How about a quick show of hands for those who have ever watched the epic 1986 animated feature film, Transformers: The Movie?
Dumb question. I can’t see any of your hands. This is a blog post. Duh. Regardless, if you haven’t, I suggest wasting 84 minutes of your time and enjoying a viewing of it.
Right now, you are most likely wondering what the point of my initial question and the title of this blog post have to do with each other. Follow along and let me explain. I promise it will be worth it.
Starscream: “Megatron?” Galvatron: “Here’s a hint.” — BOOM!
The beginning of the movie is basically one large, vicious battle between the Autobots and Decepticons. The Autobots are doomed until Optimus Prime shows up to “turn the tide” and battles Megatron one final time. Optimus and Megatron both become critically damaged and the tide turns for the Autobots. The Decepticons retreat to Astrotrain to fly off back to their home planet, Cybertron. Optimus Prime soon dies (yes I witnesses this movie in the theaters and held back tears) and Megatron gets tossed (along with many other damaged Decepticons) into outer space by Starscream along the journey back to their home planet.
Megatron and the other damaged Decepticons float off into space and meet the colossal planet consuming robot, Unicron. Unicron makes a deal with Megatron and gives him and the other damaged Decepticons new bodies and new names. Galvatron is born.
Obviously, Galvatron is still pissed at Starscream. Galvatron immediately flies back to Cybertron and arrives to witness Starscream’s coronation as the new Decepticon leader. Galvatron confronts Starscream, who looks confused, and asks, “Megatron?” Galvatron instantly transforms to his new gun mode saying, “Here’s a hint” and blasts Starscream, who then disintegrates and dies.
Now that is what I feel like doing to the authors of each new “How to recover from the <insert Google algo update here> Penalty” or when someone states “<insert Google algo update here> is a penalty.” I see this stuff daily and it drives me nuts. Nine times out of ten it is horrible advice. I honestly wish I had the ability to simply transform to Galvatron’s gun mode, yell “Here’s a hint,” and vaporize the stupidity.
For those of you that don’t want to waste 84 minutes watching the movie, you can waste 60 seconds and watch the clip I just spoke about.
Let’s Not Quibble Over Semantics
I say yes, let’s quibble. Without semantic explanation and definition we lack structure. Without structure we engage with chaos. When I say chaos, I mean disorder.
It really disturbs me when there are people who often scoff at the use of semantics as if they are too cool to follow some sort of logical meaning. When they do this, it reminds me of a hipster standing in line at some upscale coffee shop, with his skinny jeans on and key ring hanging off his one of his belt loops, trying too hard to be different while making a meaningless statement and overusing the word semantics because he is such a cool guy. Whew… Long sentence. Then suddenly, I realized how much I actually hate the use of the word semantics.
So yes, let’s quibble. I enjoy debate, especially when I feel strongly about my opinion and can back it up with justification. What are we quibbling about? Algorithm updates being called penalties.
Algorithm Updates Gauge a Domains Performance in the SERP’s
No. No. And no. For the last time, a search engine algorithm update is not, I repeat, not a penalty. Even Matt Cutts plainly admits this in his recent interview with Danny Sullivan at SMX. I can already hear people groaning because I mentioned something Matt Cutts said. That doesn’t mean I am telling everyone to follow everything he says. So get over it.
Think of a search engine algorithm update as a way to measure the performance of a domain. Much like how a coach evaluates his players. As your performance increases for the domain (or during practice), so should your rankings (or your playing time). As your performance decreases for the domain (or during practice), so should your rankings (or playing time). Simple analogy for this, but it does work.
Practice like you want to play. When I coached high school soccer (boys and girls) that was a common phrase I instilled in my players heads almost daily. It’s true. Why should a coach reward a player for being a slacker? Therefore, why should Google reward you with excellent rankings when your domain screams spam?
Search engines aren’t perfect and neither are we. There are mistakes and mistakes can be corrected.
My Rankings Decreased. Crazy Google Algorithm Update Penalized Me!
With every algorithm update there is a slew of people that start complaining that Google unfairly penalized them. Once again, they never penalized you. They saw you were underperforming and your rankings decreased for your keywords. Penalties are manual. Period. If you were penalized you would be suffering much more than losing some rankings and traffic. Ask JC Penney, iAquire, or Overstock.com about it. I’m sure they would love to waste time explaining that to you.
