Is it impossible to get out of Panda? Matt Cutts says if you fix the problem you "pop back" but if so why are their so few examples?
-
In this video matt cutts says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IzUuhTyvJk about 15
"once we re-run our data (every few weeks) if we determine your site is of higher quality you would pop back out of being affected"
Panda has effected thousands of sites and a lot of smart people have been working on the problem for about 2 years since the first panda was launched, but I can only find 1 site that has "popped back" to their original rankings. e.g. http://searchengineland.com/google-panda-two-years-later-losers-still-losing-one-real-recovery-149491
Apart from Motortrend.com I can't find any sites (of reasonable size) / case studies of sites that have solved the panda problem, and were definitely hit by panda. Which doesn't feel right, some people have deleted a ton of pages, redesigned their site, improved their content, etc with no success. Therefore is it a pointless exercise? Therefore, is it better to simply give up and start a new site?
-
Yeah, I noticed the graph was cut pretty short after they gained traffic back. They must have forgotten to knock on wood before they posted about their recovery.
-
Hi Chris,
Daniweb did recovery for a short period, but then lost their traffic again, there is more here: http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/HiGVM9h2ioE%5B1-25-false%5D
I know google is planning to soften panda, and about time too.
thanks,
julian.
-
Julian,
There are a few more listed here on screamingfrog's blog and daniweb said they recovered. Seerinteractive also wrote about a client they helped to recover. But you're right, there are very few examples of big sites who have recovered.
-
Hi Jason,
Yes I've heard a lot more stories like that too. Which is how it should be, you fix the problem and google then gives you your rankings, traffic and revenue back. But with Panda it doesn't seem to work that way, even though Matt Cutts says it does, which is frustrating, annoying and unfair.
The lack of response to this question seems to confirm my fear that its impossible to get out of panda.
Julian.
-
I have not seen it with Panda but I have seen it with Penguin. We removed the bad links and the site popped back up with 2-3 days. It was actually a couple of spammy link edu pyramid pointed at the website with exact match anchor text all the way up. We removed the few links that were actually pointing to the site and problem solved. Very Strange...
Wish I could be more helpful with Panda... We have never had any issues there.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Sale page ranking for "[blank] for sale" keywords
My company's Ecommerce site has a sale category that is currently out performing some of our normal categories in the SERPs for "[blank] for sale" keywords. For example the sale category landing page is ranking for the keyword "vegetable seeds for sale" rather than the vegetable seed category. Has anyone ever dealt with a similar situation to this? or does anyone have general advice for optimizing (or weakening) sale pages?
On-Page Optimization | | Scoleman1 -
How do I get my sitelinks to appear
Hi I have recently launched a new site and I was hoping for destination sitelinks to appear under my site as they do for my competitors' sites. I have submitted a sitemap but is there anything else I can do to expedite this process or guarantee the sitelinks appearing? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | CosiCrawley0 -
Can't get my preferred URL, how much does it matter?
Hi guys. I'm building a new site at the moment - seen a solid SEO opportunity for my work. I'm a producer engineer, specialising in mixing and mastering, so i'm creating a site for online mixing services. After a bit of keyword research I decided that "online mixing" was the best, most relevant and high volume term to go for. Ideally i'd like my home page to be www.onlinemixing.com (or something similar) but alas! It's been taken, as well as all the variations (like switching words, hypens etc) How much does this matter form an SEO point of view? E.g - For the search term "online mixing" would - www.onlinemixing-signalchain.co.uk be much worse than -www.onlinemixing.co.uk? Or am I sweating the small stuff? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Isaac.
On-Page Optimization | | isaac6630 -
Paginated URLs are getting Indexed
Hi, For ex: - My site is www.abc.com and Its paginated URLs for www.abc.com/jobs-in-delhi are in the format of : www.abc.com/jobs-in-delhi-1, www.abc.com/jobs-in-delhi-2 and vice versa also i have used pagination tags rel=next and rel=prev. My concern is all the paginated URLs are getting indexed so is their any disadvantage if these URLs are getting indexed as somewhere i have read that link juice may get distributed in case of pagination. isn't it good to use Noindex, Follow so that we can make the Google to understand that paginated page are not so much important and that should not be ranked.
On-Page Optimization | | vivekrathore0 -
Source? Google says having an author photo increases CTR by 15% on average.
I was listening to an interview with Rand Fishkin on the Eventual Millionaire: http://eventualmillionaire.com/rand-fishkin/ Rand said that Google says that having an author photo increases click through rate by 15% on average. I am trying to find the original source of this information. Has anyone know the source of this stat?
On-Page Optimization | | ProjectLabs0 -
With or without the "www." ?
Is there any benefit whatsoever to having the www. in the URL? My domain is quite long therefore I've not been using the www. however a few people have mentioned it's good practice to include it. The www. forwards to the main URL (non www.) and I've set my preferred domain name in webmaster tools to the non www. so I'm thinking that should all be ok. Just hoping I could get some of the experts views to make sure this is all ok. The site is a year old and I'm just starting to really get going on the link building so it's not too late to change if I'm wrong. If others link to my site and include the www. will the link juice be passed, as I suspect many will include it without any thought?
On-Page Optimization | | Optimise0 -
Many canonical warnings. Is this a problem?
My site has over 80 canonical warnings. The report states the url is for example http://www.musicliveuk.com and the 'tag value' column says http://www.musicliveuk.com/ Is that a good thing? I'm new to seo and am running my site on wordpress with all in one seo pack. Does this mean the seo pack has automatically added canonical tags to my pages? If so why is it showing as an error? I am also getting lots of 301 permanent redirects and I haven't set any up manually. I'm getting them for every page on my site from the normal url to a url with a slash at the end.
On-Page Optimization | | SamCUK0 -
Canonical URL's - Fixed but still negatively impacted
I recently noticed that our canonical url's were not set up correctly. The incorrect setup predates me but it could have been in place for close to a year, maybe a bit more. Each of the url's had a "sortby" parameter on all of them. I had our platform provider make the fix and now everything is as it should be. I do see issues caused by this in Google Webmaster, for instance in the HTML suggestions it's telling me that pages have duplicate title tags when in fact this is the same page but with a variety of url parameters at the end of the url. To me this just highlights that there is a problem and we are being negatively impacted by the previous implementation. My question is has anyone been in this situation? Is there any way to flush this out or push Google to relook at this? Or is this a sit and be patient situation. I'm also slightly curious if Google will at some point look and see that the canonical urls were changed and then throw up a red flag even though they are finally the way they should be. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | dgmiles
Dave0