Replacing something that’s genuine, aged and valuable with something similar but ultimately a poor copy of what is already available is not without it’s perils.
There is plenty of stories out there about ranking woes – if you try and force Google’s hand where it is ranking sites, Google might very well have a surprise in store for you.
I think Google likes the status quo – so much it tried to keep the link graph in 2007. :)
It works. It has the best search engine in the world, supposedly. The results work for most normal users.
You making a claim for a top spot IN A COMPETITIVE industry without quality links and relevant content over a PERIOD OF SUFFICIENT TIME, in a vertical with relatively stable rankings, probably raises a flag. That’s why I like to take time to get rankings.
I’ve seen sites rise and rise and rise and when they get to the top, they get slapped back 40 places.
Sometimes I wonder when you are at the top of the results, Google takes a closer look at your site, that is, the big bad boy filter bots are let loose – or even a manual review(!)…. sometimes I actually worry about all of a sudden apearing near the top of results. Often, it is shortly followed by a big drop.
Is Google running other tests, rather than just click thru rates etc when we see results bouncing all over the place? Is it the spike in backlinks links that brings in the filters, or is it more analysis is forced the closer you are to top rankings these days?
Think of the processing power. Would you run every filter on every site in your index if you had a 100 billion pages?
If I bag a top ten ranking, I don’t usually push for Number 1 anymore, for fear of this. I normally concentrate on other keywords when I get into the top set of results, and building domain trust, and usually only focus on the main term if I have a solid gold linking opportunity on a site with mega trust.
How about you?
I look at the slamming as a positive to be honest, tells me there is a lot of work to be done. It’s not always the links that pushes you down though, it can be anything. I still go for the number one spot to be honest because that is always the aim.
Saurav me too, sometimes. :)
Been pondering this for over 2 weeks now. I’ve been working on a client for about 8 months now, and after the account being with the company for over 4 years, only recently with the work are we dominating the SERPS for target phrases we choose. We’ve definitely got the tick next to the Trust checkbox now, however i do think it’s also due to the high CTR we are achieving as well. The work was fine tuning the account and focusing on conversions, which means we’ve been extremely picky about what keywords we want to dominate for (time spent on low conversions yelds a very low ROI to explain to a client at the end of the day) Trust is definitely a factor, however i’m also leaning towards CTR as a potential factor as well for us continunally maintaining position 1 for our target keywords. Branding was another factor i’ve been considering, since the client is also seeing a large increase in branded search over the last 3 months. Just one of those areas i’m not sure the direct cause. My 2 cents, it’s a combination of a few factors (since Goog do conversion testing on SERPS, the possibility is there)
Thanks Brett I’ve never really focused on CTR (or other muddy nonsense like bounce rate) and I have top ten rankings for most sites I work on. I’m sure CTR is used on some levels though :) For me it’s all TRUST and RELEVANCE. I’ll let the conversion specialists do the rest.
I got 2 articles written about me by PR8 sites (Techcrunch & Washington Post) which linked to me with keyword anchor text (very competitive keywords). Within 24 hours I dropped 40 places for the keywords. The closest I got to explaining it was the suggestion that Google thought I had paid for the links.
Interesting result….
I’m usually with you on the Google conspiracy theories, and I have noticed this behavior myself in several projects. However, I’ve always assumed Google causes flotations in the rankings to experiment automatically with optimal click through rates. If your site has lower click through rates in first place, than last week’s site, it would be no surprise to me for Google to give the slot back to the site that performs the best.
Greg I used to think that too. This is a “sometimes i think” post.
[...] Getting To Number 1 & Staying There, Hobo [...]
I’ve had some issues in the past with acquiring backlinks too fast and being pushed back the big G. They were all legitimate inbound links gained through numerous blogrolls (without specifically asking or contacting webmasters for link exchanges or text links). Very annoying, although we eventually got to the top spot (after a few months!).
Some weird stuff for you from my freaky collection – pushing for the new terms could reduce ranking/traffic on the established term.
Interesting. I’ve thought about this too but never had anything clear to focus on. NB Just yesterday my top performing page just nosedived two pages after being number 1 for most of the year. Sat there for 2 days. Now it’s back at number 1 again. This page is no1 because it’s RELEVANT and on a moderately trusted domain. No links involved at all. How can it drop 2 pages in one sitting without there being anything funny at all going on? There’s plenty of strange stuff I see I don’t blog about. not enough time in the day lol PS – Good to see you blogging again Andy!
