SEO 101: Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Myths & Facts
- Submission and Spidering
- Submission
- The spider keeps on comin'
- Removing barriers to spidering
- Keywords
- Avoid single-word terms
- Avoid terms that are too broad
- Avoid terms that are too specific
- Avoid terms that are unpopular
- Avoid highly-competitive terms
- Mine your server reports
- Target word variants and word order
- Ranking Factors
- Content is King
- One-page factors
- Page Weight
- Dead Links
- META tags
- Unknown Factors
- NON-Ranking Factors
- META Keywords
- ALT text
- Title attribute
- Web Standards
- Dedicated IP address
- Changing hosts or IP's
- Adsense
- Resubmitting a site
- Penalties
- Over-Optimization penalties
- Non-WWW penalties
- Black Hat SEO penalties
- Paid Links penalty
- Duplicate Content penalty
- Why did my site disappear?!
- Black Hat SEO
- Invisible text
- Cloaking
- Keyword stuffing
- Doorway Pages
- Orphaned Pages
- Spam
- Links
- Anchor Text
- Links in the body copy
- Internal Links
- PageRank
- Backlinks
- Reciprocal Links
- Link Farms and Directories
- Buying and Selling Links
- Pages not passing PR
- Link Age
- Relevance and Authority
- Suspicious Activity
- Splitting PR (removing or forcing theWWW)
- Summary of link factors
- Changing domains, and renaming pages
- Move a whole site
- Move a directory to a new domain
- Move specific pages
- Advanced Redirecting
- Hiring professional help
- Summarized recommendations
- Further Resources
|
|
What is a penalty?
The term "penalty" is often incorrectly
applied to things that aren't penalties at all. If an
SE punishes your site by lowering its listing (or
removing it from the index entirely), that's a penalty.
But if a site simply fails to have what it takes
to rank well, that is not a penalty.
Let's say that all the words on your site are really
images. It's pretty, sure, but Google can't read those
words. As a result, you won't rank as well for those
words as you would if the words were plain text. Is that
a penalty? No. Google didn't punish you, by
intentionally moving your site lower in the rankings. You
just failed to show Google why they should elevate your
site any higher than it already is.
That said, let's take a look at some actual
penalties.
Over-Optimization Penalties
Many webmasters think that the engines can
penalize some sites which "try too hard". The theory
is that if you've got your money phrase all over the
place -- in the <TITLE>, <H1>, <H2>,
<H3>, <B>, and <I> tags, ALT and TITLE
parameters, domain, subdomain, directory name, and
filename, and it's repeated several times throughout the
page, and it's the only link text that other sites use in
their links to you, then the engine figures you're making
a blatant attempt to cheat and they wind up pushing your
site further down, rather than further up. And while the
engines rank pages, not sites, it's believed that some
penalties apply to a whole domain, not just to a specific
naughty page.
Whether over-optimization penalties really exist has
been hotly debated in online forums with a lot of
convincing arguments and evidence each way. My feeling is
that such penalties do exist, but that they're not
applied consistently and that it's difficult to tell what
triggers them. But to me there is little doubt that they
get applied sometimes.
Here's an example: In a Google
search for "cheapest airfare", only one of the
ten results contains that exact phrase in the title! This
is a competitive term and there are obviously many sites
vying to rank well for it, so it's inconceivable that
only one high-PR site is using the term "cheapest
airfare" in its title. That means that sites which use
the search term in their title are out there but not
ranking well. This is strong evidence that Google has
penalized them.
When I first noticed this particular case my first
reaction was to assume that Google was penalizing pages
for no other reason than that their titles contained the
exact search phrases. But remember that this violates one
of the primary points mentioned in the Myths section
earlier: It is nearly impossible to discern cause and
effect, especially at first glance. Stepping back a
bit, it's easy to come up with another plausible
explanation for this phenomenon: Google might not be
penalizing pages because their titles were too specific,
but rather because their titles were too specific
and that same search phrase was repeated
throughout the page in an SEO-like manner. It could be
that Google doesn't care if a title has the exact search
phrase, as long as that same search phrase hasn't been
stuffed everywhere else on the same page (and in file and
directory names, and in link text, etc.).
How can we tell which is the case? Or if it's
something completely different? We can't -- not easily,
anyway; not without a great deal of research.
So how to deal with this? Here are my
recommendations. For the title tag it's simple. Search
for the phrase you want to rank on. If the results use
that phrase in the title, then you use it too. If the top
results don't use that phrase (and you know it's a
competitive enough phrase that there are sites
using it in their title who aren't ranking well), then do
like they do and use a variation of your preferred phrase
rather than the exact phrase itself. Just be careful and
don't automatically assume that a lack of pages showing
the exact search phrase in their titles means that the
engines are discounting them; it could mean that
you got lucky and found a search term that doesn't yet
have a lot of competition, and that there aren't many
other pages yet using that search term in their titles,
or it could mean that the penalty is not for an exact
match in the title alone, but an exact match in the title
combined with more matches in other places on the
page.
