SEF
Search Engine Forums
Helping to make the Web - Since 1998
 |
| . | ||||||||||
| Forums | Index | Active Topics | New Topics | My Topics | Search | My Profile | Register | Inbox | Rules & TOS | |
| . | ||||||||||
Email this thread to a friend
| << First Page 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page >> | Previous Topic Next Topic |
| Member | Message |
|
rocket_rob Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 156
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 06:16 am
>>Any site that is doing well for such phrases loses the ranking benefit of the following: - text of internal links containing those keywords - text of reciprocal links containing those keywords - those keywords in the URL and possibly (I haven't seen any proof): - keywords in the title - keywords in H1 tags - high density of the keywords on the page - text of non-reciprocal links containing those keywords >> Ok so that pretty much allows you to rank well with what? A blank page? |
 | |
|
SearchEngineZ Joined: Nov 24, 2003
# Posts: 55
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 06:27 am
rocket_rob: If someone places keywords in reciprocal links, internal links and URLs, the reasoning is generally... to improve search ranking! Doing something to please Google rather than visitors is against Google guidelines. It also gives your site an unfair advantage over un-SEOed sites. Is that cool? Hell yeah, I'll leapfrog those other slow-off-the-mark webmasters! Do your actions help the search results from a searchers point of view? You will probably say yes (your site is way cool), however unbiased observers would probably say no. I don't know you from a bar of soap, I'm just guessing.... |
| |
|
rocket_rob Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 156
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 06:35 am
>>Most unbiased commentators (ie who have sites that neither went up or down) seem to think the new algo is an improvement.<< What a ridiculous comment. GAWD that is the MOST ridiculous statement I have read yet. Let me tell you, if my site "neither went up or down" I would absolutely think it was an improvement because now my top competition would be crappy, spam filled sites. But of course, that would be my "unbiased" opinion on the matter! Gimme a freaking break. |
| |
|
DANXtendlife Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 06:47 am
Well, I must admit, I think SearchEngineZ's statement that having the keyterm in the URL is manipulation and doesn't serve the purpose of increasing relevancy is patently absurd. In the case of spammy sites with extremely long URL's this may be true. But if all URL's with the keyterms in them are penalized, this is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Let me give a concrete hypothethical illustration: If I'm a webmaster who wants to create a spammy site whose sole goal is to push visitors thru to affiliate links, and I'm in the supplement industry, I may want to create a domain that contains, oh, say, the hot terms "nutritional supplements," "liquid vitamins," and "herbal supplements." So, to get higher rankings from Google, I come up with a ridiculous URL: http://www.nutritional-supplements-liquid-vitamins-herbal-supplements.com Of course, we've all seen these sorts of spammy garbage URL's and they (not coincidentally) tend to contain little content, and, therefore, are a net negative value to Google and its visitors. On the other hand, if you're creating a content site about nutritional supplements, it's very logical to use the keyterm in the domain. One example might be to create a site called: www.nutritional-supplement-guide.com (not my domain, but it happens to be a valid one). Now, in such a case, how would it make sense to penalize this URL for having the keyterm in the domain? It doesn't whatsoever. In fact, the name helps identify what the site is purportedly about and increases relevance to the searcher. It makes much more sense for Google to penalize sites that contain keyterms AND ALSO tend to be long, spammy, and nonsensical in meaning. If Google can't differentiate or chooses not to, then they are much less sophisticated than I once gave them credit for. -Dan |
| |
|
rocket_rob Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 156
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 06:52 am
SearchEngineZ Ok so if I sell cars using "Cars" or "Red Cars" on links it is SEO and therefore bad? So instead I should use "Transportation appliances" or "Transportation appliances with a reddish hue"? This whole "new filter" discussion basically says do not say what your site is about. Sprinkle a key word here and there but NEVER use any keyword combos. So you can have content saying "cars" and you can say "red" but NEVER say "red cars". If your main, or only, product is RED CARS you are either 1) screwed or 2)forced to SEO your site to be irrelevant. The reason this is all so stupid is people can, and will, SEO to the new filter. So you will have optimized sites that are crap, and that will be the new way to get traffic. Boy, what a bonanza for the user! Searching for "red cars" will give me results where I can hardly find any mention of red cars. The idea that www.red-cars.com is spam is even stupider. I can show you lousy, spammed filled sites with hidden text, repeated keywords, and redirects that rank 2 in the top 20 for a phrase I used to be #8. Apprently that is part of the new google SEO strategy while in googles eyes my site with relevant keywords and relevant text links has be deemed to be a piece of crap. It is just amazing. Instead of penalizing the 10% of spamming unethical sites google has killed the "overly SEO'd" site with solid, relevant content. I would be glad for you to look at my site as an "unbiased observer" in order to tell me that my site is overly optimized and therefore it sucks from a user standpoint. How about it? |
