I have read the FAQs and checked for similar issues: YES My site's URL (web address) is: http://www.khulsey.com/ Description (including timeline of any changes made): Post-Panda Hell
FACT - My site was unfairly penalized by Panda/Farmer. Here is a quick snapshot of my site and business:
1. Online since 1994 (www.khulsey.com), Business incorporated in 1985
2. 1,700+ pages and 1,500+ images indexed by Google
3. Over 105,732 back-links to my site (WMT 04/30/11), all earned "organically."
4. I have NEVER paid for link placement, or done ANY TYPE OF LINK EXCHANGE - EVER!
5. I have NEVER submitted my site to a "content farm."
6. Every page on my site is MY ORIGINAL CONTENT - all illustrations and photos are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and all text was written by me.
PRE-PANDA -
Before Panda, I came up #1 in 100s of keyword searches - ranking results were VERY stable for over 16 years. Post-Panda, my content continues to rank well - ONLY NOW IT IS ON WEBSITES THAT STOLE IT! Maybe the stolen images were there for years, but Panda is now rewarding the theft, and pushing my website down in the SERPs as if it was "duplicate" content!
Since Panda's implementation, I am now filing about 10 DMCA complaints per day (all I have the energy for) as I am seeing my stolen content popping up like weeds in every search result. At this rate, I could spend all of my time filing DMCA notices and I would still be behind the curve - it is that pervasive.
HOW DO I KNOW I AM BEING HELD BACK DUE TO PANDA FILTERING?
Because I have tested it. Post-Panda, if I add a new page that is VERY targeted to an extremely narrow "long tail" keyword search it only shows up on page 2 or 3. Pre-Panda, it would have easily been #1.
BOUNCE RATE -
I do have a high bounce-rate because so much of my traffic is generated by Google Images - not typically considered as "quality" traffic - but WHY should that penalize my 'Web-Search' rankings for "relevant" keyword searches???
How can I help it if my car illustrations attract a lot of teenage boys who only visit one page on my site (ALEXA demographics)? This should have NOTHING to do with the targeted keywords in my business niche. It is as if I am being penalized for having images on my site that are popular. BTW - this is why they are stolen so frequently.
Advice does not equal attacks. And I don't think it "validates" anyone's existence. Particularly when we read 10s of these same issue/day.
If you believe that your site stands fine on its own now, then by all means, don't make any changes.... but don't expect to rank in Google. Google isn't going to change it's algorithm because you feel like your site should be ranking. You have to adapt and adjust to their changes, not the other way around.
It sounds to me like you came here for a soapbox and not for advice.
@hull377 I manage a Panda affected site - as such, I have reviewed hundreds of others that claim to be affected so I can better understand how my site fits into the scheme of things.
Objectively, my observations have been that the majority of the sites affected were heavily flawed (including my own).
The comments above were not made to attack your site but rather help you identify where it needs work. Picking a fight with people who volunteer their time here simply to help others isn't constructive and won't help you recover.
I can only advise combing thru the site re the bullet points in this G blog post.. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html
I think the contents of your /travel directory are not really in keeping with the contents on the / , I was wondering whether you had been hacked until I saw a link from the home page to the directory.
With all due respect, before you give me the "build a better site" nonsense why don't you take a look at my actual site. PLEASE!
My "problem" is not one of site originality or quality, it is strictly with Panda, and its utter indifference to "quality."
seo101,
That does NOT mean that there is not collateral damage. This is not a "popularity" poll. Maybe a lot of the "happy" people you reference are spammers and MFA "publishers" who benefited unfairly from Panda???
I agree with Squib, (or emphasise the photographic theme of the site for the travel part). Header tags are underused, alt text bad and patchy (G can't 'see' the image, it relies on name, caption, title, alt, surrounding text). Allowing cache may boost page load times for repeat users.
"This is not a "popularity" poll. Maybe a lot of the "happy" people you
reference are spammers and MFA "publishers" who benefited unfairly from
Panda???"
Google is a data driven company. They use data from searchers, not webmasters to judge the quality of the search results. Several Google staffers have made statements that the feedback from SEARHCERS has been overwhelming positive. Why would they want to change it?
