35 replies to this topic

[WPMuse]

Hey, Jill...

Thanks for the offer. ;-) Yes, I agree almost any site can improve and may not have everything quite right -- but that's the way it has always been, right? Web sites are always a work in progess.

That still does not explain why shallow, outdated, no social singal sites (that someone with your skills and experience would completely overhaul) are now out ranking sites that are legit and with no manual penalites. In these latest rounds the punishment does not seem to fit the crime for some sites that dramtically lost rankings to visibly clearly lower quality sites.

I wonder why there is very little discussion of the possibility that collateral damage can be caused by Google's algos to the detrimint of site owners who are not stuffers, spammers, link maniplators or blackhatters. Is it because we accept the premise that Google's algo is perfection and can never cause false negatives?

Throwing the baby out with the bath water does not produce more relevant SERPs.

[Jill]

Since I haven't seen any sites So far where there aren't lots of good reasons for the sites above them to be outranking them, I can't comment. Show me examples.

[chrishirst]

Google's algorithm is what it is, and provided their customers are happy with the results, who cares! If the results of the change affect your business that is YOUR PROBLEM for relying on Google results for your traffic and sales and is nothing to with Google and simply NOT their concern.

[WPMuse]

I get all that Chris.... <sheesh>

Your little burst doesn't address what I am talking about -- simply that there could be false-negatives and collateral damage. Why does mentioning that produce such a terse response and a lecture of the obvious?

[chrishirst]

Simply because it rarely seems that anyone understands that SE referrals are actually beyond their control, and they should always assume or expect that one day they may or will just disappear without any warning whatsoever, But when it does many people ask exactly the same question that you did of;
"Why do Google make changes that affect genuine URLs"

We even have a thread about it from 2005

If you look through the Search Engine Differences, Updates and Changes board you will see that a significant amount of questions cover the same question "What happened to my rankings/traffic/sales". Google make on average 400 changes a year, including the "big updates" any one of those changes may affect your results.

The ONLY WAY to NOT be badly affected is to completely IGNORE the "Do what search engines want" advice of "SEO experts" as the tricks and tips bandied about by many are the FIRST thing that SE engineers are going to target.

Get links by all means, but get them for the qualified traffic,
Use heading for what the are intended rather than a means of getting "keywords" in the document,
Same with alt attribute text, your intra URL navigation anchor text, "editorial" text links in the content, there is nothing wrong with "Click here" as a call to action it doesn't HAVE to be a keyword evey time.

If you follow the "formula SEO" a.k.a. "SEO by numbers" track it will drag you down as well, even if your intent is NOT to fool the SEs. Spammy techniques leave a footprint and it is the footprint that gets targeted.

SE engineers are really forensic programmers following Locard's principle of "For every contact means there is an exchange", I read the post Panda/Penguin "advice" of mixing in some "nofollow" links to make the "link profile" look "natural. BUT if all the links you get only ever point to ONE URL, the site root (home page) that is a footprint in itself.

Most people attempting to optimise are their own worst enemies, because they think that search engine optimising is optimising for search engines INSTEAD of it being optimising for the USERS of search engines.

The upshot is, by doing the same things as the "experts" do, your documents become the same as everyone else's or they leave a very similar footprint, and as computer algorithms cannot actually distinguish intent from one particular URL so they all live or die together.

The "watchword" of true SEOs should be "dare to be different"! Real world marketers know that doing the same as everyone means they are always coming second. Being different or daring gets attention from your audience.

Edited by chrishirst, 15 July 2012 - 06:59 AM.

[WPMuse]

Hey, Chris...

You are preaching to the choir... It is clear you assume I don't understand SEO, the basics or have any experience by your response simply because I dare mention that there could be a possibility that Google's algo could unintenionally cause problems for sites they were not targeting.

Why is that such a source of contention? I do not believe that by bringing up that topic means I am in need a SEO 101. Sorta condecending...

[Jill]

@WPMuse, please don't take it personally. Chrishirst can sound abrupt and I believe he's talking more in generalities that about you or your situation.

[chrishirst]

I have no idea of your experience, knowledge or skills. But this is a public access forum and others reading this , so while you may understand others DO NOT.

However, from how you are labouring on the point of how it is a Google problem that your URLs were dumped along with thousands of others rather than accepting that traffic from Search is a free gift, not a given right, and your document URLs no longer meet the criteria for that gift, it seems that you are unwilling to accept that maybe your knowledge and/or the methods you were/are using are flawed and were caught in the same trap.

[piskie]

Jill, I really am surprised at you

Chrishirst can sound abrupt

[Jill]

Yeah yeah I know. He's really a pussycat

[WPMuse]

And the hits keep on coming...

However, from how you are labouring on the point of how it is a Google problem that your URLs were dumped along with thousands of others...

Didn't say that Chris -- nor did you, once again, address my specific point of discussion -- you chose to personalize and assume. Didn't mention these were my sites -- nor did I claim thousands.

I certainly do not want to belabour you any longer. Clearly there is no conversation to be had here when it comes to outside-the-box possiblities. I'll stick with other forums that are more welcoming and open to discussions that may not fit within established talking points. Uncle...

[piskie]

I'll stick with other forums that are more welcoming and open to discussions that may not fit within established talking points

That's job done then, yet again.

[Michael Martinez]

Of course, it would have helped had WPMuse shared some queries as Jill requested.

[chrishirst]

Of course, it would have helped had WPMuse shared some queries as Jill requested.

That of course is half the problem. We get generic (or no) information yet are expected to give detailed answers that are of course the right kind of information that the question poser wishes to here.

And why the hell do people get offended when anyone tells them the truth???

If you are that sensitive stay at home and keep the curtains closed!

[Jill]

I did ask to see some examples. It could have helped us all to understand the nature of the problem.

That said in my reviews I've usually been able to find reasons when there were significant losses of traffic. However, the latest rounds of Panda and Penguin have not hit all sites equally. There are many sites that are still using bad tactics such as keyword stuffing that still rank highly. I imagine they'll get hit in future updates, and/or they may have so many really good links pointing to them that they're immune.