How about a discussion on Penguin 2.0?
-
Penguin 2.0 was officially released today. I'm sure we've all seen Matt's video.
http://searchengineland.com/penguin-4-with-penguin-2-0-generation-spam-fighting-is-now-live-160544
Ideas for building sharable, linkable content? New strategies? What to avoid, what not to do, etc?
Let's get a discussion going!
-
Amazing ..... this huge update (from what I read on other sites and listening to Matt) and almost nothing here on SEOMoz.....What is up with that.
-
Good point Maria. Google will be pretty unstable for the first little while. It's better to keep calm and carry on with good content
-
Daniel,
To your first point -- for my main keywords (which according to Google have been commercial in intent for the last few years -- i.e. the kw queries bring up only retail options) are now showing reviews from authoritative/journalistic sites. So for instance, "Men's Jeans" might have used to bring up all retail stores, now it might bring 8 stores (plus ads) and 1 or 2 "Men's Jeans" reviews from GQ or something to that effect.
But having said that, I started noticing this about a week ago...
-
Google penguin 2.0 rolled out today!
I saw many some changes on Google. -
A few observations from the many keywords and sites I monitor:
1. A lot of what I track is in reviews of various products. I've seen a big jump for Consumer Reports. In many instances they now have two listings and they are higher than where their one previously was. Anyone else seeing this?
2. I'm seeing a lot of new sites I haven't seen before, especially after the first page. In the top 20 of one of my main keywords there are 4 new domains that have never been there before...nor should they be. Horrible sites. One of them is [extremelylongkeyword2013] (dot) blogspot.com. It's pretty nuts to see that.
3. In every search, whether searching for the product or reviews of the product, sears, amazon and walmart are almost always the top three in some order. I'm even seeing Wikipedia higher than ever. This is a shuffle from what used to be.
4. I'm seeing a lot more about.com results than I did before.
5. I have noticed News results on almost every search, many unwarranted. Often the news results are appearing after the top 10.
6. No major shakeups on any of my own sites. Little bit of shuffling, some up, some down, but nothing major. Biggest winners I am seeing are consumer reports, sears, amazon and walmart.
-
I find that the first few weeks after an update the SEO world is awash with dangerous speculation. I'm excited to see some real data on sites that have recovered. Until then I'm going to try to avoid speculating.
-
To me it looks like larger authority sites are ranking better. I had a few top position drop to under position 5-10 (I deal with mainly local niches), and now see larger websites although not as relevant as mine doing better imo.
-
I'm with Jesse -- it will take a bit before we can tell anything conclusive, but I'll watch my site, and if I notice anything I will report and add to the discussion. I don't think it will be anything unexpected if you have been following what Google says and watching the trends within your markets for the past few weeks/months.
But we will see...
-
Will probably be awhile before we know anything concrete but my guess would be the same strategies of 1.0 apply toward 2.0. I'd imagine they just widened the umbrella, so to speak.
We'll see! I've got a close eye on a few sites I'm curious to see what will happen to...
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Client wants to show 2 different types of content based on cookie usage - potential cloaking issue?
Hi, A client of mine has compliance issues in their industry and has to show two different types of content to visitors: domain.com/customer-a/about-us domain.com/customer-b/about-us Next year, they have to increase that to three different types of customer. Rather than creating a third section (customer-c), because it's very similar to one of the types of customers already (customer-b), their web development agency is suggesting changing the content based on cookies, so if a user has indentified themselves as customer-b, they'll be shown /customer-b/, but if they've identified themselves as customer-c, they'll see a different version of /customer-b/ - in other words, the URL won't change, but the content on the page will change, based on their cookie selection. I'm uneasy about this from an SEO POV because: Google will only be able to see one version (/customer-b/ presumably), so it might miss out on indexing valuable /customer-c/ content, It makes sense to separate them into three URL paths so that Google can index them all, It feels like a form of cloaking - i.e. Google only sees one version, when two versions are actually available. I've done some research but everything I'm seeing is saying that it's fine, that it's not a form of cloaking. I can't find any examples specific to this situation though. Any input/advice would be appreciated. Note: The content isn't shown differently based on geography - i.e. these three customers would be within one country (e.g. the UK), which means that hreflang/geo-targeting won't be a workaround unfortunately.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | steviephil0 -
Penguin 3.0 hit caused by Pinterest?
