Jagger Site Crashes and Top Domain Name Relativity?

[greeneagle]

Let's focus on one possibility at a time, till we get the "weeds" cut down here.

Our Site that got smacked from top 3 SERP has absolutely no Top Domain Name Relevancy...except for founders surname, and in fact their surname is misleading.

www.huntandhunt.com

Can anyone concur with that possibility in their crashes here?

Ken

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Let's focus on one possibility at a time, till we get the "weeds" cut down here.

Our Site that got smacked from top 3 SERP has absolutely no Top Domain Name Relevancy...except for founders surname, and in fact their surname is misleading.

www.huntandhunt.com

Can anyone concur with that possibility in their crashes here?

Ken

Possible but IMO not likely. I took a quick peek and I'd check your alt attributes. Here's what I'm getting...

ALT Tags:

Hunt and Hunt Home Page Header Graphic Navigate to Home Page Navigate to Company Page Navigate to Facilities Page Navigate to Equipment Page Navigate to Services Page Navigate to Laser Machining Page Navigate to Contact Us Page Hunt and Hunt Ltd. Graphic Page Decoration Page Decoration Hunt and Hunt Ltd. Logo Page Decoration Page Decoration Page Decoration Click here for the Energy Ad Network Page Decoration Page Decoration Page Decoration Page Decoration Page Decoration Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

And for keyword density for 2 word phrases, here's the top 5 I'm getting...

Laser Machining 3.17%
Page Decoration 2.65%
Hunt Hunt 2.65%
Hunt Ltd 2.12%
Perforating guns 1.32%

You rank #220 for "page decoration"

Dave

[greeneagle]

The whole concept behind "alt tags" was accessibility from the get go.

At the time the Site was designed, we tried to consider "text to speech synthesis".

Some time after that, Google started giving so much relevance to "alt tags" that they even started listing some Sites by their header graphic alt tag.

The page that was listed highly for "laser machining houston" was the "laser machining services" page which comes up 10% for "laser" and 8% for "machining".

You do have a good point though, at the time we wanted to capture a certain effect, so we have a number of graphics, although small.

You may also have another good point. Does this update throw more emphasis back to the top level domain in an attempt to linearize topical relativity?

Ken

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

The whole concept behind "alt tags" was accessibility from the get go.

At the time the Site was designed, we tried to consider "text to speech synthesis".

Some time after that, Google started giving so much relevance to "alt tags" that they even started listing some Sites by their header graphic alt tag.

The page that was listed highly for "laser machining houston" was the "laser machining services" page which comes up 10% for "laser" and 8% for "machining".

You do have a good point though, at the time we wanted to capture a certain effect, so we have a number of graphics, although small.

You may also have another good point. Does this update throw more emphasis back to the top level domain in an attempt to linearize topical relativity?

Ken

It's entirely possible they are looking at how the top level domain relates to the pages beneath it. However, this wouldn't explain why the "Mom and Pop" niche sites are taking a beating. One would think that they would stand to benifit the most and not the big mega sites.

In your case, it may be that you "confused" the SE or algo by sending mixed messages with your alt attributes, and diluting the relevancy of the page. For the "laser machining page" here's the alt attributes...

Laser Machining Page Header Graphic Navigate to Home Page Navigate to Company Page Navigate to Facilities Page Navigate to Equipment Page Navigate to Services Page Navigate to Laser Machining Page Navigate to Contact Us Page Hunt and Hunt Address and Phone Number in Houston Texas Page Decoration Page Decoration Photograph of Laser Machined Perforating Gun Components Bullet Point Graphic Page Decoration Bullet Point Graphic Bullet Point Graphic Bullet Point Graphic Hunt and Hunt Logo Bullet Point Graphic Bullet Point Graphic Bullet Point Graphic Page Decoration Page Decoration Page Decoration Bullet Point Graphic Page Decoration Bullet Point Graphic Page Decoration Page Decoration Page Decoration Photograph showing 3 of our Custom Tubular Laser Machining Centers Photograph of ourTrumpf Trumatic L 4030 Laser Machining Center Page Decoration Page Decoration Page Decoration Page Decoration Page Decoration Page Decoration Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

And here's the keyword density for the top 5 3-word phrases...

