|Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 3:13 PM|
I would like to call attention to the super-user Squibble. He has marked two of my threads discussing Google link penalties as "duplicate" simply because John Mueller has stated that my site "has no general link problems". So because of this, Squibble is censoring me on this forum.
That is plain wrong. The threads are not duplicates, he is doing this to prevent me from posting.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||ѕquibble||8/1/12 3:33 PM|
You open threads and write about links issues and your site and dont have the grace to give others the full information and tell them that Google has already taken a look at your site for you and posted this >
Thanks for posting all of these details. Looking at your site, I don't see any specific technical issues, or general issues with the links to your site. I can, however, imagine that our algorithms might have some trouble understanding the unique value of your website in comparison to other, similar sites (especially considering that the content is primarily aggregated statistics). My general recommendation would be to continue working on your website, making it the best site of its kind. There's no single change that you'd need to make, so I'd really look at your site overall and see where you could make improvements on a general level -- you mentioned that you might have some thin pages, perhaps that's a place to start (or at least, to try things out with A/B tests, etc).
It is not right that you would seek to take advantage of the good nature of others and have them waste their time looking at your links when you already have been told it is not an issue. You have created many threads about your site - try and keep to the one thread with all the information on.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||seo101||8/1/12 3:36 PM|
Those who do not listen to what they are being told should be banned, not just have their threads shut down.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/1/12 4:19 PM|
I advised you before Squibble, and before JohnMu that you didn't have link issues. But you still injected your problem in at least 2 other threads that I participated in and one case hijacked the thread completely from the OP.
I certainly don't believe JohnMu nor Squibble mislead you, (I know I sure didn't) but surely if we are all wrong and your opinions have the only valid points of view there is no need to comment about your problems here because you have all the answers you need.
It is always best to continue your discussions of your issue in the same original thread so everyone that is attempting to help you can gauge all the previous offered advice.
Lastly, your loss of "longtail phrases" is at worse a PANDA thing... and at best a non issue (other domains linking to you losing link juice because of their unnatural links causes you loses by indirect default and not because direct PENGUIN issues). I also mentioned how you can prove or disprove this yourself... get 1 or 2 links using the exact phrase you lost results for... if you gain results in 5-14 days (crawl time+crediting time) you know PENGUIN isn't an issue.
If still no results... then look at PANDA.
Bottomline, being stuck on PENGUIN because of an April 24th decline date isn't evidence... mere coincidence - you bet! They do happen from time to time and 0 unnatural links on phrases you lost results for is 100% NOT PENGUIN and therefore must be mere coincidence no matter how much wishful thinking you throw at it.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 4:47 PM|
Squibble marked the thread as a duplicate. The thread was not a duplicate. It was a thread to discuss my theory on Penguin and how it impacts websites. He shut down another thread where I gave a list of types of links and asked which ones Google would consider to be problematic. That wasn't a duplicate either. Squibble is abusing his authority - he is imposing his opinion that I am not allowed to discuss links.
At the risk of trying to interpret John Mueller's words the way a priest interprets the bible, I don't see them the way you do. I doubt that John ran my site through some algorithm checker to see how the Penguin algorithm was treating it; he most likely looked to see if there was a manual penalty. He's right - I don't have a manual link penalty assessed, I already knew that. So from John's perspective I don't have any specific technical issues nor do I have any general issues with the links to my site. But I'm still down 50-80% in Google referrers since April 24.
That is an important date. My traffic tanked on April 24. Not one day before, and not one day after. You claim that is a coincidence? I highly doubt it. If it looks and quacks like a Penguin, it is a Penguin.
Squibble, with the press I get, with the feedback I get from people, with the backlinks I get, my site is the best in its niche or at worst is among the top 3 sites. I'm not talking about competing for a phrase like Wayne Gretzky (though I do rank in the top 10 in Canada for that phrase). I'm talking about long-tail searches where there really is no competition. 60% of my daily Google referrers were for players that only one person queried per day. 80% were for players where under 10 people queried that player. That's huge long-tail.
My problem is not pure Panda because there are other thinner sites that are ranking for the same search phrases - again, sites that are less popular, less content, worse user experience. Panda isn't killing them so why would it kill me? And why would it only kill some pages and not others? Makes no sense that it isn't Penguin.
I have done what John has suggested. I improved a number of pages, making them the best on the internet on the topic. What did I get? Position #11, ranking behind spam sites on long tail queries. But for any pages that have a couple of backlinks to them, I'm in the top results.
That tells me that I have a site domain penalty, and as a result, the best I can expect for any page without any backlinks is position #11 - a position which I see quite a bit.
But why try and argue with you guys? Fathom, do you or squibble have the power to look at Google's data to see why my site lost rank on a ton of long-tail queries? If you do, then I'll accept your opinions as fact. Until then they are also just theories - yes, more informed than most, but theories nonetheless. I don't think that you have special access, so then unless John Mueller steps in here and tells me that I do not have any kind of Penguin penalty (rather than his generic "I don't see any general link issues"), I'm going to use Occam's razor and assume that a drop on April 24 was Penguin, not Panda.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/1/12 5:02 PM|
On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 8:47:02 PM UTC-3, RalphSlate wrote:
Again, you completely ignored my advice in favor of spinning your own.