Because my site, and others who have complained on this forum, are living proof that something is wrong. If 30 sites with my stolen content outrank my site - the actual creator of the content - you don't see a problem with that? Says a lot.
It is not a few and I have no need to validate anything. You complain about 'panda' and you have much content on your site which you would be better separating. Whether you go ahead and actually look to deal with your issues matters not to me.
FYI, if Squibble is able to pick those pages out within minutes (or more likely, seconds), wouldn't Googlebot be able to do the same? It's not really a ratio game... it's about having a site that is 100% high quality.
I tend to agree with you on the scrapers outranking the source, but as you cannot do anything about that aside from file DMCAs, it may be in your best interest to strengthen your site, which may mitigate their ability to outrank you.
I will trust that anyone who objectively looks at my site, other than a Googleista, will be able to judge the totality of my site accurately. I have a 30 year business with a client list of at least 1/3 of the Fortune 500 companies.
My site is plenty strong - people would not be stealing my work with such ferocity were that not so. I have 1,700 pages indexed and you have sited less than 10. Pathetic.
Your attacks are not going to dissuade me from making my case, but keep trying if it validates your existence.
Advice does not equal attacks. And I don't think it "validates" anyone's existence. Particularly when we read 10s of these same issue/day.
If you believe that your site stands fine on its own now, then by all means, don't make any changes.... but don't expect to rank in Google. Google isn't going to change it's algorithm because you feel like your site should be ranking. You have to adapt and adjust to their changes, not the other way around.
It sounds to me like you came here for a soapbox and not for advice.
When you purposely pick out 10 pages out of 100s as an "example" of thin content, that is NOT helpful "advice," and begins to look more like an attack. If I trashed those ten pages it would still leave 100s of very unique pages, images, tutorials, etc. that remain in the Panda "sandbox" for whatever reason. What is wrong with those pages???
When websites or "blogs" with noting but hotinked images, or MFA websites with nothing but AdSense ads and 1 of my stolen images outrank mine, it begins to be a concern. Sorry you can't (or won't) see that.
It is interesting that with such "thin" content I was able to get 105,732 UNSOLICITED back-links to my site. There must be a lot of really shallow web surfers out there. Clearly those links are not counting as "votes' anymore as I was #1 in 100s of relevant keyword searches before Panda.
Like I said in my opening question, the only issue related to Panda which I can see as a "negative" is my bounce rate, but how can I help it if my car illustrations attract a lot of teenage boys who only visit one page on my site? I am not trying to attract them, but they are hitting my site from Google Images.
@hull377 I manage a Panda affected site - as such, I have reviewed hundreds of others that claim to be affected so I can better understand how my site fits into the scheme of things.
Objectively, my observations have been that the majority of the sites affected were heavily flawed (including my own).
The comments above were not made to attack your site but rather help you identify where it needs work. Picking a fight with people who volunteer their time here simply to help others isn't constructive and won't help you recover.
I would definitely recommend taking a link at the first link that was posted here (if you haven't already). Google mentions doing exactly what you stated - getting rid of those thin/weak/low-quality pages. If they're not benefiting your users, they're not benefiting Google's searchers either.
I already mentioned that I agree with you on the scraper/stolen content front. Unfortunately, dwelling on that and complaining about it isn't going to help you. Hundreds of people complain about that each week. The best you can do is work to strengthen your site so that the scrapers can't outrank you.
In terms of links, the GWT numbers are almost always inaccurate. I'm seeing that you have 1600 + many of them from the same domains.The anchor text is mostly your name, so I can't imagine they're helping you to rank on a lot of competitive key terms.
I like your images. I fear you may be falling victim to little/no content. You don't have much to rank on as far as I can tell. It makes sense that you rank in image search.
Have you looked at the SEO guide? That might give you some ideas of where to start...
First, let me say that I am on your side. Really. My site, acepilots.com, like yours, has been around for 10+ years, has lots of original content, and suddenly got whacked by Panda.
