The New Google Update Exposed?

by howto
12 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hi everyone. Some of you may have noticed my posts on the forum yesterday about my theory about what was causing some people to lose rank in this alleged new update. I now however may have evidence of sorts.

My site raised ranks for nearly all its keywords this algo update but one. This one keyword (lets call it 'juicy melons') started dropping very quickly. As soon as I noticed I headed to the warrior forum and a few hours later people started asking about a new algo update. This confirmed my suspicions. I had seen a single keyword plummet in the exact same way before when I was new to SEO and made too many links with the same anchor text and an algo update came out. The pattern was all to familiar for me. The only SEO I had done on 'juicy melons' in about 6 months was to create a wordpress web 2.0, let the 2.0 sit for 3 months and schedule some posts. I then created another wordpress web 2.0 and placed a sitewide link to the first web 2.0. After 3 months I placed a sitewide link on the first 2.0 using 'juicy melons'. I then increased ranking for 'juicy melons' until this new algo update.

Today 'juicy melons' had reached page 18 from page 3 just a few days ago... wow!!! I decided the 2.0 experiment was over and to remove the link. It has been about 8 hours since removing the link and 'juicy melons' is on page 10 already. My site seems to move around Google very fast as it is an authority site. I make a post and it is literally in the index almost instantly.

I know this is not conclusive evidence however it is somewhere for you fellow webmasters who need help to start your research / testing from. I think an algo update hit web 2.0 sites. It would make sense as web 2.0 link spam has long had it coming to them from Google. The good thing is though you SHOULD have your log in details to amend the issue and remove the links with ease so if anyone can confirm my theory then you should be safe.

Please don't go rushing to remove all your 2.0 links! I could be wrong as my testing alone is not enough to prove this theory. Also I know my 2.0 strategy wasn't the smartest idea but I was experimenting. Experimentation can lead to some amazing discoveries and is great for reverse engineering Google.
#exposed #google #update
  • Profile picture of the author RuggeroSB
    Interesting observations - thanks for sharing!

    To me it seems like maybe your link velocity was a bit too slow, and perhaps your link diversity (only a handful of links and your site's been around a while) was an issue as well?

    Another possible solution may have been to supplement with some other link building (excluding web 2.0 of course) and diversity your anchors and sources.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7619768].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author howto
      Originally Posted by tech84 View Post

      Juicy Melons? Looks like someone's after my secret niche



      "I dare you to ask me about my juicy beans one more time!
      Haha the best kept secrets are the ones kept in plain sight. My keyword is indeed juicy melons. I've been rumbled!

      Originally Posted by RuggeroSB View Post

      Interesting observations - thanks for sharing!

      To me it seems like maybe your link velocity was a bit too slow, and perhaps your link diversity (only a handful of links and your site's been around a while) was an issue as well?

      Another possible solution may have been to supplement with some other link building (excluding web 2.0 of course) and diversity your anchors and sources.
      Naw I target many different keywords for my index page. I rank number 1 for about 15 different things such as: 'juicy melons' ''juicy big melons' 'juicy delicious melons' 'moist melons' etc etc. It just so happened that 'juicy melons' was low on my SEO priority list. My link profile is varied and good and I haven't used any web 2.0 links apart from for 'juicy melons'. Nom nom nom.

      Originally Posted by Joel Ross View Post

      However, although your keyword dropped a lot suddenly how do you know it wasn't a temporary change and that it wouldn't come back strong than ever? I'm not saying you were wrong i'm just trying to understand why you seemed to quickly come up with that conclusion?
      Yes I had already considered this. I could very well be wrong which is why I urged people not to jump to conclusions and to discuss the issue here first and test it.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7619835].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author marketinguk
    This is interesting for sure that from your testing it seems web 2.0 maybe what was targeted. However, although your keyword dropped a lot suddenly how do you know it wasn't a temporary change and that it wouldn't come back strong than ever? I'm not saying you were wrong i'm just trying to understand why you seemed to quickly come up with that conclusion?

    Also, I still think this is inconclusive apart from what I have said above. A number of people coming here yesterday complaining of ranking drops were people who's sites were pretty thin on content either on the homepage or in their inner pages, so from what I saw yesterday if I had to call it I would have said there was at least an element of onsite targeting yesterday.
    These changes seemed to really effect UK results as well including in a high competition niche I operate in.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7619817].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Originally Posted by howto View Post

    My site seems to move around Google very fast as it is an authority site. I make a post and it is literally in the index almost instantly.
    No its not. Authority sites are not ranked on page 18.

