| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Livebooks and Goggle Ranking-Indexing Problems Revisited
Ron Vesely, Photographer
 |
Chicago Area | IL | USA | Posted: 1:03 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> It looks like some of us Livebooks users are experiencing issues similar to what went on in September, 2008. See: http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=30669
Also see the recent Livebooks suppprt forum: http://tiny.cc/m8o52
Anyone else experiencing issues like what is outlined in the Livebooks support forum?
Obviously, something has changed at Google affecting SOME Livebooks sites...
Searching under my name, for instance, has produced a number 1 return to my URL/site: http://www.vesphoto.com since 1996...
...Yet searching using Goggle today under my name beginning March 19th? My site/identity does not exist! Livebooks say's "it's a Google issue" (since I return well under Bing and Yahoo), yet as in 2008, there are more than a few Livebooks sites experiencing this issue. (Again, check out the forum link..)
I've done all the right things, per Google Analytics... registered, site maps, the whole nine yards... yet... I'm gone.. And similar to the 2008 issue, it's not about Goggle rank.. it's about even being found by name! Forget keywords here, nothing in my site title produces a return...
Livebooks has dealt with us with this recent problem as "having issues with our SEO, and to re-visit how we have it set up" or just to "wait it out, most likely you will come back as high or higher in the rankings".
But is it just a coincidence that other Livebooks users, all using DIFFERENT methods of SEO, are having this problem?
Anyone else having issues? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:09 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Although you're all over the search results, your http://www.vesphoto.com site doesn't come up on the first two pages. The semi-good news is that it does come up first when I search on the URL itself. So the site's still in Google's universe.
--Mark |
|
Ron Vesely, Photographer
|
Chicago Area | IL | USA | Posted: 1:22 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Mark-
Agreed, there is hope, obviously. But it was a dramatic fall off.. (like I mentioned, my name has produced a number 1 return to my site for 16 years).
And others (see the forum link) are experiencing similar issues. Very weird, to say the least. And disturbing too...
I'm just looking to see if other Livebooks users have noted similar problems. It's a good idea to check your search results regularly, since this is how I found the drop. Google Analytics produced a telling report, detailing from the date mentioned (March 19th) to current, the drop of significant keywords from the crawler results that only a week before (and for years prior) produced high ranking returns, such as my name... |
|
Derek Montgomery, Photographer
|
Duluth | MN | USA | Posted: 1:50 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Ron,
I am experiencing the exact same issue as you and it worries me. Searching my name yielded www.derekmontgomery.com as the top search result for the last year before this past month. I rely heavily on my web presence for my business and worries like this and the lack of Livebooks support on the subject is starting to make me think I need to invest in some other type of web site that is HTML-based and doesn't have to deal with these problems. Granted, it worked for a year and I've really had no complaints otherwise, but the consistent appearing and vanishing and reappearing and vanishing again is starting to take its toll on my confidence in the Livebooks system of SEO.
Hopefully this is just a temporary glitch and things will go back to normal. |
|
Martin Beddall, Photographer
|
Horsham | West Sussex | UK | Posted: 2:16 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Same here.
I had thought it was becuase I had redesigned the site with Livebooks, but now searching my name means my site doesn't appear. Previously it appeared second on the first page, now nowhere.
Has anyone from livebooks explained this? Frankly a waste of money if google can't find it. |
|
Ron Vesely, Photographer
|
Chicago Area | IL | USA | Posted: 2:37 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Another link on this issue...
http://tiny.cc/j9zht
If you are a Livebooks site owner and have experienced or are experiencing this problem, please speak up. |
|
James Escher, Photographer
|
Garden City | NY | USA | Posted: 2:51 PM on 03.28.10 |
| ->> I've experienced the same issues recently, and while I'm confident LiveBooks will address the issue their customers deserve better than for the company to simply point the finger at Google. When people pay thousands of dollars for a product they want results, not excuses. |
|
Dave Einsel, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Houston | TX | United States | Posted: 3:09 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Same thing hit me last week.
