9 ms·

How We Have Attempted to Recover from Google Panda

80 points by ackkchoo 15y ago

ackkchoo 15y ago
I run a large site that was unexpectedly affected by Google's "Panda" update. There has been a lot of talk on the subject, but most of it is FUD, and I haven't seen many large sites lay everything out for discussion. This is the first post (of many planned ones) about our experience with Google's "Panda" update. Hopefully it will generate some good discussion from those facing a similar situation, and help some other people out.
jerrya 15y ago
Hi Eric, Have you tried approaching Google to discuss it?
- ackkchoo 15y ago
  Hi Jerry - I don't know anyone who works in search quality at Google, and they have said a few times that they aren't going to make any manual exceptions. I've filed a "reconsideration request" with Google, and only got a boilerplate response saying our site has "no manual penalties". Unfortunately, any spam report, reconsideration request, or communication via the Webmaster Tools interface seemingly goes to a black hole. I wouldn't even know who to contact or how to contact them. I can understand why they can't reveal too much about their algorithm, but at the same time if they want to build a "healthier web ecosystem" I think they have to do a better job of communicating with legitimate webmasters (this is going to be the subject of a future post). There is so much uncertainty out there that I think even legitimate site owners are afraid to speak out for fear of being punished, when instead they should be working together with Google to help improve things. It's like the attitude is: if you're doing well, don't say anything or you might draw Google's scrutiny (especially because you're probably doing something shady), and if you are doing badly don't say anything either because Google will just punish you more (because they have not told you why you have been punished in the first place). So instead people are driven to anonymous postings on random forums where wild misinformation spreads. The intent of this post wasn't to focus on why our particular site wasn't ranking well anymore in Google, but to try to see if there were other website owners out there who feel comfortable coming out with their stories, and to share anything they may have learned. Again, there is so little real information coming from Google that most people I know have just been grasping at straws, so it would be great to hear other people's stories. I recently read about another seemingly legit site with lots of good content punished (http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=1981eab5c6140e68&hl=en http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=...), so there must be more of them out there.
  - brentdev 15y ago
    They've admitted that there's al algorithm then also sites can be manually 'reviewed'... layman's terms... yeah they made exceptions and got called out hardcore with this last panda release on it and at least they 'claim' that they're working on fixing it. search google for panda site slap. you'll see lists of all the big ones that went down...
    - narad 15y ago
      Matt Cutts has already confirmed that there won't be any manual changes. http://followmattcutts.com/2011/05/25/matt-cutts-confirms-no-manual-exceptions-in-panda-algorithm/ http://followmattcutts.com/2011/05/25/matt-cutts-confirms-no...
      - jerrya 15y ago
        And Matt refers to this blog post by Amit Singhal to give the official word on what Panda does. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guid... That link answers one of my question about Eric's article, which is why TravBuddy took the steps they did take.
elsewhen 15y ago
The site should 410 removed pages insted of 404ing... 404 just means "not here anymore" and google will wait to remove it from their index until they have revisited the page a few more times over days/weeks. A 410 on the other hand indicates that this page has been intentionally removed, and google tends to act quicker on those.
- elsewhen 15y ago
  Alternatively, they could 301 the removed pages to the most relevant parent page if that would be a better user experience for those few who did navigate to them. (in my experience 301ed pages also get removed from the index faster than 404s)
  - ackkchoo 15y ago
    Thanks, that's helpful information as well. I didn't know about the 410. We used to 301 some pages, but ran into duplicate content issues where Google would continually spider old 301'd URLs (even when there were no longer links pointing to the original bad URL).
spolsky 15y ago