For other factors, I suggest using the on-page factors
as you normally would, just don't use the same exact
phrase in every single place. Once your PR is similar to
the sites you're competing with you should be near them
in the SERPs. If you're not, then it could be time to
consider modest de-optimizing at that point. But in
general, I don't worry about de-optimizing unless there's
a page I can't get ranked well normally after several
months.
Incidentally, my site is one of the top ten on that
search for "cheapest airfare", but without using the
exact search phrase in the title. I changed my title to
include the exact search phrase, and a couple of weeks
later I went from #3 to #8. Of course, I couldn't be
certain that it's a result of my title change, though.
Still, I changed my title back to the original to see if
I'd move back up, and I bounced back up to #4 pretty
quick. While we can't draw any definitive
conclusions from this, it suggests that having the exact
search phrase in the title tag might have hurt my ranking
in this particular case. For most pages
it's probably still a good idea to have the exact phrase
in the title, changing it only if good rankings can't be
achieved, and if the pages that are beating yours don't
use the exact search phrase in their title tags,
either.
Non-WWW penalties
You might prefer to have your server
automatically remove the www. if people type it in
or follow links that include it, or you might have your
server automatically add it if they don't. The reasons
you might want to do one of these things are:
- Personal preference
- Have the addresses be consistent
- Get the most credit for incoming links, explained
below under splitting
PR
Stripping the www. has worked fine on the vast
majority of the sites I've done it with. But there was
one notable exception. I'm the webmaster of a popular
site which is one of the best in its industry. We've done
great in Google, but were nowhere to be found in Yahoo.
Searching Yahoo for <site:yourdomain.com> returned
only our home page, not any of the other 600+ pages of
content. I wrote to Yahoo in Jan. 2005 and they told me
that a penalty had been applied but would not tell me
what the reason was. They referred me to their generic
list of reasons why a site might get penalized, but I
couldn't see that we were violating any of their
guidelines. I thought I was at a dead end, but then
someone suggested that instead of removing the
www., we should force the www. I was
reluctant to do so because I really hate the www.,
but I tried it. A day or two later Yahoo started to add
pages from our site to their index.
I can't say conclusively that it was the forcing of
the www. that did the trick, because I'd also
resubmitted our site to Yahoo for review as they
suggessted I do once I thought our site was clean, and it
could be that a human editor reviewed our site and
manually lifted the penalty at the same time I told our
server to force the www. By the way, after three
months I switched it back, telling the server to remove
the www., and we remained inYahoo's good graces,
thankfully.
The mechanics of how to strip or force the www.
are explained below under splitting
PR.
Black Hat SEO penalties
The engines are thought to punish pages and
sites that engage in SEO methods the engines don't like,
Orphaned
Page -- A page without any
internal links pointing to it.
|
which are referred to as Black Hat SEO. These are
covered in the next section. I'll mention one
specifically here since you might do it accidentally, and
that is having orphaned pages. Why orphaned pages are
usually accidental, some webmasters intentionally use
orphaned pages to try to trick the engines (see Doorway
Pages below), and thus orphaned pages are thought to
trigger penalties in some cases.
Duplicate Content penalty
If your site is substantially a mirror of
another site, or if pages within your site are
substantially similar to other pages within your site,
your ranking can suffer.
This does not mean that you can't reprint
articles (as long as you have permission, of course).
Here's an article on why reprinting
doesn't invoke the duplicate content penalty.
Paid Links penalty
Google has stated that it considers sites which
sell links to be gaming the system, and in October 2007
it started penalizing them. Paid ads are okay, paid links
are not. So what's the difference? Paid links are just
links with no other text, and are usually not relevant to
the page they appear on. Paid advertising is when the
link is accompanied by at least sentence or two of
description, and is relevant to the page it appears on.
Actually, it appears that Google wants webmasters to
identify even paid ads by adding the
"rel=nofollow" attribute to its outgoing links. Many
webmasters are bristling at that idea. In any event, it's
harder for Google to detect paid ads vs. paid links.
For more on this, see articles by Jennifer
Laycock, Andy
Beard, Barry
Schwartz, and Danny
Sullivan.
Unknown Penalties (or, My site has disappeared from
the SERPs!)
It is common and normal for sites to
temporarily disappear from search engines completely. I
can't count the number of times this has happened to one
of my sites. I'll be on page one, then suddenly my site
is gone -- not even in the top 100 results. I do nothing,
and then a couple of days, weeks (or rarely, months)
later my site is back on the front page.
If this happened to you, don't panic. First review the
dropped
site checklist at NetMechanic for possible things you
could have done to cause your site to get dropped, and
also make sure you're clear on the possible penalties
described above. If you're clear on all those things then
your site will likely reappear automatically at some
point, so there's nothing to do but sit back and wait.
The search engine won't tell you why your site was
dropped, so there's nothing more for you to do at that
point. (Well, you can keep adding high quality,
content-rich pages to your site, but you should be doing
that anyway.)
Now continue this series below...
|