<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Search-Internet Marketing &#187; Apparent Cause</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/tag/apparent-cause/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.search-internetmarketing.com</link>
	<description>Internet Marketing Tips</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 15:20:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Google Shuffle?</title>
		<link>http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/2009/07/the-google-shuffle/</link>
		<comments>http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/2009/07/the-google-shuffle/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[SE News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Algorithm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apparent Cause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attribute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barry Schwartz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Buzz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chagrin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cheers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fluctuations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gurus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hl En]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Barry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matt Cutts Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quirk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sculpting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Serp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shuffle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Www Google]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/2009/07/the-google-shuffle/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Has your website recently sunk to &#8220;Davy  Google Jones Jr&#8217;s Locker&#8221;?
Webmasters  and SEO gurus have been scratching our heads for a few weeks now  trying to figure out what has been happening to Google&#8217;s SERP  rankings. After scouring blogs and forums for the last few days, it  would seem that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2452" title="google" src="http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/0ae62_google2.jpg" alt="google" width="300" height="170" />Has your website recently sunk to &#8220;Davy  Google Jones Jr&#8217;s Locker&#8221;?</p>
<p>Webmasters  and SEO gurus have been scratching our heads for a few weeks now  trying to figure out what has been happening to Google&#8217;s SERP  rankings. After scouring blogs and forums for the last few days, it  would seem that there is no real consensus. In fact, it seems that no  one is willing to even speculate much as to what is happening. To  date there has not been any official word from Google. We all know  that Google does not announce their algorithm updates, much to the  chagrin of webmasters everywhere.<span></span></p>
<p>The  buzz recently on several blogs and from our own data demonstrates  significant changes in PageRank and wild fluctuations in websites  SERP.  The last big news we did hear from Google was the June 16th  2009 announcement from Matt Cutts blog on PageRank sculpting where he  discussed changes to how Google treats link juice when there are  nofollow links.  But that&#8217;s another blog topic altogether so if you  like you can read the full post here: <a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/">http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/</a> so it may be that the nofollow·attribute has been rendered useless  for sculpting PageRank. But then, PR sculpting was never really the  intended function behind nofollow; it was merely convenient side  effect.</p>
<p>All  that Google employee, John Mu cared to say when answering a  customer’s inquiry as to why his site had suddenly dropped in PR  with no apparent cause was:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Hi  Radoslav</p>
<p>You  have a nice-looking site <img src='http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> . As far as I can tell, it looks like the  change in Toolbar PageRank for your site is only due to some  technical quirk and not something that you need to worry about.</p>
<p>Cheers<br />
John”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Barry  Schwartz  (AKA “Rustybrick”) then pointedly asks:</p>
<blockquote><p>“John,  is the PR ‘Technical Quirk’ somewhat widespread?”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There  was no further reply from Google.  The post is available here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=0fb59587d973cc8a&amp;hl=en">http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=0fb59587d973cc8a&amp;hl=en</a></p>
<p>Unfortunately,  when person’s website goes south in rankings for no apparent  reason, people do notice and do worry about it. So unless Google  opens up a bit we are left scratching our heads as usual, trying to  figure out what is going on.</p>
<p>The  following thread gives another vote to the possibility that Google is  replacing PageRank value with site trust and/or domain authority: <a href="http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/020335.html">http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/020335.html</a>.   This is also one of many threads where users are expressing  frustration and beginning to consider trying the new alternative to  Google, Bing.  Watch your back Google.</p>
