MakeMeTop
Joined: Jul 05, 2000
# Posts: 1714
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 12:26 pm
>It was my impression that this was something we should be doing because a great many SEO's have said that you should always try to get the keyterms you are going for in the hyperlink from sites linking to yours.
That, I fear, is the problem! People have played this card too hard and Google has reacted accordingly.
As for percentages, I think it depends on the competitive nature of the phrase. This makes things really hard to pin down, the goal posts change on every search as the penalty applies to search phrases and NOT the page itself. So Google could say quite truthfully you do not have a penalty on your page or site. The penalty on the search phrase on your page is created only at the time of the search and is calculated differently on each and every search 
So, on some searches it could be over optimisation of alt tags tipping the balance, on others - crosslinking, on others a too high proportion of anchor text in links using the search phrase.
My frank feeling is that they will turn down the filter a notch or two. There seems to be rather a lot of collateral damage!
|
 |
cshopinc
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 22
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 12:57 pm
Hi,
Same deal for me. top 5 rankings in subsites linking to my main site are gone in their best terms.
Spammy listings replacing relevant ones.Online price comparison sites taking over. Hopefully temporarily.
To go from top 5 in 3 sites under key terms to disappear is ridiculous. Financial killer.
Certain terms are holding but why i do not know.
Our main site is holding steady but none of the others.
PPC game here i come!!!!!!!!!!! Geez
Thanks for reading, cshopinc
|
|
cabbagehead
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 532
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 02:07 pm
Haha - I don't think you should be rewarding Google for screwing up the SEO balance, by paying into their PPC coffer.
You have a couple that were not affected, and some that were? Please - can you tell us anything and everything they do and don't have in common? I think you're in a unique position to hopefully shed some light on what's going on.
|
|
cshopinc
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 22
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 02:22 pm
We are a yahoo store. The yahoo store pages are holding but the subsites linking to our yahoo store are the ones that are gone.
They are totally different looks and diff text so they usually compliment each other well in the engines.
I hope the linking to the main site is not an issue.
The ppc game stinks but i do not have a choice. i must get visitors.
We sell window and bedding. The competition for identical products is mindboggling.
I cannot stand spammy doorways killing us or big comparison directories taking the good spots.
That is an even trickier ppc game.
Hell, I have know idea what is up!!!! google will hopefully correct itself. I am praying.
Thanks, cshopinc
|
|
cabbagehead
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 532
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 02:57 pm
Here are the viable possibilities I've heard to date:
1. Google is using a 6-month old set of data to verify an algo fix, and we may see a revert back to original data once the test is done. I'd personally have a hard time believing that Google would be testing stuff in production (i'd get fired if I did that) but someone did point out this was the case about 6 months ago.
2. New algo for points deduction for sites posessing certain charateristics such as :
a. Links Pages - which signal an intentional manipulation of PR. (most likely)
b. Unatural HTML - excessive inclusion of images or alt tags packed with keyphrases. (very possible) Most likley specifics I can see so far are: links pages, packing images/alt tags.
c. Overly optimized Content - content obviously intended to manipulate google such as %ages of density etc. (less likely).
My thoughts - start analyzing everyone's sites that have been affected and compare them against the results now in the top rankings and look for patterns. Can anyone who's been affected please post their site and the key phrase they use to have, and the position they were at? Let's all work to get to the bottom of this.
|
|
cabbagehead
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 532
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 03:01 pm
Here's my info. If you can also post yours so that we all have a pool of examples from which to begin building a pattern:
Here are 5 sites with notable rankings that are now gone:
1. TravelUSA.com - Key Phrases: "Travel usa", #1; "USA Travel", #4; "Discount Travel", #8; "Travel Deals", #4
2. Hotel.us - Key Phrases: "Discount Hotels". #12
3. Reno-Hotels.us - Key Phrases: "Reno Hotels", #12, "Hotels in Reno", #10
4. Denver-Hotels.us - Key Phrases: "Denver Hotels", #12
5. Nashville-hotels.us - Key Phrases: "Nashville Hotels", #14
|
|
bhartzer
Administrator
Joined: Jun 08, 2000
# Posts: 7035
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 03:08 pm
It appears that if you over-optimized then you have fallen out of the rankings.
