Homepage alone dropped for one "keyword"
-
Hi Moz community,
Our websites has dropped almost 50 positions for main keyword and Okay with other keywords. Other pages are doing consistent for other keywords. We haven't made any changes in website. What could be reason this ideal scenario of homepage dropping for main keyword. And recent unconfirmed algo update have anything do with this?
Thnaks
-
Google left us in "confusion world" and making money. First, does anybody guess what is good or bad link as per Google? No. May be very less SEO experts; that too after using expensive tools. Google agreed that they "try hard" to stop the negative SEO affect; but cannot guarantee you that no links hurt. So it implies that Google algorithm is never going to be accurate even they update with Penguin or Peacock. That too it'll be more less accurate coming to websites like us with thousands of backlinks where hundreds and thousands of new clueless backlinks add every month making it hard finding the culprits.
Wikipedia page is sure a strong hit. Wikipedia page is not a feasibility every company but only for which holds some genuine reputation can get a page and backlink. So, even it's a nofollow technically, Google gives a weight to it.
One of our sub-domain is hitting with backlinks from same domain for last few months...all added up to 5k links...mostly from comments. Do we need to worry about this hitting our domain and website rankings?
-
It's not that Google will penalize you for using the disavow tool, but rather, that if you disavow a good link you'll potentially end up doing harm.
I don't think Matt's statements were confusing. He said that if you reavow a link it may not be given the weight that it once had. This is a measure Google takes to make it harder for people to experiment with the disavow tool. I wrote a lot more about this here:
https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2409081/can-you-reavow-links-you-have-peviously-disavowed
Losing a link from a wikipedia page should not cause a drop IMO. Links from wikipedia are nofollowed and do not pass PageRank. Now, in some cases you can get followed links from sites that scrape wikipedia, but I would be surprised if losing these links hurt you.
In regards to Google ignoring bad backlinks, that's what they say they do now. Still, if I see a site that has a lot of self made SEO links then I'll disavow just to be sure. Also, there are other algorithms that use links and there is the potential for manual actions, so it's not like we can completely ignore unnatural links.
-
Hi Marie...Thanks for sharing your views and guidance.
I agree that disavowing some useful links might push us down in rankings. But I have only disavowed the links which have more Moz spam score after checking them manually. These links look useful and I don't find any value for them. I don't think removing 10 links from our back-link profile with thousands of backlinks will affect us.
I disagree that Google will penalise for using disavow tool. Statement from Matt Cutts is one of the confusing statement to make sure users not misusing the tools and put a load on Google to process the requests. Disavow is complete auto tool with no human interference as per my knowledge and Google will not punish for just using it. And if Google is against experimenting, first they must able to judge if a request is a experiment or genuine try. This is highly impossible for Google which is like trying to read minds of users.
Something interesting happened in our case is....we actually lost the back link from wikipedia page. So we are presuming this might be the obvious cause for the drop. Do you think so?
And do you believe that Google completely ignores bad backlinks? And only good backlinks are ranking factor? (beside on-site factors)
-
The potential harm in using the disavow tool is that you could be disavowing links that are actually helping you. If a link is truly an unnatural link, then yes, it should be disavowed, but if you are disavowing and then re-avowing, and then trying different links to disavow this could be dangerous.
Matt Cutts a few years ago said that Google had built in some features to the disavow tool to prevent people from trying to experiment with it. He hinted that a reavowed link may not carry the same power that it once did. Also, Cyrus Shepard from Moz did an experiment where he disavowed every link to his site and rankings plummeted. He later removed his entire disavow file and his rankings did not recover at all.
Regarding discounting links vs penalizing for links, Gary Illyes from Google made statements saying that the new Penguin algorithm no longer penalizes sites. With that said, if you have a lot of unnatural links I still recommend disavowing as you could get a manual penalty.
Also, there are other algorithms that use links, so yes, I still do disavow. My reasoning for advising that you don't disavow is because it sounds like you are experimenting with the tool and disavowing and reavowing. Again, if a link needs to be disvaowed, then disavow it and leave it at that.
-
Thanks for your thoughts Marie.
I don't understand what's wrong in using disavow tool with any number of links and how it'll harm. It's an automation where link juice will stop passing from the links we disavowed and nothing behind that. Moreover if disavow tool made our push, why don't we recover even after weeks removing it? Also we hardly kept the disavow file for few days.
I also don't agree that Google gonna just ignore unnatural links and consider good links with it's algorithm. After all humans itself these days couldn't able to conclude some links; so Google doing a smart job here is impossible and it's never going to be accurate. Definitely some links will trigger the backlink profile and that's how most of the penalties have been removed by SEO experts these days by using disavow tool.
Page title: I can see in my niche, most of the top ranking pages are starting with "brand & keyword"..like I said "vertigo tiles". I can see this mostly on homepage which might be contributing better as this phrase has been mentioned more time across internet. I mean if "vertigo tiles" has more visibility, starting home page title with same will boost the rankings.
Thanks
-
It's tough to comment without seeing the actual page, but here are my thoughts.
You should not try to experiment with the disavow tool. If you've got links that you yourself made for SEO purposes and they serve no other purpose then yes, disavow them. But, if you're not sure, it's best to just leave the disavow tool alone as it's possible to do more harm than good. Google's new version of Penguin just ignores unnatural links and doesn't penalize sites for having them. If you have lots of spammy links I still advise disavowing, but disavowing just a few links is not a good idea.
Regarding page titles, it's generally best practice to have your most important keywords at the beginning of the title tag, so with that in mind the old title tags look better to me.
-
We dropped on Jan 20th and dropped more in Jan last week. We haven't changed anything around the time. We have disavowed few links and removed the links again if they might dropped us; but this disavow removal does't help us. I think it's more about On-page. I can see page titles with exact match are pitching more effectively on top results. Below example is my hypothesis on monitoring the new results and comparing them:
Let's say, for "tiles" keyword, below are how old and new page title types making on top:
Old page titles: "tiles for kitchen, hall and bedroom - vertigo tiles"
New page titles: "vertigo tiles - tiles for kitchen, hall and bedroom"
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks
-
When did the drop happen? If it was within the last few days, I'd say not to change anything and just wait. I've had a number of clients recently that have noticed a huge drop and then within a week, they popped back up higher than they were before. I personally think this could be a part of how Google tests a site's worth. I think they may remove a page from the first page temporarily to see if it affects where people click.
One other thing to check is keyword stuffing. That can sometimes cause a page to drop for one keyword. But again, I wouldn't change anything just yet.
-
A few Days ago I faced same the problem
But I recovered this by Optimizing my ON Page like I used more Keyword in Title and extended to more that 70 characters.
After that, i have linked some internal link on the Home page and linked 1-2 Outbound link to High Authority Website.
That's It. I Got My Website Rankings.
I am Sure this will Help you to Get Your Ranking Soon.
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
-
Is "Author Rank," User Comments Driving Losses for YMYL Sites?
Hi, folks! So, our company publishes 50+ active, disease-specific news and perspectives websites -- mostly for rare diseases. We are also tenacious content creators: between news, columns, resource pages, and other content, we produce 1K+ pieces of original content across our network. Authors are either PhD scientists or patients/caregivers. All of our sites use the same design. We were big winners with the August Medic update in 2018 and subsequent update in September/October. However, the Medic update in March and de-indexing bug in April were huge losers for us across our monetized sites (about 10 in total). We've seen some recovery with this early June update, but also some further losses. It's a mixed bag. Take a look at this attached MOZ chart, which shows the jumps and falls around the various Medic updates. The pattern is very similar on many of our sites. As per JT Williamson's stellar article on EAT, I feel like we've done a good job in meeting those criteria, which has left we wondering what isn't jiving with the new core updates. I have two theories I wanted to run past you all: 1. Are user comments on YMYL sites problematic for Google now? I was thinking that maybe user comments underneath health news and perspectives articles might be concerning on YMYL sites now. On one hand, a healthy commenting community indicates an engaged user base and speaks to the trust and authority of the content. On the other hand, while the AUTHOR of the article might be a PhD researcher or a patient advocate, the people commenting -- how qualified are they? What if they are spouting off crazy ideas? Could Google's new update see user comments such as these as degrading the trust/authority/expertise of the page? The examples I linked to above have a good number of user comments. Could these now be problematic? 2. Is Google "Author Rank" finally happening, sort of? From what I've read about EAT -- particularly for YMYL sites -- it's important that authors have “formal expertise” and, according to Williamson, "an expert in the field or topic." He continues that the author's expertise and authority, "is informed by relevant credentials, reviews, testimonials, etc. " Well -- how is Google substantiating this? We no longer have the authorship markup, but is the algorithm doing its due diligence on authors in some more sophisticated way? It makes me wonder if we're doing enough to present our author's credentials on our articles, for example. Take a look -- Magdalena is a PhD researcher, but her user profile doesn't appear at the bottom of the article, and if you click on her name, it just takes you to her author category page (how WordPress'ish). Even worse -- our resource pages don't even list the author. Anyhow, I'd love to get some feedback from the community on these ideas. I know that Google has said there's nothing to do to "fix" these downturns, but it'd sure be nice to get some of this traffic back! Thanks! 243rn10.png
Algorithm Updates | | Michael_Nace1 -
Domain Authority Keeps Dropping & FRED
Hi Moz! I've seen a big drop in Domain Authority 31 > 22 recently. I need a plan of what to sort out first, here are the points I know we need to improve: Page Speed Quality content - guides, blogs, videos Better UX experience to improve page engagement Backlinks - quality earned links & improvement of presence on social media This is our site http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/ I am the only SEO, with a small content team - who only really work on adding new products to the site. Our dev team are in France and we can be restricted by them. But I'm worried & I need a plan of what to tackle first to help improve this. We also saw keywords drop out in March - I'm assuming after Fred, some keywords aren't ones I would worry about, but then some are - for example - http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/dollies-load-movers-door-skates this page ranked at position 6 for Dollies - now dropped out altogether. Any ideas are welcome - help 🙂
Algorithm Updates | | BeckyKey2 -
The importance of meta keywords?
