Visiting the "Over-Optimization Penalty" Monster

[greeneagle]

There's no such thing!

Show me any Site that you think has been penalized due to over-optimization!

There is no such monster!

IMO - It only lives in overactive imaginations and people looking for failure excuses!

Show me different, and I'll be glad to back off my position here!

Ken

[wrmineo]

You're glorifying a monster that does not exist obviously. Rather, for me at least, it is simply a nice way of telling someone that they've gone overboard. There can be little doubt that some webmasters' attempts to optimize their site goes beyond good optimization and goes into spam. This would be a case, in a "PC" term-way, of over-optimizing IMO.

[greeneagle]

You are right on there Rob, and that is exactly where I intend to go technically with anyone that wants to bring it on!

It's way past time someone broke this myth!

Ken

[Evic]

I posted this in the previous topic (which forwards over to this one).

I agree that a penalization doesn't exist, there are very few penalizations in the SEO world period. What I do believe exists, and is used effectively, is the "silent treatment."

If you (for lack of a better term) "over-optimize" a certain element on your website (such as IMG-ALT tags), I believe that element will simply be ignored.

Google, or other reputable engines, will not penalize you per say, you are penalizing yourself. You are causing a very effective SEO element to be ignored, when it could generate a much more successful index for you.

[bhartzer]

There is no such monster!

Ken, you obviously haven't pushed the limits enough with your own optimization efforts to have experienced the joys of running into the OOP (Over-Optimization Penalty).

I'm sure you're probably thinking: "prove it". If that's what you're thinking, how about this:

Over-Optimization penalty because of too much anchor text. You decide that your site is not ranking well. So, you change the navigation on your site so that all the home page links say "keyword keyword home" instead of "home". A few days later you lose your rankings, which is a serious blow to your traffic. Since that was the only thing you changed on your site you change those links to your home page back so it says, "home" instead of "keyword keyword home". BINGO! All of your lost rankings and your lost traffic comes back a few days later.

If that's not proof of an over-optimization penalty then I don't know what is--I would call that an OOP: you do something to try to boost your rankings by over optimizing some element of your website, something that backfires and causes a loss of rankings.

I personally can name tons of other examples just like this that prove that there's an OOP.

One more thing--I think that you can over-optimize a web page or site without going as far as actually spamming. In the example above, I truly believe that having too much of the same anchor text isn't spamming, it's just over-optimization. Spamming, in my book, would be something like keyword stuffing or something like repeating a keyword over and over again. Over optimization is different than spamming.

[mtheory]

Originally Posted by bhartzer

Ken, you obviously haven't pushed the limits enough with your own optimization efforts to have experienced the joys of running into the OOP (Over-Optimization Penalty).

I'm sure you're probably thinking: "prove it". If that's what you're thinking, how about this:

Over-Optimization penalty because of too much anchor text. You decide that your site is not ranking well. So, you change the navigation on your site so that all the home page links say "keyword keyword home" instead of "home". A few days later you lose your rankings, which is a serious blow to your traffic. Since that was the only thing you changed on your site you change those links to your home page back so it says, "home" instead of "keyword keyword home". BINGO! All of your lost rankings and your lost traffic comes back a few days later.
If that's not proof of an over-optimization penalty then I don't know what is--I would call that an OOP: you do something to try to boost your rankings by over optimizing some element of your website, something that backfires and causes a loss of rankings.

I personally can name tons of other examples just like this that prove that there's an OOP.

One more thing--I think that you can over-optimize a web page or site without going as far as actually spamming. In the example above, I truly believe that having too much of the same anchor text isn't spamming, it's just over-optimization. Spamming, in my book, would be something like keyword stuffing or something like repeating a keyword over and over again. Over optimization is different than spamming.

Again, just present a verifyable and well documented
example and I will believe you.

I purchase a domain about 6 weeks ago built and published the site 3 weeks later. I then properly submitted to the search engines (including a Google XML site map)

This is an all Flash site so I made it easy for the search engines to index it by adding RELEVANT keywords to the title and behind the Flash.

As of last week it ranks well with Google and Yahoo for my target keywords.