With this update, the white-hats are doing better (finally).
|
|
ferret77
Joined: May 31, 2002
# Posts: 354
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 03:16 pm
ok,
I'm not sure if you read my pervious post , or makemetop's early posts
but the pattern seems to be this
site heavy optimized
1) lots of keyword links (my experience)
2) whatever other people do to optimize
for more competive search terms
My question would be this
does anyone have site that was dropped that
1) Doesn't have lots of keyword links pointing at it and/or
2) was targeting a relatively non-competive term
3) has been dropped from a search term that was not conatined in any of its incoming links text
It would appear that if google wanted to punish people for using the anchor text in incoming links this would be the way
You could not punish people for non-competive terms because they might be the name of their business
for example if your business is "jeff's general store" and you had a ton of incoming links which said ""jeff's general store" you can't be kicked because are not trying to manipulate
there wouldn't ge any competition for ""jeff's general store" whch would be the indicator
|
|
DANXtendlife
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 03:17 pm
cabbagehead,
I think point 1 has some potential merit -- that is, Google is using data that is 6 months (or more) old.
Some of the results that I'm seeing for where my homepage/index used to be are old garbage sites that existed 1/2 year ago or so.
This keyterm is very competitive, so it doesn't make sense that out of all the potentially great sites that could fill the top 10 spots there would be any garbage sites.
But about 6 months (or so) one of these top spots was taken by a site with a nonfunctioning URL. That is, a DEAD URL that when you click it just says "This URL is no longer active."
Ever since this time, the results slowly and surely started to improve, with quality content sites beating out the riff raff.
The dead URL link disappeared along with much of the rest of the garbage.
Now, with this latest update, that dead URL is back -- and yes, it's still dead cuz I checked to see.
I can't speak for other industries, but the "white hats" are not winning where I sit. If the problem is so-called "overoptimized sites" then the solution is an even bigger problem -- sites with almost zero content, populated by links to just sell you things, low PR scores, and cheesy redirects.
The way I look at is this: will your site (or page of your site) give the visitor valuable, relevant content regardless if they buy anything? If the answer is yes, that is a good site. If the answer is no, then your site is not a value to visitors.
-Dan
|
|
DANXtendlife
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 03:24 pm
Upon further reflection, I don't think anchored text links are the problem. For my site, half of the text links going to my site are just the URL of my site. I didn't start asking for so called anchor text links from other webmasters until a few months ago, so I can't have THAT many.
Also, the webmaster who was ranked #1 for the keyterm that I (and some others) were booted from is still #1. And I have looked at many of the links going to his site. And they are all anchored text links using the keyterm.
Just a few thoughts.
-Dan
|
|
ferret77
Joined: May 31, 2002
# Posts: 354
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 03:24 pm
I don't know about the white/black hat stuff, I'm not philosphical person
I have never seen an industry so cauhgt up in morality, usually just legality and lawsuits are the only concerns other then the bottom line
I still see spammy sites doing good for some things, and i see my sites gone , I don't remember it saying in the google guidelines that you shouldn't get links with key words in them
but I'm you can interret those guidelines many different way.
|
|
rocket_rob
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 156
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 03:51 pm
Well my site has keyword anchor text on many links, many being maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of 150+. It's funny that google only shows 8 backlinks but yet I could be penalized for 50-75 backlinks that google doesn't like. Which is it, links good or links bad?? And if I sell purple teddy bears at joesstuffedanimals.com I can get penalized for using "purple teddy bears" in link text? I can't use "purple teddy bears" or "teddy bears"? I must use "joesstuffedanimals? So the only guy who can use that keyword text link is the ONE guy who got the domain purple-teddy-bears.com? He has a permanent and insurmountable advantage with google? That is just stupid.