Hello, Is adding meta keywords still worth doing nowadays? I have been reading and hearing some different opinions about it. For a ' beginner ' in this field it is hard to find a definite answer to this questions.. Thank you for reading(and answering) my question!
Algorithm Updates | | EPPD0 -
Keyword stuffing in
Having a discussion with my boss over whether the following page is over-saturated (stuffed) with keywords in the element: http://www.godreamvacations.com/BarceloHotels -- We implemented the description and keyword tag text back in 2010 when the boss gave me the text. Anyone have any good responses to the bosses' response (below)? "These are the ones (pages) that are actually working wonderfully well on Bing. At the time, I researched the optimal number of characters and tried to really follow all that was suggested by SEO experts. As far as the keywords, I would say you could remove the ones without the “s”, for example, take out “Barcelo Hotel” and leave “Barcelo Hotels” I think this is all relevant to what is found on the page. I don’t know what they would expect us to do differently than this. Do you? What is your MOZ currently saying is the optimal number of characters for a Title?" Any responses would be appreciated. Am I wrong in saying it's "stuffed" and looks spammy? What would you tell your boss?
Algorithm Updates | | godreamvacations0 -
Ecommerce or E-commerce as a Keyword?
I have done a good bit of research but am not sure which word to focus on. I feel that the trend is moving towards no hyphen but I do not have any data to justify that other than google trends. Here is the research I found: Google Trends says ecommerce is more popular
Algorithm Updates | | Manseo
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=e-commerce%2C%20ecommerce&cmpt=q Ngram says e-commerce
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=ecommerce%2Ce-commerce&year_start=1990&year_end=2013&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cecommerce%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ce%20-%20commerce%3B%2Cc0 Google Adwords Keyword tool says e-commerce:
e-commerce has 33,100 monthly search volume
ecommerce has 14,800 monthly search volume What do you think, will ecommerce overtake e-commerce in the future monthly search volumes? Ecommerce or E-commerce?0 -
Is anybody else seeing large scale rankings drops in Bing this week?
I track around 1000 keywords for this site, and my rankings in Bing dropped for about half of them on Wednesday. No major changes have been made to the site, rankings are maintaining or improving in Google for a majority of these same terms. The average drop seems to be around 9-12 places, which to me signals more than just standard fluctuation. Anyone else seeing anything strange with Bing this week? Or does anyone have any ideas? I looked for posts about an algorithm change but haven't found anything. Thanks.
Algorithm Updates | | BrianCC0 -
Is there a way to pull historical rankings for a keyword?
I have someone who's come to me and said that they have lost all of their organic keyword rankings. They did launch a site redesign a few months back so that could be a reason as to why. But after looking at the site, link profile, etc. It doesn't look like they could have been ranking for the terms they say they were. They have never implemented any SEO on their sites btw. I did not build this site and have not done any SEO, they are coming to me to solve the problem. I did notice in SEM rush that a couple months ago they were ranking organically for more terms (20 in July vs. 5 now), so they did lose some. Is there any way to see what terms they WERE ranking for?
Algorithm Updates | | MichaelWeisbaum0 -
Keyword rich domains sliding fast
I decided not to worry too much about the statements from google indicating that they were going to consider key word rich domains as a negative for ranking since any of the sites I work on that have them are totally relevant to the content on the sites. However, since recent Google algorithm updates I see these domains have suddenly slid from top 3 positions to page 4 or beyond in Google SERP's. Nothing has changed on these sites in the intervening time and no change is evident in Bing or Yahoo SERP's. Is it just my imagination, or are others seeing the same thing for keyword rich domains? and has anyone yet determined the best way to deal with this problem?
Algorithm Updates | | ShaMenz0