Discussion in 'Search' started by Ryuzaki, Mar 17, 2017.
85% and average session duration is 1 min.
Get that down. Bounce rate and time on site is ranking factor. Google gives us a chance by ranking us high to check these stats. If bounce rate high and time on site is low, you are likely to get demoted.
My articles get bounce rate below 20% (10 to 15%) and ave time on site 4-5min plus. I see google dance but they stay on high end of the ranking range in the end. Very little links.
It is dependent on where traffic is from. For social and referral traffic the bounce rate is 50% and time on site is 3 mins average.
I am not 100% sure how accurate the other traffic is because I do have a problem with phantom traffic/spam traffic showing up in my analytics. (Any tips for getting rid of it?)
I have looked at individual articles and a lot have session time averaging 5mins+.
Thanks for the tip though - will analyse some more. I can't imagine being able to get it down to 20% though!
Look for the bounce rate and time on site from search traffic.
You'll need to look for bot ip (http://www.iplists.com/) and block them on your analytics. However, I have not blocked mine (no reason, I didn't bother).
Whats your advice for how to actually do that?
In short. Relevancy. Then formatting of the article is important, short paragraphs. I don't have more than 3 sentences per paragraph, mostly less. Images to break up the text. Make it easily digestible, scannable.
Include in the article a poll/quizz, and infographics.
Read time also correlates with the length of the article.
Alright, I've got a 3,000 word guide that helps people pick between like a million widget options. Starts off by essentially saying "In a rush? Here's a quick summary:"
Then the article is pretty well segmented with headers organizing different sections. Nested headers go pretty deep, lots h4s, which I think makes it really easy to skim. There are some paragraphs with 4-5 sentences, but plenty of short ones.
I may be lacking on images, but 25% of people are bouncing in 1-10 seconds - see stats of the last page here.
I have sort of solved what was wrong with my site. I followed a free pdf on on-page seo on one of my pages - made some changes. This page was ranking on page 4 for its keyword (on page 1 before hit by the update) - I checked it today - 2 days later and it is now on page 1
This happened to be one of the articles I had on the site that I had written myself. I tend to just write naturally and not think about keywords or anything while writing - but obviously writing naturally wasn't enough and it came across like I had too many keywords in it. I actually don't think its the keyword itself was the problem it was the words in the keyword scattered around the page separately that was.
So now to go through all the pages that were hit and see if they redeem their rankings with this approach. I do hope so.
I did notice I had a few spammy backlinks from weird sites so I will do that after I have done the onpage stuff so I have a clear indication of the problems going forward.
It feels good right now to have at least brought one of my pages back to page 1. Hopefully I can do this with the rest!
I had a site that was impacted around this time frame as well. I diluted my internal anchor links and have noticed a shift the past two days as well. I wonder if there was an adjustment made to the Fred parameters.
Well I tweaked one page and that was the only one that had movement - or significant movement. I tweaked some others yesterday and today checking they have started to move as well - going to keep doing that see what happens.
Definitely made me feel a bit more in control of the situation.
Funny you mention internal anchors. I added six new articles to a (stable) established site of mine last week. My money page SERPs dropped like a stone the next day.
I removed the SILO links and bounced back 2 days later.
Made me think the algo seems to have been 'tuned up' with the recent update(s)
Are you saying that using exact match keywords for internal anchors was the reason?
Yep - it seems that way.
Serps have been stable ever since removing the SILO'd links with EMD anchors.
But with all the algo volatility at the moment who the hell knows??
We're just under three months down the road now. Despite all of the speculation and coincidental & correlated movements, I feel very confident in reiterating that Fred is mainly looking at the ratio of pages designed around terms like:
____ vs. _____
I've seen at least 10 more examples of this since my last post in here and they all fit the bill. I even downloaded a few courses to see what example sites they were showing that were doing so good that they served as examples... and they're all penalized now.
The only survivors out there are sites that had already busted some trust and authority thresholds, like TheWirecutter, and sites that likely have backdoor deals and contacts.
This is a great chance for a big buyer with a big budget to buy up a lot of sites on the cheap and fix them. Seems like it'll simply take a lot of content and labor to post it, and waiting. I wouldn't go for the EMD sites like BestToasterin2017.net though.
If you're starting a site, you'll do good to read the opening post here and realize that greed is the easiest target for Google to exploit and is the very thing spammers do. Don't become a civilian casualty when this is the easiest penalty ever to dodge.
