Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  • Jump to page:
    #1
  1. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    203
    Rep Power
    17

    Recent Google Shift


    In the last couple of weeks there was a definate 'something' that happened at Google. Don't really know the exact phraseology. I took some major hits and am in the process of watching my main site being de-indexed. 50% of my traffic used to come from google. This month so far I haven't had one visit through google search.

    The thing that concerns me is my site is clean. It's been clean for a couple of years. I could possibly be accused of dup content and some keyword stuffing (minimal) as it is a template site.

    Does anyone have any analysis on what happened. Usually Seochat is a good source for what happened and why and I'm a bit surprised I don't see a thread on it. Maybe I missed it.

    Anyone have any opinion on "what happened and why?"
  2. #2
  3. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    386
    Rep Power
    16

    Couple of Recent Suspicions...


    There have been a few things tossed around these forums about the recent updates. Perhaps one of them applies to you...

    (1) Lots of Affiliate Links
    (2) Lots of Inbound Text Links that are free standing (ie not in text)
    (3) Lots of Reciprocal Links

    Any of those match?
  4. #3
  5. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    203
    Rep Power
    17
    I like many others have my share of reciprocal links. I try and get as many oneway links as possible but will trade when necessary. I would actually correct that statement. Knowing webmasters in the pharmacy arena, I'm sure I have many more outbound links than I do inbound/reciprocal links if you know what I mean.

    Here is an example of what frustrates me. Search in google for phentromine... a misspelling of phentermine of course. I used to rank #1-#3 for this keyword. I built a page targetting this word. Here are the results:

    #1 site - Looks like a directory/PPC style page. (subdomain)
    #2 site - A legitimate health site (subdomain - forum)
    #3 site - A sports betting site (subdomain - forum)
    #4 site - A spammy site. Index page has only links to internal pages which are subdomains. No real content (subdomain)
    #5 site - ??? unsure - clicking on link gives a forbidden access page.
    #6 site - Another directory/PPC style page. (redirect?)
    #7 site - Rx site with alot of hidden text but is the only real on-topic site.

    I just hang my head and cry. You can't win. Google has all those engineers and other geeks (self proclaimed) and this is what they produce. How do you compete with randomness? How is it that my clean, on-topic site loses out to trash?
  6. #4
  7. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    62
    Rep Power
    15

    what i think


    It most likely tends to look like a minor ban or maybe bigger and/or a sandbox effect.
    Hidden links might have blown the whistle.

    A lot of those happened lately:
    #4 site - A spammy site. Index page has only links to internal pages which are subdomains

    #7 site - Rx site with alot of hidden text but is the only real on-topic site

    It seems like a combination of all the above I think.
  8. #5
  9. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    203
    Rep Power
    17
    Originally Posted by tasos
    It most likely tends to look like a minor ban or maybe bigger and/or a sandbox effect.
    Hidden links might have blown the whistle.

    A lot of those happened lately:
    #4 site - A spammy site. Index page has only links to internal pages which are subdomains

    #7 site - Rx site with alot of hidden text but is the only real on-topic site

    It seems like a combination of all the above I think.
    No... those are the results for a search in google using the word phentromine. My site has no hidden text or anything like that.

    Am I not understanding your reply???
  10. #6
  11. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Oregon
    Posts
    326
    Rep Power
    15
    Hi Steve-O, could you explain what you mean when you say you think "dup conent" could be an issue with your site? Maybe then we could help you come up with some theories as to what's happened to your site.
  12. #7
  13. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    203
    Rep Power
    17
    I've been doing some research and have discovered that the penalty is from duplicate content. we've seen this before and google seems to have botched this again.

    With an 800+ post thread over at WMW discussing this very subject I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned here. Hmm! Maybe I'm at the wrong forum.
  14. #8
  15. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    203
    Rep Power
    17
    Originally Posted by Darrenbrett
    Hi Steve-O, could you explain what you mean when you say you think "dup conent" could be an issue with your site? Maybe then we could help you come up with some theories as to what's happened to your site.
    "dup con(t)ent" refers to "Duplicate Content". I hope that is explanation enough.
  16. #9
  17. SEO Earthquake!
    SEO Chat Scholar (3000 - 3499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    3,307
    Rep Power
    26
    We've talked about dup content penalties plenty here. What I'm not clear about is if code an structure can effect this or just the text content.

