Since Panda... Is Your SEO Kung Fu Strong?

I think unique content is the key, try to provide quality and useful content within your website. For link building, social bookmarks and videos submission are always as effective as before. Paying more attention on on-page optimization is a good strategy to deal with google big panda.

I am here to debunk this theory. His comment is the farthest thing from the truth. There are lots of sites who "did it right", and have taken HUGE hits. Me included.

So you are saying your method has actually gotten people out of the panda pit and back on track as if there was no panda hit? Do you have proof?

Simple things are best, aren't they?

Paul

I don't know... I've used link wheels for years now but since panda I have not seen the same result since. Profile linking seems pretty ineffective too but can you explain how you are utilizing link baiting?

Thanks!

You weren't hit by Panda then, because if you were, your quality and unique content wouldn't rank. Many have been hit, some have not. You sound like the 'have not' category.

Yeah, I agree that quality content is key but as I mentioned in my original post... WHERE are you posting the content(other than your website)? Blogs? Article directories? It seems to matter more now where you are posting than before panda.

Loads of original content which is exclusive to your site. Don't worry about link schemes. Build HUGE sites. Google needs to eat, feed it. If you can't really add on to your site, build HUGE feeder sites instead. If you can't do that then get a job at McDonald's.

Here's what I've noticed,

Site with AGE are ranking nicely, which have been created properly (i.e. white hat backlinking, long original content - lots of it, etc.).

I have new sites which are sitting on page 2 of google for their respective keyword phrases which would otherwise already be ranking. Google is working very hard to "fish out" any spammers and search engine manipulators. That being said, now you must spend much more time ranking your sites and pages. With that in mind, I think link velocity and diversity are more important than ever. Keep your linking at a reasonable pace, and do it all manually, no more xrumer, scrapebox, sick submitter.

Thin content has taken quite a hit as well. Any page you want to rank should have well over 500 words of unique, helpful content. Utilize heading tags, where appropriate, and try to incorporate more synonyms within the post content as well. It seems Google is looking more closely at synonyms than ever before, and ranking related pages over exact match pages, given they have more helpful and unique content, and come for more reputable sources - aged sites.

I'll be working with these conclusions and testing for a while to find some solutions to this problem. I was hit pretty hard as well, and I'm eager to find a fix to this.

I have been building links submitting articles but there has been no improvement any suggestions.

Thanks that's a good post

LOL!! Keyword density, you're a funny man. Do you still use meta keyword spam too?

Yes, I have noticed that too. I update text it jumps on the first page then it starts sinking. My site is now about 4-6 month old and it still sinks in SERPS and I'm doing a lot of backlinks with unique article content. If you would share some more info that would be great because it's a lot of frustration there.

I took an across the board 75 position drop EACH for 125 keywords when webmaster tools told me my site speed went from 1.5 sec to 10 sec. You can bet your A$$ I fixed that ASAP with WP supercache and db cache reloaded fix. Now I'm just waiting for big g to remeasure. I get a 92 out of 100 on google page speed now.

According to page speed (google) 82 and Yslow 85 .. nothing happens.. its a myth

Were you planning on contributing to this thread, or just blatantly self promoting?

mattlaclear says: "We're grabbing 20 page one rankings a day for Warriors. We also have enough testimonials to choke a rhino with. Would that be proof enough? Whether they were in the "Panda Pit" before working with me means very little."

Can you give us the links or solid proof of the past months of those 20 page one rankings a day? We need very recent references.

mattlaclear to me: "Just read my threads. They come in every day. Besides why do I need to prove anything to you? I'm not trying to sell anything on this thread. OP asked a question and I answered it."

Hey, why do you have to proof anything to anyone who is considering to make use of your services, right? You don't need their business! Your arrogance and lack of respect to fellow warriors is second to none, I have watched the way you respond on this forum. You're the man, right!
Hey, to get any website on the no 1 spot on Google is one thing, to keep it there is another thing - your outrageous price structure can't even guarantee to keep us there because after 90 days it's goodbye, and "why do I have to proof I can keep you there, besides, it's not my problem", right? No, you don't have to proof a thing because you're the man! For the moment anyway because don't be surprised if someone comes along very soon to offer an even better and friendly service with a reasonable price structure and ongoing support to maintain that great position on the search engines. Watch this forum closely .

