Pin It

Google SERPs Results Still Causing Havoc For Some

8 Comments
August 6  |  Link Building  |   Ryan Clark

Whether or not your website had a positive effect after the Mayday update, you have no doubt noticed the difference in the search results Google has been rolling out. While they stated it would help clean up the listings, not many people are actually seeing a positive difference. I’ve actually seen more grey/blackhat sites gaining ground, and the paid links are still ranking people like it was the only thing that worked. If you’re an avid reader of Webmaster World, you will have most likely noticed the horror stories of people losing almost all of their business. The original thread about the Mayday update is also a great 14 page read…it may scare you a little though.  I always highly recommend the a Google search for the keyword term ‘buy cialis‘ to bring up a spamtastic research time.

So as you can see, blackhat link spamming still works like a bloody charm. While sites with years and years of creating high quality content, and doing it by the “book” have been slammed in more than a few cases. For my holy grail keyword, link building, I’ve been going at it for years without building specific links and I’m almost reaching the top 10. A quick look at the top 10 shows only a couple of legit companies who’ve earned the rank, and the rest have ranked by link spamming in the lowest quality form possible….wtf Google? Lovely to see a site mostly talking about selling links ranking very high, makes you wonder.

If you folks have any positive and or horror stories over the past few months lets hear them! The more discussion the better off other webmasters will be.

Posted in Link Building and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
 

About Ryan Clark

I'm the CEO of Linkbuildr Marketing and the brains behind our branding and blog content. I specialize in effective marketing strategies for hotels, luxury brands and real estate. If your brand is in need of a boost then don't hesitate to contact me for a free proposal. Follow me on Google+: +Ryan Clark Twitter: @Linkbuildr on Twitter. You can also come ask me a question on our Facebook Page.  

8 Responses to Google SERPs Results Still Causing Havoc For Some

  1. Chris says:

    One of my sites took the same kind of June 2nd hit that these guys talk about in the “horror stories” link of yours. I have cleaned up, added high quality content, improved performance – nothing. It's all unique content (hand written -not spun content), too.

  2. Danny9 says:

    It's amazing, right? When I run the link operator in Google to see the links that some competition have – I'm still surprised by how many link farms and free for all link sites show up. Though, on the other hand, if I run the linkdomain operator over at Yahoo – the results are an order of magnitude worse.

    When I ran the link operator for mecanriverhouse, here's one of the links that came back:

    –> emjournals.com/viewarticle.asp?id=43

    it's a PR 3. Would you put your link there?

  3. Heinrich says:

    Google made a lot of noise about cleaning up the Web and removing sites that use unethical means from the results. The new updated has not achieved the promised results.

  4. Mfn2000 says:

    My site got hit very badly by the Mayday update lost at least 80% of its google traffic – and it doesn't really fit the pattern I've been hearing about concerning long-tail sites. Actually my site was a classic long-tail mapping/events site that built traffic before creating a subdomain that provided unique price search services over affiliate vendors. THe subdomain got hit the worst, and it's not really long-tail.

    I've been testing various changes to see if anything helps, and I think I can refute some of the popular theories.

    hypothesis 1: it's about deep links. Nope. I got tons of deep links to inventory pages, in fact most of the links were direct hits and from quality sources. I tried reworking it so that the links went instead to 'parent' pages, not inventory pages – no luck.

    hypothesis 2: it's about 'unique content'. I noticed that the sites which now ranked well had tons of manufactured 'unique content' – text typed by monkeys. I did a test where I pumped about 1/3 of my linked-to pages full of 'unique content' mostly hand-written.
    No change.

    hypothesis 3: it's about hitting affiliate sites.
    I don't think this is true, since the sites which now rank well are classic thin-template copies which all have identical inventory, compared to mine which aggregates and analyzes inventory from multiple sources.

    Interested to hear any more specific examples where people have found a way to compensate for the mayday reversal of 'quality' definition.

  5. Linkbuildr says:

    The only site I've personally seen was an Ecommerce site and it had what Cutts would call lousy content. I personally thought it was good enough although they are in a very very competitive market. It seems that the older sites with the most link authority are still getting away with whatever.

  6. Linkbuildr says:

    The Google Link operator doesn't work at all, you'll need to login to the Webmaster area to check properly. For checking your competitors I'd use SEOMoz's Linkscape or MajesticSEO.

  7. Linkbuildr says:

    Keep going at it and building good links. The only site I've seen with problems is now coming back after 3 months. That seems to be the right amount of time to wait out Google's algo updates.

  8. Mfn2000 says:

    How would you describe 'lousy content'? The thing with my site is, the conversion rate is better when I remove the 'unique descriptive content'… people like the instant gratification of searching for 'green x y near z' and getting exactly to a page with green x y near z – they already know all about what they want if they're being that specific. The key to conversion is providing a minimalistic pages that requires as few clicks as possible. So, I grumble about having to spend so much time twisting my site to google's quirky notions of 'quality'… rugh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>