From the first week and over four years with Sitewelder, a search for my name returned my website http://www.daveeinsel.com as the #1 result.
They are a great bunch of folks and a good provider but I wanted better SEO so I switched to liveBooks at the beginning of this year. It's a custom site that I paid for a year ago but didn't move on making it live until this year.
SEO seemed to work better, ie., two weeks ago a search for "Houston Photographer" returned my site #2. Of course, my name returned #1. Then, suddenly it disappeared all together. I mean gone, like not on the first ten pages gone. Currently the search shows Sportsshooter, Photoshelter, Facebook, Twitter, Linkdin, etc.
I sent a note to Livebooks support and received:
"We have researched the issue you have reported with your liveBooks site and how it is ranking on Google. The changes you are noticing are due to changes that Google has made, and do not have anything to do with your liveBooks website.
We recommend that you continue to follow best practices in the Search Engine Optimization section of your site to insure strong ranking with all the Search Engines. This means making sure that you update your site content on a regular basis, and keep information & links current."
I find this completely unacceptable. I realize rankings change on a regular basis but my name is not "James Smith" and a search for my name should yield my site. liveBooks needs to be proactive with Google and transparent with clients to solve this issue.
I did send a request for reinstatement to Google with an explanation of what has occurred. We'll see what happens.
I would be curious to know if other host companies have clients that suddenly disappeared from Google last week because of Googles changes. |
|
Ron Vesely, Photographer
|
Chicago Area | IL | USA | Posted: 3:28 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Thanks for posting, Dave!
Last week apparently was "witching hour" for many of us, and I totally agree, Livebooks response has been 100% totally unacceptable (a totally cut and paste response...like talking to a telephone help desk).
Contrary to how we have been responded to by Livebooks "tech help", we are not a bunch of web/internet amateurs who "don't get it"...
I don't appreciate the lack of respect Livebooks has delivered, at least to me personally.
It's like they're not listening to anything we have to say. Too easy to blame Goggle.
Bottom line... some of us (my site is a pro site where I spend thousands...) spent BIG money with Livebooks... Now that something has developed that isn't easily fixed, it is convenient to blame our troubles on Goggle.
The more I dig, the more I find that the common denominator in this mess is Livebooks... not "keep links current, update your content, keywords blah blah blah..."
I'm guessing that Livebooks is totally bewildered by what has happened... But, as "keepers of our internet presence", they need to research the cause and come up with a solution... these Livebooks site related issues with Goggle aren't just a coincidence.
I just don't buy into Livebooks stance one bit... |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 3:36 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> It is funny how a company uses its positive SEO results as a selling point, but when something is amiss, they blame it on Google.
They either need to take credit AND responsibility for it, or stop using it as a marketing tool.
I have a Livebooks site, and I have to say I am very disappointed. If I had to do it all over again, I would not have used them. But I feel I am stuck.
As a company they treat you great, until you purchase.
Look at them now, they are selling a site for a monthly fee and they allow those people to have Wordpress on the Livebooks server. But for existing customers, we still can't do that. I have received e-mails saying it is coming, but no real date. If the new customers can have it, why can't the loyal customers have it.
Well because they need to capture the new customers. They already have us caged. |
|
Ron Vesely, Photographer
|
Chicago Area | IL | USA | Posted: 3:42 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Dave-
I suggest posting your exact status as you did here (which is identical to a tee to mine... especially when searching our names... how many Ron Vesely's and Dave Einsel's with a web presence like we both have are there in the internet world, as you mentioned???) on the Livebooks support forum. There are two current threads going on now as we speak...
http://tiny.cc/ll9h3 and http://tiny.cc/m8o52
Ron |
|
Ron Vesely, Photographer
|
Chicago Area | IL | USA | Posted: 3:45 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Mike-
You were one of those affected in 2008... Did the problem you had them come back at all since? Are you affected again now?
