Update Postmortem-- sifting through the rubble Options

[dragonlady7]

I was thinking, instead of everyone who's dropped off the face of the earth in Google's SERPs posting their own thread asking for help, or cluttering up update threads all over the Internet, perhaps we could direct those questions here. Maybe by looking at all the newly-dropped pages and sites, we could come up with some kind of meaning in all the devastation.
So-- what's your site,
what kind of techniques were you using for SEO,
what phrases had you optimized for,
what were your old results, and
where are you for those phrases now?

If we look at everyone together in a coherent manner, maybe we can find some useful trends and start the arduous task of rebuilding.

Especially if we keep the thread on-topic and don't start ranting about the sky falling or spammers ruling the world.

[bragadocchio]

Most of the sites that I was following have now found their way back to almost exactly where they were a few days ago. I'm afraid that I might not be much help at all.

Excellent title for the thread though.

[gravelsack]

IMO Google have a habit of running 'scare' updates.

They clamp down on some 'so-called' spam technique, which then causes chaos amongst SEOs and site owners. Once the afflicted have finished doing the headless chicken site modifications in an attempt to regain their positions, Google 'backs off' and the algo becomes sensible again.

Sometimes the best option is to wait it out - build more links, add more content and let Google come to its senses.

[dragonlady7]

Ha. Well, I started this thread because a new member IM'd me and asked me to, but then he never posted here, so I guess he wasn't really interested.
I like your analysis, Gravelsack. Makes sense, takes the reality into account, and doesn't depend on conspiracy theories or sound horribly sinister.

[gravelsack]

Unless you are fighting in the really competitive areas, its always best to work for the long term.

Waiting until the dust settles make sense on this one - the 'competitive phrase' filter may be a temporary thing, maybe not, but the results that are appearing for those phrases are not worth reacting on.

Best option seems to be to build more content aimed at phrases that are safer.

I think mostly I'll just wait it out on my customer sites.

[Jean_Manco]

Ok Dragonlady.

1. I have a non-profit informational site.
2. SEO? I don't fret that much. I just made the site bot-friendly.
3. See above.
4. Came up top in Google for 15 phrases (not counting my own name).
5. Coming up top in Google for 15 phrases (not counting my own name).

These are not quite the same phrases. A couple have moved down a place or two. A couple have moved up which were already on the first page of results. So no great drama.

Competitive phrases? Not remotely!

[SearchEngineZ]

I answered a few SEO queries at Google Answers relating to sudden drops in ranking following the recent Google update.

After browsing a lot of forums I have decided to try and describe what is happening:


Google has introduced a filter:

\"Google recently introduced a new keyword phrase filter during its most recent update. Some phrases were unchanged, but many highly optimized and highly competitive phrases were drastically altered.\"

http://searchenginejournal.blogspot.com/20...933768963966352

The filter is targeting highly competitive (commercial) keywords and phrases.

Any site that is doing well for such phrases loses the ranking benefit of the following:

- text of internal links containing those keywords
- text of reciprocal links containing those keywords
- those keywords in the URL

and possibly (I haven't seen any proof):

- keywords in the title
- keywords in H1 tags
- high density of the keywords on the page
- text of non-reciprocal links containing those keywords

Typically the page most affected is the home page. Often this is due to linking internally to it with keywords, rather than the traditional "home".

PageRank remains unaffected. Rankings for keywords and phrases not affected by the filter remain the same.

The unfiltered results can be seen by adding -mt-tb.cgi to the search query. This was first mentioned at the Register, prior to the recent update:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/33448.html

[peter_d]

I'd be careful about absolutes when talking about search engines

What appears to be the case is that Google is placing more value on authority sites. Commercial sites that aren't also authorities are diminished when searching on commercially lucrative terms.

The unfiltered results can be seen by adding -mt-tb.cgi to the search query. This was first mentioned at the Register, prior to the recent update:

You can add any word that doesn't exist after the -
e.g web designer new york -bvnfmnelk
This is a (very revealing) bug. Expect it to be plugged.

Hope this helps

[newsphinx]

You can add any word that doesn't exist after the -  
e.g web designer new york -bvnfmnelk  

That is not true. I have to add -mt-tb.cgi to see the unfiltered results.

[dgcccomllc]

So my theory holds true. Google has "filtered" results in order to maximize their adwords. With that -mt-tb.cgi thing on, I show up in the top 10 again.

Most of the results that show up for our keywords point to sites with content that is a couple years old (very relevant of course), or are directories like dmoz (google and dmoz) and business.com. A few of our competitors who have been around for quite a while and have a ton of inbound links have remained. By the way, these companies also have had a ton of money to spend on their sites and advertising.

We have done nothing funny with our site, and yes I did provide content relevant and optomized for our product.

I hope this is the nail in Google's coffin. Yahoo needs to dump them immediately, and anyone else who has an affiliation should also consider it. They have basically resorted to manipulation of the search results in order to boost their bottom line. They should just focus on taking care of those site operators who do bad things to boost themselves, not those of us who have taken the time and diligence to promote our sites.

I don't mind paying for adwords, but not when it's extorted from me.

I think it's time for a concerted effort by all web site operators to provide as much bad publicity about google as possible. I hope MSN and Alta Vista jump on to this scam. My home page is changing from Yahoo to MSN. Screw Google.

[projectphp]

OK,

> So-- what's your site
I "look after", in a very loose sense, lots of sites.

> what kind of techniques were you using for SEO
Lots, with varying degrees of buy in.