I am working on a educational site from last 2 years. Only one time i got the best ranking i.e 18 , but from last six months its on the 4th page of Google. Though i am building quality links having good PR and also doing directory submissions with my main anchor, blogging as well, But i cant get the results. Please suggest me what i have to do for getting best rankings. Regards, Gary
I would agree that they won’t filter every page, but rather wait for those that scream to be taken notice of. I think it’s easy enough to confirm this by the fact Google will list millions of pages as a result for a search, but only ever return 1,000 – the rest simply ignored? I think that generally once you’ve hit the top 10 for a keyword it’s a good idea to work on variations of that keyword. From what I’ve managed to figure out the more variations of keyword you rank for the more natural it seems and the less likely you are to suffer a penalty of some sort. I guess that would be a perfect example of relevance? Just my opinion however.
Thought provoking post Shaun! Certainly it would seem very logical and quite ‘Googlesque’ to apply more resource to filtering top positions on SERP’s as they are most valuable areas of real estate, Google already have this system in place in Adwords. Definatley concur with your observations around sites acquiring links to quickly and storming there way in only be hit out with a hefty positional filter after a brief period in the sun.
I’ve witnessed this a lot of times for many niches Shaun. Obviously you get to watch the first few results when you’re trying to replace them. And sometimes some results just jump out of nowhere, stay there for 2 weeks, then go back more than where they were previously. Hell it even happenned a few times to me after a spamlink attack on one of my sites by my competitors. The link spike just attracted Google, but it just went back to normal after seeing i still have the original links. Btw ‘PERIOD OF SUFFICIENT TIME’; This is the hardest part to tell a client about SEO. When they want to get to 1st place on a word like ‘Gifts’ or ‘Sports Car’, they always want it overnight…
In a way, Google’s SERP’s are emulating the way the human brain works (in as far as a machine can). Take something relatively simple such as checking the weather forecast. As human beings we’re all conservative (even if you really do think you part of a new wave of individualism – it’s all been done before :)) and tend to consistently use resources that we’re familiar with (BBC Weather, Met Office, etc, etc). It’s familiar and we trust the source – not sure this statement applies to weather forecasts though. Every day we see other sources of information about the weather – in news papers, on the TV, etc. But they’re all the same news, nothing new. Then we see the headline “Four Horsemen of The Apocalypse Ride Storm into the South West”. This gets a buzz going, we talk about it, we reference the information and create citations (links). It sticks in our brain (cached). Over time this one event becomes old hat so it gets dropped from our brain (flitered) or, worse case scenario, the Four Horsemen pay a visit every day of the week which makes it a common event and a trusted source that has many references so it sticks in our heads. A slightly odd way of looking at it but it works for me.
I like James’ analogy of the Four Horsemen, makes it easier for a non-SEO person like me to understand. Google has always been a mystery to me and I find it frustrating that my tiny business is at its mercy. When you talk about trust, how does one build trust? Is it something to do with how long your site has been around or something else?
I have stopped bothering about top 3 links. It’s much easier to concentrate on LOTs of keywords with lower competition, it gives you a variety of users / buyers (depending on the type of site) and your backlink profile doesn’t look artificial with all links having same anchor text. About getting slapped when you reach the top, it doesn’t happen very often with me, I have experience this with some sites and after a wait of 2-3 weeks, the sites invariably regain the ranks. I think they just do a bit more ‘exact calculations’ rather than doing approximations that they do in real time.
Google is out for Google. Adwords are its prime source of Income. If a SERP result brings in more conversions and sells more Adwords clicks – bet on that result returning – Organic and all. That being said it has to have something to test against. So it shakes up the results and tests its own algo for conversions again. Just a theory but a safe one. Always follow the money.
indeed :)
Totally agree Shaun. if they’re competitive or money terms I do exactly the same as you, back off as they approach and/or breach first page, and focus laterally then, let them slowly creep up for the big stuff by virtue of work on the variants. I want to see them stabilize there (within the bounds of normal flux) for a few months ideally, before before any further direct targeting of the big terms. easy does it..
