Site 'filtered' by Google in early July.... and still filtered!

Go2Holidays

Hi Ryan,

I wonder if you might be able to help with a couple of questions.

Firstly, we've begun the process of changing our urls. All the search and guide pages now use new style lowercase urls with no spaces etc. The actual property detail URLs are still old style (soon to change).

I've been quite bold in having Google de-index virtually everything, just to get a clean sheet of paper to work on. As the URLs were all changing I was able to have them remove the old 'directories' in one quick shot. Whether that was 'wise' or not I'm not sure, but I couldn't see the downside. Anyway, they've done all that and now we only have a few main pages in the index, and certain ones that we're making available (by not being marked noindex). This will mean I can watch over what's going on and hopefully ensure that only the richest pages make the index.

So.... a couple of questions. Firstly, take a look at this:

http://www.go2-holidays.com/cottages-lets/england/devon/woolacombe

This has eliminated any external duplication and has our own area guide on it. Do you think this would 'pass the Panda test'.... ie. be unique enough? Or is our guide going to need to be much longer?

Secondly.... given that we appear to be under a Panda 'thin content' penalty, and Google only run the Panda tool periodically (as far as I understand) does that mean we'll be stuck under the penalty until the Panda analysis is run upon the site again (which could be only every month or two)?

Thanks!

Ian

P.S. Oh, there was a third question! We have comboboxes for countries/counties/towns. As with many similar comboboxes on websites that means that a list of places will be embedded in the HTML.... and when I run Copyscape on the page I get several matches for that like this:

Is that going to be a problem? Or would Google disregard that sort of duplication given that it isn't 'real' content?

If it could be a problem I'd rather investigate ways of keeping that text out of the main HTML (ie. generate it via AJAX when required).

RyanKent

Hi Ian.

Regarding your URLs, I have some questions. There is often some alignment between the navigation bar and the URLs. For your example URL I don't understand how it works: http://www.go2-holidays.com/cottages-lets/england/devon/woolacombe. There is not a "cottages-lets" option in your navigation bar. If I was on your home page, what is the first click I would make to get to your /cottages-lets page?

My second question is whether /devon/woolacombe is necessary? It seems the two would always go together. Could you ever have woolacombe without devon? If not perhap /devon-woolacombe would be a better URL removing an unnecessary level. To that end, perhaps the England level can be removed as well. It depends on how you display your other pages.

It is very confusing with your current set up. I would have expected the /cottages-lets page to show the most options and the number to be filtered down as we move deeper into the URL. If I am on the /woolacombe page and I try to back up levels by modifying the URL, the other pages show only 1 or 0 cottages. The URL is not synched with the drop down selection boxes. This issue should be resolved.

In short, the URL design needs to be a carefully planned out part of your site. It helps users and search engines navigate and understand your content. I have the impression it is more a quick afterthought.

Regarding your content, please understand Panda is not a tool which is intermittently applied. It is a permanent adjustments to the algorithm used to rank web pages.

With the above in mind, your page has enough content. The next question is, whether that content is well written enough. I would suggest locating a grammar tool and applying it to the text at the bottom. Also, I would advise using some interlinking within the text. When you mention Croyde, for example, if you have a Croyde page on your site use the term "Croyde" as anchor text linking to that page.

Also, at the bottom of ever page you have a footer which is duplicated throughout your site and is simply loads of keywords. I would recommend removing it. One block is titled "Holiday Lets, Lodges & Cottages in Cornwall" and the other block is titled " Holiday Lets, Lodges & Cottages in Devon". I suspect if you were to perform some analytics you would find those links are very rarely used. They look spammy and simply add duplicate content to every page of your site.

A final suggestion. The social icons in your footer would probably be a lot more useful if they were relocated to the big empty space in your header.

Go2Holidays

Thanks again Ryan, all good and useful points, all of which we'll aim to fix (there's plenty more I could list but as with any software development it's all a case of prioritising what needs doing and working on the most important things first.... the site has come a long way in a short time).