Bullet Point Graphic 1.26%
Hunt Hunt Ltd 0.72%
custom tubular laser 0.54%
laser machining services 0.54%
perforating gun components 0.54%
tubular laser machining 0.54%

Dave

[greeneagle]

If these were the issue why were they in top multiple SERP since launch?

Ken

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

If these were the issue why were they in top multiple SERP since launch?

Ken

What is Jagger taking into account now that was not being taking into account before? :) This is what everyone who has unexplained drops wants to know.

Rather than a single algo that is being tweaked, is the "Dagger Effect" being caused by the application of multiple algos each designed to perform a different task?

Dave

[paisley]

your document rating of SAFE FOR KIDS...

yet you have the word "guns"

hmm... just a thought here... remove the document rating safe for kids through out.

also make sure that your original BGcolor is not duplicated as a text color...


just an idea.. not a diagnosis...

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q...ing&FORM=QBRE3

[greeneagle]

The key and big difference in this Site is that the founder's surname is "Hunt".. The husband and wife team founded the company 51 years ago "Hunt and Hunt Ltd.", Welllll.... What do you suppose the new relevancy emphasis on www.huntandhunt.com translates to?

GOOGLE breaks up the URI verbiage with or without dashes, so let's go figure... "and" drops out, as a "stop-word" and we are left with "hunt hunt"... Ohhh that's ugly - starting to look like SPAM!

One "Hunt" drops out, and we are left with a bare naked "Hunt" for the URI's logical meaning! - That's just "flat nasty" for a leading Laser Machining Company in the Oil and Gas Industry.... LOL

You know what makes it even worse?.... much worse????

They are a leading manufacturer of "perforating GUN" components for the Oil and Gas Industry.

Now GOOGLE steps back and says .... WHATTTTT? "Hunt" + "Gun" - What does that have to do with "Laser Machining" and the "Oil and Gas Industry"? - This must be Spam! - Yes it is a serious "disjoint" in a logical presentation....

How is that for being buried in BS algs and quagmire? Can you match that?

Ken

[greeneagle]

Ohhhh yes, I can match that one, with another potential client "on the hook" right now. He owns a realestate company. That's just not bad enough by itself!!!

His surname is "Free" and his company is named after his surname --- Ohhhhhh!

I died and went to hell, with Jagger!

What do you do?

ROTFL!

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

green,

Just curious, you want this website to rank for a keyword like "perforating gun components", so where on the website is the Perforating Gun Components page or content?

[greeneagle]

Incredible,

"perforating guns" hold a preiminent HTML spot at the top of several pages, just below the header graphic.

It was good enough to hold a "Top" SERP in the GOOG for a couple years!

Note, the site was never "sandboxed"!

Ken

[greeneagle]

Maybe we should snap up several "relevant" IRLs add a little different verbiage to each, and 301 redirect them all back to the main!

Definitely Rolling on the floor by now!

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

So the home page is the page that was ranking for "perforating guns"?

Why not create a more content rich sub-page or article about "perforating guns"?

Something funky is happening when the website doesnt appear very high for "hunt and hunt".

http://www.google.com/search?q=hunt+...&start=10&sa=N

More than likely it is because of your explanation above.

[mktplace]

Ken,

There is a LOT of HTML/code before you get to a real peice of useful test on the home page.

And then there are how many blank table rows?
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>

-and how many blank cells?

<td align="left" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9">[img]pics/RampN2b.jpg[/img]</td>
<td height="22" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="3" align="left" valign="middle" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
<td rowspan="3" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
<td height="22" align="left" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<td align="left" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9">[img]pics/RampN2b.jpg[/img]</td>
<td height="22" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td rowspan="3" align="left" valign="middle" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
<td rowspan="3" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
<td height="22" align="left" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" align="left" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9">[img]pics/RampN2b.jpg[/img]</td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#89B0D9">[img]pics/RampN3b.jpg[/img]</td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="22" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="bottom" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
<td height="22" align="right" valign="top" bgcolor="#010066"></td>
</tr>

maybe there is an ugly/hard to read filter as well - my eyesite is not that good, and the blue background gives me a headache. . . but that is just me :)

oh, then some more blank cells:
<tr bgcolor="#89B0D9">
<td height="22"></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#89B0D9">
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#89B0D9">
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
<td width="30" height="22"></td>
</tr>

So we are talking a 26K file (not including the graphics), for content that is maybe 3K. Yeah, it validates, but with lots of CSS warnings (the CSS is another 4K, and could be a little more so you dont have as much stuff still inline).

