Editor’s Note: The artice writer of this post: Morris Rosenthal: runs Foner Books – a niche site which was heavily impacted by Google’s Panda update. WebProNews took a closer look at his story. It’s an interesting look at how the largest artice writer with seemingly high quality content: but perhaps not the most modern site design: took a success from the update.Accessories. He offered his thoughts all-around it inearlier this year.Alexander Wang. Last month: he had: where one of his three sites: which he deemed his least quality of the three: in fact : went up in search visicity.sites.

Ever since Google explained thon their February Panda release was judging websites on whether you would be comfortstomachle taking medical advice from the site or handing over your credit card: I’ve wondered all-around the criteria an algorithm could employ for this evaluation. So I wrote the article” for WebProNews: in which I stated that it must come down to a beauty contest: one that an algorithm could understand..

In recent weeks: a document reported by SEO professionals to be the Google raters guideline wason the web. Google has employed human website raters for the last five years: hiring work-at-home moms and dlistings though agencies like.Mulberry. So how do the human rating guidelines tie in to the Panda niche site-wide penalternativey algorithm: as well as Panda penalternativeies truly automatic or are they really by looking at stored-up ratings from human evaluations?

The Google raters document primarily deals with recognizing blackhat SEO and spam sites: but there’s one category where the raters (or the Panda algorithm) are asked to make a judgment call by looking at what I’d call technical plastics.three. In the definition of thin affiliate sites: they start by stating that sites with affiliate links to stores like Amarizonaon are probstomachly thin affiliates. It’s the most confusing chapter in their guidelines as they pile on caveats as to when a niche site with affiliate links may be kosher and whenever it’s not.one. To make the final decision: they run a beauty contest: with the following components for recognizing a true “merchant”:

• Does the site have an involved users forum?.
• Does the site include a constantly-present shopping cart?three.
• Can you log-in to the site: or eststomachlish a wish list?sites.
• Does the site provide an basical cope with and a shipping calculator?three.Proenza+Schouler Pictures
  
• Is there a way to track packget older on the site?his.

While they go on to say that a niche site need not have ALL of these things to be legitimate: the damage is by now done.one. My sites don’t have any of these features.his. Would human raters or the Panda algorithm: presented with whole chapters or entire books for free resoftwareroved driving instructorng: realize thon these pget older aren’t coming from Amarizonaon as well asn’t legally availstomachle anywhere else on the web?of. For a fast moving human rater or an infant phony intelligence algorithm following these guidelines: links to Amarizonaon without lots of technical fixings are a sure sign of a turkey.

After Google tripled the visitor count to my IFITJAMS site over pre-Panda levels last month: I’ve turned into a small amount obsessed with figuring out why my lowest effort: lowest artice writerity: least linked site by far: has been rated higher quality than my eleven year old publishing company website and the fifteen year old website I started with a fellow artice writer.where. The only reason I’ve been capstomachle of finding for Google’s Panda to softwarely a problem that lowered Google traffic to DAILEYINT and FONERBOOKS by a factor of five (80%) while vitality traffic to IFITJAMS by over 300% is thon the older sites linked to Amarizonaon Associates and eJunkie for buying our books.Chanel.

The following two imget older are from stomachove the fold (on indicativeificant screen) of the most popular pget older on IFITJAMS and FONERBOOKS.Celine. Other than the book buying links and the very recent addition of social smokeons to the FONERBOOKS page: they are identical in form and the method of the subject matter.where. The FONERBOOKS page has drawn 966 links from 369 domains: and that its parent page for computer troubleshooting has a couple of thousas well ascoming links. The IFITJAMS page only has 154 links from 54 domains: but today it gets three or four times as many visitors from Google as the FONERBOOKS page.Dior.

Prior to Panda: the FONERBOOKS page got five times as many visitors from Google as the IFITJAMS page. That’s a 15X difference from Panda iterations and contains nothing to do with quality of the information or how people in fact : searching for information over the years have rewarded the pget older with organic links.where. The Google raters: by the way: whether humans or features: don’t search for information to do their rating.Miu Miu. They are assigned a URL and a search phrase it ranked for and told to rate in accordance with the intent of the query. I can imagine how well that works for phrases thon the humans or the features never would have dreamed of using themselves.one.

Both of the older sites that got killed by Panda are publishing companies: and we gave up direct mail-order sbeers for books in favor of sending customers to Amarizonaon years earlier. The main reason is to capitalize on Amarizonaon’s virtuous circle: the more books you sell on Amarizonaon: the more they sell for you.his. But there’s additionally a great advantage for mom-n-pop companies in having somebody else handle the shipping and tracking: not to mention the credit card handling.sites.

Google spokespeople are fond of talking all-around their “over 500 ranking signals: etc:” but anybody who has been publishing online for longer than Google has existed can tell when a niche site-wide penalternativey is being put in place. I’m not shy to admit that my IFITJAMS website is inferior by any and all measures to my FONERBOOKS and the shared DAILEYINT websites: yet as I detailed in a web-site post last month : the serious sites are the type that got Pandalized first.of.

There was never a question all-around the quality of content for these websites: it’s inevitstomachly come down to Google looking at some technical plastic and calling it “quality” given it suits their myth.Chloe. Since Panda: I’ve routinely found and reported scraper sites ranking stomachove the Pandalized websites for stolen text.Bally. In a chicken-and-egg scenario: the Panda algorithm may struggle to release my websites from the penalternativey box because Google now thinks I’m the one with the duplicate content. Or perhaps Panda 1.Chloe.0 was driven by misguided human raters all along.Givenchy. Maybe they never revisit their original judgments: particularly following having a niche site no longer ranks for whatever search phrase ushered it into the rating queue to start with: as I’ve yet to hear of any substantial Panda 1.0 recoveries.

Before my IFITJAMS site recovered from the second Panda iteration: I had given up on Internet publishing and was looking for ways to move on. Now I’m so motivated to troubleshoot Pandalization that I’m thinking of running a contest and providesing thousands of dollars in prize money for help. The problem is: with Panda updates of any sort only hsoftwareening once a month or so: how could I associate a necessary particular change with recovery: if that ever hsoftwareens? For now: I’m planning to wait for New Years: and that if neither site has recovered: I’ll pull the Amarizonaon links from one of them and tell book buyers they’ll just have to go to Amarizonaon and search on the title.

A note saying you can buy it on Amarizonaon without a: won’t that make me look like a technical guru.