Adam's already doing a great job on that thread, but it is frustrating that I don't have a chance to do everything I'd like to do. If I've only got limited time, I could spend that discussing something or a forum, or try to write on a new topic (malware, Stephen Colbert, robots.txt crawl-delay and why we don't support it).
-It's an algo update push. (in other words, not a new algorithim, but a tweak that's pushed out to all data centers every so often, for another non-related data push discussion http://searchengineland.com/070511-064952.php) -overly seo'd sites -don't listen to what SEO forums say -don't optimize quite as much
Which seo methods are the trigger? Link exchanges, Keyword density, Header usage, interlinking, pagerank hoarding, nofollow abuse, uniform anchor text, common link schemes? I don't know.
But he does concentrate on "on your site" so I'd think the answer is still on the site, perhaps an examination between an SEO'd site and one that is ranking but obviously put together without SEO in mind would be good (gov or edu sites for example)
i'm having trouble understanding whether its a good or bad thing to have identical anchor text pointing to the same link. i.e. if i have a page on green amber, is it good or bad to have all its inbound links with an anchor text 'green amber'. As i understand it is currently better to have a mix of words that relate to the page e.g. 'amber' or green' or 'amber that is green' etc. but is this right?
Yes, link schemes like Digital Point Co-op are against the webmasters guidelines and over SEO'd, not sure this is ground breaking news, but its good to be reminded.
Thinking about this, can we turn this on it's head and extract some implied message about penalties. Matt makes reference to using the re- inclusion request. We know the site in question isn't banned, but perhaps under a penalty.
Now if there are no penalties other than a outright ban (as many have argued here previously), why would Matt mention this? And more importantly (I believe), can we infer anything from the process for re- inclusion? My mind is beginning to wonder whether a penalty is a flag which is reset by hand, or whether the crawler is sent back in to re- evaluate the offending site? A flag might indicate a negative weighting applied within the ranking algorythm (although, there is nothing that precludes the latter from indicating this also).
Re-inclusion for a site that is included would have to indicate artificial negative weighting of some description IMO.
> Yes, link schemes like Digital Point Co-op are against the webmasters > guidelines and over SEO'd, not sure this is ground breaking news, but > its good to be reminded.
> Thinking about this, can we turn this on it's head and extract some > implied message about penalties. Matt makes reference to using the re- > inclusion request. We know the site in question isn't banned, but > perhaps under a penalty.
> Now if there are no penalties other than a outright ban (as many have > argued here previously), why would Matt mention this? And more > importantly (I believe), can we infer anything from the process for re- > inclusion? My mind is beginning to wonder whether a penalty is a flag > which is reset by hand, or whether the crawler is sent back in to re- > evaluate the offending site? A flag might indicate a negative > weighting applied within the ranking algorythm (although, there is > nothing that precludes the latter from indicating this also).
> Re-inclusion for a site that is included would have to indicate > artificial negative weighting of some description IMO.
> Rgds > Richard
> On May 11, 10:23 pm, JLH wrote:
> > Its getting interesting there, Matt chimed in with even more > > information.
> > Yes, link schemes like Digital Point Co-op are against the webmasters > > guidelines and over SEO'd, not sure this is ground breaking news, but > > its good to be reminded.
Europeforvisitors: Side note: I can't help thinking that Google and Webmasters might be better served if Google made less effort to communicate with Webmasters. Maybe Webmasters would be less addicted to Google if Matt Cutts, Adam Lasnik, GoogleGuy, etc. simply went about their business instead of abetting addictive behavior. Adam: And this, indeed, highlights the challenge we face every day. We aren't going to disengage overall; the core of my job involves finding how we can communicate more, not less. But the venues may change, the methods may change. I know I touched upon this refrain earlier, but my goal is to do the most good for the most Webmasters... a great many of whom don't even see themselves as "Webmasters" much less frequent quality Webmaster forums. One-on-one e-mail chats are absolutely not scalable, even if we hired a thousand of me/Matt/Vanessa/GoogleGuy/ etc. More videos? Webinars? More conference attendance? Documentation in different formats, more languages...? So many options, no easy, comprehensive solutions.
Most noteworthy is 'We aren't going to disengage overall' which in my reading says that a decision has been made to change the rules of engagement. And responding to individual webmasters seems to be the least favoured response. Perhaps this is the reason that there are rarely any blue icons over here any more?