The simpliest explanation is usually the correct one... OK I'll concede... but since you don't have any unnatrual links... it isn't that simple (and there is a "USUALLY" part tied to that Occam's Claim).
WHAT IF... 1% of your best links are from websites that got hammered from PENGUIN?
April 24 is still involved... and lost link juice is still a factor.
Why don't you attempt my suggestion?
At worse you and I are both wrong... and at best you've solved your problem.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/1/12 5:30 PM|
Listen, no one is going to provide you "FACTS"... not JohnMu, not Matt Cutts, not anyone from Google nor anyone that isn't in Google... because they (or we) don't know precise and absolute direct and immediate impact any algorithm change will have on your specific domain. You don't have a manual review which is the only thing Googlers know 100% about..
At best you'll get interpretations because you have more than 1/4 million web pages and almost 400K in links... and at that level of development to have a detectable unnatural link pattern to offset your natural links would be considerable.
But none of that matters... you have provided the evidence yourself that it isn't PENGUIN (as in PENGUIN devaluing you specifically). You lost results for phrases you have 0 link anchors for... that means you have 0% unnatural links for that phrase(s) and 0% natural links for that phrase(s)... There is nothing for PENGUIN to do.
This isn't a theory, this is common sense.
But hey I'll take you word for it... show us what links PENGUIN nailed you for?
If you can produce them... get rel="nofollow" in them... problem solved
If you can't produce them... it isn't PENGUIN.
Next stop research your most prominent link providers and see who's nailed by PENGUIN... that will certainly impact your longtail but I still recommend it is easier to get a link (or 2) to a phrase lost and see results return (would be a quicker approach).
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 5:32 PM|
Fathom, isn't it possible that you're misinterpreting what John Mueller said? He said " I don't see any specific technical issues, or general issues with the links to your site.".
Isn't it possible that Mueller was just commenting on manual link penalties, of which I have none?
Do you believe that there are two kinds of link issues - manual (which is accompanied by an email) and algorithmic? Matt Cutts has alluded to this in at least one of his interviews where he said:
Yesterday, we took another step towards more transparency and began sending messages when we distrust some individual links to a site. While it’s possible for this to indicate potential spammy activity by the site, it can also have innocent reasons. For example, we may take this kind of targeted action to distrust hacked links pointing to an innocent site. The innocent site will get the message as we move towards more transparency, but it’s not necessarily something that you automatically need to worry about. If we’ve taken more severe action on your site, you’ll likely notice a drop in search traffic, which you can see in the “Search queries” feature Webmaster Tools for example.
Many people are reporting a drop in traffic on April 24 without an accompanying WMT message. I think there is plenty of evidence of an algorithmic Penguin penalty.
How do you know I don't have any unnatural links? I think I do. I think they are coming from Wikipedia clones, and I have a ton of them, and get more and more every day.
I do believe that your suggestion of getting a couple of links to a unranked page would work. I can see evidence of this already - pages with a even just a few links are still ranking very well, and pages without a single link are not ranking at all. Links cure all evils, that is surely true. The question is, are the problems due to Penguin or Panda? I believe they are Penguin related because they happened on April 24, and because even though some of my content could be viewed by some as thin, my backlinks are very strong and on many searches where I don't rank at all I am being outranked by thinner sites or irrelevant sites, and these sites don't have backlinks to those pages either.
Do you dispute that Google uses a concept such as domain authority, which gives a bit more weight to pages on sites that are generally acknowledged to be an authority? Do you dispute that a site with many backlinks would qualify as an authority site? The question is, does Panda take away domain authority? I haven't heard of that theory before. Or does Penguin? That seems more likely since it is designed to hunt down spammers.
What does it take to build domain authority? It seems to me that a couple of hundred of non-problematic links added every single day should do the trick, shouldn't it?
Can you explain why, even after beefing up the content on pages, they continue to remain poorly ranked even though Google has seen the changes (which is evidenced when I search for a phrase from the page)? I'm talking about ranking behind spam sites, etc. Is your theory that I have a sitewide Panda penalty?
Putting interpretation of John Mueller's comment aside, do you think it would be problematic if 50% of my links were coming from spammy sites? Do you think that could trigger a Penguin penalty? Seems like it could to me. That is the problem I think I have - each day when I look at new links, 50% of them are coming from people who are cloning Wikipedia. So even though I get 100 links in a day from blogs, official league and team sites, and from people posting 100% organic and relevant links on message forums, I'm getting 120 links from Wikipedia clones. Might that not be a problem?
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 5:45 PM|
Fathom, I think that you're not considering long tail searches here. Sure, for "make money fast", the site with the best backlink profile is going to win out, and there will be hundreds, if not thousands of losers.
For a search phrase such as [Lakeland Ice Warriors hockey cards] there isn't a lot of competition for that phrase. Google won't be able to use page links to figure out which page to return first. It will have to use the rest of its algorithm - proximity of search terms, keyword density, and whatever else it uses. I think it uses domain authority in such cases - that would be common sense.
So why, when I search for that phrase, am I ranked at position #11, when none of the other pages provide any meaningful information on that topic?
I can actually use Bing Webmaster Tools to see all the links that Bing knows about - even for other sites. When I run the pages for that search phrase through Bing WMT, none of them have backlinks either. So Google should then drop down to whatever other factors it uses to decide which pages to rank.
Can you tell me why any of those pages should be ranked on the first page? None of them have any content related to the search phrase.