#2 on Google for "myspace resources"

#11 on Yahoo for "cool myspace stuff"

[Steve W]

Isn't 'hiding' relevant keywords behind your flash (black text on black background) cloaking, which is a bad thing?
I'm no SEO expert so am looking to Greeneagle or the like to say this definitively, but your code :looks: like cloaking to my untrained eyes.

No offence intended, just wondering why you used flash to create that site, it looks like plain HTML?

Also, 'myspace resources' is unlikely to be a commonly searched term, which makes it easier to rank well, no matter how young the site IMHO.

[bhartzer]

Isn't 'hiding' relevant keywords behind your flash (black text on black background) cloaking, which is a bad thing?

That's not cloaking. Cloaking is when you purposely identify the search engine spiders and present them with different content than what you give to regular vistors. Usually this is done by identifying an IP address or user agent of the visitor.

All Mtheory is doing is hiding text. The example that Mtheory gives really has nothing to do with the Over Optimization Penalty. There's no OOP for what Mtheory is doing because it's not over-optimizing--it's just helping the search engines understand what is presented in the Flash content. They don't have a problem with that.

As far as proof goes, I thought I explained it in my previous post. If you over optimize a site or page then you'll suffer a ranking penalty--remove it and you will get your rankings back. To actually prove this it would take at least a week or two--which is not feasible for this topic/thread right now.

[Steve W]

I think I have over optimized (spammed up) a page on the OCM site.

Most changes I made to the site really pushed it up the ranks, but one phrase in particular is lounging around page 2 despite looking like it has more key phrase content than those above it.

I've been thinking for a while too much key phrase density - I'll knock it back and see what happens, since it's page two anyway, that page can't do worse so it's worth a go... if it drops further, at least I'll know I hadn't gone overboard (reading it a few weeks after writing it, I think I did...)

[randfish]

I actually have a client I can share who was banned by Yahoo! for over-optimization. Specifically it was for www.avatarfinancial.com who had too many backlinks from sources Yahoo! felt were 'funny'.

I asked for re-inclusion and was being ignored so I signed up for Sitematch. Once I was in that, I compalined to the editors there who talked to some folks over at organic and now the site is back in without paid inclusion. They recognized that the sites who were linking weren't under my control and that I couldn't, in fact, control who linked to it. Many, many hundreds of scraper sites were to blame!

I've seen plenty of direct, real evidence of OOP and I think categorizing it as a myth is a way to get a lot of folks hurt. I've seen sites banned for keyword stuffing, stacked title tags, hidden text, cloaking and dozens more. OOP is as real as the nose on my face and its a very logical, realistic part of SEOs.

[freehits]

Seems like we are just perpetuating this "myth" by discussing it, since no G engineers are available here to "break this myth" what do we really stand to prove?

Anyone else attemting to state whole-heartedly for or against the concept is just glorified guessing.

Since this is one of the alledged triggers of a "sandbox" effect, we are pretty much just reliving that same arguement.

We are again approaching this completely backwards. To show examples of sites that appear penalized for "too much optimization", then to have people guess at what a "real" reason is, really proves nothing, since once again nobody here really knows sure enough to make definate claims.

The only true way is to isolate a variable which is what Bhartzer does in his post.

Change just one variable and witness a distinct effect, then change it back and notice the effect of that as well.

From that you can draw reasonable conclusions, anything else is just based on assumptions and guessing.


I just changed the navigation text and alts on one of my 'sandboxed sites' to not include keyword repetition, So I will monitor the effects of changing just that one variable while everything else stays the same.

Nothing else to lose for a site that is
#1 MSN
#1 Yahoo and
<1000 in google

[spronger]

The over-optimisation penalty is no myth. It exists and it makes perfectly good sense that it does. Here's my real-world non-mythical example:

My main targeted keyword is "create website". This usually ejoys page 1 status on G. But every now and then I was finding that I would disappear from the SERPs. Not just a fall in ranking, but disappear all together. This usually happened when G picked up a new link which contained those keywords in the anchor text. The solution? Reduce keyword density on-page or add some new links that didn't contain those keywords. In other words, de-optimise.