[greeneagle]

Yes mktplace, it's an older Site!

and you do bring up a very valid point:

What would you suggest, should I approach my client and ask for additional funds to redesign the site?

or should I take the view that this older Site: www.vortexventures.com too, slopped up with DHTML follower navigation "nasties" etc..... which has blown out with +10-20% traffic during "Jagger"... and what?

Yes I know our latest; www.precisioncompletion.com launched a couple weeks ago has "nested tables". No I don't like them either but the facts are:

That's what the client wanted
CSS Positioning hasn't progressed into "stark" viability yet
It validates

I could go on and on here, but the fact remains that the GOOG has never penalized sites that validate for any reason outside of "Blackhat" practices, and no one can site examples there, until now.

Our Sites are cleanly coded - more than most... several examples show that isn't a key issue here anyway. There is a full spectrum of nasties, including "all out blackhat" slapping legit sites down, right now.

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

green,

Just because you had a solid ranking in the past for this websites doesn't mean it deserves to keep it. I think this a good example for everyone to pay attention to here. Optimization of your website never stops. If you happen to have a #1 ranking for a keyword, you better have a good idea why that page is ranking for it. In the case above it seems that the website is very relevant and probably could rank for the keyword "perforating guns", but was it truly optimized for this keyword at its fully capabilities. It appears not!

Sure I agree with everyone that jagger is demoting websites for some un-explainable reasons, but in this case above I think it is not Jagger so much, as some better content is need to target the keyword chosen.

[greeneagle]

incredible,

I agree, but this isn't about single keyphrases, it's about multiple keyphrases!

All keyphrases dropping from top SERP to < (less than) 100s, 200s and off the map.... entire Site demotion for all keywords and phrases!

That's the focus here! - It's much bigger than that!

It's "upstream" somewhere.

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

green, I agree somewhat. Like I mentioned above some sort of synonym demotion might be happening. it is not very good when the clients websites doesn't even appear in the top 20 for "hunt and hunt" on Google.

[greeneagle]

I don't mind laying my soul out for anyone to filet, if it helps get to some resolution.

Yes, like everyone else we designed sites in accordance with the "state of the art" of the time.

Yes, some of the code could be less bloated, including those that validate to W3C standards, but those issues just haven't played in here.

No - We have never participated in any "black" or "Gray" hat practice anywhere for anyone, even though we are fully aware of their continuing potential. In fact we have been ultra-conservative there, and never even engaged in any link exchange program for a client or ourselves. All link programs have always been targeted at relevant directories and relevancy between my Site and clients - end of story.

But we lost one this time! - First time ever! Evidently a lot of others are feeling the same pain, at the wrong time of the year, and just don't know better what to do, than I do! ---- and still don’t!

That's what we are dealing with in this update!

Plain and simple - and none of us know why yet.

That's the hard facts that are driving this discontent, especially when so many "black hat" examples basking in the sun are so readily exposed.

That's the “ugly” element, horrifying everyone here, in the Jagger update!

It’s REAL and can’t be written off easily!

Let's put it another way: "Citizen Kane" Sites are being pummeled while "Darth Vader" Sites are being left standing or promoted in this update.

There is good reason for that not to set well, especially when it appears to be so wide spread.

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

green I think this website you have brought to our attention is a good example of what many are going through. What happened? What did I do wrong? Could the website be better? Why is spam still in the results? Many good questions with no definite answers.

I was just pointing out that if you have a website and you want it to rank for a certain keyword then you should somehow target that keyword on the website better. Of course this takes away from the fact that Jagger itself is more than likely to blame for this recent drop for you.

[greeneagle]

Incredible,

I am well aware of most defined deficiencies on the Sites that I maintain.

I have been at this for 8 years now:

Yes, best practices have changed.

No, client's budgets aren't unlimited.

Yes, improvements can be made on any site.

No, there aren't any gross sins in our portfolio or history.

Never a Black or Gray practice.