My page is #14. Does it deserve to be? I don't think so. I think that the terms on that page are a better match for the query than any other of the higher results. I think that my domain should have more authority than most of the other results (with the exception of Beckett.com). So what is going on?
How about a domain authority penalty, maybe one which results in "push this result back in the results"?
And what would give my site a domain authority penalty? Penguin or Panda?
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||ShopSafe||8/1/12 5:52 PM|
Bullying is par for the course here, it's how the system works, and if you don't learn how to ignore it, you might as well walk away.
You are within your rights to post any thread and any issue you want. I'm looking forward to reading what you have to say.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 6:00 PM|
P.S. regarding your question about what links Penguin is nailing me for, here is a sample of the ones I think are bad:
Those were all recognized by Google on 7/19. Of the 29 links reported for that day, they make up 18 of them, or 62%. Those links were all added because of cloning Wikipedia.
Here is a count of links from July 1 from that same report.
Again, about 50-60% of them are Wikipedia cloners.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 6:02 PM|
Shopsafe, I don't mind bullying. Being stifled is what I have a problem with. I don't think it's appropriate to lock any thread I post that has to do with links just because John Mueller said " I don't see any specific technical issues, or general issues with the links to your site.".
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/1/12 6:06 PM|
P.S. regarding your question about what links Penguin is nailing me for, here is a sample of the ones I think are bad:
I looked at the first one only... rel="nofollow" is in the links... the links are dropped from the link graph so no problem there.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/1/12 6:17 PM|
You suggest you lost results for Lakeland Ice Warriors hockey cards... what links are the problem on this specific issue?
Hockey DB (and the like) you are ranked #1. You cannot claim you are PENGUINized for something you are ranked #1 for and PENGUIN does not phrase vault from Hockey DB to devalue your for Lakeland Ice Warriors hockey cards because you have no link anchors for that term.
The trickle down effect (less link juice to go around) on pages that have no direct link juice is as close to PENGUIN as you can get.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 7:06 PM|
Fathom, you seem to believe that a Penguin penalty can only exist for a single page, and that perhaps the only penalty effect is to devalue links to that particular page. I don't share that belief - is your belief documented somewhere?
I believe that Penguin can be a domain-wide penalty. That seems consistent with what people are reporting here, that huge chunks of their pages are disappearing from the SERPs..
Again, do you believe in domain authority? Domain authority is what allows niche pages to rank. I would venture to say that domain authority is very valuable to product sales sites, because no one can get links to every single product. Those sites rank because their domain, in general, is well respected and trusted. In other words, it has authority in general, and that means when it puts up a new page that page is able to compete (versus not being ranked at all until it is linked to).
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if Penguin either nicks or hits your domain authority, that this could impact all pages on your site, some more than others, because the ones that have legitimate backlinks will still beat out pages that have fewer legitimate backlinks, but now maybe that Penguin domain hit is going to allow other sites to rise above you when all other things would normally be equal?
Regarding your nofollow point, I agree, that is a weakness in my theory. However, given that Google is a data-centric company, it seems a bit unlikely that Google would throw away data completely. Might it be possible that Google considers the nofollowed links when computing the Penguin penalty, since a lot of nofollowed links to a site might indicate that the site is not trusted?
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 7:10 PM|
P.S. If you're claiming that I don't rank for [Lakeland Ice Warriors hockey cards], can you give you theory as to why that page isn't ranking well?
I agree it has no links. neither do the 13 sites above it.
So what specifically about that page pushes it down in the results; what qualities does it have that are not present in the 13 other pages that rank above it?
Keep in mind that the #1 result is an empty page. Also keep in mind that several of the results in the list actually link to my page.
Sure seems like a penalty to me.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/1/12 7:21 PM|
My belief? ... there are 10s of thousands of documented cases right here.
That might seem like the case... course if you only get links to your homepage and most are unnatural where do you suppose all the other website pages get their link juice from?
Contrary to your belief... where did anyone claim PENGUIN dminishes authority? Unnatural links cannot possibly be associated with authority... they are unnatural.
You're trying to make PENGUIN fit to your prerequisites as oppose to proving or disproving PENGUIN is involved.
Complete nonsense... since Google recommends using nofollow for all PAID LINKS and also recommend all unnatural links detected by PENGUIN I cannot see how both can be true if you are correct.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/1/12 7:29 PM|
Since two of Google Gorups threads appear #2 & #4 and two threads from your forum appear #11 & #12 I would conclude your page you desire to appear is "buried" and get's less link juice.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/1/12 7:35 PM|
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 7:43 PM|
Do you mean how many links from the homepage does it take to get there?
You can get there from several paths (remember, I'm a database guy, and databases are useful because you can access data from several relevant paths)
Another path is:
There are a few other paths, but the fewest number of clicks would be four.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||Suzanneh||8/1/12 7:47 PM|
>>So what specifically about that page pushes it down in the results;Or maybe ask what is it about the other pages that push those pages up? Indiatimes.com, one of the top websites; the cache seems to have pulled in some of your links. The top result/empty page seems to be selling cards. Yes, it's empty but maybe the algorithm is thinking about user intent and that the user wants to buy hockey cards.
It *seems* like you're saying that your page should be the top result (and you may be right!) but the algorithm isn't interpreting it that way. It doesn't mean it's a penalty. You said yourself it's a rare keyword phrase.