Because of the lucrative nature of affiliate payments and commissions in the travel industry, one of the biggest sources of what Google considered bad content was sites linking to hotels. Look at this page: [http://www.travbuddy.com/hotels http://www.travbuddy.com/hotels]. All those links to "Hawaii Hotels" and "New York Hotels" look exactly like an old-school linkfarm. Ask yourself this: if you're Google, and somebody is typing in "Hawaii Hotels" to do a search, is your Hawaii Hotels page really something they want as a top result? I don't think it is. Your content is not really "canonical" for Hawaii Hotels, it's just a page that lists a few reviews you've managed to collect. It's all speculation on my part, since I have no inside information, but essentially, I think you're sort of poisoning your own reputation at Google with all those links.
- necrodome 15y ago
  When I search Hawaii Hotels on Google, the top result is a 7-item list of hotels with a little bit more information (link to the official hotel site, review count, place page, etc). How is that different from travbuddy's list page except that extra information?
  - spolsky 15y ago
    The top result I'm getting goes to TripAdvisor. Arguably, TripAdvisor is much bigger and has tons more reviews than TravBuddy. I can't speak to its quality but that does speak to its "canonicalness".
    - jerrya 15y ago
      I think necrodome is referring to google's own, similar to travbuddy, reviews presented as Google places. I get 7 hotels listed from Google places as well listed above the link to tripadvisor.
- ackkchoo 15y ago
  Hi Joel - Thanks for the feedback, that's really helpful and you do make a lot of valid points, especially about travel affiliates. We definitely aren't trying to rank for "Hawaii Hotels". Those links are intended as a sitemap to help people find our review pages, many of which I believe we do have valuable, original content. As a concrete example following the Hawaii theme, we used to rank pretty well when someone searched for "Hale Koa Hotel" (a hotel in Hawaii). Here is our page on it: http://www.travbuddy.com/Hale-Koa-Hotel-v189806 http://www.travbuddy.com/Hale-Koa-Hotel-v189806 It's got a few detailed reviews and candid photos from active members of the site. Certainly not perfect, but I think it's helpful and that it provides a different perspective. Right now it's ranked #55 on my browser, and here is a sampling of the sites that rank above it: #9 http://old.armymwr.com/portal/travel/recreationcenters/hale_koa_hotel.html http://old.armymwr.com/portal/travel/recreationcenters/hale_... (a site that just links to info from the official page) #11 http://www.frommers.com/destinations/oahu/H42763.html http://www.frommers.com/destinations/oahu/H42763.html (A trusted brand but limited original information about the hotel and no photos) #14 http://www.dollar.com/Locations/gen.aspx?locationId=HNLC02 http://www.dollar.com/Locations/gen.aspx?locationId=HNLC02 (no content at all) #15 http://www.gohawaii.com/listing/Dining/90173401_HaleKoaHotelDinnerShow?mIslandId=oahu http://www.gohawaii.com/listing/Dining/90173401_HaleKoaHotel... (no original information) #17 http://www.wedhawaii.com/hawaii-wedding-locations/oahu/halekoahotel.html http://www.wedhawaii.com/hawaii-wedding-locations/oahu/halek... (a wedding photo album site, but no specific information about the hotel) #20 http://hotelandtravelindex.travelweekly.com/Destinations/Honolulu/Hotels/Hale-Koa-Hotel-Military-Only-p1437225 http://hotelandtravelindex.travelweekly.com/Destinations/Hon... (no original information) #21 http://gohawaii.about.com/library/gallery/blwaikiki_hotels_4.htm http://gohawaii.about.com/library/gallery/blwaikiki_hotels_4... (1 photo, nothing else) #25 http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states/hawaii/honolulu/hale-koa-hotel-military-only-hotel-detail-075094/ http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states/hawaii/hono... (hardly any information) #28 http://www.maplandia.com/united-states/car-rental/honolulu-hale-koa-hotel-car-rental/ http://www.maplandia.com/united-states/car-rental/honolulu-h... ... I'm not arguing we should be #1, or even #10, but we're certainly better than many of the sites between #1 and #55, and we've seen this pattern repeat itself for most of the hotels and pages we have original and unique content for. While we certainly don't have as many hotel reviews as TripAdvisor, we do have more quality reviews than most other sites, and we have to start somewhere :) I guess a better question would be, if we have 75,000 reviews, what is the best way of internally linking to them within our site WITHOUT looking like a link farm? We're just trying to put our best content forward, so any suggestions would be appreciated!
spiralganglion 15y ago
Google's intention with search, to return exactly the most relevant information for any query, seems a bit like the strive for a grand unified theory of physics. It's a noble ambition, but there are going to be a lot of mistakes and missteps along the way; it's probably going to take an awful long time to arrive there, if it ever happens; and when we do get there a lot of people are going to be upset by it. I really appreciate that you've stepped forward with both information about the effects of the changes and what you've done to remedy the situation. I'm keen to see your followup posts, and I will be keen to see what future changes Google implements and how they improve things for you, me, and everyone. But as time has shown, holding out hope for Google to do anything specifically helpful has been a disappointment in so many instances I've lost count.