Yes "dirtier" coded sites prevail in some SERP, including a client that continues in #1 spot for "hydrocyclone" - single word keyword - that's just the wrong "dog" here! In fact we have many single word top keywords for several clients - flat out no issue, no matter how dirty the code, which in our case pales in the face of the monsters that remain.

I could go on here but, many site owners and webmasters are justly feeling the same pain here, and it's not even a "ripe market" for revenue transfer to Adwords issue many cases here.

That's my "first hand" experience.

Where do you look next? - This is a "worst case" scenario! - for many.

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

Aaaaaarrrgghhhhhh!

I am not trying to be condescending here. I understand your pain and feel some of my own!

[greeneagle]

I know that Incredible:

But I remain in a "first hand" position to know that there are legitimate grumblings this time.

You have been around long enough to know that I have never taken this "side" in a previous update.

I could always "discount" the claims...

This time I just can't

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

This time I just can't

Agreed.

[Keimos]

Hi Greeneagle,

Stay put and live with it for four weeks.
Google Jagger has penalised a lot of sites that have changed too much.

If that does not work, then you need to get working.

Regards

Keith

Top 50 over 8 Years

[DrTandem1]

Top domain refers to the dot com or dot net, etc. of a site. I think you are referring to the domain name itself, not the level. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your use of the word "top."

No, I don't think the name has any relevance with Google. Numerous sites have domain names that have absolutely nothing to do with their content before and after this update started.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

No, I don't think the name has any relevance with Google. Numerous sites have domain names that have absolutely nothing to do with their content before and after this update started.

Agreed.

[greeneagle]

Thanks for the advice Keimos

In fact it does reflect my first response to this update, as well as many others.

But, after a couple weeks:

your "panties" need to be washed
your "cigar" burns out
and your cognac bottle is empty

Spectator Sports should only last long enough as to remain an intermission!

Ken

[greeneagle]

DrTandem1:

"No, I don't think the name has any relevance with Google. Numerous sites have domain names that have absolutely nothing to do with their content before and after this update started."

Now we are getting somewhere, Go ahead and cite some examples of "misleading" URIs still holding top 3 SERP after Jagger!

LOL, just giving you a hard time... I know this is exemplarary, so let's just take the first level logical disconnect - non-relevant content examples and play there for a bit.

You did notice that no one offered me advice about what to tell a potential realestate client with a last name of "Free" with a thriving multi-county company named after himself, didn't you?

What magic can I pull out there?

That's about "nasty" in triplicate right now isn't it?

How about "freerealestate.com"? - oops it's taken, boasting a (PR0) "goose egg".

LOL - Convulsing on the floor about now!!! ;-0

Ken

[Keimos]

Hi Greeneagle again,

and IH how has lurked from another thread

So four weeks is too long, agreed but go with your instincts and experience.

A lot of people are panicking but we all know that if you really want top spot you can pay for it.

The anomolies come on keywords, how does somebody find you? If you can answer that you have struck gold.

My sites do not rely on a single keyword or phrase as each page is unique to the search or relevance and I see no reason to greatly change stuff when I deem the content to contain information about what my customers are looking for.

It is different if you are looking for a mass market, but!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read the forums to see the problems.

Money is always the answer nowadays, but skill and knowledge and ? can always get by that.

My Little Rant for now.

Have fun out there

Been away for too long a time

Take care out there

Keith

[incrediblehelp]

"free real estate" doesnt make much sense when combined so I would hope it doesnt trip any of these "possible" filters discussed above. I would sign him up and get that local traffic to him.

[greeneagle]

Incredible:

"free real estate" doesnt make much sense when combined so I would hope it doesnt trip any of these "possible" filters discussed above."

Let's see if it did:

site:www.freerealestate.com
returns:
www.freerealestate.com/
Similar pages

link:www.freerealestate.com
returns:
Your search - link:www.freerealestate.com - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.

It doesn't look good!

LOL

Ken

[greeneagle]

I'd like to "peal" this topic if possible.

If anyone has Sites that they feel were "unjustly" SERP demoted during Jagger (so far), please post you URL and a few facts and lets just try and determine if Domain Name Relevancy is an issue in the Jagger update.

That's all I really want to accomplish here.

Thanks,
Ken

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

DrTandem1:

Now we are getting somewhere, Go ahead and cite some examples of "misleading" URIs still holding top 3 SERP after Jagger!

