Anyone hit rencently by Google or Yahoo?

I agree with Shoemoney, it's more about ranking for monster terms on pages that don't deserve those rankings than anything to do with co-op.

When you start getting 10-20k unique visitors in some money making industry, you better make sure your site has the best content out there, otherwise like Shoe said, you'll be dropped in a heartbeat, co-op or no co-op.

 

What do you guys think about co-op's experimental "charity" site that dropped from #18 in Google to nowhere?

 

What about it?

 

I think that coop should be looked at as what it's labelled as, an Advertising Network. If you get some great rankings out of it, cool ... if not then not. According to Google you shouldn't do anything for the sole purpose of gaining SERP positioning. If you base your whole online advertising strategy on the coop, then I think you need to look at your strategy and see what else you could do or do better.

 

That's really not answering his question, though, is it?

Whatever changes you are seeing with your site(s), it is almost certainly not an issue with the Coop for reasons I stated earlier.

 

If you look at it from this standpoint, how can it be a spam technique?

 

The issue isn't what YOU think it is.

The question was could it be that Google considers it that way and is penalizing it and that that is an explanation for the current flux in Google's results.

And the answer is No. There is no evidence to support either suggestion.

 

There is no evidence, sure. So why don't you tell him why exactly happened what has happened.

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=32672

More specifically, here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=32672&page=61

And on two or three other ongoing threads here at DP.

 

I don't see where those threads (100+ pages total) would relate to exactly the situation provided by the first poster. You were mentioning your sites in here earlier. Your sites have been indexed for a long time with many natural IBLs as well as countless 1 way links from forums. Those links have pretty much grown naturally over years. The guy who has started the thread is relying on coop, link exchange as well as links he's purchased. And the site is new. There is a difference between gaining credibility and targetting keyterms, even though both go hand in hand. For example: if you started a thread on DP linking to 100 bad neighborhoods in your first post, would that knock DP out of Google? Of course not. The foundation is far too strong. When looking at your sites, yes ... I do believe the coop gives it the extra push, but the point is that you're not relying on the coop alone. My question to the first poster would be where he's getting the bought links from, what kinds of pages and content surrounds them. PR3-PR8 doesn't tell me anything. You are oversimplyfying what Google is doing. It's a little more complex than that. Relying on link exchange and an ad network alone is IMO not enough to give you credibility to rank for major terms. Like Shoemoney says, when you gain monster terms, you will be scrutinized a little bit more and may get penalized for things other sites are not. If you're looking for an easy answer, there isn't one. Not in the 100s of pages where most members illustrate their own situations which can't always be compared to each others. My advice for the first poster would be to stay in the coop or get out, either way, but forget about link exchange and focus on getting natural or natural looking IBLs from related sites.

 

You're missing the point. The OP said:

I said there's no evidence to support that - i.e., that Google considers it spam and is penalizing Coop links.

That has nothing to do with my sites specifically or with your opinion, or anyone else's opinion, as to whether Coop links are good, bad, or indifferent. The question is what Google thinks. Here and elsewhere I and others have pointed out that there is no evidence to support the suggestion that Google considers Coop links spam or is penalizing such links.

 

The question remains what happened to the sites. That's what I was trying to get at. This thread is about his individual site and why it "got hit".

 

Thanks for so many suggestions,

One thing I want to clarify is , our websites age is 1 year,1.5 year, 2 years and 3 year 9 months, I do not agree these still considered new websites.

The 3 year 9 months website has had very good ranking for more than 3 years, besides purchasing high pr link, co-op is the only offsite seo method we use in last 6 months, we do not use link exchanges for it.

By the way, this website does not have the co-op links on it, we join co-op with another PR 5 website and use the weight to add links for it.

 

That might depend on how you define "rencently"... I couldn't find a good definition in my dictionary...

 

I just checked again on "Ranking Experiment"
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=15507

www.uccf.org no longer in first 1000 results in google on keyword "Charity"

 

First off, there's an update going on. It's not in the results today buy may very well be tomorrow.

When the test started uccf was at #137 - it climbed as high as #18 (or #8?) if I remember correctly.

The index of the site is horrible in terms of seo. Here's the cached text only.

The whole point of the test was to see if rotating anchor text links have any influence in Google. I would say they do. Without a drop of on page optimization the site climbed over 100 positions.

Will be interesting to see where the site is at when this update is complete.

 

I do not think google has applied all backlinks yet. I think that is the purpose of them rolling out a backlink update per cutts blog. To finish up the update.