|How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/25/12 11:10 PM|
My Google Friends,
This one has me and about 50 expert pals stumped. I will try to be brief.
About the time Panda came out, our Everything PR News was de-indexed from Google News (Not Google blogs etc.) Some typing, deciphering, and sacrificial lambs later. Our reconsideration request saw EPR back in Google News again. We sang praises. We refocused our content even more tightly on PR. I interviewed the biggest names in public relations, creative, hospitality, blah, blah. We increased the number and focus of posts. We added our G+ button, maintained site health, and were good children of search.
Despite tens of thousands of dollars, countless hours, influencing an entire industry at times (with no traffic I might add) everything anyone owning a site could do. BING and Yahoo send more organic traffic STILL.
We get almost all our Google Com traffic from images. Bing and Yahoo combined send us as much or more of the test. Facebook actually sends more on some articles, G+ a few.
I noticed something today, an interesting and perhaps significant factor. One post I wrote a couple years ago, about Bruce Jenner, which was once on page one in the SERPs - that post seems to be gone from the index. I know I cannot find it on any of pages 1-4. The point here is, the cumulative effect of some 4,000 posts, many of relevance and significance, is important. Below is a mashup showing - first, a stat on how many visits last night to this post - not one of these visits was from Google. Second, a search for the title of the article shows nothing on the first page.
The point here is. There are hundreds of articles which were once ranked on the first two pages in the index. In effect, Panda and/or Google mechanics, shoved a ton of Everything PR News highly relevant content, out of the web. Yahoo images brings the most traffic for Bruce Jenner to us now. If I research this, I'll likely find some cheesy blog post about Katarina Witt and Playboy, about where my interview or report on her should be. And 100 other celebs, BP, Fukushima, you get the point.
Imagine the Huffington Post being dropped from the indexes, then added back minus all those pages! Add in some Panda or other factorials in ranking - Bingo. AOL would be losing their mind.
So, I am losing my mind, can you please prescribe a method to fix what friends have lost? In a way, it could be argued, something going wrong may have disenfranchised a form of art, a bit of history, or at worst a lot of hard work by some decent human beings. Sorry to be dramatic, but if it were yours....
Editor - Everything PR News
And a bunch of other stuff
|How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||cristina||7/26/12 2:00 AM|
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/26/12 3:42 AM|
No Cristina, no errors. We have been in Google News a long time. When we got de-indexed back when Panda went live, the Google Com traffic never caught back up.
It appears that a great many of our pages got pushed down so far, past even SPAM sites, that not only is new organic traffic to new posts obliterated - aggregate traffic from highly relevant past posts is gone.
Imagine a case where a prominent blog, like Huffington Post for instance, relies on the weight of past post indexes for much traffic, and even Panda placement now.
I am seeing Panda rank things in my network that I would never even read or look at - instead of ranking articles the "subjects" of which (some celebrities) actually read and commented on.
This one is bigger than tweaking a site map I fear. Hoping somebody will help.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/26/12 4:15 AM|
Update here. I guessed at some past articles having been de-indexed, but in point of fact, they are still in the indexes. They are just pushed back so far as to make them irrelevant now. More later, sorry about my miscue there.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||冰岛||7/26/12 7:52 AM|
I wouldn't worry about Panda, cause' if I do, I'd have killed myself by now......
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||luzie||7/26/12 8:16 AM|
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/26/12 8:38 AM|
Thanks a lot luzie. It is always helpful when people do kind comparatives. Did it ever occur that the chicken may have laid the egg first? It looks like Panda's secret problem is that Google hired sure fire quick deciders, just-like-you.
A site Google ranks in position two for a prevalent search query currently has a time on site of 1 minute 36, a better bounce rate at about 50 percent, and a bit better page views per. BUT
the top slot for the same search reveals LaLate which has a bounce rate of nearly everybody 79-9 %, 1:14 on the site stay, and 1.2 page views. So, as you can see, these numbers you spit at us are highly arbitrary and subjective.
We ranked in these positions before Panda, and are now on page three. The sites in between, besides Wikipedia and Forbes, are mostly junk yards. A lot depends on what people visit a site for too. But no need to get into a heavy back and forth here.