LOL, just giving you a hard time... I know this is exemplarary, so let's just take the first level logical disconnect - non-relevant content examples and play there for a bit.

You did notice that no one offered me advice about what to tell a potential realestate client with a last name of "Free" with a thriving multi-county company named after himself, didn't you?

What magic can I pull out there?

That's about "nasty" in triplicate right now isn't it?

How about "freerealestate.com"? - oops it's taken, boasting a (PR0) "goose egg".

LOL - Convulsing on the floor about now!!! ;-0

Ken

Here's one that just attained #1 in Google since the update:

lotion.net for the search for lotion. The site has nothing to do with lotion.

[freehits]

Our real estate site got droppped from page 1 to nowhere, but the last 24 hours the new jag #3 results hsow it returned to #1 spot.

if .9.104 sticks it will be back on top where it justly should be.

The domain does not have the search term, but JAG 3 may provide relief for many of these unexplained drops in the real estate market if ours is an example.

[greeneagle]

Yep Doc,

That is a good example!

In fact it is a good example of everything we are talking about in jagger and more:

www.lotion.net SERP's over www.lotion.com by a landslide - There is no denying that!

There is obvious money behind lotion.com, but not much expertise:

only 10? IBLs opposed to the .net's 462 (MSN)

lotion.com templeted sites all the same cross-linked with shampoo.com, bathrobes.com and more.

Cardinal sins in the .com world there, or they would reign!

"Lotion Industries" is relevant in it's own for the search: lotion.

That hurts my head, almost made me want to seek a confessional - Anyone want to make them an SEO offer?

Talk about ripe, their domain names alone are worth thousands each...what a wasteland!

There is enough work there for a year!, and probably enough in their budget... You should see the single word "vanity" related domains being squandered over there!

When you see something like that, make them an offer, it can't hurt!

Any of us could turn that company around in days!

Ken

[incrediblehelp]

Ken it looks like the lotion.com family of websites are actually trying to hurt themselves, LOL. The subpages within are ridiculous.

[greeneagle]

There is a "bankroll" and probably an enjoyable business engagement languishing there... Someone take it!

Gees! - Another "bird Nest" on the "ground"!

Ken

[DannyS]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Let's focus on one possibility at a time, till we get the "weeds" cut down here.

Our Site that got smacked from top 3 SERP has absolutely no Top Domain Name Relevancy...except for founders surname, and in fact their surname is misleading.

www.huntandhunt.com

Can anyone concur with that possibility in their crashes here?

Ken

Ken

Not sure if this helps on that site. Looking at which of our sites crashed and which survived Jagger1/2, I did notice that those, all bar one, with sitewide links to another www, be it copyright, designed by or whatever, crashed. On the site you have the link back to Mountain Eagle on all pages.

I know it's too early yet, and this might be just one of many filters applied, but I'm cutting back this sort of link to just the home page.

Danny

[greeneagle]

Believe me DannyS, I considered that, at first, but all my clients and I have that going on - nothing triangular or cross, just reciprocal and relevant and no one else ate the pavement!

Ken

[DannyS]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

Believe me DannyS, I considered that, at first, but all my clients and I have that going on - nothing triangular or cross, just reciprocal and relevant and no one else ate the pavement!

Ken

Ken the one site with a sitewide link that didn't get hit was one aimed a minor KW with only ~600,000 pages showing in the search. Since Florida there is a suspicion that Google does filter harder on the real money keywords. Would this show in what you see. Is the Huntandhunt looking at a more popular KW?

Danny

[greeneagle]

DannyS,

There was only one of many with sitewide links that got hit, and no I just can't see the GOOG targeting "laser machining", "Laser machining houston", "perforating guns" and similar terms as ripe Adword markets, if that is even an issue at all here, in Jagger.

We may have some general consensus here about forcing Adword revenue...but correct me if I am wrong... no proof yet!

Ken

[DannyS]

Ken

Re. Sitewides - Just another theory bites the dust;-)

Re. Top Domain Name Relevancy - All of our sites that got hit had relevant domain names - in fact I suspected a bit too relevant as in KW-KW.com

Still looking at the following:
Internal duplication
Reciprocal linking
Age of Sites
Changes in whois info. - site changing owners

Problem is if you have gone from say 4 to 300+ is it a filter or a penalty. If it's the latter and you fix whatever triggered Google, is there then a sandbox period before it comes back in?