Okay, maybe I'm tired but I've been trying to follow this for weeks and it just seems to be going 'round and 'round. I feel for you. Penguin, Panda or just an algorithm change. I can only imagine how frustrated you are. It seems to me you may need to take a step back, take a break from trying to figure out what's wrong (you may never figure it out!) and think of other ways to move the site forward?
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 7:56 PM|
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "buried".
When I originally started analyzing that phrase, my page was ranking somewhere on page #3. It was not pushed down by the links to this forum. I can offer other examples of niche card sets that do not rank well - for example [Baltimore clippers hockey card set]. I have a result at #11. At least one of the sites above me links to my site. Another example is [Abilene Aviators hockey card set]. Again, #11. [Alexandria Warthogs hockey card set] also is #11. [Amarillo Gorillas hockey card set] is also #11. [Arkansas Riverblades hockey card set] is also #11. [Baton-Rouge Kingfish hockey card set] is also at #11. However [BC Icemen hockey card set] is ranked at #1. On the other hand, [Birmingham South Stars hockey card set] is not ranked at all.
See why I think I have a penalty? Doesn't it seem like too much a coincidence for all those niche searches to be at #11?
Of the three links you brought up, two of them are only marginally relevant and the third is the page I am looking for. I wouldn't expect the other two pages to rank because they are so marginally relevant (the phrase "Lakeland Ice Warriors" mentioned in a forum thread where the words "hockey cards" are not anywhere near the first phrase in proximity).
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||William Rock||8/1/12 9:43 PM|
RalphSlate, I remember reviewing your site way back a few weeks ago ... One thing to think about may not be the Penguin Update but more of the Panda or the Google Over Use of Ads. I know that is how you make your money however that maybe just one of many factors vs. links.
I did noticed you added the nofollow tags on your links page, that is good.
Just my 2 cents bud. Keep your head up, I am sure you will figure it out.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/1/12 9:49 PM|
Here is your most likely problem... quite elegantly described by Matt Cutts.
...as with Matt's reference on frog... your page of content adds no additional value to the web
When I search for the page content (noted above) these are the results I get
An exact 39 word phrase does not appear first but #7 after:
Look at the bolded words referenced to illustrate what Google believes are better matches that you exacting phrase?
PANDA can be kepted "at bay" with links (link juice) but if on April 24th you lost a fair amount of link juice from other domains that lost their PANDA can now detect your inferior copy... and let's face it... that singular paragraph isn't impressive language.
You seriously can't be saying you're an authority on Lakeland Ice Warriors Hockey Card with this gibberish.
While you can argue no one else is any better ... Google also agrees there... that's why Google Groups beat everyone now because you've spent so much time adding Lakeland Ice Warriors Hockey Card info here with multiple threads.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 10:14 PM|
I read that article a while back. I understand the position that Google is taking - they want to pick representative sites to return so that they have a better chance of satisfying someone's results. However, Google is not a person and is certainly not a hockey fan. It is an algorithm. How can it figure out the "best" site to return? Backlinks, and in the absence of backlinks, domain authority. That is how they built their business, and that makes sense. They obviously have other factors (keyword proximity, etc.), but backlinks is their trademark.
Many people here have compared my site to sites such as ESPN and proclaimed them to be "no different" or proclaimed my site to have "less information" simply because the ESPN site has more words or numbers on it. But my site is different, and people in the hockey world acknowledge this by giving it respect and by linking to it. Sometimes I get more links than a million dollar site like ESPN. Sometimes I get near the same number of links. Sometimes I get less. That's life.
I can accept a site being returned higher if it is similar, on-topic and has more links. I know I'm not going to be able to compete with the million dollar sites for the most popular and current players. I just can't accept being pushed down below spam and irrelevant sites, or sites that are similar but have fewer links (meaning they are less respected), especially when there is little competition for the search phrase. There is no valid reason to return a relevant result behind spam.
I'm not sure why you don't think my page is the authority page on the Lakeland Ice Warriors trading cards. It is the only page that describes the set. No, it doesn't have 1,000 words describing it, and the copy isn't stellar, but the information is solid and my domain is well respected. The Google Groups appearance is most likely the effect of "fresh" content beating out "old" content for a while. If you search Bing that page is #1. The other results, #1-13, simply do not fulfill that query.
Can you explain to me why, for search after search, my site is always at position #11? I also noticed that when the searches don't rank, when I narrow the search by adding more words, the non-ranking searches also come in at #11. Is that something you have seen before with Panda?
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 10:17 PM|
William -- Google's guidance on ads is that you can't have "too many". They say that they want to derank sites where you can't find the content among the advertising.
I don't think that describes my site. I realize that everyone has differing opinions of advertising - for example, Stevie_D wants all ads to be below the fold (which CPM ad companies do not allow). But there is no prohibition on above-the-fold ads, and 2 ads on a page isn't "excessive advertising".
Still, I have removed some blocks of advertising from many pages of the site - for example, when a player's profile includes just a couple of seasons, there is just 1 leaderboard ad on the page - I removed the medium rectangle ad that players with more experience get. I also removed a small Adsense block that was near the search bar from all pages. I combined an entire section of the site with another section to beef up the latter page and potentially remove some dilution of the content. I also improved my site navigation - still working on that, but many pages now have breadcrumb trails. I worked on a number of duplicate page titles (like when 2 players have the same name, I now put birthdate and/or playing seasons in the title) and did the same for the meta description. I removed all meta keywords.
