New Posts
Welcome guest, is this your first visit?
  • Login:
PokerRebel.com Affiliate Program
+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 123
Like Tree71Likes

Thread: Panda 14th update.

  1. #101
    Senior Member
    My Status
     
    ----
     

    Add as a friend
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    543
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)

    Default

    Click through rates from Google SERPs.


    Quote Originally Posted by domainer View Post
    All this talk about click-through rate - what specifically are you guys talking about? Click-through to an inner page on the site? Click-through any link found on the landing page? Click-through from serps to the website? Sorry if it's a dumb question, just trying to figure out what everyone's definition is.

  2. #102
    Senior Member
    My Status
     
    ----
     

    Add as a friend
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,752
    Blog Entries
    1
    Feedback Score
    62 (100%)

    Default

    Lets say you want to drop pages that are of no use! Like simple pages you decide to axe off your site.

    If you have links to them - then what will happen is a bunch of broken links.

    BUt say it was thin content and you wanna rid of it - do you just drop it? And do a 301 redirect?

    Or essentially allow it to go to a 404 page

    I hear people saying drop all shit content - but what do you do about pages that have links to it?

    That is of course if you do not want to re write it? Can you send all shit pages to a doorway page - and redirect 301 in .htaccess?

  3. #103
    Senior Member
    My Status
     
    ----
     

    Add as a friend
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    637
    Blog Entries
    4
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

    Default

    I have a site that was hit on October 14th by what I'm assuming must be the Panda tweak/update that was rolled out that day.

    Since then I've lost pretty much bang on 50% of traffic to the site. I've trawled my analytics and I can't find any pages which haven't lost traffic so it's not like they are just pushing down poor pages only. If you trigger the penalty then all your pages rank less well (might be stating the obvious here but w/e).

    I identified what I would consider to be pages of poor quality on the site. There were 80 in total. They were 250 words in length and everything above the fold on these pages was advertising. These pages were indexed by Google but they were not appearing in the serps for anything including when I searched chunks of text on the page.

    To remove them I used webmaster tools to make sure they were gone and Google knows they are gone. When doing this I also tried to remove a page which had previously ranked well.

    80 of my page removals went through with no questions asked but 1 flagged up a serious site health warning. It was the one page I didn't consider to be low in quality. This begs the question - were the low quality pages pulling the rest of the site down? Possibly.

    I have sites with lower average time on page and bounce rates than this site which were unaffected.

    It'll be very interesting to see what happens to my site when/if the next tweak happens. When/if it happens I'll post again in this thread with my results.
    TheTattooedGuy likes this.

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    My Status
     
    ----
     

    Add as a friend
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    543
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)

    Default

    My last post on this.
    It is clear that there has been a major shift in the Google algo, of course we all know this. We as affiliates, have in reality have never had to worry too much about the actual quality of our pages as we could simply “game” Google with links. Most on this forum have been doing this, myself included for many years.

    Now it seems very clear that Google is less reliant on links, at last is more concerned with quality pages. Add to the mix the VINCE update, of which there is no doubt has given far more power to big authority brand type sites. To make things even more complex, it seems the latest update even devalued many more types of links.

    How Google defines quality pages is up for debate, although, if you compare the recent leaked Google Search Quality Rating Guidelines with previous year’s guidelines (yes you can still find these online), then you can see a shift in what Google seems to be looking for.

    So think about these points:

    If a listing is clicked in Google SERPs, but those who visit the page constantly return to the Google search results, then what does this tell Google?

    As above, but users quickly click away from the page to an operator’s site?

    If a user clicks on a Google search result and does not return to the original Google search page. What does this tell Google?

    I for one have been looking very closely at bounce rates, especially breaking down why some pages have a high bounce rate. How many affiliates actually know why some of their pages have a high bounce rate? How many actually care?

    Also I believe of great importance is the type of traffic our pages generate. Should we be aiming for more specific traffic, targeting specific types of key phrases, rather than create pages that have been designed to attracted a large amount of traffic from numerous types of key phrases? Again think bounce rate!

    Due to the recent updates would we be much better reducing the number of affiliate links and instead change our strategy, so we have far more quality pages, that in effect funnel visitors to quality sales pages?

    Also what about results listed in SERPs that actually get more than expected clicks, let’s say pages listed in results positions 5 and below, and those who click through, do not return to the original Google search page?

    I have noted many weird changes using rank tracking software that tracks Google ranking positions and expected clicks and actual clicks. Could Google really be monitoring these and in effect be promoting them in SERPs?


    I love a challenge!

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    My Status
     
    ----
     

    Add as a friend
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,946
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)

    Default

    In summary, who the fuck knows.

  6. #106
    money does not sleep
    alone
     
    ----
     

    Add as a friend
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    nias
    Posts
    317
    Feedback Score
    51 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ramchip View Post
    My last post on this.
    Just one question, was it your last post?
    TheTattooedGuy likes this.
    Halo keindahan malam ini bebas, saya ingin makan beberapa udang dengan rhum beberapa, asap Gudang Garam dan kemudian menonton Anda menari dan perlahan-lahan mendapatkan gaun Anda pergi.

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    My Status
     
    ----
     

    Add as a friend
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    543
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Last edited by ramchip; 11-04-2011 at 01:02 AM.
    leporello likes this.

  8. #108
    Senior Member
    Giving players too much credit
     
    ----
     

    Add as a friend
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,581
    Feedback Score
    51 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ramchip View Post
    Now it seems very clear that Google is less reliant on links, at last is more concerned with quality pages.
    Why do you think Google uses a link-based algorithm? It's the hardest thing to manipulate without significant money thrown at buying links, and even when you buy rankings you risk getting penalized.

    Suggesting Google cares more about content instead of links is also a bit of a contradiction IMO. Quality content attracts the best type of links.

    Just because certain types of links might be getting devalued, it doesn't make the algo less reliant on links, just harder to manipulate which is their ultimate goal in fighting spam.

    This article really mentions nothing new - SEW should be concerned about getting hit by Panda for having a low quality page LOL.

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    My Status
     
    ----
     

    Add as a friend
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    543
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)

    Default

    Some people can't see the wood for all the trees!

  10. #110
    Senior Member
    My Status
     
    ----
     

    Add as a friend
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    637
    Blog Entries
    4
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

    Default

    Both those articles seem to point towards removing low quality content so here's to hoping it works for me.


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.5
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0