Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Google Recovery

  • Subject: Re: Google Recovery
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:59:48 +0100
  • Newsgroups: alt.internet.search-engines
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <VyKYe.7218$iu5.2447@trndny04> <99j7j11qnrhcjms16cg5h9lr50ml3rs1kd@4ax.com> <yRTYe.48$tX3.10@trndny06>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [WhoTurnedOffTheLights] on Friday 23 September 2005 14:57 \__

> "Big Bill" <kruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:99j7j11qnrhcjms16cg5h9lr50ml3rs1kd@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 03:23:33 GMT, "WhoTurnedOffTheLights"
>> <Lights@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>Before Bourbon there was the March 22-23 upset. My biggest site took an
>>>enormous hit just to be further bashed by Bourbon.
>>>Has anyone who suffered in March seen major Google SERP changes?
>>>What I've witnessed is a total reversion to pre March results on Google.
>>>Of course I may be speaking too quickly.
>> Do you have any idea if you were penalised or whether a whole load
>> more sites got indexed that are better than you are at what you're
>> aiming at? This is more and more a pertinent enquiry as more
>> sophisticated tools are being made available for spoofing Google
>> results for the sake of Adsense revenue. If you used Spoof Tool
>> Generation 1 to build your site, and then a long came a bundle of
>> sites built using Generation 2, then that could be why you are now
>> lower in the rankings.

I think that site spoofing affects everyone. Ironically, that might even
affect the spoofers. There is a certain balance in the Web unless your site
targets very timely information like a film that's currently out.

Some sites grow and some remain static. Some evolve and some become
antiquated. Overall, I imagine that overnight traffic upsets are not due to
competitive sites.

> Errr no Bill,
> Others were reporting the same thing. I also posted here on this NG on Mar
> 24, plus there was this other
> thread on webmasterworld:
> http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/28722.htm
> I use no special tools and this recovery has taken place exactly 6 months
> later to the day. Reminiscent of what others have believed in as far as
> Google's cycles are concerned. (sorry I can't point to anything in this
> regard).

I am not too sure about March, but in the past few months there were
significant changes in terms of traffic (hence SERP's), all of which took
immediate effect and were uncalled for. According to this NG, I am not the
only one to have noticed it. In fact, I rarely find out about the changes
until somebody mentions them.

> Oh, and regarding those sites which replaced my top positions, oh did they
> s*ck. Only for a few search phrases were they worthy of those positions.
> But for the rest? OMG. Horrible. I'd think with today being the 23rd of
> September, we might see others still in the process of recovering and
> reporting their findings in late fashion just as it happened in March.
> PS...I'm not saying that I wasn't penalised. Perhaps in fact I was, but
> certainly not for the reasons you mentioned. Hmmmm, let's see how long
> this recovery will stick.

If you are worthy of this recovery (for example, judging by the relvance of
your SERP ranks), then you needn't worry. I once came up in the top 10 for
'situps' (Google) for no good reason. Apparently the word was just repeated
many times, not intentionally so. Needless to say, this didn't hold for
more than a month or two.


Roy S. Schestowitz      | Useless fact: 21978 x 4 = 21978 backwards
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux    |     PGP-Key: 74572E8E
  5:45pm  up 29 days  5:59,  3 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.16

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index