Author Topic: Penguin (Read 51613 times)

Rumbas · « **Reply #15 on:** May 05, 2012, 12:46:27 PM »

http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2012/05/search-quality-highlights-53-changes.html

"Anchors bug fix. [launch codename "Organochloride", project codename "Anchors"] This change fixed a bug related to our handling of anchors."

2much · « **Reply #16 on:** May 07, 2012, 04:31:12 AM »

grnidone · « **Reply #17 on:** May 07, 2012, 06:56:02 PM »

Marcela, how old are the links that link to that site? As in, how long has that site had those particular sucky links? If those links have been linking to that site for a long time, as in years, that might account for that site being dumped in Penguin.

I have seen that before...I've also seen that sites that spend a lot of money with adwords get preferencial treatment.

Chunkford · « **Reply #18 on:** May 07, 2012, 07:48:24 PM »

Maybe there's thresholds before certain algos kick in.

From a processing point of view it would keep costs down and increase speed (e.g. panda is ran manually probably because of this), while still keeping competitive niches under control.
It would also explain why some sites like above defy the logic being applied.

hungrygoose · « **Reply #19 on:** May 08, 2012, 10:16:18 AM »

Looking at it from a pure quantity of links POV is probably wrong and we need to look at it from a PR perspective. From their 100% of PR what % is keyworded compared to branded, what % are on semantically relevant pages etc

I, Brian · « **Reply #20 on:** May 08, 2012, 01:25:11 PM »

So far as I can tell, the main target of Penguin has been to penalise use of spun links where these dominate a site's link profile.

A URL with minimal spun links as little affected, but where spun links dominate, keyword rankings crash.

I say URL and not domain because I've tested this with subfolders and these can be hit much easier than a homepage.

The scary thing is that normally Google simply devalue what they perceive as low quality links. Now it appears that low quality links carry an active penalty.

From what I've seen so far, it should be pretty easy to take out general SME websites, or at the very least major categories on them, with nothing more complex than a $40 pligg blast.

Pandora's box has opened.

Drastic · « **Reply #21 on:** May 08, 2012, 04:31:51 PM »

I'm not seeing a correlation to spun content links myself.

Happened across this article while looking at something else:
http://www.micrositemasters.com/blog/penguin-analysis-seo-isnt-dead-but-you-need-to-act-smarter-and-5-easy-ways-to-do-so/

Interesting data from a rank tracking site/company. (never heard of them before)

Basically says money keys at 50% or higher in your anchors means penalty.

They also note that non-relevant links draw a penalty. Looking at the graphs it looks like a site with 10% or less links from relevant sites likely got penalized. (Graph starts rising at 30% and shoots up at 10%.)

There are always exceptions, but it looks like a site with both high density on ranking anchors and low relevant links is a likely target. This seems to line up with what I'm seeing. Might play into the spun content links idea that the links are on non-relevant sites instead of due to being on spun content.

4Eyes · « **Reply #22 on:** May 08, 2012, 05:45:29 PM »

yeah - its not spun - otherwise I'd be dead in the water.

Only one site hit, and it fits the description in Drastic's post - high percentage of same anchor links, and high percentage of irrelevant sites

Not sure whether it is relevant 'sites' or relevant 'pages' - as my example site fails on both counts.

Drastic · « **Reply #23 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:26:58 PM »

>Not sure whether it is relevant 'sites' or relevant 'pages' - as my example site fails on both counts.

That's what I've been wondering. Usually spun content is on topic though, right?

Gurtie · « **Reply #24 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:36:58 PM »

so basically, penguin has just done something which google claim they've been doing since about 2007?

I know we all know they weren't, but the scary thing, if that's the case, is that I didn't reallise quite how far behind the FUD they actually were. I wonder how much easier I could make my life now and still be safe?!

sugarkane · « **Reply #25 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:38:58 PM »

> Usually spun content is on topic though, right?

Not necessarily if the spinning is automated rather than done properly. Or outsourced and not checked come to that.

I would have thought it has to be relevant pages rather than sites, or links from major news sites or wide-ranging tech blogs etc would be useless or even harmful?

Drastic · « **Reply #26 on:** May 08, 2012, 06:50:43 PM »

Yeah, page level makes more sense, at least in some aspects. Maybe we should be looking at context level as well?

[added]
The relevance issue could by a byproduct of just lack of anchor text variance. Sites with more natural links are going to have variance and are going to have more links from on topic urls. SEO links are more likely to have little variance and less likely to be on topic in general.

I'm also thinking that rather than penalize, they are simply devaluing these links causing rank to drop.

Rumbas · « **Reply #27 on:** May 08, 2012, 08:02:50 PM »

>> Usually spun content is on topic though, right?
>
>Not necessarily if the spinning is automated rather than done properly. Or outsourced

Relevance is many things - what about links between languages? Eg. links from Italian to French? I wonder how much translation is going on in calculating relevance and topics.

grnidone · « **Reply #28 on:** May 08, 2012, 08:10:53 PM »

I really think that the site on which the link is doesn't matter if it is on topic or not. I think it has to do with the age of the link (how long that links has been pointing to the site).

I'd show you an example, but this conversation is on the outside...

littleman · « **Reply #29 on:** May 08, 2012, 08:37:35 PM »

You could start a thread in the IC if you want...

The Core

News:

Author Topic: Penguin (Read 51613 times)

Rumbas

Re: Penguin

2much

Re: Penguin

grnidone

Re: Penguin

Chunkford

Re: Penguin

hungrygoose

Re: Penguin

I, Brian

Re: Penguin

Drastic

Re: Penguin

4Eyes

Re: Penguin

Drastic

Re: Penguin

Gurtie

Re: Penguin

sugarkane

Re: Penguin

Drastic

Re: Penguin

Rumbas

Re: Penguin

grnidone

Re: Penguin

littleman

Re: Penguin