Penguin alert

[Thomas BC]

IMO the 'home' reference is getting way over-analysed - it was after all a more off the cuff remark. Where ever it actually refers (I am no longer sure I know now), the point I think that was being made is that using the word 'home' over keyword stuffing is preferable. She probably thinks someone who runs a B&B out in the sticks is less likely to doing 'black hat webspam'.

[kendalcottages]

...the point I think that was being made is that using the word 'home' over keyword stuffing is preferable.

But presumably the ideal is somewhere between the two. So, if we are looking to get the best from Google... yes, we shouldn't over-stuff with keywords, but at the same time surely just using the word 'Home' isn't the best solution either.

[Windy]

Thomas - I am sure you are right but when you get slammed and lose 80% of your organic search its in a day you do clutch at anything you can find!

NC - I read somewhere that Google no longer likes "template sites" (but I'm not exactly sure how you define that either

If you need proof that the Penguin update may not quite have achieved what that nice Mr Cutts was hoping for try this search for "Paypal France" and ask yourselves just how relevant and spam free the content in the web sites on page one is.

With positions 5,6 & 7 on P1 being Viagra sites on my search there is still some work to do there I think Matt.

[Thomas BC]

But presumably the ideal is somewhere between the two.

Yes, and that, for me anyway, hits the nail on the head! Where to draw the line between the two. Another example all together, the labelling of image files. Google says do not use image-1, image-2, etc., but how far can/should you go with using 'keywords' (given they say the labelling of the image is important for image searches?

Windy, I would be interested to know where you read that Google no longer like template sites - that would wipe out WordPress sites (WP are templates, as is their own Blogspot) and I would be well and truly up the proverbial!

[kendalcottages]

NC - I read somewhere that Google no longer likes "template sites" (but I'm not exactly sure how you define that either.

If true, I'd like to know how that is defined too. It also doesn't strike me as just reason to dislike a site. Being template driven and having great content surely aren't mutually exclusive, so I can't think that Google would take an outright dislike to template sites. Perhaps more likely is that a lot of spammy sites out there happen to be template driven (quick and easy to do), and someone has drawn the wrong conclusions IMHO.

[Harborfields]

My advice would be to write compelling content for the benefit of human readers, use appropriate headings and page titles (appropriate to your content), and fit in keywords only where it makes sense to do so (where they work as part of your content).

Don't try to stuff your page with keywords for the sake of stuffing it with keywords. The content needs to be not only readable, but a good read!

[gam]

NC - I read somewhere that Google no longer likes "template sites" (but I'm not exactly sure how you define that either.

If true, I'd like to know how that is defined too.

In the context of this thread, a template site is one which is auto generated from a database. In the past they have been used by "internet marketing experts" to dynamically populate hundreds or thousands of sites for the purpose of advertising/spamming and flooding search results. Google came out against those a long time ago, for obvious reasons.

Nothing to do with templates as in WordPress and similar.

[Windy]

Windy, I would be interested to know where you read that Google no longer like template sites - that would wipe out WordPress sites (WP are templates, as is their own Blogspot) and I would be well and truly up the proverbial!

What Gam just said is probably a sensible interpretation. I can't find exactly where I read that but as I have read dozens of Penguin related articles that's not too surprising.

Apparently Google may no take exception to the link to the theme designer on many templates though. (Or maybe not depending on what you can or should believe)

[kendalcottages]

In the context of this thread, a template site is one which is auto generated from a database

Says who, gam...? That, by the sounds of it, is your interpretation of what's being talked about here. However, just as previously, we had a different understanding of what the reference to 'home' meant, we too might have different takes on what is meant by a template.

Nothing to do with templates as in WordPress and similar.

Actually, there have been recent suggestions that people creating templates for Wordpress have been downgraded. See:

http://wpforce.com/google-seo-attack-sponsored-links/

Admittedly, this is not necessarily the templates themselves being 'penalised' but the sites being repeatedly linked to from them, but it's possible this could be what Windy could have heard about... maybe.

For me, Harborfields advice is 'on the mark'.

[Windy]

For me, Harborfields advice is 'on the mark'.

Well that advice is what Google always told us, but it was evident that tweaking Title and H1 tags with keywords had a definite positive effect.

I think many of us assumed, perhaps wrongly, that Google were condoning this rather than not being able to combat it.

The problem is that the results of Penguin are incredibly inconsistent in the respect. You only have to look at the keywords in titles on page one for most searches to know that either Google are not penalising sites for using keywords in Titles, or their algorithm is so inconsistent that it is only penalising a small number and doesn't work properly.

Evidence would still suggest that placing "Lake District" in your title is going to get you a better placement for searches for Lake District that not doing so. AT THE MOMENT. (unless of course these sites also have incredibly compelling content but I think the Paypal / Viagra examples show that not to be reliable.)

Of course as the web is constantly in a"smeared state" as opposed to a "steady state" it is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions on a day to day basis as evreyone like me is in panic mode making changes in the hope of placating Google.

[Thomas BC]

... a template site is one which is auto generated from a database ...

By this definition, aren't most of the rental listing sites template sites? Pages on those sites are 'auto generated from a database'.

[Windy]

So they are - maybe it's not ALL bad then

[kendalcottages]

For me, Harborfields advice is 'on the mark'.

What I meant by that is that I've given up on SEO to the extent that I won't bother tweaking title tags, or doing excessive link building and such like nowadays. I focus purely on trying to make our websites (and I'm primarily talking about stuff outside of KC here) as useful as possible. Sadly, it doesn't mean to say we don't get hit in some cases by some of these updates, for reasons that we don't usually know why, but I try to run our business in such a way that it would still survive even if Google didn't exist (which, scarily, is less easy than it sounds). Although, we all know not to have all our eggs in one basket, it's kind of difficult not to when you're primarily conducting your business online.

Trust me, Windy, I feel your pain... I've been there as this graph of one our sites from a few years back will show:



...and from time to time, I'm still there with some sites. It's really not nice, particularly as you invariably don't know a) precisely what's caused it (and therefore how to get out), and b) how long it's going to take.

Good luck.

[Windy]

Ouch

At least my drop isn't as severe as that overall, although for my most valuable search phrases it's not too different.

At least i have other sites that bring in business. If I only had one web site I think I'd be going out of business next year unless something changes pretty quickly.

Setting up listings on listing sites ain't going to help as I have never got much business from them anyway.

[kendalcottages]

Yeah... the site in question on that occasion was http://www.ukattraction.com and it was penalised for having a single text link advertising travel insurance on its homepage. (Naughty, I know, but it was also hard to refuse at the time for the money we were being paid.)

How do I know? Well... it was a tweet from the man himself:

https://twitter.com/#!/mattcutts/status/3738060607

Naturally, we've tried to be squeaky clean ever since as we really can't afford to get hit like this, and gradually that particular site has slowly come back in favour, but still not yet to its peak even four years on.