Fresh content versus old content?

[pdrew]

Hi!

First time posting to the MSN forum.

Reason: I disappeared from my top 10 rank in MSN. I understand these things happen on all three major SEs, but as seems to be the case whenever someone posts the question, "I was ranked in the top 10 for my keyword now I'm at #489. What happened?", it doesn't seem to make sense, including from the perspective of the generally held conviction that MSN likes fresh, relevant content more so than Google and Yahoo!.

My site, www.peterdrewvo.com, was on the first page for the keyword "voiceovers," now it's #66. Using the Link Adage tool,
http://www.linkadage.com/linkadage-i...cs_checker.htm, I compared my site with the #1 site for "voiceovers," www.voiceovers.net." Here's what I found:

For peterdrewvo.com...

MSN: 749 backlinks, 31 indexed pages, #66 SERP
Google: 33 backlinks, 63 indexed pages, #4 SERP, PR 4
Yahoo: 4360 backlinks, 79 indexed pages, #3 SERP

For voiceovers.net...

MSN: 31 backlinks, 7 indexed pages, #1 SERP
Google: 3 backlinks, 6 indexed pages, sub-100 SERP
Yahoo: 18 backlinks, 14 indexed pages, #16 SERP

Both sides are at least 5 years old.

Voiceovers.net has basic sales-oriented content, including a fun Site Pal animation, some demo audio files, testimonials, and links.

PeterDrewVO.com has those things, too, but I have 15 useful articles on various aspects of voiceovers, which generate several emails from readers every couple of weeks. I add an article every so often, which, of course, should be more like one a week. I also have a links directory, which focuses on voiceover related sites. Point being, at least I'm adding content. Voiceovers.net has in essence remained the same since its inception.

So, we're both older sites, but I'm adding more fresh content than voiceovers.net and yet I'm ranked at #66. Any thoughts? Anything I'm missing? Any MSN ranking killers on my site? Or, as I mentioned earlier, is there no rhyme, nor reason for so many of these quirky rankings found in search engines?

Thanks for any insights you might have.

[Cyrus255]

You have a ton of links on your page. Why link to those articles on every page? Are they just as important as your front page?

If not, you could start by removing the individual article links. People can find them just well with the button.

You should have a clear hierarchal structure.

[Cyrus255]

Wait scratch that.

I just looked at your code and a more important problem is at hand.

Look at your code! It's hideous! The tables!!! Use some CSS to fix that prob.

SE only see code, and your code has a horrible code-to-content ratio, etc. etc.

Code like this:

<TD WIDTH=27 HEIGHT=38>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=8>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=41>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD></TD>
<TD WIDTH=11>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=3>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=5>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=5>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=4>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=7>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=1>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=5>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=3>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=7>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=11>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=6>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=13>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=1>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=7>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>
<TD WIDTH=18>[img]./assets/images/autogen/clearpixel.gif[/img]</TD>

That simply serves no purpose but to hurt you. Hide it in external CSS if you have to!

[inovat]

I agree with Cyrus that you may have some problems with your code. I also think it may be possible that you are trying too hard and the SE's are picking up on it.You also have to consider the fact that your competition has "voiceovers.net" for a domain name and that lends itself rather well I am sure.

[nashville]

I have seen this before on my own sites. When you drop that much, it is only for a little while OR like inovat said, you are trying too hard.

[incrediblehelp]

This is a tough one on the surface. Were you involved in any paid linking or possibly questionable IBL linking at all?

I am trying to figure out these recent MSN algo update. It is a strange one.

As cyrus has said, valid code seems to be a good idea on MSN. It doesn't seem to have much effect on the other two search engines.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

This is a tough one on the surface. Were you involved in any paid linking or possibly questionable IBL linking at all?

I am trying to figure out these recent MSN algo update. It is a strange one.

As cyrus has said, valid code seems to be a good idea on MSN. It doesn't seem to have much effect on the other two search engines.

Agreed.

[sgsmorgan]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

This is a tough one on the surface. Were you involved in any paid linking or possibly questionable IBL linking at all?