So... agreed, it needs a 'cottages-lets' (Rentals, or whatever) tab to relate to that search. We know that, there's a reason why it hasn't arrived yet, but it will soon!

Secondly, I take your point about the URL structure, but the missing 'cottages-lets' bit aside, I think the structure makes sense. I think the country/county/town folder arrangement is logical.

Thirdly, I take your point about editing the URLs. I'll ensure that just having /England at the end (no county or town) returns the right results. We'll fix that too.

Fourthly, the footer links.... yes, see your point. I actually find them useful so I'm not 100% sure I want to remove them all, but certainly they could be reduced, and/or worded better... and the guides given as much prominence as the holiday let search.

Fifthly, the social icons. I'll have a think about this one. We do now have the floating bar at the side which achieves this aim.... the bottom ones were left because.... well, they look quite nice actually. Anyway, we'll review it!

...

Now, regarding your point about Panda and how it works... I have to say that that is not my understanding based upon a number of things I've read on the web about it, including quotes from Google employees (Matt Cutts I suspect). I imagine that Panda is a framework comprising changes made to the general Google crawling/indexing process and algorithms (ie. those things which happen 'daily') and also some algorithms and processing which is applied manually and periodically.

I believe (from what I've read) that the 'thin content' analysis (which may involve tools similar to CopyScape) is a time-consuming task so it is not run every day against websites, but is run manually. From what I've heard Google state, it is something they run every month or two. THEREFORE if it is that which has been applied to my site and a penalty applied (as I believe it has) then I won't escape the penalty until such time as that process is re-run against all the site's pages and the assessment of 'thin content' is reviewed. I believe the indexed pages now are rich enough to 'pass the test'.... but the penalty remains until the day when this process is run.

If I'm wrong about that I'm happy to be corrected, but it is certainly what I've heard and read. I'd have to dig out URL sources to prove it but you can probably find them if you search on Panda etc.

RyanKent

I would appreciate reading any information from Google regarding the Panda information you shared.

The only other comment I will share is regarding item #4 you mentioned, the footer links. Please take a look at your analytics to see if your site's visitors are actually using those links. If a link is provided which is not being used, it should be either modified so your visitors start using it or removed.

The use of footer links in general is quite low. The use of footer links which are lists of dozens of cities or location names and appear in the manner as presented on your site is normally exceptionally low or not at all. Try checking to see if any of your site's visitors (not counting you or employees) have used those links.

Go2Holidays

Ok will do...!

Here's a link to an article about Panda and daily/manual application. I think it links to other sources:

http://www.seroundtable.com/google-panda-manual-13387.html

And this page is probably a good 'spring board' to lots of info about Panda:

http://www.stayonsearch.com/complete-guide-to-the-google-panda-update-50-articles-resources

EDIT: Here's another....http://searchengineland.com/coming-soon-google-panda-update-2-2-80848

In which it is stated... "

Cutts also said there have been no manual exceptions made to sites that were wrongly affected, but there have been recompilations of data that may have helped some sites.

In particular, he noted that the Panda algorithm is run against Google’s entire index of pages on an infrequent basis, in order to tag certain sites that should be dinged by it, as opposed to some of its automatic spam detection tools.

For example, Google’s constantly scanning for pages that might use hidden text. If it spots them, then it may assess a penalty.

Google is not constantly scanning for pages that might get hit by its Panda penalty. Instead, Google manually runs that algorithm, which then determines web sites that should be hit by it.

This also means that making changes to a site hit by Panda won’t produce any immediate change in Google. Instead, such changes — if they are beneficial — wouldn’t get registered by Google until the next Panda assessment.

When is Panda run? Google didn’t say. But it seems to be something that runs every few weeks and in association with when the algorithm is improved (Panda 1.0, Panda 2.0, Panda 2.1, Panda 2.2, etc.)"