How about this? Look at a sport. Any sport. Let’s pick hockey in this instance. A player uses his stick to slash an opposing player. The referee sees it and gives the player a 2 minute penalty for slashing. The player broke the rules, got caught; now he must face the consequences.
What about football (soccer)? A player commits a harsh foul and receives a yellow card as a caution. They do it again in the same game and receive another yellow, which becomes a red card. They have now been ejected from the game. The player violated the rules and received a… (you guessed it) penalty.
Same goes for Google. They have their rules. If you break their rules, they have every right to enforce a penalty on you. When they enforce the penalty, it isn’t losing keyword rankings either. You aren’t performing to the coach’s standards, so it’s time to watch more of the game from the bench.
Don’t Complain. Do Something About It.
Before you point your index finger at the search engine, how about taking an analytical approach to figuring out exactly why your rankings have decreased?
- Do not panic. The world is not ending.
- Understand what the algorithm update targeted. The information is usually fairly public.
- Analyze data from your domain, especially data specifically targeted by the algorithm update. There are plenty of tools available to help you do this.
- Tackle the problem by creating educated hypothesis, not assumptions.
- Once you have a solid solution, implement it.
Conclusion
We as a community need to stop deciding how to interpret terminology by our own individual definitions. Those who do not work within the SEO inbound marketing industry already have a hard enough time understanding what we do. Why confuse them with so many different definitions of terms they already have trouble comprehending? There are solid definitions already in place. Use them.
This could not ring more true than with the subject I have just written over a thousand words on. Granted the first 300 or so were about Autobots and Decepticons, but not enjoying that is like saying a sad kitty isn’t cute.
Over the years I could not tell you how many clients have come to me scared to death because they have lost rankings. Then only to tell me how another “SEO” told them their domains loss of search engine visibility is due to the latest algorithm update and they are being penalized. That’s rubbish. Come on everyone, let’s get our crap together.
Feedback and debate is always welcomed. After reading this, what are your thoughts? Do you consider being targeted by an algorithmic update is in fact a penalization? Why? What do you consider a penalty should be labeled as? What would you rather be, an Autobot or Decepticon? Which Transformer would you want to transform into?
Feel free to leave your comments below or let me know them on Twitter or Google+.











{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Since you talked about me:
“When they do this, it reminds me of a hipster standing in line at some upscale coffee shop, with his skinny jeans”
I want to comment. I wrote about this few times already: DO SOMETHING. People always complaining are SO boring, and at the end, they don’t change a thing is this fcuked up world.
It’s good to bitch about it, sure, it’s even funny, but at the end of the day…penalizations, updates, whatever, Google is evolving, SEO is evolving, and you know what? THANKS GOD. otherwise everything in this life would be really boring.
ok, I’m gonna grab a coffee with my skinny jeans.
Ha ha. Doesn’t mean we can’t be friends right?
Thanks for the comment Alessio. You and I feel the exact same way. Stop the complaining and figure out how to fix your suck.
Now, as for the skinny jeans, I must get you some fashion help. :-)
Sorry to let you down, but I just want to remind you I am the one working for a fashion company.
And skinny jeans are totally ok. Really they are even semantically right.
You semantically trendy Italian hipster you.
Excellent read, Michael. I really enjoy your voice and style. I do like your take on the updates. Sure, it’s a “penalty” for one, but an “advantage” for the competitor… so right, is it objectively a ‘penalty’? No, as you state, G did some spring cleaning in ITS house.
I like your coaching analogy. In addition, webmasters must realize they are playing exclusively on one field… though we all bow to mighty G, perhaps some business models can do better on other fields? Or change the style of play from being so search-dependent to social media, PR outreach, guest blogging, etc.
I mos def would be an Autobot, discussing complex philosophical issues with Grimlock on the reg. I too, choked back snot and tears when Optimus passed.. but like Obi Wan he remained in spirit “arise Rodimus Prime..”
Appreciate the comment Anthony. Always appreciate what you bring to the table when you comment.