This is my view so far.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||luzie||7/26/12 9:08 AM|
>>> A lot depends on what people visit a site for too.
Yes, sure. A news site is not supposed to behave like a weather forecasting site, though ...
<<< If this was your flagship of a top-ten ranking of your site, Google have done a good job in weeding that out. Not that the article was all crap, but it's definitely what I'd call "shallow content". Not necessarily a good result for a search on "Katarina Witt".
Well, so it needed the 51st expert to find out there's no mistery behind the demotion of your site?
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/27/12 12:31 AM|
There are 4,000 posts on the site luzie. I used that one just at random as one that was on the first page in the SERPs. There are hundreds of them. You are arguing to be arguing. Try proving me correct. The problem with EPR is not that articles are too shallow, it is that they are not so called "munchable bites" - in most cases, they are actually too long, too in depth. I have been rewarded and criticized for this since I wrote for the tech blogs.
You do not know all the fact anyway luzie. There are some I will not put here out of courtesy to some friends. Believe that or not, I could care less. You are doing what I would call the "Mashable" version of analyzing this. Take some bits of data, toss in what you feel or want to say, right now, and pass it off as being expert. Nothing against you, who has time to really figure out who I am, what we write about, how important that site is.
It is easier just to say; "FO your site sucks, cuz." Your bounce rate, now that was closer to being true on this than anything you said. Time on site, and so on. I think Google is weighted too heavily at being "site" specific in rating, and not nearly enough "content" specific in placing articles. For one thing.
Look at it this way. I break a story about the end of the world. Nobody knows about it. I put it in all the right form, perfect for Google, and it is a day before somebody sees it on Reuters. Because, the authority of the "End of the World" story is zilch.
You have expressed your opinion. Google and You, along with every other true receiver of good info, hate Everything PR News. And you are justified. On the other hand, you and Google love LaLate TMZ and scads of other sites with zero value. Now there is rocket science. All out of time, watch for Part Two. This one will be interesting, it involves Google Analytics. :)
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||luzie||7/27/12 4:35 AM|
You don't escape the quality question anyway. I've looked a bit deeper into search results for "Katarina Witt" and found them to be what I as a user expect, whilst your article on her Playboy images is just not relevant for the query on her name (name AND "Playboy images" would maybe make some sense), so it's completely understandable and ok Google has shifted search results around a bit. A catastrophe for your site perhaps, no loss or even a gain for users. Of course do site owners and webmasters defend their content, but that leads them to lose the overall picture of things. From my point of view there's nothing wrong with your site's adjusted rankings. I don't know why none of your 50 experts came up with that simple idea.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/27/12 5:39 AM|
You are winning the "I will argue until the sheep come home" contest. You dug deeper into Katarina Witt Playboy and failed to notice a lot. Okay. Now, what would you say if I showed 20 PR and marketing sites, some with names like MommyMarketingMaven, or BozoClownPR, ranking higher for topical content? I don't have time to go back and find this, but just suggesting the LaLate positioning of Katarina is appropriate, shows at best that Google Panda is idiotic. No text, one image chopped into 52 pieces like ax murder, and that's it.
The problem, which I am quickly identifying (via some of those experts you hold in disdain) is that Google and Panda appear to be more interested in commercializing results, than in any intrinsic value. "As a user" is the problem. It is a problem as old as Digg haters, in case anyone wants to venture there. Instead of raising the bar, we appear to be in a state of search where "no searcher will be left behind" - munchable data chunks equals people too busy and wrung out to do more than a drive by.
Okay, I am ranting a bit too, but the point is valid. You say you expect to see BS images and two lines of text. Katarina's cover spread out 10 times. Well, here is another tidbit. Google image search is where 90 percent of our traffic comes from now. So.
If LaLate ranks 1st. And there is nothing there but A - crappy pics, and B - timeliness!!!!!!! Google + love!!! A dozen other criteria Cutts and other experts laud as necessary components - give me a break.
That post should not even exist in anyone's index. LaLate posted that nearly 3 years ago, it has Lindsay Lohan and others in it, they have no G+ buttons, WTF is going on? And today, LaLate has been supplanted by none other than Anorak and possible copyright infringement? The top article now does have a G+ button - 1 Tweet, 1 FB like, and no G+ love. You gotta be sh___ me? The page does, as the site does, have as many images as it does words. Another of my little advisors' key points.
My problem with all this is simple. If Google wanted me to cheap out and sell out, somebody should have asked. That's how I feel about it. Call me emotional, but I am honest.
I suggest you do some more reading. And I hate to sound mean. I am wrong a lot, but being pissed because somebody took an ax to our good work, is not wrong. If you think it is...
Just so your research is helped here. The number 3 result is almost an assured copyright issue (in my view) not to mention tasteless. I am surprise Kat has not already reported this one, I know her and her PR, and if they are not aware they can report such to Google (who indexed this 3rd within the same SM network I am in) I will send her mail now.
The you have Playboy scans (no doubt for your 14 to 24 demographic Panda is loving), the only articles on this SERP that should be there are the last three. This is not my opinion either, it is what Cutts and the rest suggested, not me.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Grandmaster Flash||7/27/12 8:18 AM|
Luzie's Katarina Witt reference caught my eye:)
There's a usability issue that may be affecting time on site
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/27/12 9:05 AM|
Point very well taken Master. This has always bothered me too. Better than TechCrunch because of clutter perhaps, worse than many as you suggest.
Looking at this. TY, But in my view, not exactly a reason to dump PR and Marketing content, down to the pit.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||luzie||7/27/12 1:12 PM|
>>> not exactly a reason to dump PR and Marketing content, down to the pit.
Where else to dump it? Look, there's exactly TEN result slots on SERP One ... "Katarina Witt" as an exact match query (search using quotation marks) yields 1.2 million results - now try to decide which of the million to show on the first page ... yours or ten others.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/28/12 4:43 AM|
Now we will blame Google's monumental task of ranking content? So you are suggesting that Google just can't figure out what to do, and let's just live with what happens?
Not sure I am following here. I can see no ranking "favor" in most of the results for these queries luzie? Does Panda use contextual link, text, paragraph structure, image quality, how naked Kat is in the post? What?
Your logic seems to say there are just too many results to correctly categorize them, so let's just look at some other factors!!! I have many other examples, Panda, when all is said and done, hurt a bunch of really good content, in trying to get rid of some really bad content.
Let's get real here. The most experienced and trusted search people in the world have professed, admitted, ranted, written, and steamed over this, it's not like I am bitching up some tree here.
The point is, Panda has one hell of a lot of collateral damage effect.
And you want to say a nice content provider has a bad navigation map, that bounce rates are in vogue now, tricks are the new white hat seo, and....
Do you presume I am doing this just because of Everything PR News? LOL. I am not looking for your help here luzie. My wife is one of the top SEO chicks in the world, our network is made up of experts.
I am doing this because it is right. Panda is a nightmare Google cannot undo easily. There it is.....
A PR nightmare. Revert the algorithm? Not a chance, that is Armageddon. Fix little bits and pieces going along? This seems more likely.
You see, there is no Google expert coming here to chill Phil. Tho my data shows some showed up minutes after I posted this.
It is the "watch this" portion of this story you should wait for.... rather than jumping up and down professing idiocy.
Just a helpful word.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||luzie||7/28/12 11:56 AM|
>>> My wife is one of the top SEO chicks in the
The outcome is known.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||luzie||7/28/12 11:59 AM|
>>> So you are suggesting that Google just can't figure out what to do,
They obviously knew what they were doing when cleansing their top-ten results from medium quality PR gossip.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/28/12 1:26 PM|
Case rested, Thanks for proofing. LOL
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Lysis||7/28/12 6:20 PM|
LOL Luzie cracks me up.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/29/12 1:02 AM|
That is because you are intelligent Lysis.;)
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Pelagic||7/29/12 9:25 AM|
Hi Phil, OK lets select a random page>
The source of which is>
(I'll assume you have a subscription feed from them ;)
If you compare your version with the source, its a very simple quick rewording ;(
Bringing Danny Boyle’s vision of audience inclusiveness to life
The giant video screen was made up of small paddle-shaped Pixel Tablets designed by Tait Technologies, each attached to a seat in the stadium
Together, the 70,500 Pixel Tablets created a ‘human powered’ screen of unprecedented size on which Crystal’s spectacular digital animations were displayed.