I've read the FAQs and searched the help center. My URL is: http://www.weplann.comHello there,Since 10/24 we've seen a critical impact in organic results in our site. At first, only taking a look at the date of when it all started made us think about a Penguin 3.0 hit and then we went to take a look at our linking data to find we had more than 14,000 links from Pinterest (significantly more than any other source). Then, another thing that made us think about that dramatic organic drop is the anchor text: an exact match (www.weplann.com) is at #1 in our anchor text ranking but we're not 100% sure if this could affect our organic results because of the Penguin update.So our questions are:- A lot of Pinterest links could affect dramatically our organic results (understanding that Google may find that huge difference between linking sources as a bad practice)?- The anchor text exact match could really affect our ranking? If none of this points could cause that drop, then what would be causing it? We're sure it has to do with the Penguin update.Thank you very much in advance for your help!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WePlann0 -
Client is paranoid about Google penguin penalty from getting links from a new website they are building
We have a client that is creating a new promotional website that consists of videos, brands and product reviews (SITE B). After a visitor watches a video on SITE B they will be given a "click to purchase" option that will lead them to the original website (SITE A). Our client is paranoid that since all the outgoing links on the new SITE B are going to the original SITE A there might be algorithm penalty (for one website or both). I find this very unlikely and even recommend "no follow" coding for a peace of mind. However are there any resources/links out there that can back up my argument that they will be alright? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VanguardCommunications0 -
"No index" page still shows in search results and paginated pages shows page 2 in results
I have "no index, follow" on some pages, which I set 2 weeks ago. Today I see one of these pages showing in Google Search Results. I am using rel=next prev on pages, yet Page 2 of a string of pages showed up in results before Page 1. What could be the issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
What are best practices for anchor text diversification in a post-penguin world?
There is growing concern for this topic as the best white-hat tactics generally allow you to choose your own anchor text (eg. guest posting and infographics)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | LaunchAStartup0 -
Does anybody know about a Penguin recovery for a small business website?
Does anybody know about a Penguin recovery for a small business website and the methodology they used? I have a PR 5 website that lost more than 50% of the traffic in Google. I removed some of the wide site links at the best of my ability but I see little or no results so far.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | S.Adrian0 -
Is the Penguin algorithmic penalty on a page basis or a site basis?
Just wondering if there has been any clarification of whether the Penguin algorithmic penalty is on a Page basis or a Site basis? In other words, is it all or nothing?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | darkgreenguy0 -
Could targeting 2 geographic locations decrease rankings?
Hello, I think that us targeting 2 different geographic locations (San Francisco, CA and Salt Lake City, UT) is negatively effecting the rank of some of our main keywords. My evidence for this: Since December our main keyword (NLP) dropped in ranking for nlpca(dot)com from about 19th to about 40th. This is about when we started to really target 2 different locations. Other main keywords dropped a lot as well, like the important term "NLP Training" Also, our name, nlpca(dot)com indicates NLP California (CA stands for California in Google) The other day we bolded a sentence with the words "Salt Lake City, Utah" at the top of our content and in one of Google's Databases (the one I was looking at) we dropped in rankings for "NLP California" where we used to be completely sitelinked (where we took up a lot of space at the top of the search). Also, we shot up to 1st on my datacenter for both "NLP Utah" and "NLP Salt Lake City". At the same time, our rankings for the term "NLP" dropped off the map. It has come back up, but we've also targeted California again. A lot of our anchor text has the word "California" in it. We're thinking about building a separate site for Utah and just linking to it from the California website when we need to. Does it sound to you, in your experience, that targeting both locations in our case is what's causing a decrease in rankings? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobGW0