Google Penguin 2.0 - Coming soon
-
There is an interesting article on SEW that Google is going to update Penguin to the next major version - http://bit.ly/15Vkr6O
So what do you think, what should we expect? And also, is there available updated webmaster guidelines?
-
This kind of link building is a real trap. You must pay every month for these links and we all know that soon or later Google finds out how to take down this network. Besides you will loose your money, you risk to be penalized.
-
Actually... looking in more detail, it seems the 30% dip in traffic started on May 7, through all my sites. Not May 2, but May 7. Still, more reason to believe it was an algo change and not my SEO software change that cause the dip.
-
I've been scratching my head because on May 1st I changed my most important site from Genesis SEO to Yoast Wordpress SEO, in order to have more control. I noticed my rankings fell about 30% since May 2 onwards.
This whole time I was thinking it was the change in SEO plugin. But... Looking at 2 of my other sites that had no plugin change, they have fallen about 30% as well. Looks like there may indeed have been an algo update and this whole time I thought it was my plugin changes that caused the problem.
-
On a "basic" research I did a month ago, I found over 5,000 Website buying sape links, and while checking rankings for say 100 of those, almost all had 1 - 3 first spots on those keywords they were targeting and pagerank of 4+. It seems that Google can't get them down. Matt Cutts tweeted that they were working to take down a pretty huge russian network (I guess it was sape), but some of the sites I researched are still ranking on the first spots with PR 4+ and only using those damn link.
-
There are still plenty of people selling SAPE links and they still work. But as a large part of the network is made up of hacked websites, I think Google will target the people at the end of the link rather than the victim website itself, which is probably why it's taking time to crack down on it. It's a targeted penalty rather than an algo update to find & destroy it.
-
It seems that they already did it, I've searched and almost every page with keywords "SAPE link network" has a 0 PR.
-
I really hope they were able to find a way to take down that SAPE link network, which apparently they were working on it.
I see hundreds of quality sites outranked by those link buyers, and all of them go back to sape. HATE THAT!
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
-
The "Fetch As Google" limit has been decreased - what now?
Since Google decreased the "Fetch As Google" limit to ten pages per day, we've been a bit stuck. We're publishing 20-30 content pages per day, targeting a huge range of search queries. Circa 40% of our traffic comes to us through these pages. Since we're now heavily restricted on submitting these to Google, who's got other ideas to get the pages picked up quickly? I'm slightly concerned because although the pages link outwards to other areas of the website, no other areas of the site link to these pages. They're purely top-of-the-funnel. We can't be the only people with this concern. How would you address it?
Industry News | | MSGroup1 -
Hit by Penguin 2.0
Hi, The site I'm working on seems to have been suffered from the Penguin 2.0 algorithmic update. It used to rank at position 1 for its top traffic term (which is very competitive) but now ranks at position 12. The traffic seems to have dropped since 22<sup>nd</sup> May 2013 when the update rolled out. There aren't any dodgy backlinks to the site. The only two things that changed just a month before Penguin 2.0 were – The meta title, description and H1 of the site’s homage changed The site received about 30,000+ backlinks from its parent site which sits on a different domain. These links were as a result of the site being included as part of the parent site’s main navigation which appears site wide. The parent site is a reputed and authority site. So I don’t understand why Google would penalise the site for acquiring links from its parent site (even though they are site wide links). Also, the links acquired from parent's site were not just homepage links but also links to some of its other deeper pages. Can somebody please suggest if they've had any similar experience and suffered the Penguin 2.0’s wrath? Any suggestions or solutions, most welcome. Should I be thinking of nofollowing those links? Should I submit a reconsideration request to Google? Many Thanks Pri
Industry News | | pri3910 -
Get Google To Crawl More Pages Faster on my Site
We opened our database of about 10 million businesses to be crawled by Google. Since Wednesday, Google has crawled and indexed about 2,000 pages. Google is crawling us at about 1,000 pages a day now. We need to substantially increase this amount. Is it possible to get Google to crawl our sites at a quicker rate?