    This idea is pretty far fetched. You are basing your theory on one Wordpress site linking to one site you own. That's it. That is your complete data set.

    If Google is ever going to target Web 2.0 sites in any fashion, it is much more likely that they are going to devalue them, not pass on penalties for anyone that links from them. There are far too many good and legitimate sites with some links from Web 2.0's for Google to want to penalize the whole lot of them.

    So if Google devalues those links, removing them will not cause a site to move up a few pages.

    Also, I do not think many people realize this, but there is a LOT of volatility in the rankings when you go out and look at sites on page 10 and beyond. Sites bounce from page 10 to page 15 to page 12 to page 17 in the same day all of the time.
    Signature
    SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
    Get a FREE Quote.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7619881].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author howto
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      No its not. Authority sites are not ranked on page 18.

      This idea is completely pretty far fetched. You are basing your theory on one Wordpress site linking to one site you own. That's it. That is your complete data set.

      If Google is ever going to target Web 2.0 sites in any fashion, it is much more likely that they are going to devalue them, not pass on penalties for anyone that links from them. There are far too many good and legitimate sites with some links from Web 2.0's for Google to want to penalize the whole lot of them.

      So if Google devalues those links, removing them will not cause a site to move up a few pages.

      Also, I do not think many people realize this, but there is a LOT of volatility in the rankings when you go out and look at sites on page 10 and beyond. Sites bounce from page 10 to page 15 to page 12 to page 17 in the same day all of the time.
      Mate I said I was ranked page 3 (near top of page 3 also) for juicy melons before dropping and had been there for quite some time. I only dropped after the algo update. Also I said I wasn't really trying hard for that particular keyphrase at this time. Volatility below page 10 is irrelevant as it was never there before the update. If you also read everything I had written you would have seen that I said I was page 1, position 1 for over 15 different competitive keyphrases on my home directory alone.. I'm so sorry my home page could't be number one for every phrase on my list yet lol. If you want to dispute my interpenetration of an authority site go ahead. I am not bothered what "authoritative category" my site falls under. I was merely trying to convey that the site wasn't some spammy throw away cash and trash site. I am more than happy with its traffic and cash generation also my site has over 2000 unique posts... so lets please stay on topic.

      I really hate when people don't read what I say properly and try to twist my words (I have just opened myself for some major trolling).

      I also posted the particular way I had structured these links also. Perhaps it was how I structured them that did it. I think dismissing the web 2.0 algo theory without investigating further like you are suggesting though could be foolish.

      You also say Google is more likely to devalue them... obviously you have more faith in Googles friendliness towards webmasters than I. Based on how they have shafted me in the past and many others here we will have to agree to disagree.

      Originally Posted by howto View Post

      Today 'juicy melons' had reached page 18 from page 3 just a few days ago... wow!!!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7620029].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by howto View Post

        Mate I said I was ranked page 3 (near top of page 3 also) for juicy melons before dropping and had been there for quite some time. I only dropped after the algo update. Also I said I wasn't really trying hard for that particular keyphrase at this time. Volatility below page 10 is irrelevant as it was never there before the update. If you also read everything I had written you would have seen that I said I was page 1, position 1 for over 15 different competitive keyphrases on my home directory alone.. I'm so sorry my home page could't be number one for every phrase on my list yet lol. If you want to dispute my interpenetration of an authority site go ahead. I am not bothered what "authoritative category" my site falls under. I was merely trying to convey that the site wasn't some spammy throw away cash and trash site. I am more than happy with its traffic and cash generation also my site has over 2000 unique posts... so lets please stay on topic.

        I really hate when people don't read what I say properly and try to twist my words (I have just opened myself for some major trolling).
        Well as much as you hate that, I hate when people throw around the term "authority site" around here. Wikipedia is an authority site. WebMD is an authority site. ESPN is an authority site. Amazon is an authority site. I doubt anyone on this forum has a website on the same level as those. It might just be semantics, but I hate the term "authority site" the way it is used here.

        Anyhow...