None of that has made a difference.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/1/12 10:28 PM|
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 2:14:03 AM UTC-3, RalphSlate wrote:
Well respected for what?
But those don't mean you're respected on the stuff you have no respect in... does it?
As for Google Group and being "fresh"... I don't suppose that would happen to you would it? Because you're so respected in hockey db stuff and all and Google Groups isn't really all that related so Google would rank you well... right?
I darn you to prove me wrong.
|(unknown)||8/1/12 10:30 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|(unknown)||8/1/12 10:35 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||webado||8/1/12 10:42 PM|
>> Times of India has disabled right click
>>sites that violate copy write material be it images or text
It's for site owners to safeguard and enforce their copyright.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 10:52 PM|
Fathom, so then I take it that you don't believe in the concept of domain authority? Is Wikipedia specifically well respected for the query [Troy Slapshots hockey]? They have a page that, according to Bing WMT, has just 4 backlinks (3 from sites that copied the content of the page, 1 from a spam site). Yet they rank #1 for that phrase hands down. Why? Because they have ultimate domain authority and will rank #1 or #2 on just about anything as long as it is vaguely relevant. Their domain authority is so strong that I've noticed it overpowering keyword proximity (so the wikipedia page returned is actually irrelevant).
I think you may be too focused on high-competition keywords and aren't considering that not every page returned in Google SERPs has backlinks. When that happens, Google has to decide which pages to return and how to rank them. It has 200+ factors to do this. I would be willing to bet that "domain authority" is at least in the top 5, if not the #2 or #3 (keyword match and keyword proximity likely being #1 and #2). In a non-competitive niche, Google doesn't need 200 factors. If there are just 3 sites with the keywords included in a relevant way, you don't need 200 factors to determine their ranking.
It is much easier to see the effects of a penalty on a noncompetitive niche versus a highly competitive niche. Seems to me that ranking #11 time after time is evidence of a penalty, would you not agree? Maybe Penguin, maybe Panda - we can differ on that, but repeated #11 can't be a coincidence, especially when Bing puts those searches as #1 (Bing can't be that far off).
By the way, I just upgraded the copy on the Lakeland set and resubmitted it to the Google index using the "fetch as Google" tool. Let's give it a week and see if, when Google recognizes the change, that makes it rank better.
|(unknown)||8/1/12 10:53 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|(unknown)||8/1/12 11:08 PM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||webado||8/1/12 11:10 PM|
>>this is not fair use of ones copy write material.So you send them a DMCA and be prepared to prove the claim.
I don't find Wikipedia necessarily ranking before the original site when the original site is well built, relevant and with totally focused content.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/1/12 11:16 PM|
Actually I don't believe Google (in any offiical capacity), Matt Cutts, JohnMu nor any other Googlers suggested PENGUIN mucks around with domain authority, whatever that is.
PENGUIN targets unnatural links... to say Google measures domain authority by way of unnatural links is a bit off the wall. While you can speculate on whatever you wish to speculate I'd rather focus on what Google "actually says" and build on those specifics.
Be that as it may, I don't believe you believe in Domain Authority since you are stuck on PENGUIN and PENGUIN does not run perpetually. (Which means Domain Authority isn't included in Google normal algorithm - according to your theory).
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/1/12 11:44 PM|
I have come to believe that Penguin can reduce domain authority. True, Penguin doesn't run perpetually, but let's play pretend for a minute. Pretend that each site has a domain authority ranking from 1 to 100, with 50 being the "baseline". Let's say that pre-penguin, my domain authority was a 80. That would mean that Google would somewhat boost search results to my page over a competitor given that we have similar (i.e. none) backlinks to the page.
Now let's say that Penguin came along, for whatever reason said "that domain's links look dodgy, let's take away some domain authority", and sets it to a 30. What would that mean? In a search where my page is similar to another (keywords exist and are in close proximity), the other page would rank higher. Since these factors are likely applied simultaneously with weights, maybe it means a few pages with less domain authority will rank higher than my site. Maybe that means a few pages with keywords that aren't so close together will rank higher than my page. Maybe it means that my page with 0 backlinks will be prevented from ranking above position #11 unless the keywords are a near-perfect match.
That is exactly what I am seeing. I can offer up dozens of examples, and yes, you will likely find minor issues on nearly every page, or your opinion may be that I could rank if I only throw away all the hockey statistics and replace it with a few paragraphs. But the fact remains that my once-ranked pages are being buried behind sites with fewer general backlinks (i.e. less authoritative), less content (information is less complete), spam (like the "peoplefinder" sites), empty pages, etc. On aggregate, I lost 50-80% of my Google referrals on April 24. Not gradual - dropped off a cliff.
If Penguin doesn't impact domain authority, then what exactly does it do? Does it only devalue links (i.e. makes them appear as if they never existed)? Does it apply a penalty to the precise page that the flagged links are linking to, but leaves other pages on the domain alone?
Is Panda known for reducing domain authority? Is Panda known for burying pages so low that they are ranked below spam or irrelevant results? If so, what could have tipped my site precisely on April 24? I didn't add more advertising. I didn't add a bunch of thin pages. Panda didn't run on April 24 either, so why would my site be affected on a non-Panda date?
