The following article was written by Nick Wilson.

Aaron Wall has an interesting article detailing how his SEOBook and SEOGuy websites have been dumped in the recent Google update.

"A couple of the sites that were hit in the Google update were ranking well in most major search engines for the term "SEO."

Recently SEO Guy ranked #1 in Google. My SEO Book blog also ranked in the top 10 - 20 sites since June of last year.

I just checked Yahoo! and MSN and SEO Guy was #1 for "SEO" on both sites. My site was #4 and #6. Teoma is a topical clustering based search engine and even their algorithm still ranks my site at #11.

After the recent Google update both SEO Guy and SEO Book no longer rank in Google for their official site names."

Many theories and surmizes follow, but they boil down to this:

Over optimized sites have been hit again...

This also ties in nicely with a thread i read a bit of over at WMW recently: The Best SEO Tactic is to do Nothing at all?

Member Tomthumb2000 says...

"I've been reading masses of opinions over the past few weeks and it strikes me that with so many conflicting opinions and contracditory evidence, what conclusions can the average webmaster draw?

It seems to me that the best tactic may be to just develop a site with plenty of good content, relevant titles, get the ODP and Yahoo listing and leave it at that. I've seen plenty of sites developed in Notepad reach the top of their SERPS without ever requesting a link or giving more than a relevant handful of links out.

I can accept that there exist webmasters and companies with genius techies and a hard-wroking team of Web promoters who can get results. But for the average webmaster is his time not best spent in developing a good site? Especially when no one can agree on what works anyway?

Maybe I'm just naive..."

What i wonder now is this:

- Is Google specifically targeting SEO efforts?

- How does this change the SEO game?

I think the first one is a bit of a no brainer :) but the second should provide some food for thought ... right?

Personally, as I've said before, the harder this game becomes the better off the industry will be..

Thanks Brad.

__________________
Former WebProWorld Admin

Search Engine Optimizing experts are loving that Google keeps changing the ways their algorithms work. Why?

Job security.

It may mean that their work is no longer working for their current or past clients, but those clients will come back if they were happy with the results the first time they worked together.

Are we assuming that the Average Joe and Jane doesn't realize that? Please. Let's drop the act. This is GREAT for business -- but only if you treated your clients as if this was going to happen someday (we all knew it would). If you didn't work your hardest for them, then you just lost out on what could've been two paydays from one happy client.

This will happen again in the future, so plan for it now by the way you treat your clients.

I see all kinds of posts bemoaning the latest change that "took away all of their hard work," blah, blah, blah. They just walked into the next financial boon, and they know it. I know it. Don't you?

Maybe there is something to that whole "Do unto others" thing.

Reading the threat at WMW is frustrating. Can't seem to glean any real information or real insight.

A lot of chatters there say - just do nothing. Keep adding content and take your time. How much time do their clients have?

There's such a fundamental lack of definition of SEO, SEM, online marketing, etc. - and the specific roles and skills sets necessary for them all. I mean, really, if you insist that a website should be left alone and all you need to do is add content and that'll be that, then you are making some big assumptions. Forget assuming that doing nothing will help you. I want to focus on assuming that the content you write (the "good" content) is going to do the job - but do you know what job it's going to do?

It just seemed like a copout way of dealing with this Google SNAFU.

But all of this makes me wonder if Google is doing something more sinister: cornering the SEO/SEM market. Amid reports of lower-PPC spending, the market has been slamming Google's stock price. It's down $3 a share today. I wonder if Google is testing out filters on SEO - so they can corner SEO and add SEO services to their AdWords/AdSense. This sounds possible to me because now that Google is public, shareholders/board could be much more sensitive to Google's position. Google could be trying every which way to gain a strategic revenue advantage. Google can incorporate SEO package - SEO consulting - and actually guarantee that if websites follow their guidelines, then the sites can gain better natural rankings (maybe they put a Google-SEO'd-certified filter in place so that all sites SEO'd by Google get pushed to the top). I would imagine that way Google could even further ensure QC.

I mean.. am I being overly cynical or does this sound plausible... at least possible?

The fact that there's nothing to stop Google from carrying out that exact plan makes it a plausible one.

Hold on tight. SEO experts are either going to be bought-up by Google like fishing in an aquarium with a net. Or, they'll all be shut out.

This might end up hurting a little. Novacaine anyone?

The thing is that is scary about that is - if Google takes a leap like that, and builds a successful appeal to webmasters to go to them for SEO services (SEO consulting services + site design, etc.), then Yahoo AND MSN would jump on that.

Site owners can then pick who they want to go to for SEO services - Yahoo-centric, MSN-centric, Google-centric. At this point in time, Google would corner the market easily.

