nobunaga
Joined: Aug 08, 1999
# Posts: 135
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 03:38 pm
Thanks for that link Everyman!
When I do a search on say, for example, "los angeles hotels" I still see plenty of sites with the keywords in the URL and hx tags being used. As others have commented, using those may not incur a penalty, they just may not be given as much weight as they used to.
It looks like some SERPS have improved, however on the otherhand, others have posted examples of returns that are quite absurd.
|
 |
REMbraNT
Joined: Jul 29, 2002
# Posts: 82
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 04:03 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".
SearchEngineZ you are right. My site has dropped and I was linking to my homepage with a keyword. Damn, I replaced it with home and I'm waiting for the next dance. Do you guys think this penalty is permanent or next month I get my placement back?
|
|
SearchEngineZ
Joined: Nov 24, 2003
# Posts: 55
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 04:06 pm
Not a penalty, just a filter.
Your PageRank should be unaffected, and changing the links should do the trick if that is the only problem
|
|
REMbraNT
Joined: Jul 29, 2002
# Posts: 82
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 04:27 pm
for me and I'm not alone, it's a penalty
Anyways, I also reduced the keyword relevance and I'm emailing some of my link partners to edit my link title to something totally not relevant to my site. This might do the trick...
|
|
rossendryv
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 192
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 05:41 pm
Do u think linking internal pages to other internal pages within a site with Keywords is a penalty (filtered)
|
|
REMbraNT
Joined: Jul 29, 2002
# Posts: 82
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 05:56 pm
who knows? Penalty or filter, it doesn't matter. My site is dropped that's what is important.
|
|
Dr. Phil
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 55
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 05:57 pm
just had a quick look at the results from www.scroogle.org. it seems to me sites with the keywords in both direct proximity and scattered are producing the better results.
i.e.
keyword1 keyword2 some garbage keyword1 text that has keyword2 then some more text keyword1 keyword2
rather than:
keyword1 keyword2 some garbage text that has keyword1 keyword2 then some more text keyword1 keyword2
this could be why so many results have droped from terms like 'real estate' as it's normally used as a phrase.
just a quick observation from 2 searches, so take it with a tablespoon of salt
|
|
cabbagehead
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 532
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 06:16 pm
Interesting to note (while looking at scroogle)- some keyphrase categories are WAY more affected than others. For any of the city + "hotels" keyphrases (e.g. seattle hotels) there's a pretty consistant 85-90% drop of sites. 9 out of 10 sites were removed!!! That's rediculous! For "discount hotels" its considerably lower, at 50-60%.
By the way - whoever created this tool - thanks! This thing rocks!
And to whoever at Google wrote this algo - we're going to find where you work and key your car! ;-)
-Neal
|
|
Dr. Phil
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 55
|
Posted: 11/26/2003 06:18 pm
i searched twice more and single word searches don't appear to be effected by the change... okay back to work. maybe someone else can look into my theory.
|
|
Mr Creosote
Joined: Sep 10, 2002
# Posts: 95
|
Posted: 11/27/2003 06:54 am
nearly all (barr 3) of my sites are www.keyword1keyword2.co.uk.
for example healthinsurance.co.uk. All text links to this site unsurprisingly use the link text "health insurance".
All sites with keyword1keyword2 or keyword1-keyword2 have litteraly disapppeared David Copperfield style.
What am I supposed to do? All links have to say something, for health insurance what else can I use?
|
|
DANXtendlife
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/27/2003 07:00 am
I honestly can find no discernible pattern...
I have looked at several keyterms and I am seeing sites that do NOT have any keyterms in the URL filtered, along with sites that do...I am seeing sites with heavy keyterm density filtered, and sites with almost none filtered...sites filtered that are linked to with anchor keyterms, and sites filtered that don't...etc
This leaves me with my hands up in the air with respect to the hell Google is actually looking for.
Frustrating to say the least.
-Dan
|
|
drongo
Joined: Jun 28, 2000
# Posts: 511
|
Posted: 11/27/2003 07:31 am
Please..
Can someone who is currently seing directory results do some test to see if there is any correlation between the top sites and relevant Google directory cats.
I cannot do the tests myself because from my PC I see Directory and web results the same.
|
|
unreviewed
Joined: Dec 07, 2000
# Posts: 6776
|
Posted: 11/27/2003 08:14 am
drongo, web and directory results are the same. Even if I drill down and have it set to search only in that directory section, the results march the web results.
|
|
JasonUK
Joined: Nov 23, 2003
# Posts: 5
|
Posted: 11/27/2003 08:19 am
I'm with you on this one Dan - I can't see any pattern among the 'top 20' for my keyphrases. My highest placed pages would to me be the least relevant initally to a surfer - entering either on a secure order form before seeing what we've got to offer or on a contact form page.
Many 1st page results seem to have little or no relevance to the search phrase or keyword density. Others are saturated with repeated keywords.
Like Mr Creosote I've got sites with keyword1-keyword2.domain format so am I being penalised for quoting the site name or copyright notices etc.
I'd be the first to accept that some of my sites may be considered 'over-optimised' but that's what Inkotomi (& Google previously) seemed to want! My search phrases are directly relevant to our site.