That seems to state the scenario I mentioned. So I've stuck waiting until the next Panda assessment according to Mr Cutts himself.

RyanKent

Thank you for sharing these articles. I have read them all. It seems the conclusions are based upon a confusing tweet conversation, and the statements of Matt McGee which seem to be his interpretations provided without the source.

Some official statements which I found in the articles you shared:

"Google rolled out a wholescale change to its algorithm last week". This change was the Panda update. The article also linked to the official Google Webmaster Central response: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=76830633df82fd8e&hl=en

That response shared "According to our metrics, this update improves overall search quality. However, we are interested in hearing feedback from site owners and the community as we continue to refine our algorithms." There was a link provided to an official Google announcement of Panda: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/finding-more-high-quality-sites-in.html

"But in the last day or so we launched a pretty big algorithmic improvement to our ranking"

I see repeated references directly from Google stating their algorithms have changed as a result of Panda. I trust any information from Google directly, Matt Cutts directly, etc. I have learned to be highly distrusting of other sources of information UNLESS the specific author is trusted or the author provides specific references to source information.

I trust Danny Sullivan but nothing in his article supported the idea you mentioned. I have reviewed numerous other sources and, as of yet, I have not found any direct support of this position other then the tweet which I am still not convinced has been properly interpreted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaZtvm54r_M

I could be wrong here, but even if I am, the bottom line is any site affected by Panda or otherwise is not providing their content in the best manner possible should make corrections asap. Doing such will likely resolve any Panda or other issues. The only question is how quickly the site will recover. It seems Panda changes have been coming almost monthly which is about the time it takes Google to crawl all the pages of average websites anyway.

Go2Holidays

Ok, thanks for taking the time to read those and research it. As I said, I'm happy to be corrected but I was just going on what seems to be stated in a number of places... and in relation to what I've actually experience on our site. We've made changes but seen no changes yet, so either it is just the normal sort of 30 day cycle that needs to pass, or we await a Panda manual analysis (on a similar time-frame perhaps, so as you say it doesn't make much difference), OR we have had a penalty applied for a certain amount of time (90 days?).... OR we still haven't fixed the issues. I'd be suprised (now) if the latter is true, I believe the site should index better (p50+ is not poor ranking, it is a penalty/filter), so hopefully it's just a matter of time.

What we did have happen with the site is this though....

6th July a penalty was applied. Went from a good number of hits to a trickle.

(Made various changes seeking to address the causes)

5th August (30 days later) suddenly Google traffic came back. Carried on like that, well ranked, for 5 days..... then suddenly disappeared again.

Now, it is the fact that when 30 days expired that we 'returned' that indicates a 30 day penalty at that stage.... and the fact that 5 days later we disappeared again INDICATES (that's all) that perhaps a manual process was run again on the sites in Google's index and we got knocked under again.

It's speculation of course.... but it's important to have an 'idea' of what is going on so that I know whether I still have things to fix or whether the fixes made have been right and it is now a matter of time to see the results. Of course the majority of improvements are all good anyway (more content will always help) but some changes made could be detrimental and I wouldn't want to be going around in circles if the situation was simply at a stage where the main issue at stake was for some time to pass to see the impact of changes already made.

(And that all said... whether true or not.... It seems to be perfectly feasible and sensible that certain analysis by Panda WOULD be done periodically, rather than daily, simply because of the processing required.)

RyanKent

I agree with most of what you shared, except the last part. I have the utmost confidence Google is capable of processing any amount of data efficiently. The Panda changes are algorithmic changes, and I doubt anyone on the planet is as efficient at applying an algorithm to large data sets as Google.

I would also say you are much more confident about the quality of your site then I am. I recognize you have worked very hard on your site and I agree the small amount I have seen is much improved. I would classify your current site still requires major work.