Interesting …are the industries you speak of like online gambling, etc.? Just curious about the scale. “Think of the processing power. Would you run every filter on every site in your index if you had a 100 billion pages?” Interesting point. This and other posts this week (like Rand’s on worrying about the effectiveness of spam) have been quite interesting…I’ve seen spam work in my industry for competitors, but now it seems like I am finally not the only one. The development of this conversation interests me greatly – my industry is not the biggest or the most competitive so you could argue that’s why Google doesn’t care as much about the spam. But when the big names begin talking about it…hmm… Personally I would like to see Google change its algorithm to the point that exact match domain names don’t matter anymore. It would surely shake up the rankings less than I think but it would still improve the browser’s experience. Exact match domain names are one of the cheesiest things Google relies upon. And hello, first comment! I greatly enjoyed your linkbuilding book and look forward to updates here.
Level of toughness of the competition is kind of determined by which skills and resources you have. We have the resources to compete in most if not all bricks and mortar B to B and B to C industries. I don’t play in the ultra competitive online markets like you mentioned. i’ve mused about the value of exact match domain names in the past.
@Robyn – I agree that exact match domains are a little cheesey but this approach gives smaller marketers/websites a foothold in the SERP’s. Let’s say you were a small business owner and a large percentage of your sales relied on ranking well for exact match terms/keyword domain names. Then the big, bad G filter comes along and slaps you down. Without the money to compete with big, cash abundant companies for target phrases you wouldn’t last very long.
Yes then you go to Adwords lol
Indeed James – and this is going to be a continuing benefit for small business as Google relies more and more on BRAND/Domain authority cleaning up it’s index. :)
hi Shaun, Your post reminds me of a great seo post I read somewhere a long time ago that has always stuck in the back of my mind… it compared ranking well on google to the Sword of Damocles. People who don’t know the story should google it, but here’s a short excerpt from wiki: “The Sword of Damocles is frequently used in allusion to this tale, epitomizing the imminent and ever-present peril faced by those in positions of power. More generally, it is used to denote the sense of foreboding engendered by a precarious situation, especially one in which the onset of tragedy is restrained only by a delicate trigger or chance.” The higher we get, the more we worry about losing what we already have. :) Steve
That is a good analogy :)
Hi James, I can see your point about the positive aspects of exact match domains. But, there are only so many domains that contain the market defining keyword, so when the obvious most on-point ones get bought up by someone else, then I think it impedes competition. I don’t think exact match domain names should be seen as spam, I just find it annoying that someone with keyword.com instead of xyz.com can have a clearly inferior site but pull ahead because of their domain name.
I need to get back in the groove – took me 2 days to get that one out about the new multiple listings allowing Malcolm to get tons of links … good for him though.
Yes I spotted it too but it was very well done (and worth a link – Google treating brand names in search terms as site: searches?) I don’t really feel the need to be ‘first out the traps’ any more – or even to be a SEO news blog (I’d rather comment on stuff and provide simple practical tips) – and I just saw it as another way Google is using domain trust to clean up it’s rankings. The amount of time I spend looking at Google I see tons of things but I leave the news to news blogs these days. I quite fancy being in Google News though, so I might have a go for one month… but I don’t think my email subscribers wants me to regurgitate news they can read on Search Engine Land, so I would probably not include those news blurbs in my main feed. Considering it.
one of my blog dropped to 3rd page from 1st page for the blog’s favorite keyword, i don’t know why.. when i investigated about links i came to know many blogs having PR1 and PR0 reposted one of my post with my link for that keyword..
Really interesting post Shaun, I’m currently trying to climb on to the first page for my keywords, with the aim of being number 1. After reading through your article and the comments, I think I might do as you do. Hang around the first page, but not keep trying to get number 1. I’ll try and develop some more keywords and let the few I have on the first page stay there. Thanks for the article.
@Robyn. I agree with your point about poor quality sites. There are plenty of high quality sites using exact match domains out there. To deny a site the chance of ranking because of the domain name effectively puts Google in the position of being a monopoly where the most cash rich companies can compete. I guess we just have to disagree on on viewpoints here :)
Absolutley true. I had this situation many times. Alghough in a medium competitive niche. Rising steady, getting to the top (or almost) and than falling back again. In the end you just have to keep building backlinks and you will get there!
Even when pushing a georgraphical key word for a market with about 8 players, for example “wedding shops in st albans” you get a big movement. There are only 8 shops, we should all fit on the first page, but we all take turns at the top spots, generally the sites in 1 or 2 stay static while those in 3rd or 4th place stay there for a week and then go down to 8+ with child pages form the sites above them pushing them off the first page. At one point I had 4 pages of my site in the first 9, this lasted 3 days (oner of those 4 pages was a links page…….) Weird stuff