12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Drop em likes it's hot? Many of my sites tanked, just concentrate on a few?

by thedog
10 replies
  • SEO
    • |
So, over a year ago I decided to concentrate on Amazon review sites, but also have some adsense and other revenue streams going on, diversity

But, most of my time was building, small Amazon review sites, around 8 reviews on each.

These have all tanked after penguin.

I've tided up the on page seo, will this help... or have my sites been black listed?

Is it time to let em go and concentrate on 1 or 2?

I don't want to be flogging a dead horse here.

Cheers.
#concentrate #drop #hot #likes #sites #tanked
  • Profile picture of the author FraserC
    It all depends on what techniques you used to get them ranking. It currently seems that Penguin was targeted at sites with an unnatural number of exact match anchor text links, as well as links from off topic websites:

    Penguin Analysis: SEO Isn't Dead, But You Need to Act Smarter | Microsite Masters

    If you can bring your site's links into a very similar ratio as a site that has acquired them naturally, you might stand a chance. But it all depends on how many links you built to your site.

    In most cases, it's better to just register a new domain, transfer the content over. Then embark on a more nuanced marketing campaign.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170281].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author cooler1
      My Amazon review sites have also dropped a lot in rankings after Penguin, but a few of them didn't get affected although they followed the same on page and off page SEO as the affected sites.

      Did you have a diverse backlinking profile? From reading all the analysis from various webmasters it sounds like the Penguin is mainly about off page and backlink quality and not much to do with on page SEO.

      Id wait it out as a site can't be blacklisted for 'over optimization' unless its something really dodgy like hidden text, etc.. or else it would be too easy to ruin competitors.

      To say people need to register a new domain and transfer content over is absurd. No one can control their backlinking profile at least not fully.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170298].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author FraserC
        I don't think it's that absurd. It's purely an issue of time. What's going to take longer: fixing backlinks, or building up a new clean site.

        You might be right at the tipping point. Get rid of a few overly spammy backlinks and you'll flip back over. But this isn't a manual penalty, where you can recover after cleaning up your act. This is an algorithmic penalty, where the site will stay at the bottom until it no longer triggers an algorithm.

        Since time is the only thing we really have, thedog needs to decide how to spend it. Try to fix an existing site, move the content and build up a different domain, or start up a brand new site using different techniques.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170359].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author cooler1
          Originally Posted by FraserC View Post

          I don't think it's that absurd. It's purely an issue of time. What's going to take longer: fixing backlinks, or building up a new clean site.

          You might be right at the tipping point. Get rid of a few overly spammy backlinks and you'll flip back over. But this isn't a manual penalty, where you can recover after cleaning up your act. This is an algorithmic penalty, where the site will stay at the bottom until it no longer triggers an algorithm.

          Since time is the only thing we really have, thedog needs to decide how to spend it. Try to fix an existing site, move the content and build up a different domain, or start up a brand new site using different techniques.
          From what I gather this isn't an algorithmic penalty per se. Google have devalued the links which propelled the site to that position in the SERPs because they deemed them as spammy, unnatural, etc..

          So if these links which propelled the site to that position are no longer given any weight by Google, what use would there be in removing them?

          For example if you built 500 links to get your site onto page 1, what about if a competitor built 1000 links to your site? Does this mean that you then have 1500 links to remove instead of 500? Given the fact you didn't build those 1000 links you have no way of removing them.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170391].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Natlex
            Originally Posted by cooler1 View Post

            For example if you built 500 links to get your site onto page 1, what about if a competitor built 1000 links to your site? Does this mean that you then have 1500 links to remove instead of 500? Given the fact you didn't build those 1000 links you have no way of removing them.
            I'm worried about that in the long term but currently I'm pretty sure it's all about managing your backlink portfolio better. Remove some spammy links if you can and improve your anchor text diversification going forward.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170418].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author FraserC
            Originally Posted by cooler1 View Post

            From what I gather this isn't an algorithmic penalty per se. Google have devalued the links which propelled the site to that position in the SERPs because they deemed them as spammy, unnatural, etc..

            So if these links which propelled the site to that position are no longer given any weight by Google, what use would there be in removing them?

            For example if you built 500 links to get your site onto page 1, what about if a competitor built 1000 links to your site? Does this mean that you then have 1500 links to remove instead of 500? Given the fact you didn't build those 1000 links you have no way of removing them.
            Right, and it seems like the value of the links isn't just removed. It looks like the links will actually cause a penalty.

            This is why everyone is so concerned about the age of negative SEO, because people can start building nasty backlinks to their competitors, getting them dropped out of the index.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170435].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Thinking_man_too
      Originally Posted by FraserC View Post

      It all depends on what techniques you used to get them ranking. It currently seems that Penguin was targeted at sites with an unnatural number of exact match anchor text links, as well as links from off topic websites:

      Penguin Analysis: SEO Isn't Dead, But You Need to Act Smarter | Microsite Masters

      If you can bring your site's links into a very similar ratio as a site that has acquired them naturally, you might stand a chance. But it all depends on how many links you built to your site.

      In most cases, it's better to just register a new domain, transfer the content over. Then embark on a more nuanced marketing campaign.
      Frazer - excellent panda article. Just fantastic. Thanks so much for posting it.

      mark
      Signature



      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170534].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bummed.out
      Originally Posted by FraserC View Post

      In most cases, it's better to just register a new domain, transfer the content over. Then embark on a more nuanced marketing campaign.
      Hi Fraser,

      In regard to this statement, is this safe to do? I know that content gets duplicated all the time online, but could Google "know" that the content came from a penalized site?

      And if we do merely transfer the content over to a new domain(s), what should we - if anything - do with the old domains? Request that Google deindex them?

      While I'm in the process of building larger, non-EMD sites, I don't think the content on my small niche sites was bad - it was the overused anchor text and all the other variables that punished backlinks with these algo. changes that knocked them down - not what was on them - and while I work on my new site(s), I sure could use the content I made from my old ones generating some backup revenue.

      Could you elaborate a bit more on if you think it's a safe/good idea to get new domains and stick old content on them? Thanks.

      Cheers
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170636].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FraserC
    I don't know. Google is pretty smart, and they would easily be able to figure that out. But, once you disconnect content from the unnatural links, that's probably all they want.

    If you've got great content, I'd definitely try to bring it back in another form.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170922].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bummed.out
      Originally Posted by FraserC View Post

      I don't know. Google is pretty smart, and they would easily be able to figure that out. But, once you disconnect content from the unnatural links, that's probably all they want.

      If you've got great content, I'd definitely try to bring it back in another form.
      Good points. I guess I could experiment with one site to start. I have no way of removing all the unnatural links associated with my old domains, anyway. Thanks for thoughts!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170935].message }}

Trending Topics