We are viewing your site from different perspectives. It seems your viewpoint is along the lines of "what is the minimum amount of changes necessary to be indexed properly?" My viewpoint is, what changes need to be made to make this site a world-class property rental site? The biggest difference is, if you fall short of your goal the site remains unlisted for 30+ days. If you fall short of the standards I set forth, your site still would be listed but you would not rank in the top 3.

Go2Holidays

Not at all Ryan! You do me a disservice.

My goal is as high as yours, if not higher. My goal is not to make this 'A world-class property rental site', but to make it the best. Period. I see no reason for not aiming high with it.

But I realise that it's not going to be the best next week, that's all. It's taken time to get this far (which is a million miles from what it was last year, Google ranking aside) and it will take more time to get to where I want it to be. But big goals are achieved with many steps. You climb a mountain one step at a time.

I'm simply talking about the next step. I'm on the side of the mountain, it's freezing cold and I have a particular problem to solve. So whilst I intend to reach the top I'm simply focussed on solving the current problem. Once done I'll be able to move on to the next step(s) without this particular hinderance.

As I said before, there are many more issues on my list of TODOs than the ones you've identified (but your input is welcome). Those will get addressed one by one, and I'm confident of progressing. I'm not aiming to do 'the minimum'.... my question about the content had a reason behind it, which is how best to target resources. That could be to make the guides longer and better, or it could be to add more. At present I need good pages, and more of them. One fantastic page won't be enough. 100 poor pages won't help. 20 Good pages will do better. Once we have those, we can add 20 more. Then make 20 great ones, then another 20 good ones.... and so on. One step at a time.

But don't doubt the goal!

(Only, when you're currently down on p50.... to come on a forum boasting of making the best site out there is going to look a little like a squeaking mouse making great claims. First you walk, then you run.)

(EDIT...

P.S. I have to say however, that I don't quite understand why you have taken the tone you have here? I've heard all you've said, have embraced the positive changes you recommend, have begun to implement then and intend to improve the site more. I haven't disagreed or argued with you, and yet you seem to end on a somewhat negative note? My original question is specific to Google, not asking what needs making better on the site generally. But your responses are nevertheless helpful and welcome. So I thank you for them, but can assure you I'm not taking a 'miserly' approach to the site, simply a realistic one step at a time approach.

RyanKent

Well said Ian. Please accept my apologies and thanks for correcting me in such a cheerful manner.

Go2Holidays

Thanks Ryan. I hope my PS edit didn't 'cross' with your post or sound negative.

I'm very thankful for all your input, and indeed, for even bothering to take time to look at the site and reply. You didn't need to and I appreciate it.

But I'm certainly aiming as high as I can with the site. I hardly have the resources of Google et al at my disposal, but great things aren't always achieved by mighty powers. It's good ideas, a little bit of ingenuity, originality, and steady, chipping away, hard work that often prevails. Being knocked out of Google can be quite depressing.... but I'm not cast down and consider it to be blip which ultimately will result in improvements to the site which might otherwise not have occurred. In the end it should make better.... because adversity works like that, you learn from it and end up wiser and stronger in the end. Hopefully!

RyanKent

At the time I replied I hadn't seen the PS edit.

My only disappointment or negative tone related to what I felt was resistance to changes which are well within your control to make immediately. For example, the footer section of your site is very spammy.

If I add a footer to my site which says "Now servicing California including Sacramento, Los Angeles and Beverly Hills" which each of the three cities being anchor links to pages within my site, that would be fine. If I were to take the same approach listing a dozen or more locations, that would be spammy.

You have two spammy types of blocks in your footer. These blocks appear on every page of your site. I can understand that changes take time and so forth, but frankly removing those blocks should be a very fast and easy change and improve a negative quality issue with your site.

We both have the same goal, the proper re-indexing of your site. I view the changes necessary to improve your site as mostly items which can be taken care of relatively quickly. Of course, generating the unique content on each page will take a considerable amount of time and effort, but site wide changes of the footer, social icons, URL structure and so forth are generally fast changes.

