Site has disappeared since Panda 4 despite quality content, help!
-
Our site www.physicalwellbeing.co.uk has lost over 20 first page rankings since the end of May. I assume this is because of Panda 4.0.
All content on the site is high quality and 100% unique, so we did not expect to get penalised. Although I read somewhere that if Google can't read particular js anymore they don't rank you as high.
The site has not been blacklisted as all pages are showing in Google's index and there are no messages on webmaster tools. We have not taken part in any link schemes and have disavowed all low quality links that were pointing there just in case (after the penalty).
Can anybody see anything on www.physicalwellbeing.co.uk that may have cause Panda update to affect it so negatively?
Would really appreciate any help.
-
With a bounce rate that low, do you by chance have multiple GA tracking scripts, or something that's triggering an event even if no one goes to another page? Look at the source code when you're in incognito mode, in case your CMS suppresses one of the GA codes when you're logged in as admin.
[voice of experience and learning the hard way here!]
-
I would say you are bordering on over-optimization. Your alt tags are a bit spammy, you are using the keyword meta tag ( a spam signal), you're using both tags and categories within Wordpress, which can cause duplication.
I agree with the other posters ( and your post on Google), not Panda related - just viewed again by Google.
-
EGOL again thank you for your help it is highly appreciated. Bounce rate is really low at 4% so I am not sure it is that but I take your point. The target audience is more 25-45 really as my client offers Urban Conditioning which would potentially be too much for someone over 45.
Maybe you are right about the pixel info, I think that can be solved by toning down some of the heavy media.
My only issue with both responses here is that it was ranking highly before panda. Where you are pointing out general optimisations and not Panda specific, so what I really need to know is what panda 4.0 has picked up on.
-
Thank you for your comments Lee. I agree that it is a bit media heavy as this was the request when the site was built, we could do with altering it really so that there is just the video or just the slider. The disavow was done well after the rankings drop so I doubt it will be the case.
-
I took a quick look at the site and agree with Lee. The content is good, could be a little thicker but that is probably not the problem.
Just tossing something out... a lot of space is given to huge images, huge whitespace, huge video, huge navigation.... So much that the first word of content is 800 pixels down on the content pages and over 1000 pixels down on the homepage.
So, I am wondering about two things.... 1) are people not going down to look at the content and instead bouncing? 2) are search engines seeing no content in the first thousand pixels and giving you a demotion.
Finally... and I am just saying this, knowing nothing of the business in specific, but being a person who has spent a long life in very intense athletics. Between ages 15 and 45 I would have been one of your best clients. Now, decades later, I am still someone's client, but not a client that matches my first impression of your website. So, if your biz matches the images on the website then you have no need to change. But, if your potential clients are below that intensity then they could be bouncing off of the website, in search for something less rigorous. The images are much higher than my impression of "physical wellbeing".
Maybe you have heard this famous quote that I read in a climbing magazine decades ago.... "The demands of the sport attract a certain type of person.... but at the same time severely limit its appeal."
-
Whilst it is possible that Panda had something to do with your ranking drop I don't think so looking at your site. You have well structured text although it could certainly be thicker on your main pages. Your homepage current has 264 words including headers. Understandably it is challenging creating 100% unique content that is actually high quality whilst being a good length to optimize for Panda.
I would say that where you have disavowed links it is possible that you have disavowed some links which were in fact helping your ranking as opposed to hurting it. This has happened to a number of my clients and the solution is simply to work hard a building natural links.
Alternatively, your homepage is very media heavy (despite being well optimized for page speed). This wouldn't explain such a dramatic drop but it would certainly improve your rank as well as your bounce to bring that load time down. Sliders and videos on the same page even with deferring the JS still add a large data load. Yoast explains this better than I could.
Hope this helps!
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
-
50% drop in search, no changes to site over 2 days, no notifications, A rank...
My URL is: http://applianceassistant.com
Algorithm Updates | | applianceassistant
With no changes to my site, I suddenly experienced a huge drop in search queries on Aug1. Your company has still given me an overall rating of A. I just thought you may be able to help or be interested in my case due to it's strange nature. Due to some suggestions on the webmaster forums, I have disavowed all low quality back links to the site, and I am currently working through each page trying to make the key words a little less spammy. Here are some screen shots of the action...
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-WgXUf-lvUyg/U-nrWNgspPI/AAAAAAAAAEI/imoI190LUns/s1600/Analytics_081214.tiff
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-srmvn288rr0/U-pxlwoycVI/AAAAAAAAAEg/ckmyX_2Sl_Y/s1600/PAGES_AUG.tiff
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DVCYxhkutbQ/U-pxpQVfYfI/AAAAAAAAAEo/MN9PiLFT-zs/s1600/pages_july.tiff This appears to be almost a 50% 2 year set back. Any ideas or suggestions are greatly appreciated0 -
How do I figure out what's wrong with my site?
