Florida update - some thoughts

PhilC · 11-25-2003, 03:29 AM

Lots of people noticed that index (home) pages have gone missing from the serps, so I ran some searches and, in the thousands of results that I looked at, I found only one index (home) page listed. For each searchterm that I used, the searches went as deep as Google would allow - 1000 results or less.

I've also found that some domain URLs have also disappeared. So I wondered what is peculiar to index (home) pages and domain URLs. My answer is that, with most sites, all internal pages link to them, and with identical link text. My thinking is that (probably) most sites link to their home pages using the pagename in the URL, but some sites link to the domain URL instead. That would account for more index (home) pages going missing from the serps than domain URLs.

But they are not the only pages to have vanished in the update. I've found internal interlinking page groups to have vanished. Again they link together using the same link text.

So it seems likely that the pages that have vanished from the serps are those that were in them on account of multiple links, using identical link text, from the same site. Maybe the identical link text isn't a factor and maybe it is. Either way, it's not a penalty. It's more like the pages were ranked on the strength of those links and Google has diminished their strength, so the pages don't rank any more.

Some people have suggested that it's just the strength of identical link text that has been weakened, but I still have a page at #1 for "seo information", which is there because of a handful of links from different sites, each using identical link text. So that idea doesn't appear to hold water.

Those are just my thoughts (theories) so far. Google's PageRank concept does not intend to treat generic links as genuine votes for a page and, if I were Google, I'd take steps to eliminate the effect of them. It's looking like they may have done just that.

What can we do about the vanished rankings? Knee-jerk reactions would be unwise because Google has screwed up in the past and fixed things a few weeks later. Maybe they've screwed up this time and, if they decide that they have, they will fix it in a week or three. But they may decide that the outcome is ok, so we need to do something to regain the lost rankings. The obvious step is to get more links from other sites to the important pages that have vanished - and with targeted link text. I also suggest NOT changing the linkages within the site yet.

If my thinking is correct, and it may be wrong, multiple targeted links within a site no longer have the effect that they used to have, and privately organised linking rings may make a comeback.

Thoughts anyone?

glengara · 11-25-2003, 04:04 AM

You've probably come across MMT's theory this is a "money word" filter, if so it could also explain why heavily optimised index pages in competitive areas are MIA.
Another interesting theory is that they're using a "sets" approach, to encourage searchers to refine their queries from the general to the specific.

I've read most of what's out there on this, and I still think there's a good chance G tripped rather than ducked ;-)

PhilC · 11-25-2003, 04:22 AM

I haven't come across the "money word filter" idea. What is it?

I haven't seen that it's heavily optimized index pages that have bitten the dust. Almost no index (home) pages are left in the serps, but myriads of domain URLs are still there, and they are the same pages. Also, internal pages that are just as optimized as their home pages are still ranking as high as they ever did.

I also think it's a screw-up but only because the effect of what they did reached further than they probably intended. But they might have intended it.

glengara · 11-25-2003, 04:47 AM

Theory is that G has a list of highly competitive words/phrases to which it applies a filter which if tripped causes those pages to disappear.
You can ID which words/phrases are subject to the filter by adding a minus sign and some nonsense word after the search term, and comparing results.
If there's no difference in the results, that word/phrase isn't subject to the filter.

He covers is on a long thread in Jill's forum, somewhere in the last 5 pages AFAIK.

PhilC · 11-25-2003, 05:36 AM

It's an interesting idea but my domain URL has vanished form #2 to not in the top 1000 for the searchterm "uk holiday accommodation". I can't imagine that being on a highly competitive list. Also, I've vanished for "doorway pages" which I can't imagine being on such a list either.

I'd like to see the thread though if you would post a link to it. Maybe my observations are covered by the theory.

glengara · 11-25-2003, 06:32 AM

Here's one of his posts, he mentions an earlier one you can search for yourself ;-)

highrankings.com/forum/index.php?s=1ab39d743bbfb0528f651cc9fce213fd&showt opic=1964&st=540

Rob · 11-25-2003, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilC

It's an interesting idea but my domain URL has vanished form #2 to not in the top 1000 for the searchterm "uk holiday accommodation". I can't imagine that being on a highly competitive list.

I have the same dilemma for "free games", in which my domain used to appear on the 2nd page and has now become untracable in those results.

400 visitors a day less, me no like.

John Scott · 11-25-2003, 08:15 AM

The MMT theory works to some extend, but not on all searchterms I've seen.

For example, this search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=concrete+home

Concrete-Home.com used to be #1 and #2. But it dropped out of site after the recent Google crack party.

Now add "-fukgaygoogleguy"

Link To SERPs

All of the sudden, Concrete-Home.com is back in the top again.

But, doing the same thing to the searches quality web hosting and internet marketing research does NOT bring those two sites back up to the top.

Maybe they implemented two distinctly seperate filters/penalties.

PhilC · 11-25-2003, 09:03 AM

I've also moved up the rankings for "search engine optimization", and that's definitely a very competitive searchterm (finally broke into the top 100 after steadily climbing - not very high, I know, but #6 with the UK filter on). I've done a fair amount of optimization for that term so, if there's a "money word" filter, I think I should have triggered it.

I'm off to read that thread...

PhilC · 11-25-2003, 09:29 AM

Right. Now I get it. The "money words" are not highly competitive searchterms in the way that we normally understand it. They are the words and phrases that Google could/can make lots of dosh by selling AdWords for them. In other words, the theory is that Google has trashed the serps for those terms in order to sell higher-priced Adwords. Or, to put it another way, Google has shafted their users to increase their profits.

