G Update - Reciprocal Linking

Ellio · #1 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 05:16 AM

We have been effected by the recent G Update but to different extents depending on keyword. On some major keywords we have only dropped 6-7 places but on others we have dissapeared.

My initial suspicion is reciprocal linking and the anchor texts in those links as these appear to have been badly effected.

Anybody seen the same?

Please no posts simply saying "We have been hit as well" we need interesting examples of whats has actually happened.

DMC_34 · #2 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 05:55 AM

Reciprocal linking does not have anything to do with this update. For example the top 5 for gift baskets (all different) on Google all exchange links. The #3 has more unrealted reciprocal links than most sites. The top five for christmas cards all exchange links.

DMC

Ellio · #3 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 06:01 AM

DMC_34 wrote:

Quote:

Reciprocal linking does not have anything to do with this update. For example the top 5 for gift baskets (all different) on Google all exchange links. The #3 has more unrealted reciprocal links than most sites. The top five for christmas cards all exchange links.

If thats the case do you have any other qualified ideas yet?

DMC_34 · #4 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 06:55 AM

1. It seems to me Google has given more weight to synonym or related keyword as opposed to specific keyword IBL's. For example Blue Mountain and Regards, two "greeting card" giants are now #1 and #2 for holiday cards and moved up alot for Christmas cards. I am talking about +15 slots or better for very competitive keywords. Yet I do not even see the keyword anywhere on the page, except meta tags. But they do have a slew of "greeting cards" IBL's.

2. It seems lesser optimized sites are now ranking higher and more optimized sites have been pushed down. Possible adjustments to OOP.

Other than that I am not sure.

DMC

Ellio · #5 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 07:17 AM

Another webmaster I know has pointed out that sites with very high IBL numbers (Checked on Yahoo) have ALL slipped in our business area indicating that an "Unnatural Linking" filter may have actually been applied.

DMC_34 Check if those major competitors have low or "Natural" looking backlinks compared to those that have slipped.

Google will try anything to downgrade SEO tactics I am sure.

DMC_34 · #6 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 08:26 AM

This is very possible. The sites I mentioned are well known and probably produce quite a few natural links. One site which sprang up in the results was GiftTree for gift baskets. They exchange links but the catch is they use the same exact link text for every link, i.e. "Gift Baskets", always going to their home page. It seemed Google had been penalizing them in the past for "non variation" of link text. After this update they are near the top for many keywords, though. But I am sure they receive their fair amount of natural links as they are well known as well.

DMC

HHI_Golf_Guy · #7 (**permalink**) 10-17-2005, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ellio

My initial suspicion is reciprocal linking and the anchor texts in those links as these appear to have been badly effected.

I don't think so. A link is a link is a link. That is until Google places a greater weight on link relevance, and I don't see that is the defacto cause of what is going on.

If I had to place a wager on the latest Google Puke, I would lean towards "freshness of content". I see a lot of news and pseudo-news sites - even though they are garbage sites - moving their way up.

Granted, compared to the content of the entire internet we look at a miniscule portion of results, but I'm going to keep an eye on it.

But I'm also not going to make any knee-jerk reactions to try and move KW's until the data centers stop puking all over themselves.