| |
|
rossendryv Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 192
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 07:29 am
ITs hard to believe they would penalize you based on this: - text of internal links containing those keywords - text of reciprocal links containing those keywords - those keywords in the URL and possibly (I haven't seen any proof): - keywords in the title - keywords in H1 tags - high density of the keywords on the page - text of non-reciprocal links containing those keywords >> If one of the 100s of items you sell is paper clips, why can you not have a link from the home page called paper clips and paper clips in the title and as a descriptive reciprical link. ANd if you want the word in the URL this makes it easier for you to organize all the items in your site. And since you have many types of paper clips whats that got to do with penalizing on keyword densitity. All i know is google is great but the wisdon of breaking something which is thier success is questionable |
| |
|
More Traffic Please Joined: Dec 13, 2000
# Posts: 364
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 07:53 am
"Now, in such a case, how would it make sense to penalize this URL for having the keyterm in the domain? It doesn't whatsoever. In fact, the name helps identify what the site is purportedly about and increases relevance to the searcher." I agree. The problem is that there is such a great overlap between highly optimised sites and just plain good informative site design. A filter like the one they have inserted will never return consistently relevant results. Google's claim to fame is relevant results, that's why it has become the giant it is. I don't believe there is a snowballs chance in h*ll that these type of irrelevant results will continue past the next update. If Google is concerned about spam, then let it do a better job with such basic things like hidden text, hidden links, and sites with KW densities over 20% on a 300 word page. |
| |
|
rocket_rob Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 156
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 08:12 am
In my never ending quest to make sense of these changes I went to a high ranking competitor site. This site has a large block of "almost" hidden text (looks about 8 pixels, washed out gray on black) - text that is basically impossible to read even if you tried. As a user I wouldn't even try because it is obviously just garbage text. So I looked at the first block of text at the top. 58 of the 370 words are for a specific search word. The block at the bottom of the page has 17 of 272 words using this word. Total: 75 out of 642 or 11.7%. It is also spammed, er, used extensively on other areas of the page. Google obviously thinks this is a great site, hidden text and all. Never mind the redirects, or mirror sites - all the no-no's we *thought* Google would penalize us for. Now it is rewarding this stuff. I guess the shopping season is shot but what are folks doing now? Waiting? If it isn't "fixed" then that is another month of no traffic. |
| |
|
Dorian Joined: Aug 13, 2001
# Posts: 533
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 09:18 am
And which one will you being promoting Marky? |
| |
|
ruperto Joined: Nov 18, 2003
# Posts: 71
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 09:33 am
I concur with the view that it doesn't make sense to be penalized for the following: - text of internal links containing those keywords - text of reciprocal links containing those keywords - those keywords in the URL While I can see how such techniques can be abused by miscreants, for the most part, they are devices to help the surfer identify pages that are relevant to him or her. |
| |
|
001 Joined: Sep 26, 2003
# Posts: 64
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 11:15 am
rocket_rob, You hit it. Ridiculous is the word that fits right now for Goof-gle and if they leave it that way there will another engine who WILL take their place and provide better results....pure and simple. Lee |
| |
|
SearchEngineZ Joined: Nov 24, 2003
# Posts: 55
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 12:16 pm
A clarification: I have mentioned the factors that seem to be affected by the filter. I have no idea what triggers the filter. I would like to think that the pattern is thus: 1) Google notices a site is doing well for a commercial keyword 2) Google checks on the factors that are giving it the high rank 3) If the factors include more than one of the following: - text of internal links containing those keywords - text of reciprocal links containing those keywords - those keywords in the URL ....remove the value of all of them. The only instances of internal link text and pages dropping in rankings that I have seen are links to the home page. So, instead of "home", they say "cheap blue widgets". |
| |
|
