Categories: Crawling, indexing & ranking :

Google's new algorithm is wrong

Showing 1-13 of 13 messages
Google's new algorithm is wrong myphotos 10/18/12 5:32 AM
Ok The only way I can seem to prove this is in my field wedding photography.  If you look at wedding photographers Essex there are two high ranking sites Nigel bowen and a mobilestudio.  Now nigel bowen has not changed/updated the home page for over two years and is very basic.  amobilestudio is not that mobile its a brick built studio and the load speed is dreadful.  So how come they rank so high, surely both of these fall foul of Googles idea of fresh content and fast!
My site is Priceless Images Ltd and I'm residing on page 3 of the search term wedding photographers essex.

Ok lets find a fair way top do this Why not charge every business to go on google and get every person doing a search for a business to enter their post code / Zip code/ location and then list the nearest businesses in order providing that business web site  genuinely contains the right keywords and information.  

Why you ask

1. It would be fairer no more spamming
2. It would be greener as people will be connecting with their local business community more and would involve less driving..
3. Google would be able to claim its doing something right for a change whilst making more income.
4. Page Rank does NOT WORK who the hell in their right mind is going to going to link to another photographer naturally?

Google has destroyed my business I am having to work night and day to rebuild it without Google help

Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong ѕquibble 10/18/12 11:16 AM
I did the search you suggested and also looked at your site. I see nothing wrong with the search results - they are relevant for the search query. 
Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong luzie 10/18/12 11:38 AM
>>> Google has destroyed my business

Google has destroyed your business built on Google search results? Quirky logic.

>>> both of these fall foul of Googles idea of fresh content 

I'm not aware of that this "idea of fresh content" (not even sure which one exactly) applies to wedding photographers This is something blogs and news sites have to be concerned about, a photographer's studio certainly not.

-luzie-
Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong myphotos 10/19/12 2:08 AM
Quirky Logic that's a bit strong

I was on the local listings then  fell off as Google seems to favour the middle of the county.  before changing the name of my business I was in the top three now not and yes I have lost a lot of business and now I am struggling.  Its funny how nobody has commented on the rest of my comments.  I am not looking for it all for myself but what Google is doing is wrong.

Why not charge every business to be on Google then list businesses by post code whereby the end user types in their postcode to find the nearest supplier?

I would really like to know what I have done wrong
Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong Chris Hunt 10/19/12 2:40 AM
> Why not charge every business to be on Google
 
Because it would be really problematic for many reasons - who decides what is and isn't a business? How do you set a price that's high enough to be meaningful but which doesn't become an undue barrier to entering the marketplace? Why would Google even want to limit the contents of their index in this way?
 
> then list businesses by post code whereby the end user types in their postcode to find the nearest supplier?
 
Geographical proximity isn't always important when doing a business search, and is hardly ever the most important factor. So it doesn't really make sense to rank general search results purely on that basis.
Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong luzie 10/19/12 4:26 AM
>>> Why not charge every business to be on Google

Adwords come to mind. Seriously, paid traffic is a much safer, much more calculable matter than organic listings.
Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong Ponderosa Dachshunds Kennels 10/20/12 8:25 AM
Been watching these groups for years and this is the first time I have bothered to reply.  Just want to say that I think it's sad that no one showed any sympathy for what you're going through at all.  So, I am sorry to hear that you're struggling.  I understand, have similar problems and don't understand googles logic at all times, either.  All I can say is, don't give up.  Keep working.  I have to believe that preserverance still counts for something.  Even though, just as soon as you think you have it figured out, they come out with a new update! 
Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong myphotos 10/21/12 2:35 AM
many thanks for the kind comment.  I have dog site www.dogphotographs.co.uk if you want to swap lonks it might help.  I know Google does not like that before the rest of you start but hey I don't like what Google has done to me.
Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong myphotos 10/21/12 2:42 AM
Ok guys this is my thinking.

Get rid of Google local have the searcher put in a postcode/ zip code and then have the local listings come up for that code in nearest first.  This is fair to everyone, and is similar to what yellow pages tried and failed to do.
Yes Google should charge a yearly or even monthly  fee for this.  You can still have the so called natural listings. At the moment only the biggest companies can seriously playthe pay for click game.

There must be a few people out there that feel the same maybe there should be an online petition. 

Having the listings by nearest first helps local economies and is fair to all as well as being green.
Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong Robbo 10/21/12 4:51 AM


In accord with Ponderosa, you have my sympathies regarding the difficulties that your site is facing.