I believe you are exactly correct stating that “some business models can do better on other fields.” Tis so true. It’s all about changing up what you do in order to win the game. If you are losing when using one specific tactic, don’t complain. Change it up.
BTW, funny story about walking out of the theater. My mom picked myself and my older brother Matt up afterwards. She took one look at me, then immediately asked Matt what he did to me. He said “I didn’t do anything. Optimus Prime was killed in the movie.”
Thanks, Michael. I commented somewhere lately, discussing similar issues, and believe the notion of existing outside of G was labeled as “naive.” Hmm..so no business can ever exist outside of G these days?.. I think that’s kind of naive.
It’s funny some business models exist and flourish entirely…sacre bleu.. offline! I’m not saying you can’t augment a biz online obviously. It’s just that any marketing vehicle should be a ‘means’ and not the only one…
That’s a great childhood memory. Admittedly, I had to see ‘Return of the Jedi’ twice. The first time, my mom took me away crying because Jaba was scary and kinda reminded me of an old lady up the block..but I digress
Good read.
The “penalty” wording is interesting. Google isn’t judging you based on your content or your user experience with the Penguin update. They’re judging you based on links to a page.
To me – when I can copy content from a page than went from #1 to out of the top 100 and have the *new* page almost immediately rank at #9 with no links – that shows me that google is intentionally suppressing that URL, specifically. Not the content. Just that URL. If I move that page to a new URL, I’m fine. Everything else is 100% equal, minus the links pointing to teh URLs – it’s even still on the same domain.
That URL, to me, is penalized. There is a specific item in place within the algorithm that is reducing that URL’s performance because of links.
That is *exactly* what used to be done as a manual penalty – it’s just automated now. Because it’s automated, we’re no longer going to call it what it’s always been? Why?
I guess to be more clear…
I view an SEO penalty as a “If X, then reduce ranking ability by Y.”
Anything meant to hinder your ranking ability, manual or automatic, is what I would call a penalty. It fits perfectly with the definition – it’s a punishment imposed for breaking a rule.
Google only recently decided that “penalty” would ONLY refer to a manual punishment, and not an automated punishment.
I agree that semantics and meaning is important – but are we really supposed to let Google single handedly change the meaning of penalty to add “only manual” onto it?
Appreciate the comments Ian and thank you for reading. I truly do respect your insight and opinions, so it means a lot to me for you to add to this discussion.
Now… If we truly want to dissect the term “penalty” and use the definition as basis to compare towards decreased rankings after an algorithm update, then in a way, sure it works. But, is an algorithm update truly directed at finding sites to A) penalize because they are “breaking a law, rule, or contract” or B) is it measuring a sites performance based on the input and standards the search engine defines?
The answer is B. For the lack of a better word, a lot of people misuse the word “penalty” when their rankings suffer. They haven’t necessarily broken a rule, they have under performed to a search engines expectations.
If viewing an SEO penalty as “If X, then reduce ranking ability by Y,” then we would be saying “If a player doesn’t perform to X, then reduce playing time by Y.” A coach doesn’t “penalize” his players for under performing, they simply are not rewarded with the playing time they once received. When X receives a penalty, one simply cannot sub Z into the equation and make all better. X needs to increase their performance while Z has performed well enough to overtake it.
The main point I was trying to make with this was not to necessarily argue if Google automates some type of penalties as well as manually. It is to bring attention to the fact that there are too many people claiming penalization when their rankings decrease. Is their site still indexed? Is the URL in question still indexed and ranking? Are they still ranking for their brand name? If so, then it isn’t penalization. They aren’t performing well and aren’t receiving high rankings because others deserve the reward more.
I was very interested in the case study you wrote about in your first comment (I believe you ‘tweeted’ about it as well). To me, that seems like it wasn’t performing, so Google decided it didn’t need to rank for that term as high as it was. Since you could sub Z into the equation for X, and it began ranking, that shows me X wasn’t performing, especially if it was still indexed.
Google’s Webmaster Guidelines are rules. An algorithm isn’t. It is a set of metrics to measure performance. Maybe the algo helps to highlight or “red flag” under performers for further manual review to see if they broke the rules…
I’m always happy to add to discussions that are worth having :)
Now, I would be 100% in line with you if bad links had 0 impact, and not a negative impact.