WalterGR 15y ago
I've run The Online Slang Dictionary (http://onlineslangdictionary.com/ http://onlineslangdictionary.com/) since 1996. On April 11, the date of one of the Panda updates, traffic from Google dropped 20%. Between April 11 and a month ago, I made the following changes: * Correct spelling, grammar, and capitalization errors * Where spelling "errors" are legitimate "slang terms", link to the definition pages for those slang terms (gonna, wanna, ain't, dat's, etc.) * Remove unnecessary extra punctuation, e.g. example sentences ending in "???" or "!!!" * Checked keywords on top landing pages for searches like "slang", "slang dictionary", "slang thesaurus" * Remove unnecessary extra spaces in the middle of sentences * Use complete sentences even where completely unnecessary * Restructure entire /definition+of/word+goes+here directory structure to be /meaning-of/word-goes-here, since people search for "meaning of" more frequently than "definition of", and since Google seems to have stopped treating + as a word separator in some cases. * Reworked meta descriptions and page titles * Removed meta keywords. I know Google doesn't use them, but maybe they treat them as a negative indicator of site quality? Who knows? * Completely re-designed site's front page * Switched from Google Custom Search Engine to a custom search implementation, because I think I can provide better results, improve the user experience, and reduce search exit rate * Delay-load Twitter widget to reduce page load time * Use rel="canonical" on every page on the site, since Google is indexing the IP address of the site and showing it separately in SERPs * Removed <priority> nodes from the sitemap, just in case Google knows better * Fixed the "HTML suggestions" on GWT, such as short meta descriptions and duplicate meta descriptions * Excluded directories via robots.txt like /word-of-the-day/, since the words of the day are already spidered elsewhere on the site, in case Google is giving me a duplicate content penalty of some kind I've also made plenty more changes in the past month, but I haven't written up a list yet. Sine the Panda update, I've seen no improvement in traffic from Google to my site.
- ackkchoo 15y ago
  Hi Walter - Thanks for posting your site and describing the changes you've made as well. It's interesting that you've focused on spelling/grammar errors (despite it being a slang site), and still haven't noticed any improvements. We have a lot of members from around the world, who may not have English as their first language. We've thought about correcting some spelling/grammar programatically, but since we have a UGC site, and each review is tied to a real person, it seems disingenuous to rewrite someone else's words. I recently read an article about how Zappos uses Mechanical Turk to correct grammar and spelling in user reviews (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110428/02453114067/zappos-uses-mechanical-turk-to-correct-spellinggrammar-errors-reviews-it-increases-sales.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110428/02453114067/zappos...), and one of the comments that stood out to me was: "Grammar, punctuation and style are part of how we decide if a review is credible. For Zappos to artificially inflate the credibility of reviews by changing those qualities is a form of fraud IMO." I don't know if I'd call it fraud, but it certainly artificially inflates the credibility of reviews, and that's something (in addition to the rewriting someone else's thoughts part) we don't feel comfortable doing. (For your site, since it's a dictionary, seems like a better fix and I'm surprised that it hasn't yielded any improvements)
franze 15y ago
hi, the funny thing is: all big travel sites lost http://trends.google.com/websites?q=tripadvisor.com%2C+expedia.com%2C+travbuddy.com%2C+lonelyplanet.com&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 http://trends.google.com/websites?q=tripadvisor.com%2C+exped... i did not hear from a single big travel site that won in the so called google panda update. and to be honest, i understand it the spammiest verticals are not only PPP (pills, porn, poker), it's PPPIT (pills, porn, poker, insurances, travel). i worked in poker, i worked in travel, i did insurances and yeah from an SEO perspective they are all very disgusting verticals. and from what it looks like: the whole travel segment got a hit. so yeah, you can try to get out of "panda" but then you should realize that "panda" is nothing you can get out of. it's not a "penalty", it's a new set of rules. try what works, try what doesn't and then iterate. so simple. and from what i see: http://tools.pingdom.com/?url=http://www.travbuddy.com/Hotels-Am-Walde-Hahnenklee-v390237&treeview=0&column=objectID&order=1&type=0&save=true http://tools.pingdom.com/?url=http://www.travbuddy.com/Hotel... you root HTML already takes 900ms to get delivered, then you load about 162 additional dependencies. ... i would work on speed.
