page is optimized for. "
None of my lost pages urls contain keywords
Every spot I lost was contained in the anchor text of incoming links, many links with the same phrase
I have noticed some of the reults still in decent spots have , pretty high keyword density on the page thpough
|
|
ferret77
Joined: May 31, 2002
# Posts: 354
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 09:59 am
only applying the penalty to more competitve terms would elimante people gettting knock for there business name
unless of course there business name is a search term, but that itself is sort spammy
in response
"First, it would be purely assinine for Google to penalize them for reasons already cited here. "
If your site was now number 1 you wouldn't think it was assinine
"Also, one of my other sites whose index page fell very far for no apparent reason with this latest update -- the URL of the site does not contain the main keyterms the index page is optimized for. "
None of my lost pages urls contain keywords
Every spot I lost was contained in the anchor text of incoming links, many links with the same phrase
I have noticed some of the reults still in decent spots have , pretty high keyword density on the page thpough
|
|
rossendryv
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 192
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 10:09 am
Maybe is all so simple as Google just mixing up the results for short peroids to keep all the spammers and SEO gurus off guard. Or maybe they are testing some filters and things will settle down again.
|
|
DANXtendlife
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 10:46 am
ferret,
No, I would still think it to be assinine even if my site were #1. I don't consider myself that shallow.
I am coming from Google's perspective of trying to find the best way to bring up relevant, content rich sites for keyterms. Penalizing anchor text links has too many flaws in it -- that is, it would screw too many good sites, and thereby screw Google itself, to make much sense in doing so.
cabbagehead raises a point I had never considered before. He states: "Actually the anchor text theory was not simply that anchor text was bad but rather that *stuffing* anchor tags was bad. "
I know my sites have not been penalized on this because I have never once "stuffed" an anchor tag. The thought never crossed my mind.
But, regardless, I doubt this is what is at issue because many of the sites that have seen their index page disappear did no such thing, not just my own. And these were high quality sites too. The kind of competition I was proud of having.
-Dan
|
|
ferret77
Joined: May 31, 2002
# Posts: 354
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 11:00 am
I know when my sites where number 1 I though google was the greatest thing going
I definetly am guilty of anchor text stuffing , but up to last friday there was nothing wrong with doing it. It wasn't even called spam by the "white hats"
anchor link stuffing is just putting keywords or phrases in your links, if your site's name is a key word or phrase and you got links with those words pointing at it you are guilty of anchor tag stuff even if only to a little degree
|
|
DANXtendlife
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 11:08 am
ferret,
One of my site's had the keyterm in the URL..it was natural as could be. But from my understanding, if someone linked to my site, they would necessarily have to use the keyterm as an "anchor." There isn't much choice.
However, "stuffing" seems to me that I would request that webmaster to repeat my keyterm over and over in the link to my site.
As I said, I've never done that and the thought has never even crossed my mind.
If you have done that, I doubt that's what you are getting penalized for, though.
As I said before, Google has too much at stake to give crappy search results. If they have gone bad across a wide range of industries and keyterms, I fully expect them to fix the problem.
A month from now, we'll all probably be joking to each other how much time we wasted trying to figure out what the hell went wrong with Google.
In the end, we will probably never figure it out or know.
-Dan
|
|
Pongo
Joined: May 27, 2002
# Posts: 665
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 11:20 am
Well everyone is giving good input based on their own situation and sets of serps so Ill chime in with how things seem from my end...
I think the old data idea might be a good one but I think the old data being used right now is (old backlink data)
I would also like to say that I'm one of the folks that believes those good ranking sites that are gone now will be back soon and doing fine.
|
|
pjnunn777
Joined: Jul 17, 2003
# Posts: 381
|
Posted: 11/19/2003 11:31 am
If the anchor text stuffing penalty is correct, then surely all a competitor would need to do is set up a whole host of links all with exactly the same anchor text to your site and then your site's gone. No, I don't buy this one, a devaluation maybe, penalty no.
|
|