Crystal brought Danny Boyle’s vision of audience inclusiveness to life, on a giant video screen made up of small paddle-shaped Pixel Tablets designed by Tait Technologies
The displays, designed by Tait Technologies, were each attached to a seat in the stadium. Together, they created a ‘human powered’ screen of unprecedented size, on which Crystal’s spectacular digital animations were displayed.
The project was delivered in just 14 weeks with a team of 50 designers from Crystal London
This amazing project was finished in only 14 weeks, and it took a team of 50 Crystal designers to complete
More than 70 minutes of animations were all custom designed for the concave, bowl shape of the 360˚ screen, with requests for additional content landing in Crystal’s creative team’s inboxes up to the last minute.
Crystal created more than 70 minutes of animations for the concave, bowl shape of the 360˚ screen, and the team also had to face the challenge of last minute requests.
You will also note that the creator the embedded video has not given you permission to embed it on your site ;(
So I will ask, what added value does your article provide compared to the original and obviously all the other simply-reworded spun versions ?
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/29/12 11:02 AM|
A random page eh? Good points some though. No feed from BusinessWire, we hunt for them every day.
Paraphrased, yes, SFGate and about a zillion others feed them straight in. So you want press releases to be fed in, or changed? Or, how do you want them?
Great point on the Video, I doubt Mihaela knew about the plus aspect.
It seems we are determined to prove Google right on Everything PR News however. Wondering on that point?
Can you blame me for wondering? One guys is trolling for SEO clients, and now a random post, just one of 4000 something, has some issues? If I find 200 issues with the New York Times, Huff Po, or some others, would you look for my side then?
Good catch tho.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||miguelstil||7/29/12 11:24 AM|
The value, to make you understand, is to our readers, who obviously do not subscribe to BusinessWire. And no, this was not picked via BW, but via http://finance.yahoo.com/news/crystal-cg-makes-olympic-history-010400371.html
The value, is also for Crystal, whose untold story is featured on another outlet. Our readers are interested in such news - and yes I reworded - shortened the information, because the press release, in all honesty, didn't say much more than the shortened version. Did it?
The video: when I embedded it, it worked fine. They probably changed that. I changed it too.
Just to make things painfully clear: we feature PR news (including advertising, marketing, etc), that are usually not featured somewhere else. We also have news ahead of many. We don't have exclusives, because we are not the New York Times, or TechCrunch. But to say that there is no value there, just because I reworded a press release, is painfully unfair.
The role of the media is to report the news. I am a journalist. I will not go around "inventing" the news. What value does any TV station bring, when all they do is repeat news already reported by others? Think about it. Everything PR is a channel for our industry. Nothing more.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Pelagic||7/29/12 11:34 AM|
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||luzie||7/29/12 11:34 AM|
>>> just one of 4000 something, has some issues?
The second one, please. Katarina Witt and Playboy rephrased aren't any better - so called "inspired content" - nothing to say against it, but who needs it in their top-ten rsults ....
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||miguelstil||7/29/12 11:54 AM|
Brilliant. To suggest that our site lacks quality, without actually saying it, is worthy of a PR award. Fact is, this discussion turned into a witch hunt, where anyone would first highlight our faults, and very few who contribute here will actually recognize our value. Katarina Witt is indeed a poor example. We have hundreds of articles that are outranked by scrapers, we have exclusives as well, we were featured on BBC, New York Times (blogs), AlJazeera and so on. We are respected in our industry, and we give PR people a voice - that counts for something. We are not PRWeek, or AdAge - but we do not have the man power, or the financial resource to be. Still, we managed to report a lot of PR news (now low quality PR gossip, mind you) way ahead of them. Again, this counts for something. The discussion is now redundant, and pointless. Let's just call it a day. Thank you all, for helping out.
|Re: How, how, how a Google News site get no,no,no Google Com Traffic||Philbutler||7/29/12 12:39 PM|
Thanks everyone for your input on this matter. We will indeed look at each and every suggestion. Please excuse us too, for being passionate about one of the sites we have exerted so much energy toward. I know, it the site belonged to anyone reading this, the feelings might be similar too.
Any site, not matter how well ranked, can get better. I think this is the point you have tried to make, one and all. So again, I thank you for taking the time to offer your views.