I just don't buy it. If it weren't for the fact that Google *needs* users or they have nothing, then I could accept that the company might do it, but they about to float the company and there's no way that they would scupper the very thing that bring them users (relevant search results) before that happens. They wouldn't even do it if they weren't about to float.

I have vanished for "doorway pages" but I don't believe that that searchterm could be considered a big money-earner. So why have I vanished? I've vanished for "uk holiday accommodation" and the same thing applies. You might think that "uk holiday accommodation" is a very good searchterm and should be worth good AdSense bids, but I can tell that it produced very little traffic - very little - and Google knows which searchterms produce traffic and which don't. According to MMT, exact "money" searchterms have been hit, but money searchterms with extra words have not. So, if "holiday accommodation" is considered to be a money term, the "uk holiday accommodation" should not.

Rankings have vanished for all sort of searchterms - some "money" searchterms and many "loose change" searchterms. People's experiences don't support the "money" theory, in my opinion.

TimSchroeder · 11-25-2003, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glengara

Theory is that G has a list of highly competitive words/phrases to which it applies a filter which if tripped causes those pages to disappear.
You can ID which words/phrases are subject to the filter by adding a minus sign and some nonsense word after the search term, and comparing results.
If there's no difference in the results, that word/phrase isn't subject to the filter.

He covers is on a long thread in Jill's forum, somewhere in the last 5 pages AFAIK.

I find this HIGHLY unlikely and in my research it does not really hold up. Certainly some kind of new filter HAS been applied but I don't think it is from some kind of "phrase" list....

TimSchroeder · 11-25-2003, 10:32 AM

I do find the difference when adding " -jskhkshf (or some other jibberish) very interesting.

Basically you are searching for the keyword MINUS whatever word you add after that correct?

So if you use webmaster forum -asdsdsdf this site is 2nd. But if you use webmaster forum -marketing the site drops because it contains the word "marketing"

Is this correct?

Does anyone know WHY adding -jibberish... shows different results than when doing a normal search??

John Scott · 11-25-2003, 10:34 AM

The theory is, if you add "minus jibberish" to the search, you're getting the "real" results. Without the "minus jibberish", you're getting engineered results.

TimSchroeder · 11-25-2003, 10:39 AM

ah, I see. Possibly the results WITHOUT the filters.

Rob · 11-25-2003, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

The theory is, if you add "minus jibberish" to the search, you're getting the "real" results. Without the "minus jibberish", you're getting engineered results.

Do you think the "real" results will be used instead of the engineered results soon? I understand it's mostly presumption but I sure hope it will, I rank #8 in the "real" results and I'm nowhere to be found in the engineered results.

glengara · 11-25-2003, 10:58 AM

Yeah, that's the theory Tim, -gibberish results are without filter applied.
Interesting to see what terms are being subjected to this filter, "search engine optimisation" is in, SEO not; but that's probably due to the multi-language use of SEO.

John Scott · 11-25-2003, 11:02 AM

Some people expect Google to realize how screwed their SERP's are, and fix it in the next update.

I don't see it happening. Dropping the most actively promoted sites means a lot of those will turn to Adwords - so it would be bad business to allow SEO to continue to be effective, in any form.

In a recent interview (last month? this month?) Sergey said "...the fundamental principle is that the sites should not artificially game the system."

That is tantamount to a zero tolerance stand agaist any form of SEO.

They've already stated that they are going to actively penalize sites for link exchanges or any other form of link-getting.

I recently heard somewhere that they penalid quite a few cases of repeated "exact phrase matches". It's all very pdd - and I don't feel inclided to play the Google game. I'll optimize my sites as I see fit. I'll optimize my sites for Ink, ATW, etc, and if Google wants to smoke crack, they are free to do so.

PhilC · 11-25-2003, 11:21 AM

I'm still going over the thread at JW's forum and I've seen another of MMT's theories. This one theorizes that Google have had an seo filter in place for about a year and that they've turned it up in this update. The idea is that they check for various 'ethical' seo methods (Title, keywords in domain names, presumably also in directory and page names, keywords in H tags, etc.) and give each page that might appear in the results a score for each of the elements. When the score hits a certain level, the page is banned from those search results. It is not penalized as such, but it is left out of those particular search results, because it is deemed to have been optimized for the searchterm being searched on.

That's a summary of the theory. Like my theory at the top of this thread, it sounds credible to me so I'm going to give it some thought and research.

I, Brian · 11-25-2003, 11:53 AM

All my index pages are still listed in the SERPs - but under somewhat different circumstances.

My guess is specifically that anchor text is being matched against titles, and if there's too close a match that's when penalties kick in.

When I check those pages with longer titles they seem unaffected affected. It's those instances where title and anchor text match exactly that the pages seem to disappear.

My 2c.

PhilC · 11-25-2003, 03:29 PM

They say that every cloud has a silver lining, and I'm not usually one for gloating.......BUT

>>>>

I was just thinking about all those people who like to call themselves 'ethical SEOs' and how they've deluded themselves, and preached, that not only is Google perfectly happy with the sort of seo that they do, but also that their methods produce rankings that stand the test of time, and they don't have to be continually looking over their shoulders. HAH!!! They've all been hit!!! Even you know who!!!

I've said for a long time that Google doesn't like or want any form of seo - not even the search engine friendly methods that they use. Where's their "ethical SEO" now???