Ron |
|
Joel Hawksley, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Athens | OH | USA | Posted: 3:56 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Google has a habit of updating their ranking algorithm without warning, and it looks like Livebooks got the short end of the stick this time around.
Referring to Grover's excellent article on the Flash vs. HTML issue (http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2300), this doesn't come as a huge surprise. To quote from the article, "The search engines can easily index the text within a blog and make sense of it all." Grover also touches on the topic of "shadow sites," which are a touchy issue in the SEO world.
One aspect of this issue is what are often referred to as "Google Penalties," rules that, if broken, can wreck havoc to one's ranking. (Different from an all-out ban, another issue entirely, as Mark alluded to) In two summers as an intern doing SEO for a multinational corporation, I worked with consultants who shared some of the issues that can lead to this problem.
Two of the major "Google Penalties," that are *possibly* at work here are "Duplicate content," and "Hidden text/links." Both stem from a policy the consultants emphasized over and over: Never show Google anything someone visiting your site wouldn't see. Whether it be text the same color as the background or hidden/masked html content (in the case of LiveBooks), playing tricks with these is only asking for trouble.
You can read more about these guidelines at Google Webmaster Central. (http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769&topic=8...)
While Google has made great strides at indexing flash content, the fact remains that nothing beats well-written HTML when it comes to SEO.
The fact that this is such an issue shows how much we have come to rely on Google, and how the ranking of our online presence is now a crucial component of our businesses, especially for those who freelance. |
|
Ron Vesely, Photographer
|
Chicago Area | IL | USA | Posted: 4:13 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Two of the major "Google Penalties," that are *possibly* at work here are "Duplicate content," and "Hidden text/links." Both stem from a policy the consultants emphasized over and over: Never show Google anything someone visiting your site wouldn't see. Whether it be text the same color as the background or hidden/masked html content (in the case of LiveBooks), playing tricks with these is only asking for trouble.
Good information, Joel. Problem for me is that Google Analytics, which goes into great detail providing information such as this should it be a problem, doesn't indicate anything is amiss with my site, with the exception of the 75 "404-link not found" errors that the Google crawler found to my site (see original post)... an error report which I feel strongly has a lot to do with the cause of my site's issues.
Problem is, after I have addressed Livebooks about this finding and even sent them a downloaded copy of this data, they didn't acknowledge a problem exists or did they directly respond to my question as to HOW or WHY these errors could have been generated...
My take on this... Goggle see's some "errors" on the Livebooks end and has penalized some sites... but Livebooks doesn't acknowledge (at least publicly) that there is a problem on their end.
Anyone else use Goggle Analytics and can offer their findings? Anything unusual?
Frustrating... |
|
Joel Hawksley, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Athens | OH | USA | Posted: 4:29 PM on 03.28.10 |
| ->> Seems like a classic case of trying to bend the rules, in this case to make Flash sites more SEO compliant. I've been investigating ways of building friendlier non-flash sites for this reason. There are good uses for flash, but building kosher SEO websites with it seems to be a losing battle not worth fighting anymore. |
|
Matthew Ginn, Photographer
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 4:34 PM on 03.28.10 |
| ->> This explains why the traffic to my site dropped significantly around Mar. 19. I sure hope Livebooks is working on the problem: trying to figure out what changed, and coming up with a solution. |
|
Dave Einsel, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Houston | TX | United States | Posted: 4:47 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> No "duplicate content" (that I know of) and definitely no hidden links on my site. Basically, nothing has changed since going live except the addition of images and captions.
If some of the metadata fields in the liveBooks edit suite are causing "duplicate content", liveBooks needs to tell us.
If one of their servers got hacked, they need to tell us and assure us they are addressing the problem.
I am certainly no expert but I'm not an idiot either. I paid liveBooks a pile of cash and for that, I expect them to take the expert role and provide the service. |
|
Joel Hawksley, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Athens | OH | USA | Posted: 4:53 PM on 03.28.10 |
| ->> The "duplicate content" would be the HTML shadow site Livebooks employs for SEO purposes. Any links contained in such HTML would be considered hidden. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 5:23 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> My site was impacted in 2008, and did return after about 6 weeks of being off the grid.