I can show you a site ranking very well that is crap. Keywords spammed in 6 pixel type - the color, size, and content all make them not worth trying to read them. They are there for one purpose - search engines. Then 2 clicks and you are redirected to their *real* site. I *thought* that went against everything google stood for. I tell you what, if my site had that site's ranking I wouldn't be here right now, I would be busy filling orders and counting my money.
From what I am seeing the most plausible explanation is that the data google is using is 6 months old. That would explain (most) everything to me. Why google would do that, or "test" a new algo on Christmas shopping season eve is probably another topic. Why that would lead to many observations of garbage sites ranking well is a mystery as well.
Is there a way to find out from google whether your site has been "penalized"?
|
|
DANXtendlife
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 04:10 pm
ferret,
Don't worry about the white hat/black hat stuff. In the end, it doesn't matter. Because if Google starts to rank spammy, garbage, low content sites highly and penalize and boot content relevant, rich sites just because they may be a bit "overoptimized" in some fashion, then the majority of people will start spamming Google like crazy.
That's just the way the world works. The bottomline dictate the actions of most people, not philosophical white hat/black hat stuff. I guarantee that 85% or more of people following the rules -- white hat -- only do so because they were taught by Google that is what they want in their search engine.
If reality starts to show otherwise for a prolonged period of time, however, you can bet your bottom dollar that people won't give a damn about being a white hat anymore.
A little off topic...
Anyway, I agree with Rob. I think penalizing for anchor text links is absolutely ridiculous.
Anyway, I am going to keep my fingers crossed for everyone here, and hope that anyone who got booted for no reason and replaced by spammy garbage sites soon sees their site reclaim their spots, or better.
-Dan
|
|
rocket_rob
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 156
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 05:00 pm
Looking at my logs is just bizarre. My main search term indeed has a small amount of traffic, all of it from netscape. I have 2.5 times as many hits from google as netscape but zero on that search term. Since netscape uses google that seems a bit odd. I also, for the past two days, have seen search phrases that are nowhere on my site. My site sells lingerie and I have had hits from "fredericks of hollywood" and "victoria s secret" search terms when NONE of those words appear anywhere on my site. (Ok I lie, I assume that "of" is probably on my site somewhere!) How in a million years is my site relevant to those search terms? If you search on "cadillac" is it relevant to be taken to a Kia dealership?
I think the results we are seeing just suck, but what do I know?
|
|
rocket_rob
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 156
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 05:08 pm
I'll shut up and go away but how the #@&@*!! does this site outrank me in google?
Under Construction
Under Construction. The site you were trying to reach does not currently
have a default page. It may be in the process of being upgraded. ...
www.cariadlingerie.com/
How such a site can get listed is beyond me. 144 backlinks and absolutely no content. Amazing. I'm sure google users are finding this site very useful.
|
|
Everyman
Joined: Apr 15, 2001
# Posts: 147
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 05:21 pm
I wasn't affected. But I've read all the posts here and on WmW. My sense of what happened, for what it is worth:
First, look at it from Google's point of view. There has been lots of Google gaming by SEOs, due to the fact that Google is make-or-break if you are dependent on income generated from the web.
Second, perhaps over 90 percent of this is from dot-com domains. Sure, there's the occasional dot-org adult site, and there are the country TLDs, but if the spam that concerns you is coming from e-commerce, then going after dot-coms is good enough. Exempt everything from your anti-spam efforts that are not dot-com domains.
Third, of the spammers you want to target, almost all of them estimate their Google progress by evaluating their rank on specific keywords. And about 90 percent of these are using two-word phrases, since one-word matching is getting out of hand because of the size of the web.
Unless you disagree with me so far, let's take it further:
How hard is it to give a two-word score to every dot-com domain, or every web page in a dot-com domain, in terms of two-word frequency? For you programmers, let's put it another way: if you scan every page for two-word phrases in the title, in headlines, in image alt text, how much overhead is involved in coming up with a two-word frequency count for a page and storing this info in a supplemental database? Heck, just take the top three two-word phrases for each page. That's all you need.