    I think code counts.
    14th Colony: The hardest working websites online!

    Looking for links? Join the Union and don't miss English Grammar rules, tips and explanations
  18. #10
  19. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Oregon
    Posts
    326
    Rep Power
    15
    Originally Posted by steve-O
    "dup con(t)ent" refers to "Duplicate Content". I hope that is explanation enough.
    I know what dup content is. What I meant was- what form did your particular dup content take?

    In other words, did you have absolutely duplicated pages- tags and all? Or did you have portions of text content duplicated?
  20. #11
  21. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    203
    Rep Power
    17
    Originally Posted by Darrenbrett
    I know what dup content is. What I meant was- what form did your particular dup content take?

    In other words, did you have absolutely duplicated pages- tags and all? Or did you have portions of text content duplicated?
    Good question. My text is duplicate content. It is a template site. I did however go through and change the names of all the images and added alt tags to the images to make that part unique. I had also changed the layout of the template around enough that the template was unique. I also used php includes so that I could change the menu in a blink. Change "Buy Adipex" to "Purchase Adipex" for example. I also used the includes and removed the main text, turned them into php files and then re-included them so that I could change text across the site without messing with individual pages, just the include files. I made these changes about 3 months ago. I don't think that had an effect because my traffic actually increased gradually over the next 2 months (gradual means overall increase of about 20-30%) but then started downward over the next month losing the 20-30% gain.

    Hope that answers your question.
  22. #12
  23. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    203
    Rep Power
    17
    Originally Posted by rmccarley
    We've talked about dup content penalties plenty here. What I'm not clear about is if code an structure can effect this or just the text content.

    I think code counts.
    I agree and think that code structure is an issue.

    Yes, we've talked about dup content but I didn't see where dup content was mentioned in relation to the last change. I really didn't see where this last change was discussed much at all. I haven't searched at length, but usually that thread will have some stamina.
  24. #13
  25. SEO Earthquake!
    SEO Chat Scholar (3000 - 3499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    3,307
    Rep Power
    26
    It's around. One of the biggest changes is ranking for incidental KWs. The KWs not specifically targeted on your page so much as mentioned. Even when non-competitive G isn't giving much credit for them. Site and page theme are much more important now.
  26. #14
  27. Wine Geek
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Cave Creek, AZ
    Posts
    1,303
    Rep Power
    19
    Steve-O...

    We actually beat WMW to the punch, with a very long thread I started regarding recent delistings (some felt it was dupe content, some felt it was bad neighborhoods) -- this appears to be the same thing, only slower moving.

    Google is so messed up nowadays that I don't even think I can comment on it without swearing; templated sites shouldn't be penalized, but are occassionally -- sites with products in multiple categories are penalized (right Andi?) even though it makes business sense and helps the consumer -- and so on and so forth.

    Aside from putting in a recinclusion request once your site is completely delisted, if your site is ranking on Yahoo/MSN, I wouldn't change too much.

    Cygnus
  28. #15
  29. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    141
    Rep Power
    15
    Originally Posted by rjonesx
    There have been a few things tossed around these forums about the recent updates. Perhaps one of them applies to you...

    (1) Lots of Affiliate Links
    (2) Lots of Inbound Text Links that are free standing (ie not in text)
    (3) Lots of Reciprocal Links

    Any of those match?
    I've sites linkbuilt entirely on link - link - link with only static rankings or increases. Granted the keywords have very little competition, but they are literally the only IBLs.

    Doubt that will last, but here's to Google while it does.
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  • Jump to page:

Similar Threads

  1. Ranking high on chat keywords
    By southpole854 in forum Public Site Reviews
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Mar 12th, 2008, 12:55 PM
  2. Google PageRank Outage On Google Toolbar
    By SeoPool in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Jun 1st, 2005, 12:38 AM
  3. Article: new Google feature called Google Suggest
    By dirtdog1960 in forum SEO Chat Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Dec 12th, 2004, 01:09 AM
  4. Let's face it: Google is incompetent
    By Kackle in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Nov 30th, 2003, 01:35 PM
  5. 20 Days from launch to Page 1 on Google
    By The Renegade in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Sep 11th, 2003, 03:17 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo