Comments on: Avoiding the well known #4 SERP-hero-penalty … http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/ If you've read my articles somewhere on the Internet, expect something different here. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:26:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: Sorry Aaron Wall - I fucked up http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1084 Sorry Aaron Wall - I fucked up Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:46:38 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1084 [...] somewhat sarcastic post “Avoiding the well known #4 penalty“, where I joked about a possible Google #6 filter and criticized the SEO/Webmaster community [...] […] somewhat sarcastic post “Avoiding the well known #4 penalty“, where I joked about a possible Google #6 filter and criticized the SEO/Webmaster community […]

]]> By: Sebastian http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1081 Sebastian Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:31:57 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1081 To set the records straight, I'd like to add a comment I left at <a href="http://sphinn.com/story/25695#c29122">Sphinn</a> where <a href="http://sphinn.com/story/25695#c29093">Marty</a> thought I was bashing Aaron Wall. Of course that wasn't my intention. <blockquote>I didn't "give Aaron Wall shit because the filter was not real". What I said is that I doubt that this is a filter or penalty. It just made no sense to me. A penalty for what? A filter to achive what? The "what" was still missing. We saw a symptom (mysterious #6 positioning across the board for pages that should rank better) without a somewhat plausible diagnosis. I didn't doubt that Aaron, Jim, Danny and all the others indeed spotted unreal #6 positions, I've checked a fair amount of those myself. Now we know that <a href="http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/google-removes-position-six-glitch-filter-penalty/">the #6 beast is a bug</a>, or an unintended side effect. Without Matt's announcement many would still think of it as a filter or penalty, and deal with it in a wrong way. <b>Deciding that an anomaly is a penalty or filter, whilst still analyzing it, leads to biased and therefore wrong assumptions.</b> That's what I've criticized. I hope that Aaron isn't pissed because of my somewhat sarcastic post and my comments here and at Sphinn. I've just used his post (inspired by his title bait), where he explained what he did to sail around the #6-bug, as a hook to criticize the methods applied by a huge part of the community.</blockquote> Aaron, if you're mad at me, please accept my apologies. And I'm not <a href="http://sphinn.com/story/24687#c29067">splitting hairs</a> either. There's a huge difference between bugs that get fixed eventually, and intentional actions like penalties and filters that affect particular optimization techniques in the long haul. To set the records straight, I’d like to add a comment I left at Sphinn where Marty thought I was bashing Aaron Wall. Of course that wasn’t my intention.

I didn’t “give Aaron Wall shit because the filter was not real”.

What I said is that I doubt that this is a filter or penalty. It just made no sense to me. A penalty for what? A filter to achive what? The “what” was still missing.

We saw a symptom (mysterious #6 positioning across the board for pages that should rank better) without a somewhat plausible diagnosis. I didn’t doubt that Aaron, Jim, Danny and all the others indeed spotted unreal #6 positions, I’ve checked a fair amount of those myself.

Now we know that the #6 beast is a bug, or an unintended side effect. Without Matt’s announcement many would still think of it as a filter or penalty, and deal with it in a wrong way.

Deciding that an anomaly is a penalty or filter, whilst still analyzing it, leads to biased and therefore wrong assumptions. That’s what I’ve criticized.

I hope that Aaron isn’t pissed because of my somewhat sarcastic post and my comments here and at Sphinn. I’ve just used his post (inspired by his title bait), where he explained what he did to sail around the #6-bug, as a hook to criticize the methods applied by a huge part of the community.

Aaron, if you’re mad at me, please accept my apologies.

And I’m not splitting hairs either. There’s a huge difference between bugs that get fixed eventually, and intentional actions like penalties and filters that affect particular optimization techniques in the long haul.

