Sphinn - Google Removes the Position 6 Penalty/Filter/Glitch

44
Sphinn It!

Google Removes the Position 6 Penalty/Filter/Glitch

Went Hot: January 29, 2008 - 7:58 am
Posted By: jeffquipp 522 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://sebastians-pamphlets.com)
Category: Google SEO

Whatever you thought it was, Google is in the process of removing it. Sebastian has the scoop on his blog ... Matt Cutts said it wasn't a filter, but rather a unexpected by-product by the sound of it. In any case, the FIX should be rolled out over the coming weeks.

Excellent scoop Sebastian!

14 Comments

Who Desphunn This (0)

Comments

from Sebastian 521 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Thanks for sphinning the good news, Jeff. :)

Related literature:
http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/016107.html
http://sphinn.com/story/24687#c29022

from jeffquipp 521 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Awesome find Sebastian. I guess everything is not always as it seems, but there usually is merit to observations of odd search results.

from Sebastian 521 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Yep, many of such observations and their discussions on forums resulted in accepted theories, or revealed facts that were confirmed by the engines later on. If only those threads weren't titled "penalty" before anybody knows what actually happens.

Crosslinking related position #6 stories:
http://sphinn.com/story/24687 (SEL coverage)
http://sphinn.com/story/24626 (Aaron Wall gets rid of his #6 positioning)
http://sphinn.com/story/25142 (#6 exists, but perhaps there's no penalty)
http://sphinn.com/story/25695 (It's a software glitch, Google rolls out the bug fix)

from Harith 521 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

In fact I sphunn it for two reasons:

- Sebastian's generous sharing spirit.

- Jeff's power in finding good stuff and detecting SEO-Babies :-)

from jeffquipp 521 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Thanks Harith ... hey, and don't forget my ability to predict Pat's losses. Though ... don't think its gonna happen this year :)

Sebastian ... maybe anytime someone finds this type of anomoly, they should just refer to it as an anomoly. Though, I suppose it gets much more attention when people dispute whether or not its a penalty huh?

from Sebastian 521 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

You're right. but from where I come from I feel way more comfortable talking about anomalies. As far as Google is involved, the indispensable attention is somewhat guaranteed. ;)

from streko 521 days ago #

Votes: 2 | Vote:

+ -

Its no bug...

The position 6 is really where google is going to start organic listings in the within the next two years thanks to universal search.

1) Google Images
2) Google Base
3) Google Video
4) Google Knol
5) Google News
6) Regular Listings...

from aimClear 521 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

@ streko: Google doesn't make much money from organic results....the future is inevitable. BTW, wasn't it Sebastian who gave Aaron Wall shit because this filter was not real?

from streko 521 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

as said once again. All your base are belong to google...
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9749/allyourgoogleab7.jpg

from Sebastian 521 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

Marty, 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 for pages that should rank better across the board) 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. 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 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.

from johnandrews 521 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

People come from different perspectives, and Aaron Wall obviously approached this as an SEO researcher who sells advice and has a large audience for "how to" -- he considered over optimization as a potential factor and starting adjusting. That's what he's supposed to do, right?

And Sebastian is correct that some things take time to understand.... good pamphlets are not written in one day.

And others are correct suggesting that an "anomoly" is no different than a rule or penalty because Google is a black box to webmasters... we only have access to input and output so everything we see is a result of Google's bahavior, intended or not.

Depending on your perspective.

If you want to optimize today for profits, you act and re-act. If you want to understand for the long haul, you study and poke and prod and ask questions again and again. And if you work for clients, I suppose you have to backup your actions with plausible explanations such as an input-output model and references to "experts" whose trust profiles match your client's tastes.

Good job all around, methinks.

from seobook 521 days ago #

Votes: 1 | Vote:

+ -

My site that got hit had issues that were IMHO suboptimal, so I decided to clean up while it was hosed...when it came back I stated that I did not have a large test set but that is what I did. More as a guideline for comparing notes than as a conclusive proof of any sort.

I choose to have few clients because my own sites build nice equity and passive revs, but my site that got hit was actually a client website and I couldn't justify not fixing the issues I saw on his site. His site has come a long way, but unfortunately it still has a long way to go still to be best of class. I try to push the production of content but if I do all the writing across hundreds of pages there is not great ROI in that unless I own the site and get all the revs. :)

from IncrediBILL 521 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

At least it wasn't an actual penalty, never was, just like I said it wasn't ;)

Score:

1 - Common Sense
0 - Penalty Theories

from IncrediBILL 521 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

BTW, let's get the new conspiracy started and I want dibs on calling it the ROLLBACK PENALTY(tm) which is what everyone will call this change which now pushes down everyone that got a boost from the previous -6 thingy.