And here's how Google can appeal to users - Google can now "guarantee" that users would not find spammy top-ranking websites anymore. So users can be confident in using Google again.

Then, after Google corners the market - how can Google explain away their SEO services once there is status quo in their SERPs? Simple. Google will next factor who is paying more to be ranked higher.

This is a doomsday scenario. I'm just throwing it out there. But again - not just possible, but plausible. Like I said - the burden of being a public company is now upon Google. Shares are down $3/share on 2/25/05.

Google => corner SEO/SEM market & offer SEM services to all website owners
Google = $ $ $ $D

And what does that do to Google's AdWords program? It makes AdWords more of a necessity than ever before because the only way to get high placement of any kind in Google will be to go with at least one of their programs -- the new SEO consultation side of it, or the PPC side of it.

Either way, PPC's stock is raised in this scenario.

Can you just picture the Google-watchers sitting in their desks in their headquarters reading this right now saying, "Very good, now what ealse are we going to do to generate more revenue for ourselves? Don't stop your thinking there..."

just my 02...

There's no way Google has the manpower to watch and monitor all of these situations. If they decided to dedicate resources to watching one sector, another area would sneak up and figure out how to get top rankings.

Besides, it's in Google's best interest to keep the SEO'rs on their toes concerning the latest conspiracy theory, since fear of the unkown and banishment from Google is so dreaded.

I don't agree that the latest update was actively going after the seo market - instead, it looks like they went after people using the same text link pointing to their sites...

__________________
Optimization Services | ID Theft Protection

Its a constant battle of one-up-manship. Raking is more about playing the game and less about content.

...Dan

Google has most likely simply corrected their algorithm to reduce the benefits from some of SEO Guy's spammy SEO techniques.

This is good for searchers, because it brings them more relevant results.

This is good for SEO's, because it improves the playing field for ethical SEO's.

__________________
Webmaster: The Internet Search Engines FAQ

The site that I work for www.dabow-inc.com already uses such tools as adwords from google. We only resorted to this sort of marketing, because our own attempts at SEO management have failed. Mostly, because our market is small. Anyways the adwords programs would become too expensive to use if that was the only way to get our site out in the public eye. I don't know what others are paying, but we pay between $0.84 and $2.00 a click just to be in the top ten rankings. Give that too many clicks and our daily budget is gone before lunch. Something like this could really hurt google when small business owners start moving to more economical search engines.

Without even putting much effort into keyword density, simply modifying out title tags has done amazing things for us. We retrained our Internet Operations editorial team to mark the title tags of articles a certain way, and POOF, top ratings in some very competitive keyword and keyword phrase arenas.

We haven't have to get too tricky or sneaky at all. And, this new update by Google has only helped us. Perhaps ethics do pay off from time-to-time.

I just checked a keyword and checked the HTML of the #1 listing under the keyword "rose quartz jewelry".

It didn't even HAVE a doctype tag. The HTML errors stopped posting after 200...The website itself was far from attractive or professional!

I was thinking today that maybe Google's being SABOTAGED? Think of it! They're under HUGE pressure right now to get revenue from the IPO. MSN is live and on their tail... Now...Just say MSN buys out someone there--someone with power, and WHAM--Google's searches become irrelevant--at the time when everyone is comparing search results on MSN and Yahoo. With Google's searchs more irrelevant, users logically migrate to MSN. It's far cheaper for MSN to buy out one Geek than to spend millions and millions on advertising.

I just can't imagine Google would do this to themselves. Something HAS to be going on!

All these crazy theories--but whatever is going on--it certainly isn't LOGICAL. And that's what THIS Geek craves!

__________________
MaxSun

http://www.LuckyGemstones.com

I recently found that 2 sites I had built for individuals - (their names are the .com, .co.uk addresses i.e JohnSmith.com have just disappeared from Google listings. Both were previously in top #3 rankings for their names, real names that is + domain name, as mentioned.

On both occasions no 'stealth' methods were involved - who needs it when your marketing a guy's name and what he does? [In one case a TV film editor and the second a writer of Kids' Musicals]?

So what do I do? Re-register with Google? Or are the sites now blacklisted? if so what's my next move?

V.frustrating! While I'm v. interested in all the feedback above I'm more interested in finding a way back into the rankings. Any suggestions as to a next sensible step much appreciated.

Any feedback from anyone that's been in a similar position gratefully received.

Thanks and love,

__________________
Some say the glass is half empty, others say it's half full. I say, "Are you going to drink that or what?"

www.websitemarket.co.uk

I've seen ups and downs but this Feb 2 update has been VERY GOOD for me. My SEO policy has always been "avoid any tricky stuff that might be penalized, only do obvious stuff that improves the site without regard to SEO..."

I think that has been a good long-term strategy. Though it's hard to say, I might get hit hard in the next update. Who knows?

Andi

__________________
...the Rockies may tumble, Gibralter may crumble... G & I Gershwin, 1937

crpytblade sez

I am a self-admitted skeptic and paranoid loon, so there's my full disclosure. But I am extremely unhappy with Google, and have been for about six months. It isn't about whining over "oh God there goes all my work" (for 100+ sites) it is more like "wow, look at the shiznet that they call natural search, if I can find it among the 20+ PPC ads littering the results." I had validated, quality, natural, white hat stuff for many, many clients high up on Google, and it isn't like they disappeared in one day, they just trickle downwards over time. 13 years one site has been online, it gets 2k+ natural sessions a day with no PPC, and creeping downward it has gone since the day Google did an IPO. Upwards went utter rubbish that is totally unrelated, or not nearly so relevant, to very obvious search phrases - one word, two word sorts.

Plus if you ask me, Google has already cornered the SEM market in the eyes of those who only see PPC as their best marketing option - i.e. the 90% of SMBs out there as opposed to corps with the cash to do radio, TV, email campaigns (good ones) and now podcasting and other such things.

As for SEO, it sort of bleeds into Adwords profits if you ask me... my how it helps to click on PPC if the natural results a) look similar - and I know they're offset, but not by much, 80% or so of people can't tell the difference per some studies... and b) how nice for Google's wallet if only the PPC seems to be relevant, eh?

I realize there are some natural curbs and checks on this, such as people abandoning Google in droves for a better engine - but MSN and Yahoo are PPC-happy as well, though I... cannot believe I am saying this... have been quite impressed with the new non-beta MSN. First time in my life I have wanted MS to really get after a competitor - or at least make a quality alternative product that humbles said competitor's gouging ambitions a little. Google's got the giant's attention, we'll see what comes of it - my prediction is they will BOTH start the SEO/SEM lock game, and we web people will all go grab 3 domains for every site and optimize them differently to hit the major engines (but not with identical visible content of course, that's black-hat SEO - eek! Call the cops! Plus it doesn't even work unless you do it! Or so scream the mad white hatters - of which I am one, though I'm climbing on the fence if this slide goes on forever...)

__________________

The Chiron Group

I run a tiny web design company with about 10 sites online. I have a text link to my site saying "flite media design" in the footer of all these sites. In the recent update almost every one of my sites has been removed from google! (The sites still have PR and if i search for the URL it shows but with no title or text.) All my sites except one which had an image instead of a text link. I think SEOforGoogle is right!

All I have been doing is learning to make valid html/css, no exsessive SEO. This google update has been a disaster for me.

Lets face it, if you have good content then things will definately at the very least be more stable.

The sites that this site started about definately 'did' use some techniques that were/are considered spammy. I have seen a lot of apparent competitors fall by the way side with these google updates and 9 times out of ten they have been sites that are no more than directories and more than keyword stuffed.. I mean, dont be naive, ive stuffed the odd bit here and there myself but not in comparison to the dropped sites..

who said Without doubt the long term success rule..

As for those complaining about the cost of pay for clicks.. perhaps you are not using people that know what they are doing..?
There are bound to be terms for 'any' phrase/keywords that will cost you 10p and not $2 a click! You need to utilise these! Does your site only get found for several queries? We get found for hundreds and hundreds of similar terms/expressions/locations etc etc that benefit us and we obviously target a number of these phrases via pay for clicks at 10p and just skirtthe obvious terms that cost high bids.... However we also target words that cost us $2 a click because it pays! These particular words we have tested and get high roi!
I would consult a expert in this field or at least take a lot of time to know what you are doing or else yes, you will be throwing money down the drain and google etc cannot be blamed for taking advantage of that.

Good content will definitely be more stable. Not a doubt. Title tags can be tweaked a little and good content falls little if ever, and tends to grow not shrink in rankings with fresh content and a large number of relevant pages.

And PPC is only getting a bit pricey for "big terms" because there are companies that are finding it harder to scale as they hit the cielings of certain terms, fully agree the "cracks" in the wall can be very nicely taken good advantage of by any site not needing 50k hits/day. 98% of companies aren't using PPC yet - once 20% or so do, which is probably a fair estimate of 1-2 years out, it'll be competitive down the whole wire - but as noted, if it makes a profit, it's worth it. If it doesn't - oops, you got own3d by someone with a more efficient product, system, process, etc.

Though it sure is nice to be inferior and yet profitable, will the ride lasts. =)

__________________

The Chiron Group