It is impacted by the current "outage" as I have disappeared from Google search results for searches that I have been on page 1 for since 2005.
I returned to a day job in late 2009, so I am not as concerned about SEO as I used to be, but if I were still a FT freelancer, I would be pissed.
I am still mad that new Livebooks subscribers receive more product for less money.
For example, they can have editable pages. I have to provide a new PSD file if I want to change the link on a page.
They should offer all current users the opportunity to switch to the new platform/edit suite. If it wasn't for us using them and promoting them, they would not have grown.
I am telling everyone I can not to use them - try Clickbooqs or NeonSky.
I know that doesn't help those of us in the Livebooks life raft, but it will prevent others from climbing aboard. |
|
Joel Hawksley, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Athens | OH | USA | Posted: 5:24 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Mike-
For what it's worth, NeonSky fares even worse when it comes to SEO. |
|
Rich Addicks, Photographer
|
Atlanta | GA | | Posted: 5:56 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Same thing has happened to me.
This could be a huge issue for Livebooks, which up until now, has been good for me. It might be Google, as I was told, but Livebooks needs to take an aggressive approach in solving this problem, which is not isolated to a few. Otherwise, why have a Livebooks site?
Interestingly, if I search my name with Bing or Yahoo, I'm #1. I have since switched to using Bing for searches as a small protest, and am starting to view Google as the evil empire. |
|
Justin Edmonds, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 6:14 PM on 03.28.10 |
| ->> I'm also having this problem and am very disappointed with Livebooks response. What I find interesting is that a search for "Brad Mangin" and "Joe Morahan," both of whom have a livebooks site, yield their website as the number one result on Google. I'm anxious to hear other livebooks users findings with their sites because it doesn't appear to be a consistent problem. |
|
Derek Montgomery, Photographer
|
Duluth | MN | USA | Posted: 6:23 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Like I mentioned above, I am also having this problem. Referrals from Google dropped off the face of the map on March 18th. On Yahoo! and Bing, I am still the top search result when you look up "derek montgomery."
Like Justin said above, there are others out there with Livebooks sites not experiencing this problem. Steve Apps is one of those that still returns the top ranking.
I contacted Livebooks today about the problem and received a cut-and-paste response. I then followed up asking for a human to respond and was told by the livebooks person that they found my website when searching Google even though it does not appear in the first 25 pages and it's not worth it to look any further. My site does appear if you google "www.derekmontgomery.com" but who searches for people like that?
It's frustrating to dump thousands of dollars into a service promising great SEO and then when a problem arises they simply point the finger elsewhere. It's also puzzling that it affects some and not others, which would seem to me to be a Livebooks issue. Weird. |
|
Ron Vesely, Photographer
|
Chicago Area | IL | USA | Posted: 7:17 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> ->> The "duplicate content" would be the HTML shadow site Livebooks employs for SEO purposes. Any links contained in such HTML would be considered hidden.
Problem is, ALL of the Livebooks sites employ this method of using an HTML shadow.... doesn't explain why some (but more every minute) are experiencing this problem.
This problem is, IMO, much larger than Livebooks is making it out to be in their replies.
I am incredibly insulted by their responses, such as the one to Derek noted above... I think the best thing we can do now is KEEP SPREADING THE WORD and make sure anyone who Goggle's "Livebooks" finds out about our issues. Perhaps this wealth of negative (yet truthful and real) information might steer future customers AWAY from making the Livebooks choice. I can tell you right now, if I knew a year ago what I know NOW, no way!! In any case, at best it's a heck of a way to have to deal with problems to get something done...
Interesting thought, but the new rules in how Goggle is dealing with China... same time? Coincidence? New "things" in place because of this?
Or like Dave mentioned... did a server get hacked and used for "problematic purposes"? Wonder if our sites are related by server?