- klbarry 15y ago
  Hope you don't mind if I ask you here, I can't find your email. I saw on your twitter feed you recommended two great non-obvious resources for SEO - In the Plex and schema.org. An other resources (sites/books/etc.) you can recommend?
Tichy 15y ago
What still confuses me is the duplicate content issue. Doesn't it make sense to make some information reachable in different ways? For example in a typical blog, the same text can be found via direkt link, latest articles, categories... How does one make that go away - and should it be done?
- Terretta 15y ago
  Canonical URL. When you reach the page via tag list or category, have it rel=canonical the article URL instead of tag or category URL. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-y...
terryjsmith 15y ago
This is great. I work for a blog network that got hit similarly hard by both Panda updates, and we've done a lot of the same stuff (removing and/or de-indexing short/no page view content, improving our site map and linking system), but scrapers continue to be our biggest issue, especially the ones we don't syndicate to. These can rank higher than us in Google as well, and we continue to try to find a way to flag them or submit removal requests without having to do each one manually. This is a great write up though, it's good to see that others are trying the same things as we are.
coliveira 15y ago
I think this is all nonsense. Google's work should be to separate good content from bad content. Now, they are inverting the relationship and saying that web masters should be responsible to handle that information to them. This is wrong in several levels. First, Google starts to dictate what is acceptable or not in their index, using tools like webmaster central and all the "semantic web" talk -- Why should I care? Second, it creates the incentives and the opportunity for bad guys to do well. If you need to do all this overhaul of a web site, the only people willing to do the work will be the very same ones that created content farms in the first place. After all, they are the ones that make big buckets from Google, not the after hours hobbyist that maintains a single web site.
- bxr 15y ago
  Why should I care? You shouldn't. Nobody is forcing you to try and appear better in google's results.
  - coliveira 15y ago
    You probably didn't read what came before this sentence... The point is exactly that, with a good web search engine, content writers shouldn't have to do anything other than writing content in order to appear on the search results. Google is the one that should be actively looking for content and ranking it accordingly, instead of myself doing any work other than writing.
    - bxr 15y ago
      >You probably didn't read what came before this sentence I did. I guess what I'm saying is: why does it matter to you if google's search algorithms aren't perfect and could operate better with a bit of metadata from the site? After all, you're free to opt out from playing along. If, like you suspect, it means that their algorithm is optimized for web spam, they'll sort it out eventually. It just sound like your bitching that the cost of doing buisness has gone up in the meantime, and if only google could be perfect you wouldn't have to worry about it. But this is what you get for relying on the behavior of someone that owes you nothing.
grok2 15y ago
An observation based on mentions of "low quality" in Amit Singhal's blog post at http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guid... -- you mention that you have no-indexed thin content pages, but is it possible that if Google sees that the volume of "noindex" pages is high compared to the overall volume of pages on the site, that Google still views your site as overall of "low-quality" (relative to the other sites it indexes for the same keywords)? Rather than noindex pages, I am thinking using robots.txt to prevent access to these pages might be better -- Google can't perhaps then tell what to make of these pages you've hidden via robots.txt. Just thinking...not really an expert on this.
- chocoheadfred 15y ago
  I think that makes a lot of sense and worth a shot. Might be worth removing (many) more pages until your rankings come back to see as a test.
johng 15y ago
I'd like to talk to you a bit about your site. Please send me an email, I don't see an obvious contact form on your blog.... johng a t forum foundry d o t com

80 points by ackkchoo 15y ago

I run a large site that was unexpectedly affected by Google's "Panda" update. There has been a lot of talk on the subject, but most of it is FUD, and I haven't seen many large sites lay everything out for discussion. This is the first post (of many planned ones) about our experience with Google's "Panda" update. Hopefully it will generate some good discussion from those facing a similar situation, and help some other people out.

jerrya 15y ago

Hi Eric, Have you tried approaching Google to discuss it?

ackkchoo 15y ago
Hi Jerry - I don't know anyone who works in search quality at Google, and they have said a few times that they aren't going to make any manual exceptions. I've filed a "reconsideration request" with Google, and only got a boilerplate response saying our site has "no manual penalties". Unfortunately, any spam report, reconsideration request, or communication via the Webmaster Tools interface seemingly goes to a black hole. I wouldn't even know who to contact or how to contact them. I can understand why they can't reveal too much about their algorithm, but at the same time if they want to build a "healthier web ecosystem" I think they have to do a better job of communicating with legitimate webmasters (this is going to be the subject of a future post). There is so much uncertainty out there that I think even legitimate site owners are afraid to speak out for fear of being punished, when instead they should be working together with Google to help improve things. It's like the attitude is: if you're doing well, don't say anything or you might draw Google's scrutiny (especially because you're probably doing something shady), and if you are doing badly don't say anything either because Google will just punish you more (because they have not told you why you have been punished in the first place). So instead people are driven to anonymous postings on random forums where wild misinformation spreads. The intent of this post wasn't to focus on why our particular site wasn't ranking well anymore in Google, but to try to see if there were other website owners out there who feel comfortable coming out with their stories, and to share anything they may have learned. Again, there is so little real information coming from Google that most people I know have just been grasping at straws, so it would be great to hear other people's stories. I recently read about another seemingly legit site with lots of good content punished (http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=1981eab5c6140e68&hl=en http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=...), so there must be more of them out there.
- brentdev 15y ago
  They've admitted that there's al algorithm then also sites can be manually 'reviewed'... layman's terms... yeah they made exceptions and got called out hardcore with this last panda release on it and at least they 'claim' that they're working on fixing it. search google for panda site slap. you'll see lists of all the big ones that went down...
  - narad 15y ago
    Matt Cutts has already confirmed that there won't be any manual changes. http://followmattcutts.com/2011/05/25/matt-cutts-confirms-no-manual-exceptions-in-panda-algorithm/ http://followmattcutts.com/2011/05/25/matt-cutts-confirms-no...
    - jerrya 15y ago
      And Matt refers to this blog post by Amit Singhal to give the official word on what Panda does. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guid... That link answers one of my question about Eric's article, which is why TravBuddy took the steps they did take.

elsewhen 15y ago

The site should 410 removed pages insted of 404ing... 404 just means "not here anymore" and google will wait to remove it from their index until they have revisited the page a few more times over days/weeks. A 410 on the other hand indicates that this page has been intentionally removed, and google tends to act quicker on those.

elsewhen 15y ago
Alternatively, they could 301 the removed pages to the most relevant parent page if that would be a better user experience for those few who did navigate to them. (in my experience 301ed pages also get removed from the index faster than 404s)
- ackkchoo 15y ago
  Thanks, that's helpful information as well. I didn't know about the 410. We used to 301 some pages, but ran into duplicate content issues where Google would continually spider old 301'd URLs (even when there were no longer links pointing to the original bad URL).

spolsky 15y ago

Because of the lucrative nature of affiliate payments and commissions in the travel industry, one of the biggest sources of what Google considered bad content was sites linking to hotels. Look at this page: [http://www.travbuddy.com/hotels http://www.travbuddy.com/hotels]. All those links to "Hawaii Hotels" and "New York Hotels" look exactly like an old-school linkfarm. Ask yourself this: if you're Google, and somebody is typing in "Hawaii Hotels" to do a search, is your Hawaii Hotels page really something they want as a top result? I don't think it is. Your content is not really "canonical" for Hawaii Hotels, it's just a page that lists a few reviews you've managed to collect. It's all speculation on my part, since I have no inside information, but essentially, I think you're sort of poisoning your own reputation at Google with all those links.

necrodome 15y ago
When I search Hawaii Hotels on Google, the top result is a 7-item list of hotels with a little bit more information (link to the official hotel site, review count, place page, etc). How is that different from travbuddy's list page except that extra information?
- spolsky 15y ago
  The top result I'm getting goes to TripAdvisor. Arguably, TripAdvisor is much bigger and has tons more reviews than TravBuddy. I can't speak to its quality but that does speak to its "canonicalness".
  - jerrya 15y ago
    I think necrodome is referring to google's own, similar to travbuddy, reviews presented as Google places. I get 7 hotels listed from Google places as well listed above the link to tripadvisor.
ackkchoo 15y ago
Hi Joel - Thanks for the feedback, that's really helpful and you do make a lot of valid points, especially about travel affiliates. We definitely aren't trying to rank for "Hawaii Hotels". Those links are intended as a sitemap to help people find our review pages, many of which I believe we do have valuable, original content. As a concrete example following the Hawaii theme, we used to rank pretty well when someone searched for "Hale Koa Hotel" (a hotel in Hawaii). Here is our page on it: http://www.travbuddy.com/Hale-Koa-Hotel-v189806 http://www.travbuddy.com/Hale-Koa-Hotel-v189806 It's got a few detailed reviews and candid photos from active members of the site. Certainly not perfect, but I think it's helpful and that it provides a different perspective. Right now it's ranked #55 on my browser, and here is a sampling of the sites that rank above it: #9 http://old.armymwr.com/portal/travel/recreationcenters/hale_koa_hotel.html http://old.armymwr.com/portal/travel/recreationcenters/hale_... (a site that just links to info from the official page) #11 http://www.frommers.com/destinations/oahu/H42763.html http://www.frommers.com/destinations/oahu/H42763.html (A trusted brand but limited original information about the hotel and no photos) #14 http://www.dollar.com/Locations/gen.aspx?locationId=HNLC02 http://www.dollar.com/Locations/gen.aspx?locationId=HNLC02 (no content at all) #15 http://www.gohawaii.com/listing/Dining/90173401_HaleKoaHotelDinnerShow?mIslandId=oahu http://www.gohawaii.com/listing/Dining/90173401_HaleKoaHotel... (no original information) #17 http://www.wedhawaii.com/hawaii-wedding-locations/oahu/halekoahotel.html http://www.wedhawaii.com/hawaii-wedding-locations/oahu/halek... (a wedding photo album site, but no specific information about the hotel) #20 http://hotelandtravelindex.travelweekly.com/Destinations/Honolulu/Hotels/Hale-Koa-Hotel-Military-Only-p1437225 http://hotelandtravelindex.travelweekly.com/Destinations/Hon... (no original information) #21 http://gohawaii.about.com/library/gallery/blwaikiki_hotels_4.htm http://gohawaii.about.com/library/gallery/blwaikiki_hotels_4... (1 photo, nothing else) #25 http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states/hawaii/honolulu/hale-koa-hotel-military-only-hotel-detail-075094/ http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states/hawaii/hono... (hardly any information) #28 http://www.maplandia.com/united-states/car-rental/honolulu-hale-koa-hotel-car-rental/ http://www.maplandia.com/united-states/car-rental/honolulu-h... ... I'm not arguing we should be #1, or even #10, but we're certainly better than many of the sites between #1 and #55, and we've seen this pattern repeat itself for most of the hotels and pages we have original and unique content for. While we certainly don't have as many hotel reviews as TripAdvisor, we do have more quality reviews than most other sites, and we have to start somewhere :) I guess a better question would be, if we have 75,000 reviews, what is the best way of internally linking to them within our site WITHOUT looking like a link farm? We're just trying to put our best content forward, so any suggestions would be appreciated!

spiralganglion 15y ago

Google's intention with search, to return exactly the most relevant information for any query, seems a bit like the strive for a grand unified theory of physics. It's a noble ambition, but there are going to be a lot of mistakes and missteps along the way; it's probably going to take an awful long time to arrive there, if it ever happens; and when we do get there a lot of people are going to be upset by it. I really appreciate that you've stepped forward with both information about the effects of the changes and what you've done to remedy the situation. I'm keen to see your followup posts, and I will be keen to see what future changes Google implements and how they improve things for you, me, and everyone. But as time has shown, holding out hope for Google to do anything specifically helpful has been a disappointment in so many instances I've lost count.