I looked around your site, and was impressed by the amount of original content. Then I dug a little deeper, and I encountered your "sub-domain websites, " the RV stuff, the Jewelry stuff, the Travel stuff. And it seems quite familiar. I did the same thing. I had a good, core website, and over time, I diversified, adding a little here, a little there. Some of my "expansion" pages, like yours, are quite thin ("shallow," to use Google's crushing adjective).
Look, this situation totally sucks. You and I are NOT content farmers, not "scrapers," at least not in the stereotypical sense of the word. But, we got caught up in thinking, "Hey, I can add a little section on Travel, and it will draw some hits." For a long time, that was okay. And in April, the rules changed. We're not the worst offenders, I understand. But, from looking at your site, and having looked at my own very carefully over the past two weeks, we've been caught up in a dragnet. It's like the cops went after the big drug pushers, and we just got caught while holding a few dime bags. :(
Google's a monopoly. The world has changed. You gotta sit down, look at all your peripheral, "expansion" pages with "shallow" content and take them down. And, what's worse, the way I see it, there's NO guarantee that we will regain our high rankings on key search terms. But we have no choice; Google's a monopoly. Let me repeat: This totally sucks.
P.S. As a technical matter, I don't know how Google ranks/weights the images that comprise the bulk of your original content. Clearly, most of Google's algorithm's (all of them, pre- and post- Panda) are text oriented.
Maybe I'm crazy... but since the update, I basically figure I've got nothing to lose... so I've been going kind of nuts with the changes. Get rid of the content. It's not like it's helping you now. Experiment with whatever you want... it's probably not going to get worse. Making changes and learning from them is much better than sitting around complaining about how unfair it is... Because only one option has the ability to change your circumstances. The other just pisses everyone off :D
Thank you. I have moved almost all of the peripheral stuff you mentioned off of my site over a month ago. The only thing remaining is the links to the new sites on the sitemap. I figured that out when this problem first hit. The only "peripheral" content left is my personal "travel" pages which ironically still get the same traffic - go figure?! Actually, all of the "peripheral" content still does very well - even on new domains.
I don't see how I am an "offender" for having travel photos that I took along with text that I wrote? None of this was "scraped" from other sites so why would I be "punished" for it? It does, however, dilute the "core" nature of my business so it will go too.
It seems as though I am now in some sort of "sandbox" for having had diverse content in the past. Like I said, it is almost all gone now. The question is where do I go from here?
Puntsy,
Thank you for a less aggressive tone.
You are correct about most people linking to my name, but I have not solicited any of those links so I have no control over the anchor-text people use. My name searches very well but that doesn't do my business very much good.
Obviously, the "Image Search" is a critical search method for an image-driven "portfolio" website, and it is the 'image search' I am having the biggest problem with.
Puntsy, you are correct about "making changes and learning from them," and I am trying that, but to rid their search results of spam Google has us chasing our tails. In the mean time, the spam - for art-related image searches - still dominates. That cannot be Google's intent.
Also, 'Google Images' changes/updates very slowly so it is difficult to tell if my changes are having any effect. If I make a change, then a week later make another change, how do I tell which change was effective, and which made things worse?
Like I said in the opening question, when websites or "blogs" with noting but hotinked images, or MFA websites with nothing but AdSense ads and 1 of MY stolen images outrank my own, isn't it an indication of a problem? Is a "free car wallpaper" MFA site from Russia or China now considered "quality" content by Panda? If so, God help us.
Nice work Kevin. I don't know if I have the answers you need, but consider this. 1. you don't have a lot of text in the pages. A little bit more relevant text may help 2. in the pages I looked at, you have alt text in the main images - I think that is good 3. You have a lot of superfluous images that are spacers and vertical bar spacers. 4. Some pages could be faster, if you either use a Content Delivery Network to serve your images (only costs a few dollars per month) - or you could just set up a subdomain that overlays your existing domain to serve some images - that ca cut half a second of page load time (get firebug for firefow and the pagespeed plugin) 5. You have h1, h2, but your pages seem to overloaded with class info in the page. You don't need to add a class to every tag. 6. Your CSS seems to have a lot of superfluous items that are never used and you can minify the css (remove useless spaces) 7. In your text, you have two BR tags in several pages I looked at, that should be P tags 8. I HTML validated one of your pages and it was perfect, good job. 9. OK, here is the newspaper editor talking. Your text often seems to be you talking about your page. I think you should be talking to your readers about what they are seeing, so this "This portfolio page contains images that were done in the ghosted illustration..." doesn't feel right. Imaging the reader is standing right in front of you and you are telling them about what your work can do for them and explain the components of the drawings. So what I'm saying is don't say "This portfolio page contains images" say instead "I used ghosted illustration in this image. ..."