Yeah, I think that may play a part here too. But there's just not enough info available yet to make a call one way or another.

Definitely will be watching how this plays out though.

I found some news on this although it doesn,t enlighten us much..

HERE GOES...

The Federal Trade Commission is conducting an investigation of Google, although what it is investigaing isn't clear, the company claimed in a blog post June 24.

The FTC appears to be scrutinizing the Internet search company over possible antitrust or breach of consumer protection issues, but won't discuss the matter pulicaly because the investigation is ongoing.

The current speculation is that Google may be headed for the same sort of competition inquiry with regard to its search-advertising business practices that Microsoft faced with its Windows business some years back. The U.S. government found Microsoft guilty of abusing its Windows monopoly position in 2002, but U.S. Department of Justice supervision of Microsoft only just ended in May.

Google's announcement states that it received a "formal notification from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission that it has begun a review of our business." The Mountain View, Calif.-based company also filed a statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, confirming the FTC's investigation.

"On June 23, 2011, Google Inc. received a subpoena and a notice of civil investigative demand from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) relating to a review by the FTC of Google's business practices, including search and advertising. Google is cooperating with the FTC on this investigation," the SEC statement read, which was filed as a Form 8-K.

Clues as to what the FTC may be investigating might be found with past litigation in Europe. In March, Microsoft announced that it had filed a complaint with the European Commission that Google's search-advertising service was anticompetitive by not providing information to other search providers. Microsoft's complaint followed earlier complaints lodged last year by three companies -- Foundem, ejustice.fr and Microsoft's Ciao! from Bing. Google alleged at that time that Microsoft worked behind the scenes to support those companies' complaints.

The Federal Trade Commission has its work cut out for it in its antitrust inquiry into Google's search engine practices, according to several legal experts.
Rate This Article:
Poor Best
E-mail

Print

PDF Version

Now that the Federal Trade Commission has formally launched in antitrust investigation of Google's (NASDAQ:GOOG) search business, it will have to prove the leading search engine harmed consumers, not just the companies lobbing allegations that Google impinges competition.

The FTC June 24 informed the search engine it has opened an inquiry into the company's business practices after fielding complaints from Microsoft (NASDQ:MSFT), Expedia (NASDAQ:EXPE), TripAdvisor, Yelp and others that Google promotes its own Web services above their own in its search results. These gripes echo those made by Foundem, eJustice.fr and Microsoft's Ciao in Europe.

FairSearch.org, which includes Microsoft, Expedia and others, has argued that Google uses other companies' content without their permission, engages in "deceptive display of search results," manipulates search results to favor Google's products, and buys companies that impede its dominance online.

Google will be investigated under the FTC's Section 5 rule that deals with deceptive and unfair acts and practices, which includes "bait and switch" tactics.

Proving that Google's actions harm consumers will be easier said than done, according to David Balto, a Washington, D.C., attorney who has practiced antitrust law for the FTC, as well as the antitrust division of the Department of Justice.

"To succeed in an antitrust case, you have to look at a federal court judge and say consumers are hurt because they pay more or they have fewer choices," Balto said. The first argument may not work because Google search and other Web services are free. The second is simply tough to prove.

Balto believes Google would prevail in an antitrust case brought by the FTC because it has the consumers' best interest foremost in its mind: to provide accurate and timely results to their queries.

Noting that Google's conduct is largely precompetitive, he pointed to how Google protects consumers against deceptive Website operators. For example, Google discovered that J.C. Penney had gamed Google's search engine to push up its Website in search rankings last holiday season. The company manually dropped the retailer in its rankings.

