Rae Hoffman

Google Puts the Smackdown on Sugarrae

by Rae Hoffman on December 19, 2007 | Rants in Bitchland

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my feed or subscribe to me on Twitter, which is updated on a more frequent - and more meaningless - basis.

This is a tough post for me to write, but I’m going to write it because it should serve as an example. Let me first give you a little history. Picture it (kudos to anyone who got that intro)… I wasn’t always known as Sugarrae online… I switched to the nickname in March of 2005 and bought the domain.

I threw up a single page that was totally vanilla (meaning no design for you newbs) with a few links to my fave places and a few pics. If it even had ten links going to it, I’d have been shocked. I had a personal blog that I’d been blogging in for several years and had no interest to have a second one. When I became a moderator at webmasterworld (which I knew was happening a bit before it was officially announced) I was informed I’d have to list my site url in my profile.

At that point, I figured, why not launch a real site on the sugarrae.com domain (incidentally, a few months before, due to a shitty host, I lost my entire personal blog - shut up, I am now the *queen* of backups, lesson learned). So, in February of 06, the doorway came down and the new Sugarrae blog went up. Within two weeks, it was flooded with inbound links in part to friends linking to me from their own sites and in part from an interview I did with YPN. I had also redirected my then/now defunct personal blog to Sugarrae, along with a few vanity domain names (i.e. raehoffman.com).

When it launched, it was on Expression Engine, which I later found out was a complete nightmare in regards to SEO, so I then moved it to wordpress. I also put up a magazine style homepage and moved the blog to the root. This past summer, I decided to get rid of the magazine style homepage and move the blog back to the root with the main blog on the homepage again.

The point of giving you all that history was to partially let you in on how Sugarrae evolved. I posted some stats on the blog’s first birthday and rest assured that the numbers/increases are much higher now. The other part is to let you know that I changed url structures… a *lot* over the almost two years the blog has been open as well as had several *legitimate* redirects to the Sugarrae site.

It was a few months in that I noticed the blog didn’t “act” right in the Google serps. I wasn’t ranking for things I should have been ranking for (as in very peculiar queries that had exact matches on my blog - not mainstream terms). Something was wrong. So, way back when, I went, privately, to some of the biggest names in this industry because it was driving me nuts and I figured I was too “close” to see the problem.

The responses I got ranged from “you need more content”, to “you need more trust”, to “you need more time”, to “maybe the personal blog redirect is getting you caught in some filter” to “you’ve recently changed url structures, give Google time to sort it out”. Deep down, I knew none of these were the issue.

But, I now have more content, I (should) have trust, I’ve waited, all redirects, including the vanity ones, were removed a long while back (I didn’t want to leave anything untried) and Google has had more than enough time since my last url structure change in the summer to “figure things out”. And the site still doesn’t act right.

So now I am going to state the obvious - what I’ve known for a long time - and give you the evidence that supports this conclusion. Additionally, since it’s undeserved, I am going to officially put my face on the poster for the often referred to “collateral damage” (because I am going to assume that this is in no way a “personal thing” between me and Google and that it’s a result of getting caught in some filter).

The Sugarrae website is penalized, devalued - whatever the hell you want to call it. Google has given it the smackdown.


It’s photoshopped people

Before I present my exhibits of evidence, let me first explain that the Sugarrae website currently has over 20K backlinks. And if you look through them, you see that I certainly am not, on a sane planet, lacking authority or trust in regards to those backlinks.

I do not now, nor have I ever sold links (though it would be easy to confuse that and make the wrong decision) - and since my toolbar PR is fine and has not been destroyed as some other people’s have - I don’t think that is the culprit anyway. This penalty, devaluation, whatever, has been going on long before the idiocy of trying to identify unidentifiable paid links.