WalterGR 15y ago

I've run The Online Slang Dictionary (http://onlineslangdictionary.com/ http://onlineslangdictionary.com/) since 1996. On April 11, the date of one of the Panda updates, traffic from Google dropped 20%. Between April 11 and a month ago, I made the following changes: * Correct spelling, grammar, and capitalization errors * Where spelling "errors" are legitimate "slang terms", link to the definition pages for those slang terms (gonna, wanna, ain't, dat's, etc.) * Remove unnecessary extra punctuation, e.g. example sentences ending in "???" or "!!!" * Checked keywords on top landing pages for searches like "slang", "slang dictionary", "slang thesaurus" * Remove unnecessary extra spaces in the middle of sentences * Use complete sentences even where completely unnecessary * Restructure entire /definition+of/word+goes+here directory structure to be /meaning-of/word-goes-here, since people search for "meaning of" more frequently than "definition of", and since Google seems to have stopped treating + as a word separator in some cases. * Reworked meta descriptions and page titles * Removed meta keywords. I know Google doesn't use them, but maybe they treat them as a negative indicator of site quality? Who knows? * Completely re-designed site's front page * Switched from Google Custom Search Engine to a custom search implementation, because I think I can provide better results, improve the user experience, and reduce search exit rate * Delay-load Twitter widget to reduce page load time * Use rel="canonical" on every page on the site, since Google is indexing the IP address of the site and showing it separately in SERPs * Removed <priority> nodes from the sitemap, just in case Google knows better * Fixed the "HTML suggestions" on GWT, such as short meta descriptions and duplicate meta descriptions * Excluded directories via robots.txt like /word-of-the-day/, since the words of the day are already spidered elsewhere on the site, in case Google is giving me a duplicate content penalty of some kind I've also made plenty more changes in the past month, but I haven't written up a list yet. Sine the Panda update, I've seen no improvement in traffic from Google to my site.

ackkchoo 15y ago
Hi Walter - Thanks for posting your site and describing the changes you've made as well. It's interesting that you've focused on spelling/grammar errors (despite it being a slang site), and still haven't noticed any improvements. We have a lot of members from around the world, who may not have English as their first language. We've thought about correcting some spelling/grammar programatically, but since we have a UGC site, and each review is tied to a real person, it seems disingenuous to rewrite someone else's words. I recently read an article about how Zappos uses Mechanical Turk to correct grammar and spelling in user reviews (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110428/02453114067/zappos-uses-mechanical-turk-to-correct-spellinggrammar-errors-reviews-it-increases-sales.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110428/02453114067/zappos...), and one of the comments that stood out to me was: "Grammar, punctuation and style are part of how we decide if a review is credible. For Zappos to artificially inflate the credibility of reviews by changing those qualities is a form of fraud IMO." I don't know if I'd call it fraud, but it certainly artificially inflates the credibility of reviews, and that's something (in addition to the rewriting someone else's thoughts part) we don't feel comfortable doing. (For your site, since it's a dictionary, seems like a better fix and I'm surprised that it hasn't yielded any improvements)

