Google Updates, 5/2014

[enlytend]

Two new Google updates were rolled out in the last couple of days, confirmed by Google ...
- A "Payday Loans" update over the weekend - this would only affect very spammy verticals, which would explain why BH'ers saw it first .
- Followed by Panda 4.0 - too early to draw any conclusions. Some reports of eBay losing rankings on thousands of terms.

Wouldn't surprise me if they threw in another update (penguin?) in the next day or two - they like to group updates to obfuscate the effects.

 

[redfeilds18]

Google with this update is giving more grace to the low quality / thin content that were hit in past iterations of Panda. That is the point. They probably did not do much, but many folks who have moved up with this update are patting themselves (maybe not in this case so much) on the back like they did something to improve their rankings. I just think more than anything it is Google self - correcting, but Google's PR department is calling it an update to save face.

 

[enlytend]

I just think more than anything it is Google self - correcting, but Google's PR department is calling it an update to save face.

SERP fluctuations say otherwise. Massive shakeups over the last several days.

Google doesn't "self correct", and their PR is too busy spreading FUD to worry about "saving face."

I don't see any large-scale reports of "thin content" sites getting a boost, though a couple reports of "pandalized" sites having a spontaneous recovery. There was speculation (and hints from Google) that an upcoming Panda update would be "softer", but need to wait until the rollout completes to assess what happened. There are always individual winners and losers. The only solid data I've seen so far was from Dr. Pete who reported eBay dropping for over 500K keywords - http://moz.com/blog/panda-4-payday-loan-2-and-ebays-very-bad-day . And reports of a few industries which appear to have had the biggest changes, according to people who follow hundreds to thousands of keywords in various verticals.

Also, the weekend Payday Loans update took out a bunch of sites on spammy queries - those not affected on those queries will move up by default.

Update: The top gainers and losers - searchengineland.com/panda-4-0s-big-loser-ebay-winners-losers-chart-192123

 

[Registernuke]

What I am not looking forward to in regards to this new Google update is that most of us are probably going to have to get ready to entertain a whole bunch of new forum threads that start out saying" Help me my site rankings have dropped due to Panda 4.0 what should I do next!!!!!

 

[enlytend]

... and half of them will be forum spam, dropping a link to some keyword-stuffed "seo company" in the signature - lol!

(But not on NP, because now sigs here are nofollowed and only viewable if you're logged in.)

 

[iowadawg]

Geesh....people still obsess about this?

 

[DU]

Geesh....people still obsess about this?

There are people that make their living helping some people with making the most of their advertising dollars and not making penalizing mistake. That's not an obsession, that's a job.

Some people focus too much I agree.

But think about where your blog input comes from - you are great at searching for quality news or you stumble upon things that have been cleverly socially engineered via Google and Twitter, etc.

If big data was all it was cracked up to be I would be using their new engine - one that kind stuff that's relevant. I'm tired of landing on stuff dated "today" that's 8 years old.... pc reviews from pre-2012 should be deleted and unindexed. Google search is, at its core, totally brain dead.

 

[iowadawg]

True on searching and find the entire first page full of stuff from 2009 or some other period back when I was younger.

I rarely use search to find information for my blogs.
Twitter is great because people SHARE!
Way better than google.

 

[enlytend]

I'm tired of landing on stuff dated "today" that's 8 years old.... pc reviews from pre-2012 should be deleted and unindexed.

The "search tools" button is your friend .

Dawg - you're in a different situation since you're more reliant on your following outside of Google. Many businesses are more dependent on search traffic - not ideal to have all your eggs in one basket, but it is what it is. Owners don't always have the time or the inclination to be active on social media or even build a mailing list. For them, losing rankings translates to lost business and lost revenue. ... if its really bad, people get laid off and businesses close. So to them, it's a big deal.

 

[nada_book14]

Panda 4.0 must be a major update to the actual algorithm versus just a data refresh. Google has made changes to how Panda identifies sites and has released a new version of the algorithm today.

 

[jamesosix]

its a good feeling to know I dont care about Google anymore because I spread my marketing efforts. Screw the big G (I appreciate people still rely on Google though).

 

[enlytend]

Panda 4.0 must be a major update to the actual algorithm versus just a data refresh. Google has made changes to how Panda identifies sites and has released a new version of the algorithm today.

Today's update is "payday loans", not another Panda.

If they want to change what they show on the first page, it's their search engine. What I dislike is that for years they told people to build links, now sites are being retroactively punished for it.

There are other sources for traffic - people also need to keep in perspective that they are a business, not the owners of the internet, and certainly not your friend.

 

[iowadawg]

There are other sources for traffic - people also need to keep in perspective that they are a business, not the owners of the internet, and certainly not your friend.

That is what I have said for ages.

 

[enlytend]

I didn't say they're not important - they still have the lion's share of search and can deliver a ton of valuable traffic if you're in their good graces. But you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket.

 

[iowadawg]

Hint to all:
BING

 

[enlytend]

Hint to all:
BING

Bing's gaining, but Google still has over 67% of the search market share ( as opposed to Bing at18%.)

 

[DU]

If they want to change what they show on the first page, it's their search engine. What I dislike is that for years they told people to build links, now sites are being retroactively punished for it.