If so then I think they may have missed the rationale for many people responding here - legitimacy. With Googlers onboard here the place was legitimate. Without that legitimacy the dynamic changes substantially to the downside. And that statement is made with the utmost respect to all the great individuals here.
> > OK here's my €0.02 (that's 2 cent NOT 2 cents):
> > Thinking about this, can we turn this on it's head and extract some > > implied message about penalties. Matt makes reference to using the re- > > inclusion request. We know the site in question isn't banned, but > > perhaps under a penalty.
> > Now if there are no penalties other than a outright ban (as many have > > argued here previously), why would Matt mention this? And more > > importantly (I believe), can we infer anything from the process for re- > > inclusion? My mind is beginning to wonder whether a penalty is a flag > > which is reset by hand, or whether the crawler is sent back in to re- > > evaluate the offending site? A flag might indicate a negative > > weighting applied within the ranking algorythm (although, there is > > nothing that precludes the latter from indicating this also).
> > Re-inclusion for a site that is included would have to indicate > > artificial negative weighting of some description IMO.
> > Rgds > > Richard
> > On May 11, 10:23 pm, JLH wrote:
> > > Its getting interesting there, Matt chimed in with even more > > > information.
> > > Yes, link schemes like Digital Point Co-op are against the webmasters > > > guidelines and over SEO'd, not sure this is ground breaking news, but > > > its good to be reminded.
Seems odd the Brett Tabke's forum get's more Googler response than the official one owned by Google doesn't it? This is evolving, errr devolving, should be interesting to see if they stop the bleeding or just let it die on the vine as so man other projects (i.e. subscription based indexing) have. I know some new things are in the works, but I wonder if it will be too late.
> Europeforvisitors: > Side note: I can't help thinking that Google and Webmasters might be > better served if Google made less effort to communicate with > Webmasters. Maybe Webmasters would be less addicted to Google if Matt > Cutts, Adam Lasnik, GoogleGuy, etc. simply went about their business > instead of abetting addictive behavior. > Adam: > And this, indeed, highlights the challenge we face every day. We > aren't going to disengage overall; the core of my job involves finding > how we can communicate more, not less. But the venues may change, the > methods may change. I know I touched upon this refrain earlier, but my > goal is to do the most good for the most Webmasters... a great many of > whom don't even see themselves as "Webmasters" much less frequent > quality Webmaster forums. One-on-one e-mail chats are absolutely not > scalable, even if we hired a thousand of me/Matt/Vanessa/GoogleGuy/ > etc. More videos? Webinars? More conference attendance? Documentation > in different formats, more languages...? So many options, no easy, > comprehensive solutions.
> Most noteworthy is 'We aren't going to disengage overall' which in my > reading says that a decision has been made to change the rules of > engagement. And responding to individual webmasters seems to be the > least favoured response. Perhaps this is the reason that there are > rarely any blue icons over here any more?
> If so then I think they may have missed the rationale for many people > responding here - legitimacy. With Googlers onboard here the place > was legitimate. Without that legitimacy the dynamic changes > substantially to the downside. And that statement is made with the > utmost respect to all the great individuals here.
> Rgds > Richard > On May 11, 11:17 pm, JLH wrote:
> > Richard,
> > Replace the word "Flag" with "Card" and I think this is very similar.
> > > OK here's my €0.02 (that's 2 cent NOT 2 cents):
> > > Thinking about this, can we turn this on it's head and extract some > > > implied message about penalties. Matt makes reference to using the re- > > > inclusion request. We know the site in question isn't banned, but > > > perhaps under a penalty.
> > > Now if there are no penalties other than a outright ban (as many have > > > argued here previously), why would Matt mention this? And more > > > importantly (I believe), can we infer anything from the process for re- > > > inclusion? My mind is beginning to wonder whether a penalty is a flag > > > which is reset by hand, or whether the crawler is sent back in to re- > > > evaluate the offending site? A flag might indicate a negative > > > weighting applied within the ranking algorythm (although, there is > > > nothing that precludes the latter from indicating this also).
> > > Re-inclusion for a site that is included would have to indicate > > > artificial negative weighting of some description IMO.