cabbagehead Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 532
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 12:26 pm
Search123, If you guys have been seen this algo in Australia for 6 months as you have said, please fill us in. Surely, you guys have figured it out by now and can shed a lot of light on the situation for us. |
| |
|
OAC Moderator
Joined: Jan 25, 2001
# Posts: 6751
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 12:32 pm
Btw, a thank you to all those who have complained about the poor quality of some search results in this update. If it weren't for people like you, Google would be less able to judge the extent of the problem and the extent of ill feeling from webmasters/site owners whose pages have been buried for their major search terms, who have used generally accepted SEO methods (i.e. not the pushing the envelope ones). So, thanks to unreviewed et al (there are just too many of you to name individually). Please don't hold back in future updates either.  |
| |
|
dohs Joined: Mar 07, 2001
# Posts: 8
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 12:56 pm
i'm wondering when this filter is applied. if the unfiltered index is the base index, where and when is the filter applied? does the filter apply to the cached page? if i make fixes to my pages, then googlebot comes through to capture the updated cache, could that get you out and back to your regular place in the index? or are we only able to get out when a major dance is done. this florida update is as swift as a florida election. |
| |
|
Mark Wolk Joined: Sep 19, 1999
# Posts: 660
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 01:14 pm
SearchEngineZ, although it does not make sense to me, I would tend to agree on the basis of my own experience. I run 4 websites selling red widgets, green widgets, blue widgets and yellow widgets. All sites are structured in a similar sort of way and have been built using the same honest, spam-free optimisation techniques (and they are in no way duplicates). All were on the first page of serps before the Florida update for the phrases "green widgets" etc. Three sites have urls like x-xx-xxxxx-red-widgets.com (the "x"s representing non competitive words); one has a url without any keyword (initials). The url without any keyword is the only one that did not get buried deep into the results for its main two-word search "yellow widgets". That url is also the oldest (5 years), the keyword-rich-urls being between 8 months and 2 years old. All my urls like x-xx-xxxxx-red-widgets.com disappeared from the serps for the search "red widgets". As you point out, this does not mean that keyword-rich-urls.com are penalized as such; I still see them around BUT provided that they are not otherwise optimized for the exact url keyword combination. As others said, this new algo / filter does not make sense from the searcher's point of view and does not produce relevant results. Many amateur, unoptimized, irrelevant pages (not to mention pages that say "we are out of business" or spammy "directories" ) come up first, and hardly any relevant results appear any longer for 2-word searches. My belief is that if Google does not revert to the pre-Florida results, it will loose its users, and then its Adwords revenue. As we saw in the past with the decline of Altavista, once the users lost confidence in a search engine's relevancy, it is almost impossible to revert the trend. So I am not worried (although I am just as affected as almost anyone else), because at the end of the day, this will be Google's problem, not mine. And I am not making any substantial changes to my sites at this stage. |
| |
|
Everyman Joined: Apr 15, 2001
# Posts: 147
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 01:26 pm
There is a new proxy at www.scroogle.org that shows the filter in action. |
| |
|
SearchEngineZ Joined: Nov 24, 2003
# Posts: 55
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 02:06 pm
Cool - anyone know any more about it? |
| |
|
DANXtendlife Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 02:14 pm
This is very interesting. Now we can truly compare sites that have vanished and try to note similarities and differences. We should be able to put an end to much of the speculation concerning what has caused some sites to have disappeared -- note things Google doesn't seem to be "penalizing" or filtering. -Dan |
| |
|
Everyman Joined: Apr 15, 2001
# Posts: 147
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 02:56 pm
It just adds -qqzx -zzqx -xxqz for the first pass of 100 links, saves it in memory, doesn't use it for the second pass, and then compares current results with memory. What struck me after a few searches was that this filter, when used on a huge number of ecommerce terms, is not sniping at pages like I thought. It's using a grenade launcher. Frequently over half of the links out of the 100 are moved out of the top 100. Contrast it with informational, or better yet, noncommercial or nonprofit sites. The difference is amazing. |
| |
Who's Online?
There are 177 guests and 1 members in the forums right now.
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
| << First Page 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page >> | Previous Topic Next Topic |
Switch to Advanced Editor and ... Create a New Topic or Reply to this Thread |
Related Forum Topics
© 1995 - 2006 · iWeb, Inc · DBA JimWorld Productions