The Google update to me seems to be largely finished - results across their servers / partners and regional sites seem to match. I have no issue 'correcting my site' for Google's parameters but like the rest of you I'm scratching my head trying to understand what they're looking for. Initial gut reaction is to generate a mountain of low-density keyword entry pages which would really defeat any SE wish list - surely?!
On a more positive note the amount of traffic coming from non-Google powered search engines is largely compensating for the Google drop - more eggs in more baskets? - is this an initial sign of web-users disatisfaction?
Jason
|
|
drongo
Joined: Jun 28, 2000
# Posts: 511
|
Posted: 11/27/2003 08:20 am
Unreviewed,
Thanks thats what I see.
Nevertheless the Direcory IS there still and if you go for it cat by cat and get to your target area of interest you may find that the folks who have replaced you in the new web SERPS are all sitting in the same cat or nearly.
I have seen this for some vacation rental SERPS.
I need to do some more work on this.
Whats bugging me is the Directory results being the same as the SERPs. I just don't undstand if this is a glitch or what.
What purpose does the directory serve if not for a differnt search?
|
|
edit_pal
Joined: Nov 27, 2003
# Posts: 93
|
Posted: 11/27/2003 10:42 am
Hi Gang,
Being new here I don't want to upset anyone, however, from what I know of Google and being that ranking is based on an algorhythm, I think we may be overlooking the obvious. I guess I sort of missed all of this... since I was only aware we had our site ranking again after the 15th, due to changes made earlier in the month. It's all numbers and what is worth how much, how much density is allowed before ranking parks. If anything, that may be closer to the truth. Maybe they changed the algorhythms to allow more density in some areas, or less overall, but rather than throwing out the whole site and secondary keywords, they just numb the results for that offending keyword category...
Sometimes we don't see the obvious...being too close to it. For me...I'll look at the sites I am facing for #1 spot and just keep analysing case by case...see what they are getting away with and push the envelope.
|
|
SearchEngineZ
Joined: Nov 24, 2003
# Posts: 55
|
Posted: 11/27/2003 11:38 am
Mr Creosote said:
for example healthinsurance.co.uk. All text links to this site unsurprisingly use the link text "health insurance".
I suggest that you remove links to the following sites from your web page, and any other associations you may have with them:
LinkPartners.com
SiteRanking.com
It's important to keep in mind that Google hates reciprocal linking. Google probably put 2+2 together:
hmmmm, all the links have the same keywords
hmmmm, they link to a reciprocal linking service
hmmmm....
|
|
betty
Joined: Dec 19, 2000
# Posts: 120
|
Posted: 11/27/2003 12:04 pm
Looking at my sites . . . some were majorly impacted and some were not. My sites that were dumped are niche gifts sites. One site was #1 for several 3 word phrases that are very specific and popular. Now my site and all my competitors are no longer listed.
The number 1 site is a greeting card company. Here is the density of their words:
0 % for the 3 word phrase
0 % for first word (1 occurence out of over 300 words)
18.5 % for second word
1.88% for third word
I have a two word phrase site with gifts as a second term in the phrase. It was blown off the map, too.
I have another 3 word phrase very niche site. I have it structured over the top in 3 word phrases in links on the page. It is still number 1. It has a word combo that my competitors use but contains words that wouldn't be very popular words searched for on the internet.
Seems Google targeted highly popular words like gifts in two or 3 word combos. They left my highly niche 3 word phrase site alone. Both sites are similar in keyword density and Google page rank.
Can't optimize for 1 word out of over 300 being on a page to be #1. I would be blown out by Inktomi and the other engines. Plus I would have to go to image links to mask the words. Of course this #1 site could be cloaking but I doubt it . . . if they were good cloakers . . . I would have seen them before.
|
|
doveguy
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 39
|
Posted: 11/27/2003 12:17 pm
I have a 2 keyword site, URL keyword1-keyword2.us, that is was ranking at #3 before the update, and is now ranking at #2. In about two months, I have taken the site to the #2 spot in very competetive field. I am also using linkpartners and linksmangaer as well for all 50 of my links so far. I have been *extremely* happy with the results from these, so I don't think this is really a factor. If it were, I would be gone. All links are using same link text as well. I am somewhat picky about the sites I choose to swap with, however.
That's my experience anyway.....
--------------------------------------
"I suggest that you remove links to the following sites from your web page, and any other associations you may have with them:
LinkPartners.com
SiteRanking.com
It's important to keep in mind that Google hates reciprocal linking. Google probably put 2+2 together:
hmmmm, all the links have the same keywords
hmmmm, they link to a reciprocal linking service
hmmmm.... "
|
|
DANXtendlife
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/27/2003 12:29 pm
doveguy,
Right. I don't believe those things are the deciding factors either. I have seen sites doing what you are, and have not been filtered. In short, it's too inconsistent.
On the other hand, it may very well be the case that Google will be rolling the filter out to cover more searches after having gauged the initial reaction.
In short, although I hope it doesn't happen to you, your site may eventually be hit like many others.
Nobody really knows how Google is handling this and what they intend to do from here.
-Dan
|
|