> > > Rgds > > > Richard
> > > On May 11, 10:23 pm, JLH wrote:
> > > > Its getting interesting there, Matt chimed in with even more > > > > information.
> > > > Yes, link schemes like Digital Point Co-op are against the webmasters > > > > guidelines and over SEO'd, not sure this is ground breaking news, but > > > > its good to be reminded.
I think it's fairly clear that there are all sorts of penalties, and that there will be more in the future. Look back at the +30-penalty: Adam was one of the first to comment on the thread here (not the first considering the other forums, but I believe the first here). He mentioned (from memory): - not enough unique and compelling content - would the site bring more value compared to others in the niche - remember the guidelines, luke - file a reinclusion request
That was for the +30 one, but it could be seen as a general reminder for everyone else as well. "Do I have the stuff that people want and am I playing fair?" ("stuff people want" is not "I'm getting lots of free traffic, visitors must like my site"). If not, re-evaluate and file a reinclusion request.
[Personally, I can't imagine the queue they must have for reinclusion requests, it seems everyone who fell 1-2 positions is filing them and those with real penalties are filing them hourly with every change they make (when you don't know what is the trigger, it's hard to fix just that). Assuming that Google is smart :-) it could well be automated. Determine trigger, set penalty, wait until reinclusion request comes with "website-domain.com", check if trigger element has been fixed: otherwise wait more. I am fairly certain that we will see more detailed communications from Google in the future, but they'll still want to refrain from keeping the "bad guys" too much data... Would someone please remove the factor "money" from life??]
What else could too much SEO mean? ... and is this one of those "SEO forums"?
Could the inbound links trigger a "too much SEO" element? (not the inbound links that get devalued, but say if 99% of the inbound links were from junk sites, directories, link-exchanges, etc) I still think there's a difference between not having enough good links (and ranking badly) and having too many bad links (and getting pushed down). One of those things that is probably impossible to test (and will likely not get an official answer, which might even be better so). I wonder if the trigger (assuming there is one) is based on pagerank or just the raw number of links?
Actually regarding the card reference - I spoke to Matt Cutts in London a few months back and he made references to handing out 30 day bans, and if the site didn't clean up its act then either 60 or 90 day bans. The impression I got is that this meant 2 or 3 concurrent 30 day bans being handed out.
Seems like 30 is a happy number for Google. And if we have any maths whizkids out there can anyone come up with some sort of mathematical reasoning behind 950?
> > OK here's my €0.02 (that's 2 cent NOT 2 cents):
> > Thinking about this, can we turn this on it's head and extract some > > implied message about penalties. Matt makes reference to using the re- > > inclusion request. We know the site in question isn't banned, but > > perhaps under a penalty.
> > Now if there are no penalties other than a outright ban (as many have > > argued here previously), why would Matt mention this? And more > > importantly (I believe), can we infer anything from the process for re- > > inclusion? My mind is beginning to wonder whether a penalty is a flag > > which is reset by hand, or whether the crawler is sent back in to re- > > evaluate the offending site? A flag might indicate a negative > > weighting applied within the ranking algorythm (although, there is > > nothing that precludes the latter from indicating this also).
> > Re-inclusion for a site that is included would have to indicate > > artificial negative weighting of some description IMO.
> > Rgds > > Richard
> > On May 11, 10:23 pm, JLH wrote:
> > > Its getting interesting there, Matt chimed in with even more > > > information.
> > > Yes, link schemes like Digital Point Co-op are against the webmasters > > > guidelines and over SEO'd, not sure this is ground breaking news, but > > > its good to be reminded.
> I still think > there's a difference between not having enough good links (and ranking > badly) and having too many bad links (and getting pushed down).
I agree. I have to say I feel quite confident that adjustments to rankings can be triggered by too many bad links. If these were simply devalued this wouldn't happen. So I reckon they have to apply some negative ranking factor into the mix. Of course it's definitely all so much more complicated than this....
> > I still think > > there's a difference between not having enough good links (and ranking > > badly) and having too many bad links (and getting pushed down).
> I agree. I have to say I feel quite confident that adjustments to > rankings can be triggered by too many bad links. If these were simply > devalued this wouldn't happen. So I reckon they have to apply some > negative ranking factor into the mix. Of course it's definitely all so > much more complicated than this....
