What's the Deal? An SEO Challenge for the Savvy

[Doxaseek]

Hey all. Okay, I have a question for those of you who are very savvy SEO's. Newbies, no offense- but the situation is fairly complicated and so I'd like only thoughtful, seasoned responses to chew over.

Okay, for those of you who enjoy a good challenge, here’s the situation: I operate several location-specific vacation rental sites for a particular client. The search phrases I am aiming for are very competitive.

The oldest sites- with 2001 and 2002 start dates- were at the top of the SERPs prior to Big Daddy- and still are today. Two of the sites are newer, one has recently been released from the sandbox and is slowly but surely "climbing the charts"- it’s now on the 4th page. One of the sites is so new that it's still sandboxed.

Okay- so far so good. But there is a problem. The results for those sites all seem common-sensical. But there is one last site. And this one has been a thorn in my side for months now. This site was at #6 prior to Big Daddy under my main search query phrase. This site has a late 2003 start date- so is in between all the sites in terms of age. Am I being clear so far?

Okay- the problem is this last site I just made reference to has gone haywire in the Google SERPs since the Big Daddy update kicked in. At first it seemed a canonicalization issue might be at play since various versions of the homepage were showing up in the rankings. And even more strangely, often secondary pages would show up when they were clearly less relevant than our homepage was for the query and in terms of pr power.

Today, that site that was #6 for our main search phrase is now sitting at #89. It has bounced around in the #65-105 range for six weeks or so now.

What is difficult to understand is that each of these sites is structured in much the same way. Each site contains plenty of keyword-rich content and plenty of powerful BL's. The problem site shows 4700 backlinks in MSN and many more in Yahoo. Many of those links are quite powerful and very relevant- pr 5's and 6's; certainly enough to compete with the backlink power coming into our competitiors' sites.

So- considering there are plenty of powerful, relevant links coming in, and considering there is plenty of keyword rich and relevant content on the site, with more being added regularly, and considering the site is structured similarly to our other sites that are all doing well in Google, one can't help but wonder what’s going on?

Also, after checking our server logs, it doesn’t appear Google is having any problem spidering the site in question.

After emailing Google on three separate occasions I have, each time, received word back that the site is not penalized in any way.

So, that's the scenario. It’s been several months now. I'd really appreciate any feedback that might shed light on what the issue is. Is this just a Google algorithm glitch that I’ll have to wait out? Or is something else going on?

[FDJA]

Google is wreaking havoc on every site right now, but you indicated that it has bounced around in low rankings for 6 weeks or so and was once fairly high.

I too run several sites, which are all built in much the same way. I've have a site doing the same thing as yours and I had a theory up until the Big Daddy Fiasco...

What is the URL you're having trouble with and what are the URLs you compare it to structurally?

[pleeker]

At first it seemed a canonicalization issue might be at play since various versions of the homepage were showing up in the rankings.This is a bit of a flag. What about all those great backlinks you mentioned -- are they split? Do some point to the www.domain.com and others to domain.com? If so, you're losing the link juice.

[Marcia]

question for those of you who are very savvy SEO's. Newbies, no offense- but the situation is fairly complicated and so I'd like only thoughtful, seasoned responses to chew over.LOLOL.. will that be check, credit card or Paypal? :)

Seriously, for one thing take a look at how the linking is being done among your group of sites, and check out the number, placement, nature and quality of your outbound links, those and others.

This is a bit of a flag. What about all those great backlinks you mentioned -- are they split? Do some point to the www.domain.com and others to domain.com? If so, you're losing the link juice.It sounds like that's exactly what's been happening. And no, it isn't necessarily a glitch on Google's part, though no doubt a lot of people would like to think it is. With Big Daddy there's been an entirely new infrastructure rolled out, and there are different crawl patterns (and requirements) and different indexing criteria than before - which absolutely would have an impact on not only how sites will rank, but how long it will take.

You really can't analyze any further until the canonical issues are dealt with. Have you 301'd the other URLs showing up for the page to just the one that you want to use? Also keep in mind that even when that's done it will take a while for the situation to clear up. Not a glitch either, it's just how things are working now.

[Doxaseek]

Hi all. Thanks for the feedback. In response to the questions:

1.) Interlinking among our group of sites is not an issue.
2.) I checked and all our BL's are resolving to the right URL.
3.) Quality and quantity of links for the problem site are very similar to other sites of ours that are ranking at the top of the SERPS. The only difference being that those sites are 1 to 1.5 years older- and this some of the links are better aged as well.

But compared to other sites in the top 20 for my main keywork query, the site in question should have plenty of BL power. Remember, it was #6 prior to Big Daddy.