I don't know if you can get 300 or 400 words into your pages, but the more words you can have, that are relevant, the better you should be. So I recommend you take one page that ranks poorly and improve it and see if that helps. If it does, that is the key. If not, try something else.
I have no idea whether this will help your ranking or not, but this is what I see when I look at your pages. Best Wishes.
That can't possibly be the issue or everything at a given hosting service would be considered as "one site"??? Not one page of that gemstones site remains on my old khulsey.com site, and there is a site-wide (root level) 301 redirect to the new domain. In addition, the new 'allaboutgemstones.com' domain is doing very well (traffic, page views, AdSense revenue, etc.). Again, all of that content was written by me over the period of a year - no spam, no scrapping, no cut-and-paste. If you are seeing anything from these two websites "together," it is old, cached stuff. If not, please let me know.
Curiously, only my old website (khulsey.com) is being dramatically effected by Panda.
Everything about this can make you paranoid, and Google's silence doesn't help. I understand the reason for the silence, but legitimate site owners can really pay a price for the spammers. I am paying that price right now.
Point 1: I hear what you are saying about the quantity of text, but it sure sounds like spamming. There is really not much to "say" as a "portfolio" is about the visual aspects, not the written/spoken word. It is like describing a sunset - after a few sentences it is nothing but filler. I think I already have too much text, and 300 or 400 words is going to get very repetitive.
Point 3: I use the same 1x1 pixel .gif spacer everywhere. I had read that Google ignores these, especially when they are repeated. Is this true?
Point 4: Part of the page loading speed is due to the image size, and number of images per page. I have read that the larger an image is, the better it will rank. If anyone knows differently, please chime in. Isn't it a contradiction if Google likes larger images, but penalizes loading speed?
Before Panda, I had triple the number of pages, with only one image per page - and they ALL disappeared in search. Things have improved by going to multiple images per page. Panda seems to like 10 images on 1 page, rather that 10 pages with 1 image each, but it does slow things down. I can't compress the images more as it starts to corrupt to image quality.
When you say "Content Delivery Network" do you mean Flickr or ImageShack? That is where most of my work ends up when it is stolen, and that is a little scary.
Point 6: I have yet to compress the css as I am still working on page design but I will get to that soon.
Point 7: I will change the BR tags to P tags on the pages you have referenced.
Point 9: Do you think Google's mathematical program actually looks at your writing style (prose)? Given the utter gibberish that ranks well, it is hard to believe. With the small amount of text I do have on each portfolio page, I am speaking in a "language" that the potential art director (client) uses, kind of a professional shorthand, not the lexicon of the lay-person. It may seem flat, but it would not put off a client. I will take another look at it.
G has to think of resources and it's users, so will rather give the link to a (phone size) thumbnail to users that clicks thru to a larger image. The quality of this image is perhaps what G wants in the serps, but it still uses the thumbnail if possible.
Kevin, Could you please specifically point out the types of searches you dropped on? Its silly to just take stabs and make guesses otherwise.
Long-tail or short-tail? highly competitive vs. niche? geo located vs. general? image vs. none (already answered) specific queries vs. keyword sections (as in you dropped on Acura pictures but not acura, or all acura related)? branded vs. not branded? deep pages vs. shallow pages?
a few examples would help to. right now, its take a look at your site and see what we see, but without knowledge of where the hit is happening, its just shots in the dark...
Obviously, not everything at one host could be considered one site. But I set up my new "junkyard domain" as a subsidiary account, sharing same IP as my main domain. I really don't know how Google evaluates that. I dimly recall reading some years ago, that links between such sites were heavily discounted for ranking purposes. So, in this context, how 'separate' would Google consider domains pointing to the same IP? (I've hijacked your thread :) This is my concern, not sure how you've set up your domains.)