I'm fairly new to SEO and can't pinpoint what's wrong with my site...I feel so lost. I am working on revamping www.RiverValleyGroup.com and can't figure out why it's not ranking for keywords. These keywords include 'Louisville homes', 'Homes for sale in Louisville KY', etc. Any suggestions? I write new blog posts everyday so I feel there's no shortage of fresh content. I'm signed up with Moz Analytics and Google analytics
Algorithm Updates | | gohawks77900 -
With MATT telling PR gone which factor tells now site is good
MATT CUTTS in his like second last video told the world.Guys turn off PR in your Browser.If PR is no longer have value than what an SEO professional needs to know is the site good or bad. 1.Domain authority. 2.alexa 3.SEMRUSH rank 4.compete. So guys need your advice about it.
Algorithm Updates | | csfarnsworth0 -
Implications of removing all google products from site
Is there any data on the implications of removing everything google from a site; analytics, adsense, webmaster tools, sitemaps, etc. Obviously they still have their search data and they say they dont use these other sources of data for ranking information but has anyone actually tried this or is there any existing data on this?
Algorithm Updates | | jessefriedman0 -
Javascript hidden divs, links to anchor content
Hello, I am working on a web project that breaks up its sections by utilizing hidden divs shown via javascript activated through anchor links. http://www.janandtom.com/ First question: Is this SEO suicide? I have confirmed that the content is being indexed by searching for specific text but have been led to believe that hidden div content will be afforded a lower 'importance'. One suggestion has having the text as display:block and then hiding it on page load. Will this make a difference? Second: Is there any way to have Google index the anchored content by the specific anchor text? An example for the second question: If you search google right now for: buyers like to look at floorplans Tom & Jan You will get a link to: http://www.janandtom.com but I would rather it be: [http://www.janandtom.com/#Interactive Floorplans](http://www.janandtom.com/#Interactive Floorplans) Sorry if this is redundant or addressed before. I tried searching the questions but wasn't getting and definitive direction to go and this project is a little unique for me. Also, I'm just getting my feet we into this 'high-end' seo (new member of SEOMoz) so please bear with me. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | MASSProductions0 -
Lesser visited, but highly ranked landing paged dropped in rank on Google. Time for a content update?
I noticed that my page one ranked landing pages that don't get a lot of love from me have dropped in rank big time on Google this week. This is a site that has static (meaning, I can't freshen up the content easily) landing pages for products that we sell. The pages that dropped are the ones that have the fewest inbound links, and don't get much attention on the social media side. Our most important landing pages have also dropped, but just a few spots on page one. This is a first for me. Does anyone think that this is a "lack of freshness" penalty? We are still number one on page one for our brand search terms. Would fresh content give me a shot at getting the pages back up? I'm willing to update them slowly, but before I go crazy, I'm reaching out to the pros here.
Algorithm Updates | | Ticket_King0 -
Can you help with a few high-level mobile SEO questions?
Rolling out a mobile site for a client and I'm not positive about the following: Do these mobile pages need to be optimized with the same / similar page titles? If we have a product page on the regular site with an optimized title like "Men's Sweaters, Shirts and Ties - Company XYZ", should the mobile version's page have the same title? What if the dev team simply named it "Company XYZ Clothes" and missed the targeted keywords? Does it matter? Along the lines of question 1, isn't there truly just one index and your regular desktop browser version will be used for all ranking factors on both desktop and mobile SERPs? If that regular page indeed ranks well for "men's sweaters" and that term is searched on a mobile device, the visitor will be detected and served up the mobile page version, regardless of its meta tags and authority (say it's on a subdomain, m.example/.com/mens-department/ ), correct? Are meta descriptions necessary for the mobile version? Will the GoogleBot Mobile recognize them or will just the regular version work? Looks like mobile meta descriptions have about 30 less characters. Thanks in advance. Any advice is appreciated. AK
Algorithm Updates | | akim260 -
Large site with faceted navigation using rel=canonical, but Google still has issues
First off, I just wanted to mention I did post this on one other forum so I hope that is not completely against the rules here or anything. Just trying to get an idea from some of the pros at both sources. Hope this is received well. Now for the question..... "Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site:" Gotta love these messages in GWT. Anyway, I wanted to get some other opinions here so if anyone has experienced something similar or has any recommendations I would love to hear them. First off, the site is very large and utilizes faceted navigation to help visitors sift through results. I have implemented rel=canonical for many months now to have each page url that is created based on the faceted nav filters, push back to the main category page. However, I still get these damn messages from Google every month or so saying that they found too many pages on the site. My main concern obviously is wasting crawler time on all these pages that I am trying to do what they ask in these instances and tell them to ignore and find the content on page x. So at this point I am thinking about possibly using robots.txt file to handle these, but wanted to see what others around here thought before I dive into this arduous task. Plus I am a little ticked off that Google is not following a standard they helped bring to the table. Thanks for those who take the time to respond in advance.
Algorithm Updates | | PeteGregory0