...you would think that Livebooks would have checked into that...
...I'm getting more frustrated by the minute. Like I have mentioned, I've had a web presence for over 14 years, and I have NEVER been unable to find my site when searching for my name, or any term in the "Title Tag". My name has ALWAYS been a number 1 return.
I've said enough for now...
Anyone who has a Livebooks site and is experiencing this problem, PLEASE speak up!
Contact Livebooks directly.
Participate in their forum discussions:
http://tiny.cc/ll9h3 and http://tiny.cc/m8o52
Be heard... |
|
John Harrington, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 11:38 PM on 03.28.10 |
->> Gentlemen -
SEO is something that I deal with EVERY DAY. If your SEO effort was a "set it and forget it" approach, then your links and spiderable content is now stale! Back in 2008, when the liveBooks folks went "off the grid" for a spell, everyone panicked and blamed them - after that, people blamed NeonSky when their sites went into SEO purgatory. It's akin to a "rolling blackout" as Google tweaks their algorithm to "better serve people". Who knows who will be next - which IP block, service industry provider, or type of business.
I wrote more about it on the blog if you're so inclined, here:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2010/03/google-seo-antics-revenge-of... |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 12:39 AM on 03.29.10 |
->> John,
Livebooks could share what they did in 2008 that restored the Google rankings. If they didn't do anythig, they should admit it that they were helpless to impact the Google rankings and should drop SEO results from their marketing because a Livebooks site per se doesn't mean higher Google rankings.
I think they have used that as a marketig tool, and these rolling blackouts point out that they have taken advantage of something they really have little control over.
At least as photographers, we would know this before we purchased the service.
I am hoping that when people google Livebooks this thread and the 2008 thread appear so people know before purchasing that the high Google rankings is pretty much a coincidence for Livebooks, not something they have done specifically.
If it was something they have done - or corrected in 2008 - they would be able to provide a real answer.
Your blog posts in now and in 2008 seem to ignore the fact that Livebooks markets itself as SEO friendly.
After how many rolling blackouts do you acknowledge that despite their marketing, that site providers don't have as much input on Google rankings as many of them claim.
I like the disclaimer on your site that Livebooks advertises on your blog. I would suggest that you also place it on any forum posts. I think people need to know that income from Livebooks may influence how easy you have been on them. You almost blame photographers in your posts and fail to point out how Livebooks uses high Google rankings as a marketing tool when they don't control it. To me that is like claiming credit for the snow in the winter. |
|
Harrison Shull, Photographer
|
Fayetteville, WV | Asheville, NC | | Posted: 9:06 AM on 03.29.10 |
->> Interesting... I am a new Livebooks client for two independent websites. I checked my name's ranking at Google and I am not having these issues that many are having. I am still #1 in the results but I did notice something interesting.
When you set up your SEO you typcially type out a short little blurb in the "meta description" box about what your site is that appears in the listing at Google.
When I search for my name at Google, I come up as the #1 result but the text below the clickable link reads -
"Get Flash Player now. Click here to view the HTML version of this website. © Harrison Shull 2010 | Site Map | Shullphoto | Powered by liveBooks."
When I search for the URL which is how I get all my photo credits to appear and is an amalgalm of my name, the text reads -
"Shullphoto meets all your adventure sports, outdoor travel, lifestyle, landscape, environmental, and aerial image need from its base in the heart of the ..."
Any clues as to why this anomaly occurs? Both searches are indexing the same URL at Livebooks. |
|
Scott Holstein, Photographer
|
Tallahassee | FL | USA | Posted: 9:16 AM on 03.29.10 |
| ->> I'm having the same problem, Ron. Happened the week before last. |
|
Joel Hawksley, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Athens | OH | USA | Posted: 10:26 AM on 03.29.10 |
->> John,
You bring up a good point, which further emphasizes the need to have a blog wholly integrated in order to keep one's SEO from "going stale." FWIW, Google DOES spider Flash content now, albeit rather sparingly.
It looks like it was just another algorithm change, but Google has every right to decide how they do their rankings, whether or not it negatively affects the traffic to our sites. |
|
John Harrington, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 11:00 AM on 03.29.10 |
->> MIke -
As I said in our back-and-forth in the comments -
---
>>>Of course they use that as a marketing angle - because they're focused on it and good at it. There are other providers who don't care, and waste opportunities. Further, back in 2008, as now, a small percentage of liveBooks users are experiencing this problem - not everyone! So, that in and of itself should illustrate that the issue isn't in the liveBooks coding/SEO-handling, but in other factors.
LiveBooks (so too Haggart) can take credit for not only realizing the importance of SEO for photographers, but in giving photographers access to the metadata coding (i.e. being able to assign title tags to images, and so on) without having to know code, and having the information updated on the fly as you change images/etc. I know that not only are there other providers who don't give you that access or care about SEO, but don't even understand it.
---
Further, there's a big difference the notion that "site providers don't have as much input on Google rankings as many of them claim", and a site being "google friendly." NO ONE outside of Google has ANY input on Google rankings, but you can design your site to be easy for Google to spider, and that takes a lot of work and focus - just ask the boys here at SS and in PhotoShelter - they spend a lot of time making sure that sites/pages/images are as SEO-friendly as possible.
And to your point about my disclaimer, since I posting a few parts of my whole blog post and then linking to it, I knew that any reader would see the disclaimer in the blog post. Yes, liveBooks advertises on my blog - and if anyone did the math on that vis-a-vis my stated traffic and what I charge for traffic, you'd see that it's a nominal amount of revenue, at best, and surely not enough to influence me. However, out of an abundance of caution and to avoid any suggestion that I am biased, I did disclose it.
Lastly - as I said - SEO isn't a "set it and forget it" deal, and if all liveBooks customers were having this problem, I'd be much much more inclined to find fault with their code/methods over blaming the photographer. I'd like to blame/flame Google, but that's like throwing pebbles at Godzilla. |
|
Joe Morahan, Photographer
|
Denver | Co | USA | Posted: 11:32 AM on 03.29.10 |
->> After reading through this, and a few of the other threads I checked out my livebooks websites.
My name (Joe Morahan) showed my website first. My girlfriend who bought her website the same day I did, and has been doing the exact same sort of SEO and keeping things fresh...her website has been lost by google.
She has always ranked #1 for her name and now, you can't even find her website.
Something happened. We both try very hard at the SEO...blogs, updates, descriptions, and keywords. Not sure what has been going on at livebooks, but I would think twice before ever recommending them to a friend.
And what happened to the wonderful customer service they use to provide? |
|
Allen Murabayashi, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 12:03 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> when any company claims to have good SEO, what they have really done is addressed the on-page factors for SEO (e.g. different page titles on every page, captions in the images, etc). afaik, in 2008, Livebooks spent lots of time and resources to build out the mirror sites in HTML to compensate for the lack of Flash indexing by Google. if Google has indeed changed the algorithm for handling mirror sites, then it's unrealistic to expect an immediate fix. Google holds their cards very close to their chest, and as such, Livebooks would have to do a fair amount of investigation and experimentation to figure out how to rectify the problem. (Whether you think their response is adequate/appropriate is a different issue.)
The "problem" with the on-page factors is that it only accounts for about 15% of the total weight. backlinks and anchor text account for about 40% of the SEO weight.
mangin still ranks #1 because he has built a tremendous number of backlinks (links to his website), and continues to do so. more importantly, he doesn't only rank #1 for his name, but for a generic term like "sports photographer." after all, the point of SEO is unsolicited visitors -- people who don't know who you are, and search for your products or services.
if part of your website strategy doesn't include creating backlinks, you'll always be subject to minute changes in the indexing algorithms.
at any rate, the situation sucks. best of luck. |
|
Steve Apps, Photographer
|
Madison | WI | USA | Posted: 2:12 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> I guess you can now add me to this group. I have been reading this post and thinking how it much really suck to have you website fall off the earth. I checked this morning with google, and a search of my name gave me a number one ranking as it has for the past two years.