]]> By: Google removes the #6 penalty/filter/glitch http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1077 Google removes the #6 penalty/filter/glitch Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:50:58 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1077 [...] the great #6 Penalty SEO Panel Google’s head of the webspam dept. Matt Cutts digged out a misbehaving algo and sent it back [...] […] the great #6 Penalty SEO Panel Google’s head of the webspam dept. Matt Cutts digged out a misbehaving algo and sent it back […]

]]> By: Sebastian http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1074 Sebastian Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:13:04 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1074 Halifax SEO, it's not only unproven, it's an incomplete description of a possible malady. We've a symptom (lots of pages that all of a sudden get downranked to #6 or below), a few possible causes (more or less everything sailing under "not optimal"), but neither a proven correlation nor a medicine. At the moment it's possible that we're talking about a glitch, ranking anomalies, trust issues like devalued inbound links, or perhaps architectural flaws, stale copy ... but certainly not conspiracy. BTW, you should read <a href="http://www.seobook.com/google-ranking-6-penalty-filter">Aaron's other post asking for feedback on the #6 issue</a> too. Halifax SEO, it’s not only unproven, it’s an incomplete description of a possible malady. We’ve a symptom (lots of pages that all of a sudden get downranked to #6 or below), a few possible causes (more or less everything sailing under “not optimal”), but neither a proven correlation nor a medicine. At the moment it’s possible that we’re talking about a glitch, ranking anomalies, trust issues like devalued inbound links, or perhaps architectural flaws, stale copy … but certainly not conspiracy. BTW, you should read Aaron’s other post asking for feedback on the #6 issue too.

]]> By: Halifax SEO http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1072 Halifax SEO Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:55:41 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1072 So just an unproven theory? No one can say for sure if this is for real...conspiracy. Lol So just an unproven theory?
No one can say for sure if this is for real…conspiracy.
Lol

]]> By: Sebastian http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1070 Sebastian Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:49:02 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1070 Fair enough, I insult your cats, you insult mine. ;) Of course there's no such thing as a "minus six" penalty, Danny said it's "-5". :) Fair enough, I insult your cats, you insult mine. ;) Of course there’s no such thing as a “minus six” penalty, Danny said it’s “-5″. :)

]]> By: Sebastian http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1069 Sebastian Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:47:23 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1069 Paul, since the #6 or -5 penalty is just an unproven theory, we've no such thing as a proven method to escape it. I'd do the usual research: checking inbound link patterns, on the page factors, internal linkage, etcetera, and the competition ranking #1 - #5 as well. With a client's site in flux I wouldn't do systematic tests to find the cause by applying the single change, wait, analyze, repeat method. So if you find flaws, just repair them applying experience and common sense. Paul, since the #6 or -5 penalty is just an unproven theory, we’ve no such thing as a proven method to escape it. I’d do the usual research: checking inbound link patterns, on the page factors, internal linkage, etcetera, and the competition ranking #1 - #5 as well. With a client’s site in flux I wouldn’t do systematic tests to find the cause by applying the single change, wait, analyze, repeat method. So if you find flaws, just repair them applying experience and common sense.

]]> By: Paul-S http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1068 Paul-S Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:56:18 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1068 Strange that. i had someone phone me yesterday (thursday) who went on about the same thing ... #6 penalty ... he claimed his site had been part of this phenomenon. When I checked against the keywords he supplied he was #4 and still #1 ... he said that my datacentre wsa probably in pre #6 state. How do you reply to that. I took his email but have yet to reply. Strange that. i had someone phone me yesterday (thursday) who went on about the same thing … #6 penalty … he claimed his site had been part of this phenomenon.

When I checked against the keywords he supplied he was #4 and still #1 … he said that my datacentre wsa probably in pre #6 state.

How do you reply to that. I took his email but have yet to reply.

]]> By: TheMadHat http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1067 TheMadHat Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:23:52 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1067 There is no such thing as the #6 penalty. It's the "minus six" penalty. Your cat is causing it. It's the Google cat running around scratching your trust pole away. I haven't eaten all day, feeling a little swervy. :D There is no such thing as the #6 penalty. It’s the “minus six” penalty. Your cat is causing it. It’s the Google cat running around scratching your trust pole away.

I haven’t eaten all day, feeling a little swervy. :D

]]> By: JLH http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1065 JLH Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:26:00 +0000 http://sebastians-pamphlets.com/the-fictive-numeric-google-penalty-seo-hero-panel/#comment-1065 Why don't we ever hear from the people who's site that went from #6 to #1 mysteriously? Probably because they are busy in the same forum advising people on how changing their meta tags helped them become an authority within their niche last week. Why don’t we ever hear from the people who’s site that went from #6 to #1 mysteriously? Probably because they are busy in the same forum advising people on how changing their meta tags helped them become an authority within their niche last week.

]]>