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/2/12 12:27 AM|
Pretend that you are the SEO for your customer and they are losing big money. You need to act quick because they are pissed you are costing them by pretending you know something that Google never ever mentioned.
I search for chris pronger and you are #7
I search for ryan getzlaf and you are #4
I search for eric staal and you are #8
I search for john tavares and you are #5
I search for brendan shanahan and you are #9
I search for WAYNE GRETZKY and you are #8 for crying outloud!
These are all page 1 results so where is this domain àuthority problem?
None of these are in your domain name... and you have almost no information on these pages... so what gives?
The reason why these pages avoid PANDA issues (OK just my theory) is they have direct links to them which suggests to Google these pages MUST BE of value to Google users.
The ones you quote loses for to DO NOT AVOID PANDA issues (OK just my theory) because there is no sources claiming these pages are of any value to anyone..
I already stated, you have almost 400K in links to your domain... 3% of pages were impacted by PENGUIN... it`s a fair bet 10,000+ links from others lost value... which means you lost link juice by default... and allows PANDA to drop a bunch of pages because they have thin content (surely we can agree you have limited content on most data pages (JohnMu pointed that out as well).
In any case... you know best... so ignore my advice.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/2/12 12:39 AM|
A few more:
todd bertuzzi #6
mario lemieux #5
luc robitaille #4
jaromir jagr #6
nicklas lidstrom #6
mark messier #5
eric lindros #3
teemu selanne #2
...these all have links... not unnatural links but natural ones... which prevents PANDA from sticking it to ya on these.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||JohnMu||8/2/12 2:55 AM|
My recommendation would be to really focus on your site and make sure that its content is the best it can possibly be, not to start all these threads here. If you're looking for feedback on the content of your website, I'd really stick to a single thread, so that you don't waste the time of those who are investing time in helping you to improve your website (and they wouldn't be doing that if they thought that there were issues involved which your site can't overcome). While theoretical discussions on algorithms not affecting your website can be interesting, they're not going to change your site's ranking.
PS Thank you, Squibble, for helping to keep these threads together.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||Suzanneh||8/2/12 3:21 AM|
|(unknown)||8/2/12 4:42 AM||<This message has been deleted.>|
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/2/12 4:57 AM|
John, can you be more specific with your information? Although "make sure that its content is the best it can possibly be" is always good advice, it is not specific enough for me to act on.
I think my content is pretty darn good. Is it perfect? No, no site is perfect. But it's pretty darn good, and many people acknowledge that by linking to it regularly.
I have taken your advice and have kicked it up a notch for a number of pages. They still don't rank well. The only thing that I can see makes a difference is if the specific page has several backlinks. Without backlinks, my pages are at best position #11, and at worst, off the charts.
How about a simple question: do you think I'm being affected by Penguin or Panda, and if the latter, do you believe that the Panda impact would coincidentally kick in on April 24?
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||JohnMu||8/2/12 5:15 AM|
We generally don't disclose which of our specific algorithms are affecting a site because we use so many of them in determining how to crawl, index, and rank content from websites. In your site's case, I would really not focus on those specific algorithms though, and I'd really recommend spending more time on your site, rather than on tweaking external links to your content. Ultimately, our algorithms try to take information from the website as a whole, as well as from individual pages into account, so there's usually no simple, individual tweak that can be made to change the ranking of the whole website. The best solution is really to take a step back and make sure that your website as a whole is as good as it can possibly be. Our algorithms look at more than just the word count or the number of "h1" elements (for example), and it's definitely not worth chasing the details of these algorithms; instead, the best way to move forward and to remain there is to make sure that everything aligns and results in an absolutely fantastic website overall. That's obviously not something that happens overnight, but your site definitely has a lot going for it already, so I'm optimistic that if you put as much time & energy into the site as you put into these posts, then you'll see some changes in the long run.
One thing to keep in mind is that our algorithms can also take a bit of time to settle down, after you've made changes, so I'd recommend not just changing 10 pages and seeing if that's enough, but rather working on going through your whole site and finding places where you can improve (or perhaps, where it's worth blocking content from being indexed, if you feel that you don't have enough high-quality information worth sharing on those pages).
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/2/12 10:28 AM|
John, I really do appreciate you taking the time to address this, and I also appreciate the fact that you can't comment on specifics. I hope you can see things from my perspective - I'm not spamming, I'm not trying to game things, I am trying to create a useful and popular website for people interested in hockey and I obviously would like the pages of that website to be displayed in the world's most popular search engine.
I guess the part that I'm taking a bit personally is that your Panda and Penguin algorithms were developed to fight spam or poor results. I'm caught in that trap - either Penguin or Panda - so the implication is that my site is offering either spam or poor results. I know that you have looked at my site and that you recognize that it isn't spam and it isn't a MFA site that is just trying to snare people (like a site like pipl.com is). I'm really trying to fulfill the needs of people who want to know about hockey. The simple fact that Wikipedia has referenced my site almost 90,000 times and basically uses it heavily to build the pages that then outrank mine should be a good indicator of its quality and respect.
I have taken your previous words to heart and have been working on improving the site every day, staying up until 3am every night, adding content, tweaking pages, doing research on hockey-related topics, consolidating pages, etc. Of course I have always had my end users in mind, but that approach clearly isn't good enough for Google so many of my pages remain invisible to Google searchers. I recognize that I need to change - I just don't know what, and the posters here in this forum don't either.