This afternoon I check again and it is gone. Three hours ago all is well and now you have to search steveapps.com to get my site.
I blame Derek Montgomery for writing in an earlier post that my site came up fine when you searched my name.
I guess I will wait with the rest of you to see what happens. |
|
Derek Montgomery, Photographer
|
Duluth | MN | USA | Posted: 3:20 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> Hey Steve. I'll take the fall for your web site. I'd send you some beer from this neck of the woods, but apparently you can't ship alcohol of any kind through the mail so my apologies until I'm back in Madison.
That being said, for any of you out there who experienced this back in 2008, did you return to your previous spot on Google and how long did it take? I'm hoping this is just temporary. |
|
Ron Vesely, Photographer
|
Chicago Area | IL | USA | Posted: 3:34 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> The "problem" with the on-page factors is that it only accounts for about 15% of the total weight. backlinks and anchor text account for about 40% of the SEO weight.
mangin still ranks #1 because he has built a tremendous number of backlinks (links to his website), and continues to do so. more importantly, he doesn't only rank #1 for his name, but for a generic term like "sports photographer." after all, the point of SEO is unsolicited visitors -- people who don't know who you are, and search for your products or services.
if part of your website strategy doesn't include creating backlinks, you'll always be subject to minute changes in the indexing algorithms.
Allen- Thanks for your input. I agree with your thoughts, of course... but just for an example regarding what's going on and how my site was performing prior to "the change" (forget searching by name) a few weeks ago, according to my stats, if someone used the search terms "baseball photographer"- Google rank #8, "sports photographer" rank #11 (not Brad's #1, but 11 is pretty good), "chicago sports photographer" #3... of course, by my name has always been #1. And I have a decent amount of back links too...
That said...... ???
Crazy... |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 3:43 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> Google has a reputation for "tweaking" their algorithms when they detect a wholesale abuse of their existing search algorithms. I have clients who disappeared totally. After a call to Google they were told they were doing something Google considers abusive. The definition of "abusive" changes arbitrarily, thereby making it impossible to know if what you are doing is going to work or not.
Anyone who's site disappeared is unknowingly doing something bad, in the eyes of Google. This happens, it seems, about every 18 months.
I had one client that was considering suing them over it. Sadly, there is nothing you can do about it, aside from paying close attention to trial-and-error SEO maximization results. |
|
Allen Murabayashi, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 4:22 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> ron,
google must have definitely altered something in the algorithm to have affected such a wide swath of livebooks users. fortunately, you haven't been removed from the index.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Avesphoto.com
you still have 208 pages indexed.
not to beat a dead horse, but in regards to links. here's a backlink analysis on your domain:
http://www.majesticseo.com/search.php?folder=&q=vesphoto.com
accordingly to this service (which I use extensively), you 59 backlinks from 35 domains. Here's brad's for comparison:
http://www.majesticseo.com/search.php?q=manginphotography.com
brad has 4007 backlinks from 1976 domains.
the guy who is #2 for "chicago sports photographer" has 730 links from 230 domains. you have fewer links but probably from "better" domains. i suspect that the alleged algorithm change has likely penalized your site, and that's why you've fallen from the 1st page. i say "penalized" b/c it seems unlikely that a non-punitive scoring change would have had such a dramatic effect on the ranking. |
|
Ron Vesely, Photographer
|
Chicago Area | IL | USA | Posted: 4:29 PM on 03.29.10 |
->> Thanks, Allen...
Telling stats... Looks like I'd better get that blog up and running asap!
Can only help... right? |
|
Derek Montgomery, Photographer
|
Harrison Shull, Photographer
|
Fayetteville, WV | Asheville, NC | | Posted: 12:48 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> My two sites were not affected yesterday.. but both are now gone from any google search.