Industry News | | Intergen0 -
Google Search Quality Team - Commission Based Reviews
I have been busy this past week writing articles for various sources about the recent update on Google. A number of people contacted me about the analysis I was doing and the report. Some were members of the Google Search Quality Team. I knew manual reports were done before - but after the documents they showed me regarding the reports they do and the compensation for doing the reports - I am left in a state of being pretty shocked. May be I have been naive for all these years but I didn't realize that; Google outsourced the review and reconsideration requests to individual reviewers for a compensation Google's position in terms of checking qualification and experience of these "reviewers" was very insufficient at best, The three contacts I spoke to who had done reports had very little training or experience. I went through the GSQT REVIEWERS PDF (a very long and thorough document) that I was sent - with them. We went together through some sites I wanted them to review and their comments that came back were quite astounding to say the least and would have made many of you Mozzers laugh. Obviously I don't want to post said document online here.... BUT, I wanted to know if: a) any Mozzers had ever been part of such a group - the GSQT b) had any dealings with them - in terms of having your website reviewed and known about it. I knew about this group way back - like in 2005 or 2006 or sometime around then - I was told at time it was stopped and Google had stopped paying these sub contractor reviewers. Please don't get me wrong here... totally on board with manual reviews... I would just prefer them done by a trained team that possibly worked for either a professional company that maintain high quality review testing and standards - or for that matter GOOGLE employees that were trained. I just am a little unsure of them being done by individual subbies that get paid for the amount they do. What if that subbie has got some skin in the game for a particular keyword? What if their knowledge about certain aspects isn't up to par or not tested on a regular basis. This space is always changing and as you guys ./ girls on this forum know - it can change pretty quick. I just would want all websites to be judged fairly and equally by a group trained EQUALLY and to the same standards. I don't care if this is a G team or not - I just want it to be a team that is trained equally and trained continuously as opposed to paying outside people based on numbers of reviews done. When the livelihood of a small business is the balance I don't want a commission hungry toe rag with one years experience being the gate keeper for me or any of our clients. Carlos
Industry News | | CarlosFernandes0 -
Google driving me Nuts - How do you combine 2 accounts?
I know this must be driving a lot of other people mad as I see loads of people who now have 2 registered accounts at google plus due to their seemingly terrible ability to merge or connect accounts. We have a work email address set up through google, then I have a personal Gmail address. In Google Plus now I have 2 profiles - even though I have not signed up to google plus with my work email, I cannot add this email to my Google + account set up on personal email as it just tells me to log into that account taking me to a page to set up a profile for that account. Has anyone managed to solve this problem - it is happening to everyone in the company, driving us all nuts and our IT guys have no idea how to solve it. Were trying to use G+ for the purposes of SEO & Marketing, but if they make it this cumbersome for people to use, then they are going to die a quick death - after a few weeks of use and noticing the huge number of dead accounts, only live accounts being SEO/Internet Marketing related, and huge number of duplicate accounts, I think their user figures are hugely suspect! Rant over - anyone know how to merge accounts?
Industry News | | James770 -
Google+ profiles and Rel Author. Extensive question
A bit of a mammoth question for discussion here: With the launch of Google+ and profiles, coupled with the ability to link/verify authorship using rel=me to google+ profile - A few questions with respect to the long term use and impact. As an individual - I can have a Google+ Profile, and add links to author pages where I am featured. If rel=me is used back to my G+ profile - google can recognise me as the writer - no problem with that. However - if I write for a variety of different sites, and produce a variety of different content - site owners could arguably become reluctant to link back or accredit me with the rel=me tag on the account I might be writing for a competitor for example, or other content in a totally different vertical that is irrelevant. Additionally - if i write for a company as an employee, and the rel=me tag is linked to my G+ profile - my profile (I would assume) is gaining strength from the fact that my work is cited through the link (even if no link juice is passed - my profile link is going to appear in the search results on a query that matches something I have written, and hence possibly drain some "company traffic" to my profile). If I were to then leave the employment of that company - and begin writing for a direct competitor - is my profile still benefiting from the old company content I have written? Given that google is not allowing pseudonyms or ghost writer profiles - where do we stand with respect to outsourced content? For example: The company has news written for them by a news supplier - (each writer has a name obviously) - but they don't have or don't want to create a G+ profile for me to link to. Is it a case of wait for google to come up with the company profiles? or, use a ghost name and run the gauntlet on G+? Lastly, and I suppose the bottom line - as a website owner/company director/SEO; Is adding rel=me links to all your writers profiles (given that some might only write 1 or 2 articles, and staff will inevitably come and go) an overall positive for SEO? or, a SERP nightmare if a writer moves on to another company? In essence are site owners just improving the writers profile rather than gaining very much?
Industry News | | IPINGlobal541 -
Google Products / Google Shopping
My client has a site with products a lot of which are so similar in function that for usability reasons we have combined some products on the same pages. We want to get into Google Shopping, but on the face of it the Google feed seems to want unique urls per product. I guess we could have products on the same page then have single pages as well, though that could generate duplicate content. We could also try pointing several products to 1 URL, does anyone know if this would work? Or can anyone suggest any work arounds? Justin
Industry News | | GrouchyKids0 -
Googles' Anonymous data sharing "pool"
Is sharing this information good for my websites? And Is it Open information for anyone to hack into, and see my sites analytics? Bottom line, good or a bad thing?
Industry News | | smstv0