I guess I might be missing clarity around your idea of a page’s “performance”. In your example, “perform to X” from an off-site/link perspective would be… having quality links?
In my test, my bad links took me from #1 to #100+.
When I remove those bad links by changing the URL, I go back to #9. When I add those bad links back by putting a 301 in place from the old to the new URL, I fall out of the rankings again.
Now, if Penguin moved me from #1 to #9, I’d completely agree with you.
But it didn’t – it went farther then that. It not only removed any value from my bad links, it added in an additional negative value, making the page/content perform worse than it would (and does) on ANY other URL than the one with the bad links pointing to it.
My lack of quality links (under performance) wasn’t just not helping me rank highly – the total lack of quality links is actively hurting that URL and causing it to rank lower than it would if it had absolutely 0 links.
The same content is able to outrank all other sites for that keyword save 8 (since I was ranked #9) exactly until bad links are pointed to that URL. Then I’m off the map. If that isn’t a penalty, what is?
Now – aside from that. I’m in total agreement that there were people claiming a “penalty” when they didn’t have one.
When BMR went down a lot of people lost rankings, but only because their rankings were propped up by now non-indexed links. That’s NOT a penalty, we totally agree here.
However, I still feel like my test showing that my bad links are having a negative impact, not just no impact (as happens when links are deindexed a la BMR bans) is what we’ve always considered to be a penalty.
Getting deindexed is getting banned. We’ve always called it getting banned. Some will swap in that the page is penalized, which it is, but banning is the total extreme of a penalty. A “penalty” isn’t a black or white, in or out of the index situation. That’s like saying that if you’re not a Socialist, then you’re not a Liberal.
To address this section…
“But, is an algorithm update truly directed at finding sites to A) penalize because they are “breaking a law, rule, or contract” or B) is it measuring a sites performance based on the input and standards the search engine defines?”
In this particular case, A. Penguin was *exactly* A. It was, quite explicitly, punishing/penalizing sites strictly based on their backlinks, even if the site was otherwise high quality. (Like WPMU.org, for example)
This isn’t about a player’s performance, this is about benching him because he got arrested for underage drinking.
Every other input is exactly the same, but add in breaking the rules around spam links, and you’re getting punished/penalized.
Arg. Sorry for adding multiple comments, but there’s no edit option.
Thus far, I don’t think we’ve seen any indication that Penguin can promote a site in the rankings (outside of demoting a site ranked above it).
If Penguin was a traditional algo update like any other, there would be both positive/negative outputs.
The fact that this (as far as we’ve seen) is *only* about demoting pages pushes me squarely into the “this is a penalty” territory.
I haven’t had the chance to read over all the comments yet, been crazy busy! But, this one caught my eye and just wanted to mention that although penguin has had largely negative effects, there have been a few cases of Penguin helping.
It’s hard to have one without the other really. If one page goes down in rankings something else has to replace it.
There are also other situations to consider, for example penguin hit several directory sites. If a website was using large scale directory listings in an approach, that would harm their rankings. It’s not because they were hit by penguin, but because their backlinks were hit by penguin. This wouldn’t necessarily be considered a penalty.
Definitely true, Peter. But your competitors getting nuked isn’t the same as you be rewarded – it’s you ranking higher by default.
The SERP is zero sum, so any time someone loses, someone else wins – I’m totally with you there.
But – there is a definite difference between someone ahead of you getting penalized, and you “actually” being promoted. Penguin is, by Google’s admission, aimed at fighting spam. Not finding good stuff and ranking it better – but finding bad stuff and ranking it worse. That’s a pretty clear intent difference.
We totally agree on your last point – but I feel like my test and example I gave above shows that we’re not talking about backlinks that don’t help anymore – we’re straight up talking about links that are freaking poison. Hence all the negative SEO concern.
No worries Ian, really enjoyed it as you have truly gotten the ole brain synapses sparking and got me thinking. I completely see your points and they are all very valid, so once again, thank you for sharing them.
Regardless, I still firmly stand my ground. An algorithm is evaluating performance. Penalties result when you have been found breaking the rules.