I certainly don’t buy links for this site, spam in any form for this site or anything else that would be considered shady. The redirects originally put towards this site were domains I owned that ranked for “rae” - it isn’t like I changed topics (and remember, those redirects have been removed for over six months anyway). The *only* questionable thing this site does is that it has text under the top navbar graphics and the logo that are word for word what is said on the image itself. Not a single alteration. Now, according to the former comments re: hidden text via css, supposedly, according to Matt:

I’m not saying that mouseovers or DHTML text or have-a-logo-but-also-have-text is spam; I answered that last one at a conference when I said “imagine how it would look to a visitor, a competitor, or someone checking out a spam report. If you show your company’s name and it’s Expo Markers instead of an Expo Markers logo, you should be fine. If the text you decide to show is ‘Expo Markers cheap online discount buy online Expo Markers sale …’ then I would be more cautious, because that can look bad.”

So, assuming Google isn’t instituting insane filters that are grabbing text underneath my images that contain no “keywords” and penalizing me for them with no discretion or intelligence (”me see hidden word, me penalize site”), then that shouldn’t be the problem either. And assuming Google knows its head from its ass in regards to redirects, the changes in url structure shouldn’t be an issue either. And I’d hope that Google can tell the asshole on the .net of my domain (get in line to yell at me for not registering it) is not the original.

So now you might be saying to yourself:

Ok, Rae, we get it. Your site is an authority in the niche, it has trust, it doesn’t do anything it’s not supposed to… what, you whining because you’re not ranking for “seo blog”?

No. when I say I don’t rank for things I should, I mean the hell out of it. Here we go:

link experts sugarrae - all five sites ranking above me are linking to me… additionally, by default, having sugarrae - a made up word - in the query and not having my site return as the number one result is insane.


monkey balls seo - now, even if you buy that themadhat (love you Aaron) should rank above me for that term in spite of being a younger, less linked to site (he did post it first after a twitter message about it), there are two scraper sites (who scraped *my* site, and not Aaron’s) ranking above me and two video game sites that don’t have the phrase appear as exact match on the page.


google face of evil - I could buy the sites appearing above me, until you hit the scraper site (again, scraping *my* site) right before mine.


shameless stuntie mybloglog - Note that stuntdubl’s site appears first with a scraper site underneath. Now repeat the search with omitted results included. Oh, there’s my site! Look, it is being considered a duplicate of stuntdubl’s page, even though the *less than one sentence* of duplication that appears on his page is a trackback from my site complete with a link back to me.


“a note to my fellow women of seo” sugarrae - I don’t think I even need to explain why this serp result is beyond fucked up for this query. And before you ask, yes, it is indeed indexed.


As most of you know, I’ve been linking to the troublemaking whore with whore in the anchor text for almost a year now. I’m guessing that you finally understand why we’ve been doing it now. So get this…

outing people for taking naps during the day whore - I don’t know how much more obscure you can get. Granted, this one is without quotes (be patient). Now, let’s ignore that fact that *I* am number 8 for this serp, even with exact query match. The whore himself doesn’t rank in the top 1000 for the query, even with an exact phrase match linking to him.


“outing people for taking naps during the day whore” - Now I’ve done the search with quotes (hey, at least now I’m number one) but take notice of the fact that I am the *only* result for this query.


Now we’ll stop, because if you don’t already get the point of the above two slides, you might need a little bit of knowledge to do so. When you do a search for rae hoffman you’ll notice that MFE Interactive is at the top of the second page. If you look at the cache, you’ll notice that the following phrase appears: “These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: rae hoffman”.

You should get now why only my site appearing for the outing phrase in quotes is a bit troubling since the outing whore has a direct link to his page. For whatever reason, Google is not counting my link to his page. Whether or not that is true of *all* of my links I have no way of knowing.

Ladies and gentlemen of the blogsphere… after the evidence presented here, one is only left to conclude one of three things:

1. Google doesn’t know its head from its ass

2. Someone at Google dislikes me on a personal level (again, we’re not going there, as I don’t believe this to be the cause, even though it must be listed as an option)

3. I’m penalized or devalued - collateral damage from some filter or whatever you want to call their “spam detection efforts”

Either way, it’s annoying as hell. I run a good site, that follows “the rules” (gag me, but it does), I get a lot of links, a lot of traffic - and I’ve been slapped by Google for no reason. I’m pissed off - not only because I don’t deserve whatever the hell is going on - but also because I’m smart enough to understand what’s happening when a lot of other people (meaning non search marketers) aren’t.