What is most troubling is that this isn't about me being ranked below ESPN, NHL.com, or other sites similar to mine which are either more professional or offer better data. I am being ranked below sites that scraped my content (pipl.com), sites that don't even have the keywords near each other, or in many cases, hundreds of sites that are simply not relevant to the query. This is evidence of a penalty gone amok to me.
That is why advice such as "make your page the best it can be" is so frustrating - I have always tried to do this. I have worked on this site since 1998 - tens of thousands of hours. I really so feel like the individual pages in question are far better than the results is being returned, and so when I'm told to just "make them better", my response is "I will keep trying, but it already is light years better than everything else and people already know that and have voted with their numerous links to me".
I guess I don't have another question for you; I'd like like you to recognize that Google's algorithm may not always be perfect, I hope that you will look at my site as a data point toward further refinement of the algorithm, and I wish that you could give me some closure by telling me that the algorithm is treating my site as you think it should be treated, or that it is not being treated that well and that you're working on tweaking it (though I recognize that you can't tell me that).
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/2/12 11:50 AM|
Actually you are... you have DATA that ranks exceptionally well for DATA but you're disinterested in those results and your resource is largely based on 263,000 pages of thinly developed content. You can seriously say you are an authority of stats for hockey but you don't have an detailed information about any single hockey asset.
The more you focus on other domains the less you focus on yours which is a very good reason why you can't compete with them. As I've already mentioned you are a statically goldmine for hockey (which is the wikipedia plug) but they don't plug you for specific hockey details, a player or a team... because stats are dates and numbers without amplifying details.
Candidly, save yourself some grief. Like me, you writing style is dismal. You need to hire a hockey enthusiast that can research a topics' background and post new information not currently in Google in a highly efficient and hopefully cost effective manner. Remember the frog post... just adding more words will change "nothing much".
I seriously doubt you painstakenly gathered your stats 100% indepedently... without sponging off of anyone. You claim "you have been scrapped"... data falls squarely within fair use.. you have no rights to dates and names, birthdays, scores, GGA, etc.
You need to be objective about your domain. Without a background in psychology, formal training in usability, persuasive journalism, massive experience in split run testing, a firm grasp of data mining & statistics, and unfettered interaction with the actual users of your domain you’re just guessing that you are light years better than everything else.
As some point you need to enlist a professional or two to reach your potential.
Why are these results not useful for you?
chris pronger #7
ryan getzlaf #4
eric staal #8
john tavares #5
brendan shanahan #9
WAYNE GRETZKY #8
Honestly, you need better ad placements. Hockey jersey for any of these players would increase your revenue significantly... more revenue affords more expertise, more expertise afford more revenue.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||William Rock||8/2/12 12:30 PM|
This must be the longest post of positive ideas,and yet you seem to blam Google,why..posting can help find answers. But can only help so myuchmy recomondation is to us what you have leaders and keep pushing forward
sorry typing on a small phone
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||William Rock||8/2/12 12:30 PM|
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/2/12 1:38 PM|
Fathom, I need to give you a little background as to why I created my site. Maybe that will help you understand my perspective better.
Back in the early 90's, when I was at college, I would sit around with friends wondering where the ex-college players ended up playing minor league hockey. There was no resource anywhere which gave the history of the players. Yes, there were books that each league would publish that contained the stats from that league, but there was no central reference for all players, all leagues.
Also, my grandfather played minor league baseball. It was family lore, but we could never find the evidence of it because there was no source for this kind of data. I would go to the bookstore and find "Total Baseball", but that contained only MLB data. [Now, years later, with old newspapers being put online, we did find articles and some data, but still not a complete data picture of his career].
Those two things inspired me to put this database together for hockey. I initially didn't even have NHL players in my database because I wanted to focus on the other players - the players that no one knew anything about. The players that slipped through the cracks, but who were still someone's grandfather.
Flash forward to April 24. As you pointed out, the players that are popular - those pages that are getting links - are still ranking in Google. You can search for them and my site comes up. The other players - the players I remain passionate about discovering -- those are the players that are not showing up anymore. That is why this is killing me. That is also why it bothers me when people suggest that I maybe should block those players from the Google index in order to make my site rise for the other players. The other players are the players I want people to find. That's the reason my database and my site exists, for the players that don't roll off your tongue. That's why people like my site so much - not because I'm just another site that returns Wayne Gretzky's numbers, but because I also return all the players he ever played with.
Sure, Wayne Gretzky was a great player. I want people to know about Wayne Grotski.Wayne Grotski was nowhere near as great or prolific as Wayne Gretzky, but his grandkids probably think that he is great because his stats are online, on my site. But as it now stands, if you search for [Wayne Grotski hockey], my site comes up at, yes, #11 (familiar position). And what is in positions #1-10? Oddly, Google Forums site twice (the same post under 2 different Google domains). Famouswhy.com which only learned of that player by scraping my site. Peekyou.com which only learned of that player by scraping my site. Pipl.com which only learned of that player by scraping my site. Two pages that have "Grotski" and "Wayne" on the same page but not in close proximity to each other (i.e. search failures). There is just one result in the top 10 that is relevant (sadly, according to that article, Wayne is battling cancer).
[On a side note, I do not scrape data from the sites of competitors because I believe that to be a legal tort of unfair competition, however I don't think that using official league sites to gather data is such a tort because I'm not competing with them, because they are not in the publishing business, and because they are the origination of the data. Most leagues have given me permission to scrape the data anyway, and most offer me APIs to do this].
I totally understand what you're saying about writing detailed biographies of the 150,000 players in my database. I don't want to be in that space. I want to be in the data space. The data space is plenty big - plenty of hockey books have been purchased over the years which contain just numbers, not biographies. People want complete, accurate, and up-to-date data. That's why they link to my site, because I am among the best in that space (yes, I have competitors with different strengths, fair competition is what makes this all fun).
It just isn't feasible to be the authority on 150,000 players either. That's what Wikipedia is for, and they can only accomplish it because the friends and families of those 150,000 players are writing the articles, telling the world how great their kids/parents are, often giving less-than-objective or sometimes incorrect information. I won't rehash the crowdsourcing vs. authority debate here.
I don't understand why Google is making a value judgement by saying "numbers are worthless, biographies are the only acceptable form of information". (I actually don't think Google is explicitly doing that, I think that I'm being hit with an inadvertent penalty, but we've been over that previously). So when I hear suggestions like "take the stats, put them on a subdomain, de-index them, and write bios on the 150,000 players if you want to be returned in SERPs", I bristle. I also bristle when I see lesser quality sites - some also data sites, some of which scraped my site - ranking for the queries for which I think I should rank, but my site is nowhere to be found.
I don't know why Google is treating my site as worse than spam. I don't know why, in search after search, Google is not returning my site in front of the junk but is returning lesser competitors near the top as I languish on page 2 or worse.
I've given you a lot of examples. Take an objective look at them without being deliberately critical. If you were Wayne Grotski's grandkids, and you searched for [Wayne Grotski hockey], would Google's top 10 results really satisfy you? Can you honestly say that my result, at #11, adds nothing to the space? Please, I'd like an honest answer, not a reactionary or party-line answer. Sure, those grandkids would like my page even more if I had a 1,000 word blurb about him (and these is such an article in the results), but is the lack of such a blurb reason enough to bury my site behind scraped spam?
That's my perspective on the matter.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||fathom||8/2/12 2:14 PM|
You have a content problem and you are devalued because of content... that great #11 prize.
Here's a great QUICK TEST.
Temporarily 301 re-direct Wayne Gretzky to Wayne Grotski... and in 5 to 14 days... you'll be #1.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||Geminineil||8/2/12 3:31 PM|
I just wish as many people would help me to resolve my problems....
This is my first time looking at this website and to be honest I think enough people (far more experienced than me) have looked at it without me giving more than a vierw from a user.
Is it just me that can see there are Google (I presume) ads across the top banner and also first bar down that are totally NOT related to the content of the website... I guess if they are no-followed but as a user I really don't like them. Gatwick Express, Car Insurance... Camping... etc...
maybe make the ads content relevant and they wouldn't look so out of place.
furtrher down the page I see massive advert for British gas and then one for the RSPCA - this is a North American website isn't it?
Doubtless I am getting these ads due to my location but I REALLY do not like them...
I didn't see this at first...
The title tag is usually the FIRST - not sure IF that makes a dfference...
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> <meta name="Description" content="The Internet Hockey database is an archive for hockey statistics, hockey logos, and hockey cards. You will find more information here than is available in any other resource, either in print or on the internet. We have NHL statistics and logos as well as all other leagues including the WHA and minor league."/> <meta name="Keywords" content="Hockey Statistics, NHL stats, hockey pool stats, Hockey Stats, NHL hockey statistics, fantasy hockey statistics, Hockey Logos, hockey team logos, Hockey Cards, NHL Statistics, NHL players, Hockey History"/> <title>Hockeydb.com -- Internet Hockey Database - Statistics, Logos, and Trading Cards</title>
But I have NEVER seen the title tag below the others....
Title tag - I really don't think you need your website domain in there. it is a waste of valuable characters... also you need to be consistent with your use os 'spacers' you have a -, a -- and a '
I haven't counted but your meta description looks too long... and also looks keyword stuffed.. too many uses of the word 'hockey'.. and likewise the keyword meta tag.
You have your domain url on all pages that I have looked at.. and don't see the point in that at all...
likewise there are adverts everywhere.... and as a user they put me off... they should at the VERY LEAST be sport related....
that is my penny worth...
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||RalphSlate||8/2/12 5:29 PM|
I won't get into the debate over advertising, however I think it's worth it for me to explain Adsense and other ad networks in general.
Adsense uses behavioral targeting. Last year I searched Google for a bird cage. Right after I started seeing bird cage ads wherever I was on the internet. Many ads are targeted to the user, not the host site.
Likewise, the fact that my site is based in Massachusetts doesn't mean that only ads from Massachusetts show. If you're from the UK, then you will see UK ads because they are relevant to you as a user. It makes more sense for you to see those than ads from Springfield MA.
It is the off season for hockey, so the hockey advertisers are not advertising via the ad networks. You see general interest ads in their place.
|Re: Squibble is squashing discussion||Geminineil||8/2/12 5:33 PM|
I do appreciate the location aspect of advertising.. although overall impact of adverts is still there... and doubtless gives you revenue...
but suggest you look at meta tags...