Hope this settles out somehow. I am just six weeks into LB and none too psyched. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 1:44 PM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> I think Andy could run for office with the lack of information he provided with his answer. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 1:53 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> It might help to understand the nature of Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and set reasonable expectations of the various hosting companies.
SEO is a constantly changing competition between Google, which is trying to create the most relevant search results for its users, and the SEO "optimizers" who are, let's be frank, trying to game the system to give an advantage to their clients.
Whenever SEO becomes truly effective, Google changes its search algorithms to re-level the playing field. When that happens, the former beneficiaries of SEO will drop out of their former positions. And the game starts anew.
That will keep happening. It's the nature of the system.
--Mark |
|
James Escher, Photographer
|
Garden City | NY | USA | Posted: 1:56 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> http://forum.livebooks.com/people/andy_patrick
"99.95% of all liveBooks sites have NOT been affected by the current Google-related issue." -Andy Patrick, LiveBooks President & CEO
That statement is, at best, erroneous. |
|
Martin Beddall, Photographer
|
Horsham | West Sussex | UK | Posted: 4:07 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> Mark, wise words, but this isn't just dropping out of our former positions - it is these sites dropping out completely.
My blog appears, my other website appears, any comments on a blog either by me or about me appear, my comments on the livebooks forum about this problesm appears, etc, etc, all on google. My site is still indexed but to search my name, nothing.
I'm certainly learning more about SEO ( anyone like to help create backlinks to my site? ) but this has made me consider ditching a flash website ( not easy given the amount of money I've spent at Livebooks ). I had thought about this after reading Allen's previous examination into flash sites - but complacently thought it would never happen to me. Even if Livebooks can fix this - will it happen again in a few months?
I cannot afford that in this current and future climate. |
|
Martin Beddall, Photographer
|
Horsham | West Sussex | UK | Posted: 4:19 PM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> Ooops, it was Grover's post...the Vitale, Gruber, Mangin post.. credit where it is due |
|
Keith Simonian, Photographer
|
Martinez | CA | USA | Posted: 5:00 PM on 03.30.10 |
->> Did I read and interpret this correctly?
The CEO of livebooks states first and foremost.
"1. 99.95% of all liveBooks sites have NOT been affected by the current Google-related issue."
Then an employee of livebooks posts:
"Just to be clear, the .5 percent of users affected are those that have contacted us about their sites."
http://forum.livebooks.com/livebooks/topics/petition_livebooks_to_issue_a_s...
My interpretation.
The CEO says 99.95% you don't have a problem, because you haven't told us you have a problem.
That's certainly the mother of all assumptions. |
|
Luke Sharrett, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Washington | DC | United States | Posted: 6:42 PM on 03.30.10 |
| ->> For what its worth, I noticed this problem with my livebooks site in Late January. As of 3 days ago, my livebooks has magically reappeared at the top of my google listing. Go figure. |
|
David Bailey, Photographer
|
Flower Mound | TX | USA | Posted: 12:53 AM on 03.31.10 |
| ->> So why do so many stay with LB? In my opinion they appear to be overpriced for what they offer compared to others i.e. Creative Motion Deisgn or even a custom design. Throw in the ongoing problem of search engine placement and their seemingly lack of action, why? Is it because people have spent thousands to get up and running with them that they feel stuck? |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
SLC | UT | USA | Posted: 1:41 AM on 03.31.10 |
->> David,
Yes, we invested about $3,000 and we don't want to abandon that investment.
When it works, it is really nice.
And I think it looks nice, and is very easy to update and maintain.
What is frustrating is that as the company grows, they don't pay attention to the customers that have been loyal, and bought years ago.
The new monthly package web sites offer many more features - such as user-editable info pages and blogs - that the early adopters can't have - yet, anyway.
Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, we would like to have the issues addressed. We selected Livebooks because we thought it was a great company. We want to stick by them, but we also want them to recognize that we have been invested with them for 2, 3, 4 or more years. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