I’m guessing it is number three with a dash (ok, maybe a spoonful) of number one thrown in. Either way, we always hear about “potential collateral damage” from Google’s (sometimes warranted, sometimes insanely overzealous) crusades, but rarely see the faces of those who become it. The problem I have now is how to fix a penalty I didn’t do anything to receive and therefore have nothing to “fix”.

Subscribe to the Sugarrae feed | Follow Sugarrae on Twitter

Related Posts

Sugarrae runs on the Thesis WordPress Theme

Thesis WordPress theme

If you’re someone who doesn’t understand a lot of PHP, Thesis will give a ton of functionality that you wouldn’t be able to obtain otherwise with a simple control panel instead of having to alter code. For the advanced, Thesis has incredible customization possibilities via Thesis hooks.

For those "in between", like myself, I’ve created "dummy" guides for Thesis hooks that allow us to make more professional customizations than we ever deemed possible. The theme is not only highly customizable, but it has allowed me to run Sugarrae more professionally, with a much more targeted focus on monetization than it ever has been able to achieve before. You can find out more about Thesis below:

{ 5 trackbacks }

Eric Ward And Sergey Brin Are Best Friends And Why Google Needs Help
December 19, 2007 at 3:40 pm
links for 2007-12-24 | ChillyCool Web Digger
December 24, 2007 at 12:18 pm
This Month In SEO - 12/07 - TheVanBlog
December 28, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Link Building this Year | Wiep.net
December 30, 2007 at 5:58 pm
» Why This Blog is a Failure - John Andrews - johnon.com
December 31, 2007 at 5:58 pm

{ 65 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Cheap Web Hosting Phil December 20, 2007 at 1:03 pm

You certainly don’t rank well for “sugar rae” that what I tried to find your blog after my first visit. I did have more success with some combination of “sugar rae seo” or so I seem to remember. But you’re right you probably got punished in some way. It’s hard to determine though which one of the three conclusions it is. Can’t really exclude these by trial and error.

2 Gerard December 21, 2007 at 4:38 am

Exactly the same thing happened me on my music blog, and like you, I couldn’t figure out what the hell was going on. No major changes to the site structure, blog design or anything like that. Why, Goog, why?

Although I’ve got my mojo back now, the one thing that stuck out in my mind was the amount of divergent opinions I heard from SEOs and other ‘experts’ I spoke to. It’s made me a hell of a lot more wary of SEO advice in the blogosphere, I can tell you.

Seems most people’s knowledge of SEO is fine for optimizations, etc, but doesn’t follow through to penalties and how to overcome them.

3 randfish December 21, 2007 at 5:35 am

Another easy way to tell that this was a Google “false positive” penalty was the fact that you ranked #1 at Yahoo! and Live.com for all those queries. :)

BTW - Looks like some if not all the queries are now fixed. I suspect your blog is about to see a lot more search traffic. It’s just a shame that it took a blog post to get it fixed and Google couldn’t ID and control for the problem ahead of time.

I’m always reminded of the US principles surrounding criminal justice - “Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.” I hope that’s how Google does things, too, but I suspect that’s not the case. I think it was a recent Yahoo! paper on spam detection that said a less than 2% false positives for spam was pretty good… Imagine 2 out of every 100 sites being flagged for spam and penalized or banned being completely innocent - that’s losing a lot of good sites (considering how much spam is out there).

Great post, BTW, Rae - your command of search really shines through.

4 Jim December 21, 2007 at 10:29 am

Dear Rae,

How about you post once a week about some poor site in the same condition as yours was?