[Wilksy]

1.) Interlinking among our group of sites is not an issue.
3.) Quality and quantity of links for the problem site are very similar to other sites of ours that are ranking at the top of the SERPS. The only difference being that those sites are 1 to 1.5 years older- and this some of the links are better aged as well.

But compared to other sites in the top 20 for my main keywork query, the site in question should have plenty of BL power. Remember, it was #6 prior to Big Daddy.

1. It will be a problem if all of your sites derive their links from similar locations.

2. Big red flag here, I have seen two totally different sites (structure wise) with similar backlinks experience problems (only one counted), and that was over 6 months ago. Big sites, more compeditive market that travel.

Now the site in question has dropped, does it really have the backlink power you think? It sounds like other sites in your niche have better (not more) backlinks than it.

All links are not created equal, sounds like you need some more topical links from authourities in your niche.

Short of doing the research yourself or paying a consultant your not going to find out much more info fishing in forums ;)

[Doxaseek]

Many of the sites in this field share similar BL's- its the nature of the game in relevant linking in this particular field. I don't think the ranking difference between my problem site and my other sites is due to BL issues. All told, I have six sites. Only one is being affected. It has original content and doesn't interlink with my other sites. I still think something else is at play here. I am aware that not all links are created equally- that's why I have made a comparitive analysis of all the sites in the top 20- two of which are mine. The links of my problem site are very comparible- qualitatively- not just quantitatively.

One factor that might be at play is age. The problem site- as I said, is about 1-4 years newer than any of the other top 20 sites. So age filtering is certainly an issue. But age alone seems unlikely to be the only factor. After all, the problem site was #6 prior to Big Daddy- even though it was newer than all the sites around it. If age is the issue- then Google REALLY tightened the screws on the age of site and age of links factors with Big Daddy.

[Wilksy]

Links will beat age if you get enough quality links G cannot ignore you.

Let me guess - the topics of all 6 sites are not different, namely the site that will not rank is of similar topic to another?

added:
it's funny how no matter what the signs people cannot accept the fact their links may be inadequate. :rolleyes:

[Doxaseek]

Links will beat age if you get enough quality links G cannot ignore you.

Let me guess - the topics of all 6 sites are not different, namely the site that will not rank is of similar topic to another?

added:
it's funny how no matter what the signs people cannot accept the fact their links may be inadequate. :rolleyes:

But if I've built the links for each of 6 sites- being careful not to interlink or overlink in the same neighborhoods, and only 1 of 6 sites is a problem, why would you assume that BL's are the problem? Remember my other two sites are #1 and 2 in my industry for our main query.

I could understand that being responsible for a drop- but a drop from #6 to #90- when I am aware of the BL's in play?

Again- I agree with you that BL's are a vital factor- but something else seems to be going on as well. I think that's a fairly logical conclusion.

[Wilksy]

Good luck then, sounds like you have the answers already :cool:

[Doxaseek]

Good luck then, sounds like you have the answers already :cool:

I do appreciate the feedback. I just don't want to waste your time by dwelling on issues that I think I've eliminated as being problems already. No offense intended.

[Wilksy]

So what factors do you have left on your list (besides age), because something happened and your not ranking as well for some reason (same as all of the other posters dropping by lately..).

[JohnW]

Doxaseek – the way you answer questions and your comments indicate that you are very confident that there are no technical problems or deficiencies with your site or links. In my experience it is common to be able to uncover many problems in a site that is claimed to have perfect SEO, in some cases even after a professional SEO has had their hands on it.

Sometimes I guess it is an issue of having a fresh set of eyeballs, and sometimes it is simply that what looks OK to one person may not look OK to another, based on a different level of experience and knowledge.

If you want to post or PM your URL I’m sure someone would be willing to have a closer look.

[Doxaseek]

I've had several other SEO's look at the site. No one has come up with anything yet. So, in this instance, fresh eyes haven't resolved the issue.

But I do understand your point and it is a good one.

[JohnW]

well then, either chalk it up to Google being broken... or refer to the 2nd half of what I said before.

>sometimes it is simply that what looks OK to one person may not look OK to another, based on a different level of experience and knowledge.

[glengara]

This cheeky fellow posted the same on SEOChat and also wouldn't give the url, seems to think SEOs are either some kind of psychics, or have the time/inclination to speculate in the dark...

[Marcia]

The problem site shows 4700 backlinks in MSN and many more in Yahoo. Many of those links are quite powerful and very relevant- pr 5's and 6's; certainly enough to compete with the backlink power coming into our competitiors' sites.And there are no sitewides or purchased links included in that 4700, of course. And the powerful PR5's and 6's are all spontaneous, voluntarily given one way inbounds from unrelated sites that don't link to any of the others in this network of sites. Okay, then.

[Doxaseek]

And there are no sitewides or purchased links included in that 4700, of course. And the powerful PR5's and 6's are all spontaneous, voluntarily given one way inbounds from unrelated sites that don't link to any of the others in this network of sites. Okay, then.

No need to get nasty, Marcia. I just described the situation as I saw it.

[Doxaseek]

This cheeky fellow posted the same on SEOChat and also wouldn't give the url, seems to think SEOs are either some kind of psychics, or have the time/inclination to speculate in the dark...

Glengara- you appear to be a mean-spirited person. I'm not sure what your issue is. As others in the other forum suggested, why don't you stay out of the thread if you have nothing positive to say. Do you have nothing else more constructive to do?

[Marcia]

Actually, what's being misconstrued as being nasty or mean-spirited is nothing more than a normal, expected reaction after a certain amount of participation in what's been going on in this thread, which is as close an example as possible to what happens quite often in forum theads, a "game" described in Transactionalysis Analysis, which is described perfectly right here:

"Why don't you, yes but..."

Transactional Analysis at Wikipedia (http://72.14.203.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-11,GGLD:en&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTra nsactional_analysis)

The first such game theorized was Why don't you/Yes, but in which one player (White) would pose a problem as if seeking help, and the other player(s) (Black) would offer solutions. White would point out a flaw in every Black player's solution (the "Yes, but" response), until they all gave up in frustration. The secondary gain for White was that he could claim to have justified his problem as insoluble and thus avoid the hard work of internal change; and for Black, to either feel the frustrated martyr ("I was only trying to help") or a superior being, disrespected ("the patient was uncooperative").In the case of the game as played in SEO forums, after a certain number of "yes, buts" the other players simply get tired of playing.

[AnthonyCea]

Take it easy man, everything is fine and members have the right to question you on any forum, if you did post the same thread over at another place he has a right to tell us about it, no one is ganging up on you, opinions are not going to kill you, we want to hear your side of the story too!

[glengara]

The guys' attitude annoyed me with his "very savvy SEOs" prerequisite, I've gone through "the game" enough times to know there's usually a very good reason not to disclose an Url, and it rarely has anything to do with actual client confidentiality..

[FDJA]

Actually, what's being misconstrued as being nasty or mean-spirited is nothing more than a normal, expected reaction after a certain amount of participation in what's been going on in this thread, which is as close an example as possible to what happens quite often in forum theads, a "game" described in Transactionalysis Analysis, which is described perfectly right here:

"Why don't you, yes but..."

Transactional Analysis at Wikipedia (http://72.14.203.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-11,GGLD:en&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTra nsactional_analysis)

In the case of the game as played in SEO forums, after a certain number of "yes, buts" the other players simply get tired of playing.

Pretty cool Marcia... Never thought of it that way, but it sounds like it could fit many, many threads I've seen and not just at SEO forums. I'm sure everyone's been guilty of this from time to time.

I wonder if the site disclosure and pertinent details did not come out, because perhaps it's a bit intimidating to be in a new forum, (DOXA joined 5/31/06)... The fear of losing your competitve edge because you blabbed too many details in a forum full of netreprenuers and web gurus can prohibit real development of conversations and problem/solution scenarios.

Just my thoughts, but then my wife has always blamed me for being too naive anyway - I tend to think people are generally good as opposed to assuming everyone's up to something... Sadly, she's often right and so might you be.

[glengara]

*The fear of losing your competitve edge..*

Sorry FDJA, but that idea, while possibly worthy, made me snort ;-)

[vipjun]

You stated your site's are location specific,
part of the bigdaddy update was in regards to location keyword relevancy.
Meaning google now associates "New York Hotels" as a place rather than just contexual mapping jumbo. I would guess that whatever "location-specific vacation rental sites" keywords you are targeting, google has decided that your site is not as relevant to the location as your other competitors.

If SEOs who have seen your site can't even figure out what is wrong, how can those here at the forum know whats going on with your site?

[FDJA]

You stated your site's are location specific,
part of the bigdaddy update was in regards to location keyword relevancy.
Meaning google now associates "New York Hotels" as a place rather than just contexual mapping jumbo. I would guess that whatever "location-specific vacation rental sites" keywords you are targeting, google has decided that your site is not as relevant to the location as your other competitors.

If SEOs who have seen your site can't even figure out what is wrong, how can those here at the forum know whats going on with your site?

Is this fact or forum rumor? What is the source?

[vipjun]

I can't state it as fact since only an official person from google can say that,
from the experiments I have done, and from what some other SEO's have done it seems to be more true than false.

here is an example search
buffalo restaurant
buffalo movie
and google knows that you are searching for buffalo, ny locatoin

However if you type Buffalo Wings google distinguishes that this is in fact not a location