Balto further noted that this case springs from complaints embittered companies are making that Google won't let them compete in the search market. Consumers, he argued, don't care where these companies are placed or that their advertising opportunities suffer from appearing far down on search results pages. They care about finding the results they want.

"I love antitrust and I love to go after large companies," Balto told eWEEK. "But I have a lot of doubt an investigation on search will lead to much. I think this is a dog that won't bark. It will take them awhile to walk it around the block, but I think that's what they're going to find out."

Geoffrey Manne, senior adjunct fellow at TechFreedom and lecturer in law at Lewis & Clark Law School, and Joshua Wright, professor of law & economics at George Mason University School of Law, added that "reducing consumer choice" seems to be a euphemism for "harm to competitors, not competition," where the reduction in choice is the reduction of choice of competitors who are put out of business by pro-competitive behavior.

"The fact that Google's rivals--including Microsoft itself--are complaining about the company suggests, ironically, that Google's practices are in fact pro-competitive and thus pro-consumer," Manne and Wright wrote.

However, Melissa Maxman, co-chair of the antitrust department at law firm Cozen O'Connor, wonders if there isn't a little something of the where-there's-smoke-there's-fire adage at play here; her firm has clients who are complaining about Google's search practices.

Maxman said she believes there's no question Google has earned its monopoly status, but added that obtaining a monopoly is not illegal if its earned.

"Why is [Microsoft] Bing not gaining?" Maxman told eWEEK via e-mail. "Is it because Google is gaming results? It could be very similar to what Microsoft did with the Internet browser."

In truth, Bing is gaining search share, albeit incrementally and certainly not at the expense of Google. Bing launched two years ago and has grown from 8 percent share to about 13 percent share. However, Bing's gains have come at the expense of Yahoo. Google has maintained its 65 percent share for the last few years, according to comScore.

Meanwhile, Balto noted that even though the FTC may be putting Google under the microscope, less than 1 out of every 10 investigations leads to an enforcement action. There has not been a successful Section 5 litigated case since 1972, he added.

I outsource my SEO tasks to a team of SEO pro's I've worked with now for over 2 years. Methods include Web 2.0, Profile Back linking, Article/Video Submission, Social Bookmarking, High PR Link Pyramids etc.... So If you're asking me if I've personally built my own network... No. Until recently everything working smooth as butter and there was no need to. But I don't see how 50-100 high authority sites are going to make a huge difference. Especially with some higher competition keywords.

Hi there everyone. My sites are still strong as they were 2 years ago and these are little Amazon sites. So you want to take your SEO skill to the next level?

Not everyone is going to agree with me but if you want to do REAL SEO then it's time you start learning to buy links. Good links with real PR, pages with real PR. Buy site wide links and your site's rankings will rocket.

Example 1.

I had a site ranking at the bottom of page 1 and has been there for months. I purchased 1 sitewide link and created a few web2.0 links and after a week it jumped to #3 right under Amazon.co.uk. Making bank here and there.

Example 2.
Client is a car dealer and wants to target "used cars + location" (outside his local area. His page was ranking position 57 and was there for some time. I purchased 6 sitewide links (PR2 home page links) and after 3-4 days the page is now ranking above the fold on page 2.

I'll tell you this. All big companies in competitive niches such as insurance buy links and there's nothing to stop you doing it on a small scale.

In the UK, a few months ago I started seeing adverts for the insurance company morethan.com a nobody company and today they are ranking at 5 in Google UK for the term "insurance".

If you guys are still doing profile links, web2.0, article submission (low level links) then it's time to up your SEO game because once you learn that, you'll start going after harder niches where the big money is.

Ask me a year ago whether I would have targeted the term "hair loss treatment", I would have said too hard and competitive (plus I had no idea what kind of seo I would need)

Ask me today and I'll be confident and say "yes I can do it"
This guy hairlosstreatment-s.com (number 1 rankings in .com) is not gonna know what hit him!

Peace out

Great advice.

Don't just focus on what will work today or try out the latest method to 'game' the search engines.

Think about what the search engines really want to see and how they'll adapt in the future.