Maybe Matt Cutts can personally fix them all :-)

I have a site ranks #1 on Yahoo, Live, Ask but with Google it’s just lost.

signed,
stuck in Google hell

5 markus941 December 21, 2007 at 2:14 pm

@SEO Bozo Box: You owe Rae an apology.

Matt comes in, saves the day, & vanishes back into the night without an explanation. Someone should get him a Spiderman suit - red OR black.

6 SEO Bozo Box December 21, 2007 at 2:55 pm

“@SEO Bozo Box: You owe Rae an apology.”

Did you read my previous posts? It is good to see others don’t read stuff also.

Observation: Notice how “rand” only appears in popular places? That is great marketing! Hi rand, love you! :)

Funny link by Eric, haven’t been following this soap opera, don’t really care why people do or do not like him, my hunch is jealousy… yes? He ranks for everything, that I did look at! ;)

Again sorry to Rae for not observing Google’s old broken algortihm thing, I was actually trying to help figure it out for you but got lost in the drama. ;-(

Let’s see if you can now rank “Link Development”.

Peace & Love

Rae Hoffman 7 Rae Hoffman December 21, 2007 at 6:02 pm

>>>red or black

LMAO.

8 Brian Turner December 23, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Rae, I’ve no idea if you accidentally hit an algorithmic filtering process (ie, sandboxing) that the links from your post helped kick you out of.

However, I would advise of the notion of “linking to bad neighbourhoods”, because a look at the comments just on this post suggests you may be being targeted by a few comment spammers linking to low value sites.

2c.

9 Wrist Watches December 24, 2007 at 9:22 am

Something similar happen to me… Was ranking for some pretty good terms and swoosh, on one monday they were gone… oddly enough, the next day I started ranking on Yahoo for those terms I before only ranked well on Google.

10 john andrews December 25, 2007 at 6:34 am

Boy, it’s a good thing you know Matt Cutts personally. Otherwise, you’d have to suffer artificially supressed search rankings for your unique content, without any opportunity to address it.

I can’t help but accept that 2-5% of all web pages indexed by Google suffer similarly, and that’s just a number grabbed out of thin air. It could be worse, if that was necessary to enable TheAlgorithm to perform at any given time. And it’s not just “false positives” to consider, but false negatives as well. How else could Google operate?

So maybe the key is knowing your site? And knowing Matt Cutts, for those times when it seems Google wants to collect its taxes? Old skool is new school.

11 supaswag January 8, 2008 at 7:01 am

It’s a strange but wonderful world. Sometimes we get answers, sometimes we get a right slap in the good old face - but the quicker we move on, the more cherry pie we get. In the end. Good luck..

12 Paul Anthony January 8, 2008 at 9:19 am

..the ironic thing is that your site is pulling in serious interest in this, and as a result maybe you’ll be able to leave them in the dust. I hope the blogosphere continues to support, even if Google wont.

Rae Hoffman 13 Rae Hoffman January 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm

I only wish Google had been more responsive to what caused this after fixing it.

14 Eastshoeus January 16, 2008 at 12:05 am

Google is very unpredictable, I have a lot of sites, and Google keeps sandboxing sites for some time, that’s what I have noticed, but it doen’t last long, The longest period I had my site sandboxed is I think 2 months.

15 abhilash January 17, 2008 at 11:22 am

Rae, that was a hell of a post. and above all (command of search, penalty troubleshooting, knowing/not knowing google), i think it just goes to show that *no one* really wants to be on your shit list. Even Google showed up to clear the air. Please…Please just give me a chance if i ever end up on this huber-gnarly shit list of yours. Glad you straightened it out.

Also, i hope at some point you’re able to do a follow-up post with some feedback from G. I also know of a few innocent (really, i promise) sites that have been in this jam for an extended period, and google groups haven’t really solved the issue. it would be nice to see what was up over there.

Leave a Comment

Want to add a picture and social profile links to your comments here on Sugarrae.com? All you gotta do is be be logged in when commenting after filling out your user profile.

Not registered at Sugarrae? Register now!

Please note that by clicking submit, you agree to abide by the comment policy.