Regarding your proposals for fundamentally reshaping google, I do not agree that they would be an improvement;  the separation of free/organic listings and paid listings is fundamental to google's approach.   Google indexing takes account of over 200 factors; actual and relative geographical location are important, but it would be a mistake to ignore the many other factors.

In addition, Google already provides PPC Adwords that can be targeted to specific areas such as "Essex" or selected towns therein.


Regarding what other issues you might want to reflect on and where appropriate/possible take action:

1.   You mentioned your old site.  If that is www.peterjmorgan.co.uk, I see that it is not being redirected to your new site.   So instead of getting any credit/value/PR earned by the old pages transferred to your new site's pages, you have thrown it all away.  

2.   In fact, you still have a goodly number of links still going to the old site and then of course failing with empty pages (e.g. see www.peterjmorgan.co.uk) or 404 Not Found.  Your old site used to have over 5000 inbound links.  I don't know how many were high quality links and how many were spammy junk.  But whatever, the number of inbound links is now down to fewer than 100, largely because other sites saw the link was failing and deleted it.  Did they all add links to your new site?  

3.  It looks to me as though the migration from peterjmorgan.co.uk to your new domain was not done properly.   The words "shooting", "oneself" and "foot" spring to mind. 

I say this not to be offensive; I just want to stress the importance of recognizing the consequences of one's own actions and omissions.

4.  Regarding the new site, pricelessimages.eu, it suffers from many of the problems that photography sites suffer from - a reckless disregard of the importance of the written word.  Yes, excellent photos are a sine qua non for a photography site, but you should also take time to write appropriate text. 

That might be a bit hard in a portrait gallery, and google does make some allowance for that.  Portrait galleries can rank quite well if you provide adequate contextual information, such as who, what, where, when, and a short description/blurb; you do NOT need to write an essay.

But it is inexcusable (in my opinion) that you offer pages dedicated to the venues that are often used for weddings you cover, but those pages provide only perfunctory information (name, address, phone number) that can be obtained very easily elsewhere.

Example:   http://www.pricelessimages.eu/ashwells.html

IMO, if you are going to have a page dedicated to a specific venue, you should make an effort to provide a decent amount of info about the venue - info that would be relevant to your work as a wedding photographer and useful/interesting for your visitors who might still be looking for a suitable venue or want to know more about the one they have already chosen.

5.   There are also many general improvements that the webmaster should make to the .eu site. 

For example:

--- some pages are indexed with www and some as non-www.  You should decide which version you prefer and then enforce it with 301 permanent redirection.

--- some of the pages indexed add nothing of value;

--- many pages have extremely poor titles and inadequate meta descriptions; how do page titles such as "25"  help you?

--- many images have no alt text or any other way of indicating what the page might be about, contains, or is relevant to.




I could go on with a long list, but I'm not sure anyone will read this far, so I will pause to get your feedback.


Cheers

Robbo

Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong Jon Wade 10/21/12 5:19 AM
I am in Essex and the results look OK. The mobilestudio one is in 7th place and the bowen one is not first either. 

Regarding the mobile studio, I assume that the name is because they are mobile, i.e. they set up mini-studios for portraits etc. in other people's homes etc. - not that they operate from a mobile home. It also loaded quick enough IMO. I expect some sites to load fast, like blogs, news etc., but rich media sites I forgive if they are slower - I want to see high quality, high res images on a photographers site, not optimised for the web images.

Your site is currently ranking 2nd, assuming it is the .eu one. Maybe your site does not appear focused enough? Europe, Essex, Herts - a wider reach than just Essex. Could be a factor.

I cannot help thinking that you are not doing too badly - there are a lot of photographers in Essex, and you are currently ranked 19th for the wedding search term. Maybe write some promotional articles, see if local magazines and newspapers would publish a piece about your business, do a little SEO work - maybe there are some good directories and portals in Essex that would feature your business.

Also try to do more on social media - Facebook and Pinterest could be good ways for you to get your brand out there - people love sharing nice photos.
Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong myphotos 10/21/12 7:52 AM
Thank fou for the critique I really  appreciate it.  I took down peterjmorgan in the lst couple of weeks because although it was redirected to my new site I though it maybe harming my rankings.  I changed most of my maningful inbound links or so I thought. 

I'm not sure what page has the title 25 as I can't see it.

Yes i can see I have been lazy about the venues it was really to show what venues I really cover rather than SEO work

Any help you can give is very appreciated.  I constantly get offers of SEO help but mosy of them see to be just trying their luck its very hard to find someone good and genuine.
Re: Google's new algorithm is wrong myphotos 10/21/12 7:55 AM
Hi Jon

Many thanks

I live right on the border of Essex and Hertforshire I wonder what key words you typed in to get a ranking of 2nd?