> what phrases had you optimized for
Too many too know


> what were your old results
Lots of really good, relevant traffic

> where are you for those phrases now?
About the same spot With one notable exception: A site that dropped like a brick. Said site was aweful, and got by on tricks rather than "enhancements", i.e. it used good practises, but these were added to bad pages, not to content that was already excellent. It is also a site that is small in its industry sector, without any really good industry big wig links. Interestingly, it ranks well for the tweo word search "{SPECIFIC PRODUCT TYPE}" but not the three word search "{PRODUCT TYPE} {PRODUCT}", so maybe there is some sort of filter involved for specific searches, or maybe there is a keyword density filter on (as every page has a LOT of the word {PRODUCT} on the page).

Either way, this site never deserved good rankings, and now it is gone, the SERPs on which it did well are significantly better.

[peter_d]

That is not true. I have to add -mt-tb.cgi to see the unfiltered results.

That query is telling Google to ignore moveabletype blogs. Andrew Orlowski again, no doubt.

I get unfiltered results whenever I put anything after the -
Like -pleaseshowmewhereicanbuystuffplease

[ricka]

dgcccomllc said:

So my theory holds true. Google has \"filtered\" results in order to maximize their adwords. With that -mt-tb.cgi thing on, I show up in the top 10 again.

My wife's site (http://book-cover-design.com) was #1 for the term book cover design. If I add -mt-tb.cgi to the search query, she still is. Without it, she's not on the 1st 3 pages. BUT, she has never participated in Google's AdWords.

Perhaps I'm violating some other new rule. For instance, links to the home page from internal pages are entitled Book Cover Design Home rather than just Home. That phrase is also in her URL and thus, in links to the site. SearchEngineZ mentioned above that this may now be objectionable, but he said so with reference to "highly competitive (commercial) keywords and phrases." "Book cover design" is not very competitive. http://www.houston-superbowl-directory.com contains the term Houston Superbowl in its URL, yet it is #1 for that term.

By what criteria is Google designating a phrase as "highly competitive?" Seems to me that "Houston Superbowl" is a lot more competitive than "book cover design."

[dgcccomllc]

I'm sure the "filter" is based upon adwords. The superbowl example you gave does not have adwords associated with those keywords, whereas, the book cover design has numerous sites advertising on adwords.

Now I found something VERY VERY VERY VERY interesting on the search for book cover design. The first site listed for this keyword has hidden text and has stuffed keywords.

Great search results Google.

You're not violating anything at all. Google wants you to use adwords, and given you've never used adwords, you're exactly in the position google would want you to be. I may be going out on a limb, but Google knows that some sites will have no choice but to use adwords because they have to for the coming holidays. They know that many were expecting good positioning for the busiest shopping season.

Everything that people here have touted as being the virtues of google have gone to hell. Look at #1 below for ricka's search term.

<snip>

This site should have been banned, and not given a PR5. Look for the hidden text.

If I wanted to find anything about this topic, google would not provide much information. I would be disappointed if I were looking for someone to design a book cover for me, or if I was looking for information on how to design a book cover. I'd have to resort to picking through business.com or other directories. In fact, the duplicates in the top 20 of this search would just tick me off as a searcher.

<administrator's note - URL removed. It's not necessary to link to the site in question, nor call it out here. - Bill Slawski>

[Caissa]

Hi,

I can't see the Adword connection. I use adwords and on my key terms there are listings that never used Adwords above me. But the #1 site for years is gone POOF!

I never could figure out why they were #1 so I think, maybe, they did something spammy that I never saw.

But if Adword spending was a criteria, I would be #1. In the unfiltered results I am actually higher.

[Jean_Manco]

I'm sure the \"filter\" is based upon adwords.

Why would Google wreck its future for a fast buck this Christmas? It would be complete madness.

Google's product is search. If it wilfully destroyed the relevance of SERPs, it would destroy the very thing that has built its support base - the only thing. Rivals may lock search into software or include it in a hosting package or whatever. Google depends on searchers preferring its results.

[best.flash]

With a view to investigating the exact-phrase filter...

- text of reciprocal links containing those keywords

What about the Free For All link pages myth? the idea that a competitor can submit your site to thousands of FFA pages to lower your ranking wasn't true. Shouldn't the same apply to anchor/alt text from external sources? If it was how difficult would it be to setup a few hundred links pages from free hosts targeting competitors sites and their targeted keywords?

[best.flash]

Why would Google wreck its future for a fast buck this Christmas? It would be complete madness.

Agreed, why would a company who built their massive success over the last few years on shooting straight suddenly risk changing that over what in IPO terms would be small change? -or for any sum for that matter.

[bragadocchio]

Welcome to the forums SearchEngineZ and newsphinx,

I'm not convince that I should ever accept anything from the Register as gospel about Google. Please, do yourselves a favor and look at the multitude of well researched and though out criticism of the conclusions espoused by the Registers's reporter.

The term attempted to be excluded, -mt-tb.cgi, is part of the results when you find an "add comment" page in moveable type. Those pages were returning in results because they were being spidered, and were very highly optimized - title and topic heading often were well chosen and described a controversial topic, and there was nothing else on the page to dilute their relevancy.

It may be possible that Google filtered those out.

But, look at what Peter said again:

You can add any word that doesn't exist after the -  
e.g web designer new york -bvnfmnelk  
This is a (very revealing) bug. Expect it to be plugged.

Give it a try. It works in the same manner that adding -mt-tb.cgi does. The results appear in different order. Why? Good question.

[gravelsack]

The evidence is there for the viewing, couldn't actually be any clearer.

There IS a filter in place for certain phrases and it is a conscious decision on their part.

As to the reason, well only Google know for sure, but until a better explanation comes along, I'm going with the 'pre-xmas adwords pumping' theory.