Googles algorithm changes seem 100% random?

[Nauthiz666]

Ok so this last update really puzzled me. It was the EMD update and panda/penguin refresh. My niche results went from OK to terrible and still are terrible. Basically first page includes multiple MNS sites that are 1 page emds (for multiple keywords), a few sites with sub 5 backlinks, some sites with no anchor diversity just KEYWORD over and over. Aren't these the exact features google was "banishing"? My site did get slapped like 10 positions yet I had lots of quality back links, anchor diversity, PR 4, rich content 100+ pages, good on site seo. Now I see these 1 page EMD etc out ranking me, or sites with 0 seo and not updated in years. It makes me wonder why I put so much effort in my site getting it to #1 and making it an authority for most of my keywords to get slapped in a update and be out ranked by sites that took 30 mins max to create with virtually 0 SEO.

 

[thedorf]

Ok so this last update really puzzled me.

Me too. I am unsure how to proceed with SEO. Seems like no link building is the latest craze.

 

[Nauthiz666]

I kind of see SEO becoming a better short term investment. Spend a few bucsk spamming the shit out of a site and your chances may be just as good as "spending time" working on a site. Google has made it's search engine quite communistic with all the sh1t updates lol. I also feel like true blackhatting is even more of a viable option now since sites get hit whether they are good or not.

 

[Kahoona]

Lots of people with good reputable sites that actually help people, such as charities, are seeing a loss in rankings. Seems Google are making so many random changes to keep SEO'ers guessing, but many people are still doing well. Just diversify as much as you can so you dont get wiped out in one hit.

 

[futurestunner]

+1 from my side.

one of my site site 6 month old, no seo and now ranking #3 for HIGH SEO competition keyword.. lol

 

[idealu]

It's some random stuff, maybe to diversify the results and include sites with little to no seo done on them.

 

[MaxTucker]

Googles changes are not random. What you people fail to understand is that you are all looking at a small proportion of an immense data pool. Googles algorithm updates effect hundreds of millions of websites. So, even when looking at a sample size in the thousands the margin of error would be off the charts.

To put this into perspective, here is an example. Let's say you walk in to a gay bar and you survey one hundred people about their sexual orientation. It turns out that 96% of people in the gay bar are gay. So using this data you conclude that 96% of the worlds population is gay. Clearly this would not make sense. Well, you are doing the same with Google.

Google may be lying about it's algorithmic changes, or it may be telling the truth, I will not speculate. One thing I will tell you though, Googles updates are not random. Nothing Google does is random.

 

[thesmashge]

Me too. I am unsure how to proceed with SEO. Seems like no link building is the latest craze.

I can understand how you are feeling.Me too in the same boat.
I don't find any other traffic as profitable as organic traffic.

 

[Nauthiz666]

Googles changes are not random. What you people fail to understand is that you are all looking at a small proportion of an immense data pool. Googles algorithm updates effect hundreds of millions of websites. So, even when looking at a sample size in the thousands the margin of error would be off the charts.

Google may be lying about it's algorithmic changes, or it may be telling the truth, I will not speculate. One thing I will tell you though, Googles updates are not random. Nothing Google does is random.

That is probably true, but I think sometimes the "results" they get from their targeted changes have a significant margin of error with a randomness to it. Especially when sites are rewarded that they specifically target to penalize and vice versa.

 

[ibmethatswhoib]

Just build quality sites, go whitehat and :banghead:

 

[Dan Da Man]

Just build quality sites, go whitehat and :banghead:

Yeah, just build quality content and people will link to you organically hahaha!

 

[powforlife]

Yeah, just build quality content and people will link to you organically hahaha!

Right? I feel like matt cutts' job becomes more irrelevant by the day.

 

[seo-addict]

Lol @ the people saying "0 SEO".... that's bogus. You don't have the tools to see the redirects they are using.

It takes links to rank... or huge amounts of domain authority. That's a fact, one that holds true until today.

 

[pietpatat]

It makes me wonder why I put so much effort in my site getting it to #1 and making it an authority for most of my keywords to get slapped in a update and be out ranked by sites that took 30 mins max to create with virtually 0 SEO.

That exactly what google is going for. They don't want people people to rank #1 by doing seo, they want people to pay $ for adwords campaigns to rank #1.

 

[hotnguyen]

They put all sites, regardless of quality, under that button "I'm feeling lucky" on their home page. I'm using Yandex as a replacement.

 

[marcus528]

Currently all the sites that ranking #1 and #2 in my niche have keyword stuffing, lots of duplicate content. Low amount backlinks (600-700) mostly spammy links.

NO SEO = GOOD SEO

 

[dbyrn]

... and the same story once again.
Just wait a bit and let the dust settle down. Then you can counterattack!
And the best thing is to diversify you traffic sources. There's life after google imho.

Good luck,
D

 

[OTrap]

You've gotta remember that Google doesn't love SEO. Aside from the fact that people are making money with their service without paying them, a search engine is intended to bring up the results that are organically the most relevant, but SEO is a manipulation of that, making the results non-organic.

I suppose, then, that the goal might be to do SEO without looking like you do SEO, and look like a site that would organically rank highly.

Maybe I'm completely off, but that seems to make sense.

 

[Nauthiz666]

Lol @ the people saying "0 SEO".... that's bogus. You don't have the tools to see the redirects they are using.

It takes links to rank... or huge amounts of domain authority. That's a fact, one that holds true until today.

I completely disagree. Sites in my niche are ranking with 1 of content page, and less than 100 back links. My site has several thousand backlinks that aren't "black hat", page rank 4, nearly 100 pages of unique content, photos media rich etc, on site seo is prime and so on. Yet I am out ranked by 1 page MNS sites with virtually no back links with keyword stuffing / emds.

 

[MaxTucker]

I completely disagree. Sites in my niche are ranking with 1 of content page, and less than 100 back links. My site has several thousand backlinks that aren't "black hat", page rank 4, nearly 100 pages of unique content, photos media rich etc, on site seo is prime and so on. Yet I am out ranked by 1 page MNS sites with virtually no back links with keyword stuffing / emds.

As I said above, you're looking at a very small proportion of an immense database of sites. You simply cannot conclude that SEO is no longer valid based on such a small sample size.