They aren't saying anything much different but just a different emphasis or semantic view on what makes a link. The internet changes so the algorithms change. I just wish people weren't gaming the system. I'm much more of an end user of the internet so I want my searches to be relevant.

If you've built decent content of value you will get natural social linking. What they are merely doing it trying to differentiate the level of linking you get. When they said "build links" sites went out and they did just that - link building, link spamming, keyword stuffing, dumping crap on .edu sites etc. I doubt anyone who was smart about what they were doing will be dinged too much.

There's a difference between literally building links which means you are concerned with the rest of the web and building something that garners links being built to quality which is focusing on your part of the web. So.. people now just need to make it look like their links are real, random and follow nice patterns of user usage. i.e. your links shouldn't be random because that's not how the real world works.

Google is the new Klout.

 

[-EM-]

Hint to all:
BING

I wonder who is using bing? I actually used bing only one time this year to find a wallpaper

 

[enlytend]

I doubt anyone who was smart about what they were doing will be dinged too much.

And that's the problem...

Going back to at least 2002, the webmaster guidelines said to build links, get directory links, get links from authority sites...

All well and good ... except that the typical non-web business owner (let's leave deliberate spammers out of this) wouldn't know a good directory from a bad one or an authority site if they tripped over it. Someone who built their site built links to it - or maybe they did, or a friend did ...whatever. So along come penalties, these people, who didn't KNOWINGLY spam anyone, find their sites not even coming up for their own business name. Years after the fact.

Getting a penalty removed is a major time-consuming process which involves attempting to identify problem links, trying to contact site owners, keeping records of contact attempts, disavowing failed attempts, sending this "proof" with your reconsideration request, waiting weeks, often having the request denied if they think you missed a couple links or didn't put in enough effort.

We won't even talk about the false positives...

If they don't like certain links, why not just ignore them? Why make people, who may have gotten these links in ignorance years ago, go through this song and dance?

I'm much more of an end user of the internet so I want my searches to be relevant.

I don't think having mostly Ads and other Google properties above the fold, or the lack of site diversity caused by big-brand focus is good for relevance.

I wonder who is using bing? I actually used bing only one time this year to find a wallpaper

Apple just made Bing their new default for web search.

 

[Erin Nagata]

This is helpful updates we've got here thanks for sharing, the last time I've checked it would still be creating quality content and other parameters will just basically follow.

 

[iowadawg]

I wonder how many is "Many businesses rely on search"?
Look carefully around you, your city, town, county and state.
Not that many are worried about search!
Both small and large businesses.
ANd only reason large businesses spend money to be at top of search?
Same reason they still advertise in phone books, magazines, newspapers.
To keep their NAME out there.
They really, I think, care if people see them on search and go to their website.
COKE for example.
They probably do not care about how many people come to their site via search.
They do care about how many people see their brands and BUY a coke somewhere.

 

[DU]

I refuse to agree with Dawg....... but dammnnnnnn...

Sometimes a business card at the right venue > $1,000s in adwords and they cost less than a $1

 

[iowadawg]

Few on this forum agree with me when it comes to google and search and serps and page rank and pandas sucking up to hamsters who ate the hummingbirds.

 

[-EM-]

They probably do not care about how many people come to their site via search.
They do care about how many people see their brands and BUY a coke somewhere.

You are confusing things badly.
They do care, especially the promoting department of the company. They track every visitor who visits their site.

DU, I don't think you can get gift cards of $1k for $1, but if you can find me I'd buy them from you 10x more.
Last time I advertised at google, I received a $50 free gift card and I spent an other $50 (real money). The result was good.

 

[enlytend]

I wonder how many is "Many businesses rely on search"?
Look carefully around you, your city, town, county and state.
Not that many are worried about search!
Both small and large businesses.
ANd only reason large businesses spend money to be at top of search?
Same reason they still advertise in phone books, magazines, newspapers.
To keep their NAME out there.
They really, I think, care if people see them on search and go to their website.
COKE for example.
They probably do not care about how many people come to their site via search.
They do care about how many people see their brands and BUY a coke somewhere.

Advertising can be done either for branding or direct response (I'm lumping any action - lead generation,sales, newsletter signups, etc. into the latter). You can accomplish both through search traffic (organic or paid.)

Businesses who aren't worried about search should be. Nobody uses the phone books any more. Except maybe to flatten things. It's a dying cash-cow for the companies that publish them and they're aggressively promoting their online directories to current customers. Newspapers, magazines, direct mail? Loser, loser and loser for small biz - you pay for a lot of views from people who aren't the least bit interested.

Let's say you have a dojo in Podunk and offer martial arts classes for kids. In print media, you're paying for people who don't read the material, don't have kids, and have no interest in in your classes, Whereas if someone searches for "childrens karate classes in Podunk" you've got a live one.

Social media? Good for some things, not for everything. And not every business owner has the time or inclination to use it.

As far as people in my city/town/county/state, my clients get good business from search. One of my clients used to be a BIG spender on the phone book ads. You know what he was getting from that? Maybe 2-3 calls a month, mostly from senior citizens in one big city (his service covers most of the northern half of the state). He ditched the phone book completely - he's getting far more business from his Adwords ads at a lower cost. Gets some from organic search now too, but Google puts their advertisers first and targeting is more predictable.