In an earlier question of mine, the Google experts (not employees) thought that a 301 redirect to the "junkyard domain" was a bad idea. I don't know. One of them even suggested that any links from old domain to new domain have a "nofollow" tag.
Re: gemstone content. Although written by you, it is rather shallow, almost boilerplate. (I have similar articles; no offense intended.)
My site had the #1 or #2 position for the following search terms - pre-Panda (Jan, 2011)
"car illustrations" (was #2, now GONE) "car cutaway" (was #1, now #6) "toyota illustration" (was #1, now GONE) "vehicle cutaway" (was #1, now #6) "engine stock image" (was #1, now Page 2) "car stock image" (was #2 or 3, now Page 4) "ghosted automotive illustration" (was #1, now #11 - Page 2) "automotive cutaway" (was #1, now #9) "cutaway car" (was #1, now #4) "section view illustration" (was #1, now GONE) "ghosted illustrations" (was #1, now Page 2) "acura illustration" (was #1, now Page 3) "hybrid car stock image" (was #1, now Page 4)
I have a list of over 100, and the 'Panda effect' hit them all (#1, 2 or 3 to Page 2 or worse). As you can see, these are highly targeted to my specific pages and market niche, and the drop was dramatic. The only important search term I have retained is "technical illustration" which only moved from #1 to #2.
Stephen Sherman,
The only website/domain that got hit after Panda was my illustration site, so can we please stick to that site. The "peripheral sites are actually doing fine, 100s of pages indexed, and traffic did NOT drop after Panda, or 301 redirect to new domain. I am not concerned with it so please, lets drop it.
The only subjects/topics remaining of my 'illustration website' are 'car illustrations,' 'technical illustrations,' 'illustration tutorials' and 'car photography' - all HIGHLY related. The personal travel stuff will be eliminated when I can figure out what to do with it. Until then, it is buried as deep as I can on my site.
I do not know if you are looking for a different response ? You have weak areas of your site, I suggest you move them to another domain so as not to impact on the content that you do want and hope will rank well.
You keep harping on 6 pages out of 100s, and the 100s that you continue to ignore ALL ranked #1 or #2 pre-Panda. If they are ALL "weak" now, they were ALL "weak" when they ranked #1 or 2 for OVER 15 YEARS! Are you trying to say that 6 pages impact an entire site? Wikipedia has "weak" pages on 100s of topics and it doesn't seem to be effecting their ranking.
I don't know if you have an agenda or not, but it sure looks like it. In MY industry (automotive illustration), my portfolio pages would NOT be considered "weak" by anyone, and I have the client list to prove it. This is how every illustrator shows there artwork. Nobody fills their portfolio pages with 1,000s of words of gibberish. It is not a "blog," so get over it.
To end this silliness, here is a page from THE SOURCE for illustrators to advertise their work on - The Woorkbook (http://www.workbook.com/illustration/portfolios/all?featuredArtist=3286#page=1). As you can plainly see (if you bother to look) it is "weak" by your definition.
I have held the same positions (#1, 2 or 3) in 100s search terms since 1995 (see previous post). They all cratered in February/March 2011, which sure looks like a "sandbox" penalty to me.
I dont just refer to 6 pages, I refer to more. Though myself, reading your responses - I dont feel too much like spending any great deal of time on your site to return with suggestions to assist.
If it is not the case that your site has been affected by the 100+ questionable content pages then you would also look at the pages you consider to be valuable in an unbiased fashion.
If you wanted a small booklet printed of your work, the printing mark up would include captions, headers, fonts, text sizes, titles, (dates) etc Website code is the same or more for a bot to read the site. The more mark up you can give Google, the better it'll be understood and ranked. We have alot of verbals with (wedding) photography sites [search threads here] . The images count for close to Zer0 on their own with little hyper text markup language around them.
Not sure what you mean by "small booklet printed"? I do understand what you mean when you say "images count for close to Zer0 on their own with little hyper text markup language around them" but somehow, they did before Panda as I held the #1 position.
It is as if no one wants to focus on the change in ranking AFTER Panda. It is the CHANGE I am concerned with. Does Panda now require multiple sentences of repetitive gibberish around images to have them rank well?