<p>There  have been some major experiments this year form Google that were  relatively short lived and those are fine.  We all expect to see the  occasional wild results for a weekend every few months along with  quarterly PageRank updates.  The June PR update was enough of a  surprise coming so close on the heels of an update late in May: <a href="http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/020273.html">http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/020273.html</a>.   The update itself is not too shocking.  What is interesting is that  this is happening so soon after Google&#8217;s last update and the fact  that garbage results and rapid ranking changes have been coming  steadily for weeks now.  It&#8217;s about time Google lets things settle  down before more people get the bright idea to give Bing a try.</p>
<p>Here  are some direct comments from the forum members at  webmasterworld.com:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3943981-4-30.htm">http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3943981-4-30.htm</a></p>
<blockquote><p>“It  has been my observation “followgreg” (a username) when the SERP&#8217;s  get like what you describe above this is what [Google] wants to  happen so the Review team and Matt&#8217;s team can put the necessary data  in place that will deal with what your describing. It is easier to  review a site when they are on page 1 verses page 200 and [Google]  knows what filters were relaxed that would allow for the &#8220;New&#8221;  1st page ranking to pop up. I myself don&#8217;t see the polluted SERP&#8217;s as  your describing but then again I am not in every sector and can only  look at the nitches I am working under.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3943981-2-30.htm">http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3943981-2-30.htm</a></p>
<blockquote><p>“and  right now it looks like all sets of the results include some trivial  and penalized and junk .edu pages rising into the top 50, along with  some long-neglected good ones. This used to happen all the time with  updates &#8212; shuffle things up, the poop rises, then it gets flushed,  and things settle down. we haven&#8217;t had an update in that format in a  long time, but it seems clear we are in the middle of whatever is  changing and not the end.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We  can analyze the SERP’s, collect all the data we can find, and  listen to all of the “buzz” we like, but at the end of the day we  are still at the mercy of the “Big G”. It is not unusual for  Google to conduct their more aggressive algorithm changes at this  time of year but it is unusual to see so much experimentation so  close together taking so long.  With there being no official word  coming from Google it&#8217;s hard to do more than speculate on the changes  that we can observe.  We all certainly hope that things stabilize  soon and we&#8217;ll continue monitoring changes in the rankings.</p>
<p>But  until Google decides to straighten things out can anyone say  “Pay-per-click”? I knew you could…</p>
<p>So  how does the widely varied public opinion on the matter line up with  search results?</p>
<p>I  am willing to make an educated guess that Google is experimenting  with website trust and authority in their algorithm (and perhaps  plenty more) however as complaints from the forums echo Googles  search results seem to be rather bi-polar these last few weeks.</p>
<p>We  have well established sites being outranked by new sites, and by  sites with very few backlinks.  Also by sites using black hat  techniques and unfortunately we see some established and often very  trustworthy white hat websites simply dissappearing from the rankings  altogether.  At the same time we have literally day old Craigslist  posts ranking in the top results.    Some .edu and .gov sites have  flown to the top while others have plummetted.</p>
<p>How  often do you see day old pages rank near the top for competitive  search terms?  If “trust” has that much of an affect on a new  pages rankings it&#8217;s likely that “trusted” sites will dominate the  rankings with every new page of content flooding out the competition  and reducing their ability to gain trust.  I hope the minds at Google  have their sober thinking caps on and not their beer hats.  But so  far there seems to be little consistant rhyme or reason since we have  some trusted sites dissappearing and others dominating in the SERP&#8217;s.</p>
<p>Luckily  we had some old SERP analysis notes from June where we had a close  look at one of our clients top 5 competitors for their targeted  search term on Google.  We decided to compare each against the  current search results since Google&#8217;s latest &#8220;technical quirk&#8221;.   Here&#8217;s the rundown according to Yahoo&#8217;s api and our analysis:</p>
<p><strong>Former  #1 website &#8211; PR 4 landing page, PR 5 root domain.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>1700+  external inbound links, 800+ internal backlinks.</li>
<li>Almost  one thousand of these backlinks are from a handful of what appear to  be partner sites.  A significant amount are from various blogs.</li>
<li>Strong  root domain with almost 5k external inbound links.</li>
<li>Now  ranking at #2</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Former  #2 website &#8211; PR 6 landing page, PR 7 root domain.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Less  than 100 external inbound links, over 15k internal backlinks.</li>
