Penguin 4.0 and homepage level penalties
-
Hey folks
Looking to get some input from what other people are seeing with Penguin 4.0 and historically penalised sites.
We have three sites we are looking at currently - all had historically brutal penguin penalties. All have done extensive clean up and are respectable businesses and have seen some manor of recovery or improvement.
However, we are seeing issues at a homepage level with these three sites in that the homepage currently does not rank for the main terms but an inner page does in it's place (but not as well as we would expect given everything else).
This applies to a single keyword on all three of these sites - add a modifier to that keyword and they rank top of first page (often 1st place). Example of modifiers being 'installer', 'uk', 'supplier' etc. That main keyword though only ranks top of 3rd page in this instance and it is an inner page and not the homepage which is the best fit for the targeted term.
Question
Is anyone else seeing this? Sites that have gone from no visibility in top 50 for a previously abused term that are now seeing some visibility page 2 / page 3 for the big terms and top of page 1 visibility for those terms + modifiers.
Thoughts
This seems a bit odd to me and hard to understand in light of the Penguin 4.0 announcement
-
if there is no demotion and only devaluation of bad links then why would a single page still be seemingly so heavily effected
-
how can an algorithm that focuses on devaluation of bad links still be granular as this seems to be a penalty of sorts that effects a specific page for a specific keyword (the one most abused historically in terms of link building).
-
two of these are big companies, biggest in their industry in the real world with lots of high visibility clients like TV shows, IKEA etc. Lots of natural highly authoritative links, good content etc - we are digging in further but certainly looks like they have their house largely in order.
Note
We have one other client that I believe is seeing something similar on an internal page and that page was the main link target for spammy links of old that are now removed. However, it appears Google has a memory regarding even these removed links. I mention this primarily as I don't believe this is homepage specific but rather that is the case as the homepage was the main link target historically.
Summary
These sites are seeing movement - huge movement. Not exactly what we would expect though given the extensive clean up and talk around how this release of the algorithm works.
Be interested to see what you are seeing out there folks and if anyone has seen anything similar.
Cheers
Marcus -
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
-
Google Penalty Checker Tool
What is the best tool to check for the google penalty, What penalty hit the website. ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Michael.Leonard0 -
Authorship, SEO and implementation at an institutional level
Hi Everyone, Does anyone know of a great case study on how an institution and/or company implemented authorship in an organized manner to benefit their SEO efforts as an organization? Moz, I noticed you guys seemed to have done this? Can you give me some high level guidelines? BTW this would be a great blog post. Thanks Carla
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Carla_Dawson0 -
Dealing with Penguin: Changing URL instead of removing links
I have some links pointing to categories from article directories, web directories, and a few blogs. We are talking about 20-30 links in total. They are less than 5% of the links to my site (counting unique domains). I either haven't been able to make contact with webmasters, or they are asking money to remove the links. If I simply rename the URL (for example changing mysite.com/t-shirt.html to mysite.com/tshirts.html), will that resolve any penguin issues? The link will forward to the homepage since that page no longer exists. I really want to avoid using the disavow tool if possible. I appreciate the feedback. If you have actually done this, please share your experience.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | inhouseseo0 -
Just identified and reversed a severe footer links penalty - any similar experiences out there?
Just seen my first rather dramatic sitewide footer links penalty. Virtually all organic search traffic fell off site for 3 months. The footer links were a mix of keyphrases targeted at internal pages and keyphrases targeted at a handful of other associated companies (a group of enterprises owned by same businessman, with websites hosted in the same place). The website developers felt they were improving search engine visibility. Anyway, as soon as I started work with this client I requested immediate removal of the footer links and traffic immediately recovered to pre-penalty levels (within a couple of days). Have any of you experienced anything similar?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
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!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jhinchcliffe1 -
Google Recon Request 4 Failed - This is crazy. HELP!
We run a niche website selling sunglasses at www.aluminumeyewear.com. I've been trying to resolve a 'Failed Quality Guidelines' message since May. My 4th recon request has just failed and I've exhausted all changes that I believe I need to make. I rely on this site to pay my bills etc so obviously I really need to get this resolved. I would be grateful if someone from Google could actually point out whats wrong instead of an unhelpful auto response.Steps taken.1. Rewrote content as it was a bit thin. Recon failed.2. Removed old products that couldn't be reached from every page. Recon failed.3. Submitted back link audit and added 'sitemap' link to footer. Recon Failed.4. Removed 40+ old urls that existed from old Yahoo! store (didn't realize they still existed). Recon failed.I felt sure #4 would resolve the issue so feeling pretty low right now that it didn't. That being said doing a site:aluminumeyewear.com it looks like I missed one of them which was http://www.aluminumeyewear.com/demora/black/, however it just returns a 404 which would seem harsh to penalize me for.The only other pages that I can think of are some dynamic pages that the store uses to create reviews such as:www.aluminumeyewear.com/product-reviews-add.aspx?product=2www.aluminumeyewear.com/resize.aspxI'm pretty sure that the reviews page is blocked via robots txt. The resize.aspx is a blank page with javascript as its needed by the PowerReviews Express system to work, and many many merchants use that platform so it would be hard to think its that.Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | smckenzie750 -
Static homepage content and javascript - is this technique obsolete?
Hi Apologies beforehand for any minor forum transgressions - this is my first post. I'm redesigning my blog and I have a question re static homepage content. It used to be common practice in the online gambling sector (and possibly others) to have a block of 'SEO copy' at the footer of the homepage. To 'trick Google' into thinking it was directly underneath the header, web devs would use javascript to instruct the html to load the div with the SEO copy first. The logic was that this allowed for the prime real estate of the page to be used for conversion and sales, while still having a block of relevant copy to tell the spiders what the page was about, and to provide deep links into the site. I attended a seminar just over a year ago at which some notable SEOs said that Google had probably worked this one out but it was impossible to tell. However, I've recently noticed that Everest Poker has what I think is the code commented out, and on PokerStars I can't find it at all (even in the includes). I would be happy to post the Everest code but, while I've read the etiquette, I'm not 100% whether this is allowed. So my question is... for the blog I'm redesigning, do I still need to follow this practice? I would prefer search engines saw some static intro text describing the site, rather than the blog posts, the excerpts of which will probably be canonicalized to the actual post pages to avoid duplication issues. But I would prefer this static content to appear below the fold. What is current best practice here? Alex
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | alextanner0 -
Content that is split into 4 pages, should I consolidate?
I am working on improving a website that has each section split into four pages. For example, if Indonesia Vacation was a section, it would have its main page, www.domain.com/indonesia-vacation, and the about, fact sheet, and tips on three other pages www.domain.com/indonesia-vacation-1 www.domain.com/indonesia-vacation-2 www.domain.com/indonesia-vacation-3 The pages share very similar title tags and I am worried it is hurting the main page for placement.. So to conserve link juice, would it make sense to have them all one page? There is not so much content that it would affect load time. My strategy would be to have all content available and part of the main page and 301 the three URL's back to the main page: www.domain.com/indonesia-vacation Any insight would be greatly appreciated!!!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MattAaron0