I am trying to figure out these recent MSN algo update. It is a strange one.

What is the story on paid linking? Is it something that the Search Engines are penalising. I always was of the opinion that Google were never too wild about it but thought that MSN or Yahoo by and large didn't seem to care (or has this all changed with the latest MSN Algo update).

Also I am intrigued by the concept of "trying too hard"? How is this quantified by the SE's and what exactly constitutes "Trying too hard"?

The reason I ask these questions is that we had a site that had it's links page / directory powered by a php application - our own directory and not part of a network but I guess from the outside may have looked similar. Now I am wondering whether this may actually be harming the site rather than helping it and it has been removed in favour of another system - basically now carried out by hand!

[artemis8]

He has a better URL aswell - it includes the keyword.

[inovat]

Also I am intrigued by the concept of "trying too hard"? How is this quantified by the SE's and what exactly constitutes "Trying too hard"?

Its just a theory that SE's are actually smart enough to recognize when someone is trying to "spam" in a way, their way up the rankings.

However taking a look at the results he has for his sites I am thinking that it is more than likely a temporary change in MSN. Also the URL may have just about everything to do with this change MSN may weigh that very heavily. Whereas Google does not seem to be bought off with a good URL.

[incrediblehelp]

I agree inovat I think he should wait a couple of weeks and see if the ranking comes back. I have had temporary drops like this in MSN for NO reason at all. 2-3 weeks later the ranking(s) comes right back.

[pdrew]

Thanks to all of you for your input.

Yep. I know the code on my site sucks. I'm using Net Objects Fusion 7, which inserts a lot of extra code, including it's own proprietary code. I should've upgraded to NOF 8 by now or invested in another WYSIWYG, e.g. Dreamweaver. I know only a little HTML and really don't have the time to hunker down and really learn it because I have to run my voiceovers business, so I use a WYSIWYG design program. I'll probably invest in Dreamweaver and re-build the site in CSS, which really is a more elegant way to go than tables.

But, like in any craft, especially one that involves sophisticated technology, everyone has an opinion on best practices. I just read a piece by a respected SEO/designer that tables are perfectly acceptable to SE spiders. Sure, it helps the spiders if the tables' code is easily navigated, but are tables really a problem? Another one up for debate.

If bloated code is the reason for my site's drop in MSN, then this must definitely be part of the new algorithm because my site ranked on the first page for "voiceovers" for a couple of years.

I'm a bit mystified at the idea that I might be trying too hard. Everyone says content is king. Try to become an authority site. The typical voiceover person's website is basically a brochure with contact information and some demos. I took the SEO content mantra to heart and wrote articles that are of use to other VO talents, especially those new to the business or thinking of entering the business, as well as to those who hire VO talent. I taught VO for a number of years, so it was somewhat natural to write articles and post them on my site and distribute them. Of course, I optimized them and made sure my resource box had a link back to my site.

I have very few outgoing links to sites that are not related to my site's field. I organized my links page as a directory with H1 tags to delineate categories, so it just wasn't a list of unrelated links. And I've only purchased one link for a whole five bucks and it was from a relevant site.

As for the links under the nav bar that lead to the articles on the site, I did that for visitors, so they could see right off that there is valuable content on my site. I need to show that my site isn't the typical VO "brochure." When I read Cyrus255's response regarding too many links on my homepage, it got me thinking that by putting the links to my articles right on the homepage, the SEs are led directly to my content without having to go down another level into the site, which maybe in some way helps me rank at #4 in Google and #3 in Yahoo for "voiceovers." A goofy idea?

My title and description have been optimized with keywords, but I made sure they explain what my site is about, again trying to provide relevant content to the searcher to help that person decide whether my site's worth looking at or not.

And my site is mostly text, which is what SE spiders read. Very little in the way of images. No Flash or Javascript.

Thanks again for taking a look at my site and for the critique. It's definitely got me motivated to fix the bloated code problem and re-examine my motives when optimizing each page I put up. I'll wait and see if my site rebounds in MSN as a few of you surmised it might do.