Danny

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by DannyS

Ken

Re. Sitewides - Just another theory bites the dust;-)

Re. Top Domain Name Relevancy - All of our sites that got hit had relevant domain names - in fact I suspected a bit too relevant as in KW-KW.com

Still looking at the following:
Internal duplication
Reciprocal linking
Age of Sites
Changes in whois info. - site changing owners

Problem is if you have gone from say 4 to 300+ is it a filter or a penalty. If it's the latter and you fix whatever triggered Google, is there then a sandbox period before it comes back in?

Danny

If it's a penalty, it will depend on how Google deems retribution. As they are judge, jury and executioner, it's anyone's guess. They may soon be looking at a permanent ban just to allow you no other avenue, except pay to be seen on Google.

If it's a filter, I would suspect a possible rebound after the next update of their database, whenever/whatever that is.

[roam_dx]

Ken the one site with a sitewide link that didn't get hit was one aimed a minor KW with only ~600,000 pages showing in the search.

With what Matt Cutts said about "penalizing" paid links, i think this is a strong possibility, even if all the sites that are doing it have not been penalized yet.

Google definitely won't try to do this manually, they'll use an algo, and also, they will probably test this on less/more (depending on profitability) competitive keywords, that could be why your other clients are not yet affected. Maybe they assume that if a link is applied sitewide, it IS a paid link.

Also, If they are mis/reading huntandhunt as you suspect that's a very stupid penalty, but with Google very possible. If it was a gang of lawyers it would most likely be called hunt & hunt & hunt & hunt...and im sure there a lot of those out there

About the Free real estate client, a good branding move IMO would be to get a similar word domain instead of one with the word free and build the branding around that. Something like freedomhomes, homeindependence.

freedomhomes by Mr. XYZ Free or
homeindependence with Mr. XYZ.

not very good examples, just ideas I could think up on the fly.

IMHO find something that works with the essence of Free but makes the meaning a little broader and more effective for branding purposes.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by roam_dx

Also, If they are mis/reading huntandhunt as you suspect that's a very stupid penalty, but with Google very possible. If it was a gang of lawyers it would most likely be called hunt & hunt & hunt & hunt...and im sure there a lot of those out there

Well, you can't have the ampersand as a character in the domain name. However, I guarantee you there is a gang of lawyers complicating this and they work for Google. Lawyers are trained to do one thing, find problems, thus causing more problems and ensuring that we need lawyers.

Remember, the only reason we need lawyers is because there are lawyers.

[roam_dx]

However, I guarantee you there is a gang of lawyers complicating this and they work for Google.

that makes sense, if Google has to take over every business in the world, they'll need a good gang of goons.

Google and lawyers have a lot in common as far as core ideologies go, im sure they set the Googleplex on fire (Phds and lawyers) looking up loopholes in law and fitting them into complex algos.

[DrTandem1]

Just a small side note. Google was/is down as of 00:57 PST from San Diego.

[Faglork]

Ken,

just my 2 cents:

- change the ALT attributes on huntandhunt.com to "" to get more focus. From an accessibility point of view it makes no sense to hear "page decoration" over and over: after all, if you can't see it, you even have no use for the plain fact, it is irrelevant in this case and therefore the ALT attribute should be empty. From a "page topic" point of view it is even misleading and in general detrimental to the keyword density of you main KWs.

- I deem it too early to analyse the outcome of Joker3. It makes no sense to speculate whether an OBL here or an IBL there makes any difference. We should try to get the big picture - when the time has come. And then we should put substantial effort into it: We could develop a sort of matrix, putting together a "site properties chart" or something like that, which we could use for analysis. What we need are comparable case studies, a simple "this site might have been dropped because of sitewide links to the author" will not do IMO.

Greetings from Germany,
faglork

[MtraX]

One of our dropped sites has the top keyword phrase as the URL (3 words with no seperators). I don't see relevance in domain names at this moment... It's still completely gone out of the top 100 results on Goog. All the top sites have big amounts of inbound links - it must be weighing in heavier at the moment. Some of the sites aren't even as optimised as our site and we didn't use any over the top practises. Totally white hat.