franze 15y ago

hi, the funny thing is: all big travel sites lost http://trends.google.com/websites?q=tripadvisor.com%2C+expedia.com%2C+travbuddy.com%2C+lonelyplanet.com&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 http://trends.google.com/websites?q=tripadvisor.com%2C+exped... i did not hear from a single big travel site that won in the so called google panda update. and to be honest, i understand it the spammiest verticals are not only PPP (pills, porn, poker), it's PPPIT (pills, porn, poker, insurances, travel). i worked in poker, i worked in travel, i did insurances and yeah from an SEO perspective they are all very disgusting verticals. and from what it looks like: the whole travel segment got a hit. so yeah, you can try to get out of "panda" but then you should realize that "panda" is nothing you can get out of. it's not a "penalty", it's a new set of rules. try what works, try what doesn't and then iterate. so simple. and from what i see: http://tools.pingdom.com/?url=http://www.travbuddy.com/Hotels-Am-Walde-Hahnenklee-v390237&treeview=0&column=objectID&order=1&type=0&save=true http://tools.pingdom.com/?url=http://www.travbuddy.com/Hotel... you root HTML already takes 900ms to get delivered, then you load about 162 additional dependencies. ... i would work on speed.

klbarry 15y ago
Hope you don't mind if I ask you here, I can't find your email. I saw on your twitter feed you recommended two great non-obvious resources for SEO - In the Plex and schema.org. An other resources (sites/books/etc.) you can recommend?

Tichy 15y ago

What still confuses me is the duplicate content issue. Doesn't it make sense to make some information reachable in different ways? For example in a typical blog, the same text can be found via direkt link, latest articles, categories... How does one make that go away - and should it be done?

Terretta 15y ago
Canonical URL. When you reach the page via tag list or category, have it rel=canonical the article URL instead of tag or category URL. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-y...

terryjsmith 15y ago

This is great. I work for a blog network that got hit similarly hard by both Panda updates, and we've done a lot of the same stuff (removing and/or de-indexing short/no page view content, improving our site map and linking system), but scrapers continue to be our biggest issue, especially the ones we don't syndicate to. These can rank higher than us in Google as well, and we continue to try to find a way to flag them or submit removal requests without having to do each one manually. This is a great write up though, it's good to see that others are trying the same things as we are.

coliveira 15y ago

I think this is all nonsense. Google's work should be to separate good content from bad content. Now, they are inverting the relationship and saying that web masters should be responsible to handle that information to them. This is wrong in several levels. First, Google starts to dictate what is acceptable or not in their index, using tools like webmaster central and all the "semantic web" talk -- Why should I care? Second, it creates the incentives and the opportunity for bad guys to do well. If you need to do all this overhaul of a web site, the only people willing to do the work will be the very same ones that created content farms in the first place. After all, they are the ones that make big buckets from Google, not the after hours hobbyist that maintains a single web site.

bxr 15y ago
Why should I care? You shouldn't. Nobody is forcing you to try and appear better in google's results.
- coliveira 15y ago
  You probably didn't read what came before this sentence... The point is exactly that, with a good web search engine, content writers shouldn't have to do anything other than writing content in order to appear on the search results. Google is the one that should be actively looking for content and ranking it accordingly, instead of myself doing any work other than writing.
  - bxr 15y ago
    >You probably didn't read what came before this sentence I did. I guess what I'm saying is: why does it matter to you if google's search algorithms aren't perfect and could operate better with a bit of metadata from the site? After all, you're free to opt out from playing along. If, like you suspect, it means that their algorithm is optimized for web spam, they'll sort it out eventually. It just sound like your bitching that the cost of doing buisness has gone up in the meantime, and if only google could be perfect you wouldn't have to worry about it. But this is what you get for relying on the behavior of someone that owes you nothing.

grok2 15y ago

An observation based on mentions of "low quality" in Amit Singhal's blog post at http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guid... -- you mention that you have no-indexed thin content pages, but is it possible that if Google sees that the volume of "noindex" pages is high compared to the overall volume of pages on the site, that Google still views your site as overall of "low-quality" (relative to the other sites it indexes for the same keywords)? Rather than noindex pages, I am thinking using robots.txt to prevent access to these pages might be better -- Google can't perhaps then tell what to make of these pages you've hidden via robots.txt. Just thinking...not really an expert on this.

chocoheadfred 15y ago
I think that makes a lot of sense and worth a shot. Might be worth removing (many) more pages until your rankings come back to see as a test.

johng 15y ago

I'd like to talk to you a bit about your site. Please send me an email, I don't see an obvious contact form on your blog.... johng a t forum foundry d o t com