When I did that my ranking would return, usually within hours. If you find that you're not ranking on keywords that you've really put a lot of work into, and gosh darn it, you really should be ranking well on but are off the radar, try de-optimising.

Agreed, there are a lot of myths out there. This isn't one of them.

Steve

[greeneagle]

I have been wanting to get my hands dirty in this discussion for a long time here! It just didn't seem right until the thrust of this Forum became more "Optimization" defined.

Here is how "googleguy" is quoted in response to the "OOP":

"It's the second one. People post around here about filters, blocking, penalties, etc. etc. A far better explanation is "things which used to work before don't receive the same amount of credit now." It's natural for people who are way out there with their linking strategies or their page-building strategies to think of a drop as an over-optimization penalty, but it's more realistic to conclude that Google is weighting criteria differently so that over-optimized sites just aren't doing as well now."

We can draw some paralells to the sandbox issue here, but this is indeed a different topic altogether.

Many SEOers push the limits, which helps form difinitive boundaries between optimization and over-optimization. "Over optimization" is simply a nice way to say: YOU HAVE NOW ENTERED THE SPAM ZONE!

I can't help but to be reminded of the television series; "The Outer Limits" here.

Personally I am grateful to those "gray hat" SEO'rs that push the limits, so that I know where not to transgress!

I had much rather learn from someone else's mistakes.

Ken

[greeneagle]

bhartzer:

"Ken, you obviously haven't pushed the limits enough with your own optimization efforts to have experienced the joys of running into the OOP (Over-Optimization Penalty).

I'm sure you're probably thinking: "prove it". If that's what you're thinking, how about this:

Over-Optimization penalty because of too much anchor text. You decide that your site is not ranking well. So, you change the navigation on your site so that all the home page links say "keyword keyword home" instead of "home". A few days later you lose your rankings, which is a serious blow to your traffic. Since that was the only thing you changed on your site you change those links to your home page back so it says, "home" instead of "keyword keyword home". BINGO! All of your lost rankings and your lost traffic comes back a few days later."

I don't normally make such a long quote in my posts, but you had quite a bit to say.

If a lost traveler pulls up to me on the side of the road and asks for directions, they would think that I had a disjointed headbone if I repeated the same directions several times in a row.

Or, what if I purposefully gave more than enough (too detailed) a direction...GOOGLE doesn't particularly like "excessive" intra-page linking on a site like I have done (and will continue to do) on one of my Sites!

In this client's case GOOGLE rankings mean nothing at all. I have not and don't ever intend to promote them whatsoever! There is no reason too. It cannot garnish another dime!

I like using this site as an example that way, because it is different. I don't need to worry squat about the SE's, even though I do monitor statistical progress.

It is easy to administer this particular site with the main foci being centered around public relations, information provision, and value associated with administrative time reduction.

Is it "over-optimized" for GOOGLE? Yes, and it needs to be! On many of the pages I placed several intra-page links (same url) using anchor text at the top of the page to assist visitor navigation and experience.

YAHOO continues to beat the pants off GOOGLE in the SERPs. Even GOOGLE Images places more visitors than GOOGLE.

I have no problem with that... I walked into that "over-optimization" wide-eyed for the client's customer... not the SE's.

YAHOO delivers visitors from all over the world and we are ranked highly there for several keyphrases.

www.dpwater.com

IMO - This is an isolated case... most are just spam transgressions.

Ken

[khurramali]

Well, i assume that over optimization does exist unless it is proved overwise.

And my observation shows that Google is the closest thing you can call AI (Artificial Intelligence) so it is just possible that there are Algorithms we are not yet aware of at work here.

[DrTandem1]

Firstly, you must believe in SEO to believe it is possible to over-optimize a site. As an example, one poster questioned another's use of HTML/text hidden behind a Flash image. Stopping the Flash from loading you will see nothing, except keyword spamming (the main term 26 times) on a gray background. I suspect this was done because Flash really isn't content in the eyes of search engines, even Google. In any event, the search terms are ones that are unlikely to ever be used by an average visitor.