And, when you are combing pages for links, how hard is it to add a two-word frequency count to the linked target site or page, based on the anchor text, or the URL text (domain plus directory plus filename)?
What I'm suggesting is that while one-word frequency counts of this sort may imply excessive overhead for Google, I don't think that two-word frequency counts would entail that much overhead, and could be managed fairly easily. This is particularly true since you are only interested in zapping the highest counts, and therefore you can throw out the data if sampling suggests that the count will be low.
Okay, so now you have frequency counts for two-word phrases for every site or page. All you have to do is establish a threshold for frequency vs. site/page size. Anything over the threshold is defined as a site/page that needs a penalty. You could also refine this, by doing an overall web frequency count for the most popular two-word phrases, and applying the filter to the top 20 percent or so. This will take out the most competitive SEO sites, while leaving the others alone.
You may disagree with my analysis, but the basic point I'm making is that the SEO community got carried away with the (accurate) perception that anchor text mattered a lot, and with the habit of measuring their success based on keyword ranking. SEO practitioners became too predictable, even though it was partly because Google itself was too predictable.
It's not rocket science for Google to throw a wrench into such a scenario.
|
|
rocket_rob
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 156
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 05:33 pm
Your points are well taken, but how would you explain my post above where a site is ranked without any content at all? It "must" rank solely on backlinks. After that I can show you a site which is nothing but keyword spam ranking IMO very highly. So repeating zillions of words in a small hard to read font that blends into the page background is now the proper way to do SEO for good google rankings?
I am peeved as hell. While I may not be the best kickball player on the playground I certainly shouldn't be chosen last! The complete crap that outranks me just makes me nuts. While some anchortext may be "overused" (whatever on earth that is) it may also be "highly relevant" to the content on the site. So now to rank well we should change all our backlinks to moderately irrelevant keywords, and add hidden keyword laden text and redirects to our sites? The more I think about it the more idiotic this all is. Now I am going to have a beer.
|
|
ferret77
Joined: May 31, 2002
# Posts: 354
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 05:34 pm
It did seem really easy to be number 1, at least for the semi-small fry I target
So I will have change my links I guess,
I noticed that lots o links is still good, high PR directory sites have retaken the number 1 spots , at least for my stuff
and I've just been penalized for the terms I had lots of linktext for.
|
|
DANXtendlife
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 58
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 05:50 pm
First, Google can bite me. Yes, part of this is frustration speaking.
Most of the income from my sites does not come from the Google God. It comes from MSN. Of course, that can change.
I am peeved like others not because my index page dropped off...but because it dropped off and was replaced by absolute garbage, including outright dead links and spammy garbage.
Enough b*tching on my part. If the anecdotal evidence is right on Webmasterworld, Google will pay a much higher price than all of us unless they rectify it.
If they don't I will live just fine without them. But I don't think your average joe blow looking for information online is going to be happy clicking on deadlinks and redirects, especially in the first 5 results they see.
-Dan
|
|
Everyman
Joined: Apr 15, 2001
# Posts: 147
|
Posted: 11/18/2003 05:51 pm
> Your points are well taken, but how would you explain my post
> above where a site is ranked without any content at all?
In the scenario I suggested, it could be that the anti-spam programmer simply inserted a line in the code that said, in effect, don't worry about penalizing a page based on external links unless the keyword frequency count of those external links corresponds with the keyword frequency count on the page itself.
I agree with you that empty sites with ancient backlinks made it through this filter just fine. My favorite example is a search for "discount brokers" (don't use the quotes). The number two site has been an empty directory for at least the last year (look it up in the Wayback Machine), and probably months more than a year.
I don't claim to have the answer, and yes, I'm just guessing. I'm merely trying to shed light on the situation. But it also seems to me that nearly all of the objections that could be raised against my interpretation of events can be explained with a few extra lines of code in Google's anti-spam algo.
Whether the final result is justified or not is something I'm not even pretending to address.
|
|