        My comment about the volatility beyond page 10 was directed at your message about removing the Wordpress link and seeing the site move from page 18 to page 13. It had nothing to do with the initial drop or any other change in ranking. Sorry if I did not explain that clearly.

        Originally Posted by howto View Post

        I also posted the particular way I had structured these links also. Perhaps it was how I structured them that did it. I think dismissing the web 2.0 algo theory without investigating further like you are suggesting though could be foolish.
        Throwing out theories based on one site and links from one Wordpress site is far more foolish, is it not? My point was simply that you need a LOT more data to draw such conclusions or to even suggest such a thing.

        Lots of newbies come to this forum and read everything on here and take posts like this as fact, not just a theory. I was simply contradicting what you said to point out to people that there is basically no evidence of such a thing.

        Originally Posted by howto View Post

        You also say Google is more likely to devalue them... obviously you have more faith in Googles friendliness towards webmasters than I. Based on how they have shafted me in the past and many others here we will have to agree to disagree.
        For every site that got shafted for using spammy links or doing something else against Google's recommended guidelines, there were other sites that rose up in the rankings.

        Anyhow, the whole point of my post was that you need to find 10,20,30+ sites exhibiting the same behavior before anyone should even consider your theory as a possibility.
        Signature
        SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
        Get a FREE Quote.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7620141].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author legoog8
    Sites bounce from page 10 to page 15 to page 12 to page 17 in the same day all of the time.
    Thanks i never realized that
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7619889].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RuggeroSB
      Originally Posted by legoog8 View Post

      Thanks i never realized that
      heh ya I can attest to that
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7620028].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Icematikx
    Have you ever thought to assume that you never deserved to be on page 3 for "juicy melons" with just one web 2.0 link?
    Perhaps Google has re-evaluated the sites in their listings (which they regularly do) and decided that your site is not worthy of being on Page 3, and instead, dropped it to page 15.
    Google will never penalize web 2.0's. Blogger, Tumblr.. These are HUGE web 2.0's which pass on more authority to sites like Huffington post than any other links do. If Google penalized these, sites would drop out of the SERPs and be destroyed.
    Stop bringing stupid and ridiculous conspiracy theories to the board. Your site doesn't deserve to be page 3 with one link.
    Signature

    Just got back from a #BrightonSEO. I was given room 404 in the hotel I stayed at. Couldn’t find it anywhere!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7620107].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author karismasand
    Is not about 2.0 or other type of site. In the new Google algorithm is very easy to get penalty. All you need to do when build links to your site is to have control on that links to remove any time you see that your keywords is going down.

    For the moment I test a strategy - i get backlinks ONLY from guest post 100% related to my niche. No web directories, no articles directories, no comments, no forum links, no profile links, nothing, just guest post on sites that are 100% related to my niche.

    I'm in a very hard niche and this strategy works but you must have patience.

    I use only quality and unique content in my site and for guest post.

    Hope this help!
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7621134].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author paulgl
    Originally Posted by howto View Post

    Hi everyone. Some of you may have noticed my posts on the forum yesterday about my theory about what was causing some people to lose rank in this alleged new update. I now however may have evidence of sorts.
    And for every site that drops, a corresponding site rises to take its place.

    So, what would be your theory as to why those sites rose?

    That they did something good? Or someone else did bad?

    I myself would hate to rely on waiting for my competitors to
    do something bad. Then, if they corrected that, I would drop
    because my competitors did that! I couldn't win.

    Paul
    Signature

    If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7621205].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jimbo61
    May I suggest that those who want to know what google are up to do so in advance, and read their patenets. It appears to me that Google have implemented this patent, United States Patent: 8244722 and that we are seeing the tsunami from it.

    Basing your argument around a single link on a single site is laughable. I run hundreds of sites, I SEO many more for others, and have the best part of 100 test sites all set up focussing on different elements of SEO for ranking. This is a lot of work I know, but whenever an update comes, this barometer pretty much tells me what elements have been focussed on.

    Reading the patents filed (Although Google are getting more sneaky these days as they register them not only to themselves, but also to subsidiary companies they own, reading patents is the only real way to stay ahead of the search engines, it allows you to shift your focus away from anything they are registering patents for.

    of course you have to know how search engines work in order to work out how they will apply (or might apply would be a better phrase) the patent filed
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7624372].message }}

Trending Topics