As a general SEO principle, the important content of your web page should be above the fold (i.e. viewable immediately when the page loads). The footer is for items you have to present but otherwise don't care much about. Copyrights, Privacy Policy, Disclaimers, etc. The footer is not a good place to stuff links you want users to use.

Again, sorry if I came across harshly. My social graces often fall quickly as I move deeper into a site and my "Let's get it done...GO GO GO" spirit kicks in.

Go2Holidays

Ryan, I think you're reading a little too much into my responses. 'We'll review it' is not intended as resistance, but simply that we'll have a think about what to do in each specific case. For example, as you suggest regarding the footer, a sentence like "Now servicing California including Sacramento, Los Angeles and Beverly Hills" wouldn't be spammy. So the question was, should I replace what I had with some shorter, more natural text and links, or should I just bin it altogether?

So... regarding your most recent suggestions. If you take a look at the site now, you'll see that:

1. The links in the footer have gone. As I said, I want to review it a bit as it may need some re-arrangement etc. But for now I've just removed them all.

2. There is now a Cottages & Lets tab. This again may need tweaking, I'm not sure. Currently clicking it takes you to that search, but to the 'level' of your last search. So first time it is at the root, subsequent times it will remember your last search and take you there.

3. The issues with editing the URL are now fixed. ie. taking the town off and county off and just having /England now shows England lets.... adding a county shows that county etc. I think this is as you'd expect.

Onwards and upwards!

RyanKent

Fantastic to hear the progress you are making! Very sincerely so.

Go2Holidays

Thanks Ryan.... and....

HURRAH! It looks like the penalty/filter has been lifted today!! At last. (Although I won't get too excited until another 7 to 14 days have gone by and I can see that we're remaining there, and don't get penalised again as in August).

But.... yesterday a search for "holiday lets in Beesands" came up on p27. Today.... it is at the top of p2! (Not quite p1 yet, but coming from where we were that's great news).

The downside is, having removed virtually everything from the Google index we have very few pages actually indexed that you can find, right now. But that was intentional in order to get a grip on the situation, remove all pages which lack enough original content, and to be able to monitor a very limited set of pages and their progress in the index. So, that (hopefully) achieved, the concentration can continue to be on building up the content and adding more pages. And obviously there is more to do on the site itself, but it's a good step.

Thanks for the help!

RyanKent

I am exceptionally pleased to hear this result.

You are absolutely correct to not get too excited yet. I would suggest you continue with your current plan for now. If after 10+ days passed your rankings remain, then you have likely resolved the problem and should just exercise caution in re-adding the additional pages.

Go2Holidays

Absolutely. I think for now we'll just stick with adding area pages with new guides added. All original, unique. Hopefully as that builds up it will help maintain the site's overall 'quality' in Google's eyes.

Much could happen in the next 10 days.... but it's a positive sign anyway.

Go2Holidays

Hi,

Just checking in to give a quick update.... November 1st, so a good 10 days on, and we're still ranked in Google, which is great. I still think I'll 'reserve' some judgment until a 30 day cycle has passed... but it's looking good.

...and the pages which Google has indexed are ranked reasonably. Generally in the top 4 pages. Obviously I'd like to see them higher, but it's a good start. The downside is simply that there are few pages indexed, and whilst we steadily work on adding content Google doesn't tend to add the pages in a great hurry, they do seem to take a week or so. But I'll see how it goes.

RyanKent

Glad to hear things are progressing, even if it is a bit slow.

Your pages would likely be indexed a bit faster if they were linked from the home page. In a more typical situation, if you added a new location to your site there might be a "New Locations" block on your home page. In this particular situation it is more of a matter of being patient.

Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

Site 'filtered' by Google in early July.... and still filtered!

Products

Moz Solutions

Free SEO Tools

Resources

About Moz

Why Moz

Get Involved