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

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    437
    Rep Power
    17

    Arrow your thoughts...


    Hey All,

    Just starting a thread asking you for your thoughts on what's happening at the moment with Google..

    has the update stopped? is it going to stop? was there certain bans on certain domains? has the interlinking algo been changed?

    c'mon people share your knowledge... as for me as far as I can see the serps are changing daily with minor changes and I believe there will be more changes soon..
  2. #2
  3. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    144
    Rep Power
    16
    im not convinced things will remain as they curruntly are...

    uthemanthewatcher!
  4. #3
  5. web designer
    SEO Chat Super Hero (2500 - 2999 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    designing a web site in columbus ohio
    Posts
    2,997
    Rep Power
    50
  6. #4
  7. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas!
    Posts
    1,137
    Rep Power
    47
    Good questions.
    So, I am making a small hypothesis, and one that has potential evidence here in other webmaster sites. There is strong reason to believe that some of the bans on domains whether they are temporary or permanant are occuring because of to many backlinks on straights text links with plainly "keyword1 keyword2" in the link text and not unique links with different keywords or arrangements such as "keyword keyword company name title etc.."
    From an SEO prospective this is a common way to rank pages. Put up a text link and bang rankings if all is optimized correctly. But Google is now emphasizing the need for more unique relevant links. So making it thus harder for webmasters to manipulate the serps.

    What do yall think?

    :grin:
  8. #5
  9. Give me Backlinks
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    16
    Phoenix,

    Some folks at WMW do have similar thoughts- too many links and all with same link text could be a problem according to some. but But I'm not sure how can this sort of filter be impplemented. astrology.com has tons of links with the link text- astrology but they are still there at the top for the keyword astrology. Is it the ratio of keywords in incoming link text that G is looking at? I mean, for an instance astrology.com has tons of other incoming link text as well like horoscopes etc. so the ratio is acceptable. Is it that way? If this is the logic then how can a site be optimized for just a single keyword or phrase?
  10. #6
  11. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    132
    Rep Power
    17
    And if that is true, what is to stop me from bumping off a competitor by placing an identical link on a network of sites?
  12. #7
  13. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    413
    Rep Power
    17
    Breesy, it is very possible that the anchor text links are counting LESS, not penalizing anyone.

    However, I don't believe that google is ranking anchor much less. Seems to me that the index is just missing everyones index page.
  14. #8
  15. No Profile Picture
    Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    18
    Rep Power
    0

    Anchor text


    I agree with Breesy, if having keywords in anchor text on inbound links is being penalized by google, whats to say that you just add a link on your site for a competitor crammed with spammy keywords?

    If this is one of the reasons for a drop in rankings what can we do? Email other sites asking them to change our anchor text from 'Online Casino' to ????
  16. #9
  17. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas!
    Posts
    1,137
    Rep Power
    47
    Glad to see others have noticed something. And you know its really hard not to change anything at the moment and see what happens today. So many things.
    My thoughts are that the sites that dropped from the ranking are those that are solely dependent on the link text factor, keyword in domain, title, header, etc... It is a large part of what a lot of people do to optimize. So let me rephrase the hypothesis.
    Google is excluding sites with incoming link text on websites that plainly target and link keyword keyword, as well as domains, titles, headers, pagenames, etc..

    Either way its making my head hurt. lol.

    Ben
    Last edited by Phoenix; Nov 19th, 2003 at 01:35 PM.
  18. #10
  19. Contributing User
    SEO Chat Good Citizen (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Texas!
    Posts
    1,137
    Rep Power
    47
    Ok guys let me give you some examples as to why I think it might have to do with anchor text. I am not drawing conclusions, just getting prepared and observing the results. The main reason for bringing this example up is Domain 2, and its backlinks that contain no link text related to its target keyword still outranks a website with twice the amount of text links.

    I looked at two websites, ONE dependent ranking wize on incoming link text (90-100%) from other websites around (800) of them for a single keyword phrase: keyword1 keyword2 keyword3.

    TWO, website semi dependent on link text (30-40%) for ranking but the majority of backlinks come from other domains that point to the website (about 60-70%) - these links get all factored together as one domain. So it means that there is no link text pointing to the number TWO domain having anything to do with target keyword: keyword1 keyword 2.

    Consider, PR on incoming links to be similar, competition and results of similar nature as well. All sites are expertly optimized for their category.

    Percentages -

    Domain 1 - 90-100% text links with keywords
    Domain 2 - 30-40% text links with keywords

    Rankings today:

    Domain 1 - nowhere to be found (originally number #11)
    Domain 2 - #12 (originally number #6)


    Ben
  20. #11
  21. Give me Backlinks
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    16
    Ben,

    Though everone is coming up with different observations, but what you pointed out is the most acknowledged hypothesis across all the forums that I've visited since this new mayhem. Even the rankings of my own sites are also in line with what you said (except that domain name theory). To cut it short, the 'over optimization' theory seems to be the most accepted one. But if at all it's true, I would say-

    1. Over-optimized sites need not necceraily be irrelevant sites and 'not-so-optimized' sites may not always be the most relevant ones. In fact, most people first spend huge amounts on building good and relevant sites and then they hire a SEO or do it thereselves. I'm seeing the underdogs at top but they are not the best results. Also, some people are saying that they are getting decent traffic despite having dropped in rankings. That means, visitors are skipping the top results to reach the 'relevant ones' which G thinks are irrelevant just because they have too many links with same text.

    2. If it's the ratio of link text alone, then it's too easy to manipulate again- get more diversified links. But it does look like that G is up to something that may not be easily fathomable or easy to manipulate. It can't be as easy as getting diversified links. If it is, then do we need to worry?
  22. #12
  23. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    SEO Chat Discoverer (100 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    272
    Rep Power
    17
    For mine, if the over-optimization theory were to hold, then teh results for search engine optimization and / or SEO would have changed the most. As that isn't true, IMHO, the simple fact is that this theory is probably a little wide of teh mark.

    Just MHO, course. Then again, I avoid Dance threads, so what would I know??
  24. #13
  25. Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    21
    Rep Power
    0
    Re: The over-optimization theory

    I believe the same old rules apply. Have plenty of content relevant to the subject. Content is key. Have a good keyword density. Have a good number of relevant incoming links. Follow the good old basic rules of SEO... don't create sites for search engines, create them for users. And follow the W3C standards. And for goodness sake, if you are going to try to play God, don't make it so obvious. Google doesn't pay all those engineers to do nothing.

    Ninnie
  26. #14
  27. Give me Backlinks
    SEO Chat Adventurer (500 - 999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    690
    Rep Power
    16
    Certainly, they are not paid for doing nothing. They are paid for doing silly things once in every month.
  28. #15
  29. Registered User
    SEO Chat Explorer (0 - 99 posts)

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    21
    Rep Power
    0
    Only once a month?

    Ninnie
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  • Jump to page:

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Sep 1st, 2003, 05:46 AM
  2. Any thoughts would be appreciated!
    By Tiffany* in forum Public Site Reviews
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Aug 14th, 2003, 01:16 PM
  3. ip change strategy, thoughts welcome
    By johnnyb3 in forum Google Optimization
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jun 29th, 2003, 03:47 PM

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo