Google Issues

[SEO1]

I wanted to toss out some random thoughts for others to add input.

A few things I've seen recently.

1. Google dropped a client's several years old DMOZ back link while retaining others. Client has been online over 6 years.

My thoughts are with Googles push for relevancy and being current & topical that they are now either devaluing aged backlinks, dropping them altogether.

There is also some thought that newly accquired back links are more valuable.

2. Reciprocal links - Do they hold value any longer due to the abuse of such?

To me it seems reciprocals are much like meta keyword tags of old, overly abused and now lacking of any value whatsoever, considering the time it takes to build a reciprocal link, I cannot see any value, ROI or other benefit for a client to try to build them, nor can I make a reasonable case to be able to price doing such for a client.

3. With LSI either recently implemented or will probably be implemented into the algorithim, will on page SEO tactics such as backside title & metas, alts, etc, be worthwhile in doing any longer??

4. Continuing with LSI it seems to me that sheer volume of relevant pages will be more important in attaining Google front page results, than the onpage optimization tactics currently in use.

5. Google now appears to be favoring itself and most certainly has tossed into the front page results fray with Google Answers now appearing in the SERPs

Do a google search for "carpet spot cleaner" and look at result # 4. This same thing was pointed out today by someone associated with Jayde.

(I can't wait to see the abuse this provokes and how Google will deal with it. Will they be forced to pull the Google Answers pages frm their index??)

6. For those who seem to think otherwise, traffic seems to be an important part of the equation in attaining Google front page results or at the least getting out of the mythological google sandbox.

Your thoughts

Clint

[PhilC]

It's after 3 a.m. here in the U.K. and my brain started to wind down some time ago. But, before I turn in, I want to address your #6 point.

Google does get informed about every click in the serps. They use the onmousedown event for it. I would like know what makes you think that clicks in serps affect rankings. They may do - I don't know. But I'd like to know why you think they do.

[jmandrake]

About Google Answers apprearing in the SERPs, that site has over 91K pages indexed in G. So with a PR9 for answers.google.com, I would say it's hardly a surprise that with that many pages, so many appear in the SERPs. There's nothing wrong with that if the pages are relevant. Which in the case cited in #5 with the spot cleaner, it is a relevant result. Can't fault the site for having lots of relevant pages. Otherwise Amazon and other megasites would be banned as well.

I think that on the issue of what Google might do (and it's a wild guess) with information gathered from CTR from SERPs - organic links - they might use the data to analyze and refine their algorithms. With so many users having the Google toolbar installed they could theoretically figure out if a user finds a page interesting/relevant or not by looking at how long they stay on that site... From what I hear, the Google toolbar does collect that kind of information and sends it back to Google's datacenters. If a link from the SERPs is clicked often and users don't exit the landing page immediately for example wouldn't that be an indication that the page is relevant? That information might help Google provide users with better results, which is what they tell us their mission is. I'm sure it's not as straightforward as the ranking algo from Adwords, but maybe something similar...

[SEO1]

Hi Phil,

Well the main gist for the thought is a Devils Advocate role, the devl for many seems to be Google.

Taking their standpoint of building websites for users, mixed in with the current state of search, and real world business facts. It would seem to me within any category (I know there are exceptions) there are let's say are 101 websites which have been online for several months at least.

I come along and put online the best designed, clean coded, user friendly, and perfectly optimized site. I then sit and wait for Google to deem my site the best thing next to sliced bread, and subsequently, to send me gobs and gobs of traffic.

Now over at Google they see the new site, and they look it over and then the question comes.

What does this website have to offer? that the other 101 websites about the topic already in exsistence, don't have?

Probably nothing.

So without a technological advance the bots could determine was a break through and that's pushing the bot's capabilities I think, there is little reason the new website should not be ranked # 102

Now adding in the bricks & mortar real world business model, two italian restraunts open up within two blocks of each other, one owner is heavily into marketing his restaraunt by as many means as he can, the other does nothing.

The one who markets will draw patrons, (it's almost a given at this point in time that advertising works). People start to come in, the foods good, the service is good, those people tell others (viral marketing) and more new customers make reservations as walk in service is no longer available.

Meanwhile over at the other restaraunt, no advertising gets an occasional walk in, who may remember to tell someone.

A local newspaper reporter driving by the two restraunts soon after openning sees the people in the one restaraunt, and the other empty, he needs to do a review for an article next month for his paper to review and recommend one of the two..

Which do you think he will choose?

In my eyes Google sees traffic going to a new website that is as good as the others, and in some cases the traffic levels exceed the levels of some of the other sites, then Google would be able to justify the new website replacing an older one in the SERPs due to user popularity.

Anyway I hope you didn't wait up for my response ;)
As I am seen as half insane as it is.

Clint

[PhilC]

Yes, but that's conjecture about what Google might do. If you've seen anything that seems to indicate that Google uses traffic data as a ranking factor, I'd be very interested to know about it.

[krisval]

Some other thoughts. I really do see the other engines fighting their way to catch up to Google. Yahoo, MSN, and Ask (Not to mention Gigablast, Accoona, and a few other new ones) could really start to eat away at Google's share of the market. I think the combination of Google doing these screwy updates and bad practices like Auto-Link along with the other engines gunning for them could really change the landscape. Competition is good!

[SEO1]

Hi Phil

Hmmm well proof is hard to provide given that I have no access to Googles algo :) and / or I'm not admitting to anything, but

http://www.americas-diamonds.com

Created: 26-aug-2004

While they are not highly competitive terms the site had Google front page rankings on November 20 2004 for "diamond brokers" and "americas diamonds".
Thats a 60 day turn around and yes I did release a full distributiob press release online.
.
Another site

http://www.updatef1.com

Created: 15-jun-2004

I created static html pages from the clients dynamic site http://www.f1central.net (Current page 4 for f1 ) in the end of December 2004 and finished optimization by the 1st week of January 2005.

Current results two months later Page 20 for formula one 22,000,000 comps

formula 1 page 15 18,000,000 comps.

No press release for this one.

I have more... but people will get upset I think if I keep yapping.

Thing is I still haven't hit either of these with any kind of real traffic, just forum posts and job bids. I find by sending some cheap untargeted traffic it seems to help things get moving up the charts so to speak

Can't see a sandbox from where I sit.

Clint :cool:

[PhilC]

But those are just rankings. They don't say anything about traffic improving rankings (your point #6), which is what I wanted to know about.

If you are suggesting that Google uses traffic from other sites (forums, etc.) to factor into the rankings, I'd say that you are mistaken. If they were ever caught using their toolbar to following people around the web, there'd be hell to pay for them. They aren't that stupid (I don't think). Besides, only a small minority of web users have the toolbar installed, so it wouldn't be any good for ranking purposes.

[Marcia]

While they are not highly competitive terms the site had Google front page rankings on November 20 2004 for "diamond brokers" and "americas diamonds".Those aren't but on the whole diamonds are seriously competitive because they're seriously lucrative, given the dollar amount of the average sales.

1. Google dropped a client's several years old DMOZ back link while retaining others. Client has been online over 6 years. Just because that backlink isn't showing when checking for link: at Google doesn't mean they dropped the backlink. They're just not showing backlinks like they used to; only a small random sampling of what they know about is being shown, and sometimes the lower quality ones at that.

3. With LSI either recently implemented or will probably be implemented into the algorithim, will on page SEO tactics such as backside title & metas, alts, etc, be worthwhile in doing any longer??There hasn't actually been anything definitive published on how someone would specifically "optimize" for LSI, but it isn't just a matter of stopping traditional optimization altogether. What will take routine optimization's place - given that most sites won't want to totally abandon traffic from other engines without something substantial as a replacement?

4. Continuing with LSI it seems to me that sheer volume of relevant pages will be more important in attaining Google front page results, than the onpage optimization tactics currently in use.How is simply increasing the sheer volume of pages supposed to replace onpage optimization and optimize for LSI?

[SEO1]

Phil

Those are rankings true, but they show 1. that there's little proof of a Google Sandbox. 2. Rankings can be achieved without link building.since I don't build links 3. Traffic was sent to those sites from forum posting and job bids was what I meant.

I have to believe sites with no traffic or minimal will not fare well, it's more of a common sense issue when looking at the way Google determines front page rankings.

I cannot see where a site with no traffic can be considered a valuable reource enough to where the site would rank anywhere close to above # 30

No I don't think Google counts traffic from other sites, I am in agreement with your onmousedown assestment and / or it could read the servers hits or stats probably.

Clint

[PhilC]

You're confusing me, Clint (an easy thing to do, btw)

Yes those examples do appear to say something the sandbox issue, but I thought we were talking about about traffic.

Your mention of forums led me to think that you were referring to traffic from them.

Google may do what Direct Hit did, and count clicks in the serps, together with the time it takes for a person to hit the Back button - if s/he does. But you said...

6. For those who seem to think otherwise, traffic seems to be an important part of the equation in attaining Google front page results or at the least getting out of the mythological google sandbox.
It's as thougn have some evidence/observation that lead you to that conclusions about traffic, and that's what I'd like to hear or see. Just explaining your whole reasoning will do.

[TMK]

Phil

I cannot see where a site with no traffic can be considered a valuable reource enough to where the site would rank anywhere close to above # 30

Clint


I am not sure you have thought that statement through very well. There are a number of very unique sites out there that are authorities on their topic, but only have a few hundred people or less interested in them and the truth is most of those people have the site booked marked and never use a search engine to find it. It doesn't make the site any less authorative or relevant that no one is using a search engine to find it. And if the search engine cannot measure the traffic then it would conclude the site has no traffic. Even if the traffic comes from another source, in this case bookmarks.