<li>Root  domain has 140k+ external inbound links and 16k+ internal backlinks.</li>
<li>Very  strong root domain and what should be a high trust name.  Much of the  pages ranking comes from the internal backlinks from the root domain  and other pages on the site.</li>
<li>Now  ranking at #5</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Former  #3 website &#8211; PR 4 landing page, PR 7 root domain.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>5k+  external inbound links, less than 100 internal backlinks.</li>
<li>Root  domain has 130k+ external inbound links and 16k+ internal backlinks.</li>
<li>Not  only is this an extremely strong domain its brand is a household name  across North America and not only would I trust this site based on  its name and reputation but I would say the incoming links are as  organic as they come.</li>
<li>Strangely  this website no longer ranks anywhere in the top 300 results.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Former  #4 website &#8211; PR 4 root domain</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>1k+  external inbound links, 500+ internal backlinks.</li>
<li>Most  external links are from articles, blogs, and directories.</li>
<li>Now  ranking at #6</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Former  #5 website &#8211; PR 4 root domain</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>6k+  external inbound links, 400+ internal backlinks.</li>
<li>Many  backlinks are from PR7 and PR8 blogs, hundreds from one PR5 blog in  particular. The website is referenced and backlinked on some  government websites as well.</li>
<li>No  longer ranks anywhere in the top 300 results.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>New  #1 website &#8211; PR 6 landing page, PR 9 root domain, .gov site</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>700+  external inbound links, only several internal backlinks.</li>
<li>Root  domain has 430k+ external inbound links and almost 630k internal  backlinks.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>New  #3 website &#8211; PR 4 landing page, PR 5 root domain</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Less  than 100 external inbound links, 40 internal backlinks.</li>
<li>Root  domain has less than 300 external inbound links and less than 150  internal backlinks</li>
<li>Despite  the small number of links this site has come from nowhere.  While it  is a widely known brand name and should have some trust attached to  that, it is strange to see it taking the place of an even larger  household name which had approximately 1300 times more external  inbound links.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>New  #4 website &#8211; PR 5 landing page, PR 8 root domain.</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Less  than 200 external inbound links, 200+ internal backlinks.</li>
<li>Root  domain 3.7+ million external inbound links, 3k+ internal backlinks</li>
<li>It&#8217;s  a wiki page and therefore is a highly trusted authority most likely  according to Google.  I believe it was ranking at #10 in our previous  analysis.</li>
</ul>
<p>The  results show a polarized contradiction of trusted sites being brought  to the top and others being shot to the bottom while sites with  minimal links and reputation seem to be beating out well established  competitors for their rankings.  Black hat sites are seeing the same  polarized change as the trusted sites with some jumping to the top  and others being sent to Google&#8217;s version of Davy Jones locker.</p>
<p>And  on that note I have to ask the same question I asked during Pirates  of the Carribean III At Worlds End&#8230; “When will this end?”  And  when will our plunder be kindly returned from &#8220;Davy Google Jones  Jr&#8217;s Locker&#8221;?</p>
<hr />Jonathan  Anthony and Kyle Krenbrink work for Beanstalk Search Engine  Optimization, Inc.  Beanstalk offers performance-based <a href="http://www.beanstalk-inc.com/">SEO  services</a> and provides up-to-date information on the SEO realm  through their <a href="http://www.beanstalk-inc.com/blog/">SEO blog</a> and articles.</p>
<p>Post from: <a href="http://www.sitepronews.com">SiteProNews: Webmaster News &amp; Resources</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.sitepronews.com/2009/07/12/the-google-shuffle/">The Google Shuffle?</a></p>
<div>
<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sitepronews/ICnA?a=yLn8TgcFzB0:ISWuU19CQXg:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/4753f_ICnA?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sitepronews/ICnA?a=yLn8TgcFzB0:ISWuU19CQXg:V_sGLiPBpWU"><img src="http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/3451e_ICnA?i=yLn8TgcFzB0:ISWuU19CQXg:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sitepronews/ICnA?a=yLn8TgcFzB0:ISWuU19CQXg:qj6IDK7rITs"><img src="http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/5210b_ICnA?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"/></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/sitepronews/ICnA?a=yLn8TgcFzB0:ISWuU19CQXg:gIN9vFwOqvQ"><img src="http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/e7eb5_ICnA?i=yLn8TgcFzB0:ISWuU19CQXg:gIN9vFwOqvQ" border="0"/></a>
</div>
<p><img src="http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/e7eb5_yLn8TgcFzB0" height="1" width="1" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.search-internetmarketing.com/2009/07/the-google-shuffle/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
