Google update again?!

I was getting good traffic after august 1st but got hit about a week later.
In the gutter now. lmao.
 
I managed to just check how many exact match anchor BLs I have and the number is quite low (around 50 in 2k+ of total links)

the niche is connected to health

and yes, of course, I have google analytics

what about your top 3 competitors? provide their exact percentage and also yours
 
I managed to just check how many exact match anchor BLs I have and the number is quite low (around 50 in 2k+ of total links)

the niche is connected to health

and yes, of course, I have google analytics

I thought it was % of exact anchors on my site as all main keywords were targeted and longtails left alone, ie unaffected and still ranking.
 
The August update rewarded my website now we are doing great. Even without backlink our articles with more than 1100 monthly searches is getting on first page.

Also our homepage for the 5500 and 4500 monthly search with 5 backlink is back to number one position.

It was before moved to 2 and third paged respectively.
 
Thread cleaned for the most part.

I won't just clean it next time though so please keep things on topic and stop insulting one another.
 
Thread cleaned for the most part.

I won't just clean it next time though so please keep things on topic and stop insulting one another.
To clarify, calling people black cunts and insulting based on race doesn’t result in any type of infraction?

Just deleting posts?
 
Thread cleaned for the most part.

I won't just clean it next time though so please keep things on topic and stop insulting one another.

Unless I am missing something, as I am half asleep, you appear to have removed a ton of good, non-argument posts as well.

What was the point of this?
 
Unless I am missing something, as I am half asleep, you appear to have removed a ton of good, non-argument posts as well.

What was the point of this?

I don't answer to you either but would in a PM as a courtesy.

Warned for hijacking the thread.
 
Where is that post from a person that claimed that he did an experiment with newly built sites that ranked without about us page (anything related to EAT)?
My rankings are approximately the same as in first week of august, however some of the keywords are slowly creeping back.
Perhaps its time for new batch of links and see if there is any change? Has anyone done any new linking to affected sites? Any progress?
tnx.
 
My one client's white hat site has tumbled down to zero for traffic, yet they're are ranking for keywords when you search for them. What's even more confusing is that they're getting traffic to the site, but the on-page time is 0 - how is that possible? Also on some posts, the bounce rate has gone up tremendously for no reason. If I check analytics, it says no manual penalties...
 
Still waiting for part 3 of http://www.canirank.com/blog/google-medic-update-data/ mtj85. Joke, I hope there will be a solution and we are testing various changes, but I doubt it's about things you can influence onpage too much. To me it looks like EAT uses external signals as well, but not "just links". Would be great if about us, author pages, bios, quoting sources and similar would fix it, but I don't think Google creates a new algorithm that's easy to fool in 2018...
 
This is what I got -

What Does “E-A-T” Stand For?
E-A-T stands for “Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness.”

You should always keep E-A-T in mind when building content on a webpage or website. But it’s kind of a mouthful, isn’t it? Let’s simplify it and make it easier to remember.

“Expert” – You need to be an expert in your field. This means you need to show you have the appropriate credentials (college degree, job experience, etc.) and mention it in your content. Expertise is less important for humor or gossip websites, but it’s vital for medical, financial, or legal websites. The good news is any site can show expertise if the content is truthful and useful for users.

“Authority” – You need to show that you are an authority. And you can get this from the expertise of your writers. If your page is a community or forum discussion, the quality of the conversation drives authority. Credentials are important, but so are personal experiences like reviews.

“Trust” – You need to show users they can trust the page they are on. This is especially important for eCommerce websites that ask users for their credit card information. Everything about your site should make users feel safe while they’re visiting.
 
Still waiting for part 3 of http://www.canirank.com/blog/google-medic-update-data/ mtj85. Joke, I hope there will be a solution and we are testing various changes, but I doubt it's about things you can influence onpage too much. To me it looks like EAT uses external signals as well, but not "just links". Would be great if about us, author pages, bios, quoting sources and similar would fix it, but I don't think Google creates a new algorithm that's easy to fool in 2018...

Well to me it seems too easy to rank just because of about us page, that is ridiculous. Also, as per EAT and authorship - I could add Stephen Hawking as "rel-author" to all my articles and I doubt it would make a difference.
My guess would be that google took a particular look into "health" related links and simply devalued all "DA above 90" links. This would cover a large majority of PBN links and therefore all the "low / medium EAT" sites were hit. Including mine. The sites that rose were the sites that already had natural high-DA links*

*I know DA is not google's thing, I am merely using it to present the quality of a link.
 
My guess would be that google took a particular look into "health" related links and simply devalued all "DA above 90" links. This would cover a large majority of PBN links and therefore all the "low / medium EAT" sites were hit. Including mine. The sites that rose were the sites that already had natural high-DA links*

*I know DA is not google's thing, I am merely using it to present the quality of a link.

Highly interesting theory, would explain a lot, I'll have a look if I see similar correlation in my niche.

What I could also imagine, somewhat related: A new "topical trustflow" (not the majestic metric) that somehow overrides the general strength of links. For example, for a certain health topic, I see a quickly repurposed expired domain of a smaller hospital suddenly outranking a set of very strong, established and formerly well ranking sites for general, non-local terms. The content is pretty bad (very superficial, obviously written by someone without a clue) and relatively short, different from the original, but neverless the mainpage is along the lines of a general FAQ about hospitals. There are hospital related articles mixed into the skin treatment articles. Few backlinks, not really strong ones, but all of them from sites with high local or topical relevance.

The question I'm asking myself: Is, maybe, real topical relevance suddenly more important than the pure strength of a link? Could it mean we must rethink PBNs and abandon the old "strength over relevance" rule in terms of the content linking being relevant is not enough, the whole PBN site, including it's backlinks, must be relevant? Too early to tell, but I guess this update must have changed something pretty fundamental.
 
Highly interesting theory, would explain a lot, I'll have a look if I see similar correlation in my niche.

What I could also imagine, somewhat related: A new "topical trustflow" (not the majestic metric) that somehow overrides the general strength of links. For example, for a certain health topic, I see a quickly repurposed expired domain of a smaller hospital suddenly outranking a set of very strong, established and formerly well ranking sites for general, non-local terms. The content is pretty bad (very superficial, obviously written by someone without a clue) and relatively short, different from the original, but neverless the mainpage is along the lines of a general FAQ about hospitals. There are hospital related articles mixed into the skin treatment articles. Few backlinks, not really strong ones, but all of them from sites with high local or topical relevance.

The question I'm asking myself: Is, maybe, real topical relevance suddenly more important than the pure strength of a link? Could it mean we must rethink PBNs and abandon the old "strength over relevance" rule in terms of the content linking being relevant is not enough, the whole PBN site, including it's backlinks, must be relevant? Too early to tell, but I guess this update must have changed something pretty fundamental.
Relevancy has been a thing for a long time, maybe they increased the score for this?

I checked about social media presence, it seems this is not a thing. I saw many sites with pretty low soc med fans/follower at top place.
 
Back
Top