Better yet, stop building Made-for-Advertising and Affiliate Sites, and build a brand and be a marketer. Do that, don't spam links, and you'll never have a problem with Google ever again.
I have an admittedly blatant Amazon affiliate site that I have been watching since the Fred update(s). It fits the bill of what most would suspect should be hit by Fred. (This site doesn't have much authority.) It's currently being strangled by Google. I can't really say I'm surprised.
I also oversee an ecommerce site with an established brand (~20 years old), large natural link profile that at first glance doesn't seem to be affected by the Fred updates. It seems unaffected until I segment out the blog and look only at the product section of the site. This is where I'm seeing a 13% drop in Google organic since Fred (3/9). I think Google targeted more than just affiliate sites but it is also hitting thin content on a page level.
I have a situation where I would like to replace my sidebar, footer and possibly in content display ads with a CPA offer (static image with an affiliate link).
Do you think this would have the potential of triggering an issue?
@animalstyle, no, I don't think it'll be a problem unless you're going too hard in other areas, like only doing review style posts, optimizing for info terms with review style content, etc. I think some of these issues are far more egregious than others, and the others are used to confirm algorithmically that you're crossing the line on the main issues.
The display ad part is probably the most minor issue. And as long as you have plenty of content on each page you have ads on, it should be fine. If you started talking about "in addition to" the other ads, it might go overboard unless your pages are real long.
Hey @Ryuzaki can you clarify what you mean by "optimizing for info terms with review style content"?
Many of my review articles contain info that's relevant to making an informed purchase. For example, lets say the article is reviewing 4 wheel drive Jeeps. A number of people who search for that type of review would likely want to know the benefits of 4 wheel drive vs 2 wheel drive. So the article might be titled: "2016 Jeep Wrangler Review - The Real 4 Wheel Drive King?"
And within the article there would be a heading like, "4 Wheel Drive vs 2 Wheel Drive", or "Why 4 wheel drive is better than 2", or something along those lines. And that section would answer/cover the query. Thats pure info, targeting a keyword like "4 wheel drive vs 2", but it's relevant to the purchasing decision, thus; they don't have to do another google search to find that information since it's already in the article.
Is that the type of info you're saying should not be in a money page article?
Sorry to point at this and being a bit off topic (sorry if it sounds rude to you), but make sure to read well what you've written, that's controversial for me and triggers a red flag when I read posts like this one.
I'm really amazed by your post, just pointing that you may step into this mistake again, the information you've given us is platinum.
Not necessarily. It's impossible to know exactly what is being measured in that regard. Is it comparison tables full of "Buy Now" buttons? Is it a ton of affiliate links and certain text phrases? I'm willing to bet the title tag has a big role, but I don't think the inclusion of the word "review" is enough to confidently conclude this is what you're doing. So the algorithm would need to look at other factors that you're likely not tripping.
I just re-read what you typed though and realized we both mean the exact opposite. My paragraph above is for info content that features some sales content. You're talking about sales content that features some info content. I do exactly what you're saying you do, and it works out great.
Adding informational content to a review post to help the buyer make an informed decision is great. It's not misleading. The problem is when you optimize for a high-volume information keyword but structure the content as a review / money maker instead of an information deliverer. A little bit is fine, but Google's main goal is to make sure the pages they rank are dealing properly with the intent of the searcher.
You're right, it's silly to make broad-sweeping and generalized statements. What I really meant was that "if you aren't doing anything too obviously silly with ads and language while you're also doing what you know you should be as a big brand, then you shouldn't encounter any on-page algo problems."
However, that's still broad and implies I can predict the future of the internet, the future of Google, and read people's minds to know what they deem to be 'silly.'
The 2nd quote is true. I've not been hit by Fred because I got caught up in it's predecessor, the misuse of the Thin Content Penalty, realized it was a purposeful misnomer to hide the first round of tests, and I corrected course. This make me either more qualified to talk about it, or less qualified. To me, being bit by one poisonous snake and studying it's effects is as good as jumping into a pit with 100 of them. Both are as qualified, but one had enough sense to realize that jumping into a pit full of snakes is probably not a good idea, especially not for the sake of being 'qualified.'
Your red flag is great to point out and I agree with it, but you didn't provide any examples of why it's a red flag. I'd like to know if you or anyone else can think of examples out there that haven't yet been acted upon by Google? What should we be avoiding that isn't already encapsulated by the obvious or by what Google is already doing? What's left that we need to keep an eye on so we aren't caught off guard in the future?
Separate names with a comma.