Again, here is a specific example:
How is this (http://theillustrationengine.com/) more relevant than this (http://www.khulsey.com/stockimages_engines.html) to the search term "engine illustrations"?
Pre-Panda, I ranked #1 for the search term "engine illustrations" and now I am on page 3! My site had the #1 position for "engine illustrations" for 15 years.
I did a quick look at "car cutaway". The first page that came up was http://goo.gl/vmjKY . If you look at the keyword frequency of "cutaway" it isn't that much. The keyword proximity can better too. For example instead of "the phycical space that the car would occupy" "the phycical space that the cutaway car would occupy". Your keyword prominence is good (in the metatag, title, h1 and at the start of your web site). However like all good things in life do not over use this. That is, it should read natural.
I also noticed that you use different words for cutaway like cut-away (http://goo.gl/Lrjna) and this does not help you with targeting that particular keyword. That is be consistent.
Thanks. I am trying to NOT overuse the keywords to avoid being perceived as spamming. Are you saying that I am under-using my keywords? Since the drop I have tried more keywords and less keywords on that specific page, and nothing seems to help. For the page that you referenced, I have also tried "Cutaway" and "Cut-Away" and that has not helped either.
Again, here is a specific example:
How is this (http://theillustrationengine.com/) more relevant than this (http://www.khulsey.com/stockimages_engines.html) to the search term "engine illustrations"?
BTW - I am not disparaging this person's page at all, I am merely using it as an example of how things changed post-Panda. His page is using the word "engine" in the "search engine" vernacular, but it is really not relevant at all to the search term "engine illustrations." He also does NOT have the word "engine" or "illustration" spread all over the page.
It seams as if all of the weight (importance) is now given to the domain name, totally ignoring the content within the site.
You say I should "add relevant verbiage to help explain" the illustrations, but there is really only so much you can say about an engine illustration, and adding more words reeks of spam - to me.
BTW - When you suggest "adding a single page per illustration," this seems to make things much worse as it thins out the content even more. Since the Panda effect hit I have pruned out over 100 pages that only contained a single image, and little text. This did help ever-so-slightly, so Panda seems to prefer page consolidation over page expansion.
Maybe the only way to get ahead now is to be a "blog" with hundreds of words (text) surrounding each image. If that is the case, then Panda was specifically designed to give a huge amount of preferential treatment to blogs over businesses, because I have yet to hear a logical explanation for the sudden drop.
Again, it is not about my ranking in a vacuum, as if the world began on March 2011, it is the drop in ranking which was stable for over 15 years. This is not about my pages, content, etc. per se, but a change in the way Google evaluates content.
Take it off of me for a minute. Can anyone deny that there is a fundamental shift in search priorities? If you have a blog where people ramble on about a subject, you are probably very happy with Panda. Most business websites don't do that. Instead, they have a list of products with maybe a page on each item. If you Google the Panda effect you will see articles - the L.A. Times in particular - that deal with this shift.
I don't know why I need to be attacked for stating the obvious - not talking about you, Free2Write.
HERE IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE MISTAKES THAT PANDA IS MAKING -
Here is a long-tail search that I was #1 in (pre-Panda) - "hybrid automobile stock image" - and here is a Russian Pharmacy/Gambling website that stole one of my images (now replaced by a girl after DMCA notification) that is ranking # 5 http://themyserver.us/celes/?q=hybrid+automobile+stock+image
I am now on page 2.
YOUR TELLING ME THAT THIS IS A "QUALITY" SEARCH RESULT???????
Just to be clear, the suggestion was not simply to move an illustration to a separate page; But rather, add a more compelling page for each illustration separately in addition to the multi-paged images but with many more words.
Closer to, 'hundreds of words" -- but not just words.
This is me looking at the illustrations, which are wonderful, not Google. I would be more inclined to stay awhile if there were both technical and nontechnical details explaining each illustration. Perhaps a cross between an auction-house description of an antiquity and Boeing's Simplified Technical English.
I suppose it's a stark choice between waiting for Google to change or trying one or two new things without knowing the outcome.