It appears that Yahoo and MSN were less impressed with the spam than was Google. Linking does not seem to be a factor in this specific example, but if it was, the vast majority of the links are here from WebProWorld.

Personally, I think SEO is bunk. Yes, I agree there are things one can do to make a site more popular with the search engines and thus rank higher in the SERPs; however, my point is these are things that should have already been done as a matter of course when designing a web site for the visitor.

There is no reason to pay a firm gobs of money to add descriptive alt tags, descriptive page titles, easy navigation including a site map, use real text rather than images of text, etc. All of this should be part of a well-designed site that focuses on the visitor, not an afterthought. Also, I don't consider linking campaigns as "optimization." Anything that appears on another site is not optimizing the target site.

So, I agree that there is no penalty for "over-optimizing" as I don't believe in the argument's faulty premise. There is a penalty for doing stupid things and many of these things are done in the name of optimization. If one considers SEO as removing spam and the like from a site, then I might change my opinion of it. However, SEO has become synonymous with cheating, not designing with the visitor in mind.

[KeithO]

My question becomes, what constitues over optimization? Excessive keyword density, ALT tag abuse, TITLE tag abuse, hiding text, etc...?
If it was possible to pinpoint an exact variable of what would trigger any penalty, the whole picture would be clearer.

I'm approaching it in this light: theory of relativity as a whole or E equals M C squared with 3 variables.

[phunklord]

All questions of over-optimization aside, what are some sites that you guys feel are really well optimized? (Bigger the site, the better) These do not have to be sites that you have worked on yourselves, but ones that you've noticed have done a really great job of establishing a solid presence in the search engines through SEO.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by KeithO

My question becomes, what constitues over optimization? Excessive keyword density, ALT tag abuse, TITLE tag abuse, hiding text, etc...?
If it was possible to pinpoint an exact variable of what would trigger any penalty, the whole picture would be clearer.

Before you can know what "over optimization" is, you need to first know what is optimum for a web site. Since this is going to be different for every search engine, you would then need to decide which search engine you want to target.

Say you select Google as your target. You then need to know what Google deems as optimum. Unfortunately, unless you have some inside information which would constitute a conflict of interest or theft, there is no way to know what Google deems as optimum at this particular moment. Therefore, you must simply guess. If you think you are a good guesser or at least can make other people believe that you are a good guesser, you call it SEO.

One poster mentioned changing variables on your site. The problem with this tactic is you have little way of knowing when the search engines will reevaluate your changes. So, cause-and-effect is not real time. Not only that, but your site's position in the SERPs is relative to all other sites on the internet, especially ones that are similar (relevant) to yours. If these sites are changing, and it is likely that many are at any given moment, they may be the actual cause of any perceived changes to your site's position in the SERPs, not something that you may have done.

Now, I will grant you that there are certain things you may try that will cause very negative results regarding your site and the SERPs. Once you discover those, you may be hard pressed to climb out of that black hole.

That brings us to the logical conclusion of designing a site for your visitors, not the search engines.

[bhartzer]

Whether or not you think the OOP exists depends on what type of "hat" you wear.

If you're a true "white hat" SEO that won't dare test the limits then you're going to believe that the OOP doesn't exist. After all, you'll never experience any over-optimization penalties because you won't dare do anything that would possibly have a negative effect on search engine rankings.

If you're a true "grey hat" SEO then you've definitely experienced the OOP, just like I've described in a previous post. For example, you've gone a little too heavy on your anchor text so you have to "back off" on using your keywords in the anchor text. Or, you realize that your keyword density on a page is too high--OOPS! you've just experienced the over-optimization penalty (OOP).

If you're a true "black hat" SEO then you definitely know that there's a difference between an over-optimization penalty and being a spammer. If you've never had a site banned in a search engine then you're not a true "black hat" SEO. And if you've experienced rankings that have suddenly vanished because of too much over-optimization then yes, you probably believe in the OOP, just like I do.

There is a very big difference between over-optimization and spamming. Spamming will get your site banned. Over-optimization will not. The "penalty", if you will, is a loss of search engine rankings due to over-optimization. Thus, that's what gray hat and black hat SEOs call the OOP.