When a soccer (football) player receives a red card, they are immediately removed from the field. You cannot replace that player. That is a penalty. When a player performs poorly, they are replaced by another player. This is based on performance. See where I’m going with this? :-)
As a side, I think this is exactly how disagreements on specifics should go. I feel like in some… other circles – there would be lots of “you’re an idiot!” going back and forth. and that would be the G rated version. So, yeah – that’s pretty awesome.
Anyway.
I don’t disagree that an algo evaluates performance. I’m not even saying Penguin isn’t part of the algo – I fully believe when Google says it’s automatic and not manual. I’m saying it looks like penguin is an… add on, for lack of a better word. A section of the algorithm that is very specifically meant to either penalize sites based on spam links, or do nothing at all.
Essentially, pre Penguin “calculation” you have a set ranking. Then Penguin can *only* either hurt you or make no change (to you specifically, not counting dropping someone ahead of you), after it is calculated on your website.
It is an automatic penalty built into the algorithm that accomplishes what Google *used* to do by hand (and we called it a penalty then.. and by Google’s own definition, would call it a penalty now if it was still manual).
Other items are, conversely, a ranking signal.
Not having your keyword in your title tag is the absence of a signal – *that* is what I would consider performance. Not having it doesn’t penalize you – but you don’t rank as well without it.
Penguin is something totally different. It’s looking for something specific that, when present, *only* demotes you in the rankings – placing you in a (significantly) lower position than you would be with ALL other factors being equal, minus the presence of the one item (spam links).
Also…
“Penalties result when you have been found breaking the rules.”
Ah! We don’t disagree!
I’m arguing that Penguin is exactly that. A piece of the algorithm that has one mission – detect and penalize pages with spam links. Period. Full stop.
Hard for me to really say that I disagree with your points – as you have provided substantial backbone to your arguments (i.e. they actually make sense). Though, I am still not completely sold on Penguin being an “automatic” penalty only… I do like the “add-on” theory though. You may have something there. :-)
Anyways… Our attention has been intensely focused on one single algorithmic update, Penguin; when my initial intentions where meant to encompass so much more. The intent of my rant was merely pointing out that when sites are affected by an algorithm update, does not mean they have been penalized. End of story.
Throughout the years, and multiple algo updates later, many “SEO experts” start screaming penalty when rankings decrease after an update has been released. Bad advice ensues.
It is frustrating. Hence, I ranted.
Definitely agree there – lots of people seem to want to throw their hands up and act like Google is out to get them, as if Matt Cutts has a personal mission to track down their sites and ruin their lives.
I made a lot of bullshit sites that worked really well for a long time.
But I’ve also always been a big believer in owning what you make.
I wasn’t making quality sites – so, I didn’t cry like a little girl when Google finally caught on and stopped rewarding me for outsourcing a bunch of half-assed, shortcut focused work.
“index finger”…Ha! Nice one.
I have to disagree with most of the post however. Debating semantics when related to business is nothing more than a waste of time in my opinion.
Hi Brian!
Thanks for the comment and reading the article. I would be curious to see you elaborate more on why debating semantics is a waste of time?
This post was not meant to focus solely on debating semantics. If that was your only take away, then I am afraid you have failed to comprehend my point.
Damn – there goes the idea for my newest post: “How To Fix Your Penalty From The Google Penguin Update & Restore Your Ranking Drop Of 15 Positions.”
Seriously though, loved the post. Also good to see someone talk about the ORIGINAL Transformers movie. You mention it nowadays and get funny looks. Curse you, Michael Bay!!!
Appreciate the comments and glad you enjoyed the post.
Nothing beats the original 80′s cartoon. Nothing. Michael Bay’s depiction and reboot wasn’t the same at all. Even when Prime died in the 2nd movie you didn’t have kids running out crying and locking themselves in their rooms for days.
Penalty = You did something wrong (beat the crap out of someone with your fists), so you get punished (get put in the penalty box)
Penguin = You did something wrong (got crappy links), so you get punished (get pushed back in rankings)
Ergo, Penguin = Penalty.
Rather than changing the way they (Google) look at content, links, anchor text, etc. they have chosen to actually HURT web sites based on links. Now no links are better than bad links. Penguin is more than that, yes…there are manual actions taken on those sites that are linking to you…but the fact still remains that a site is getting hurt based on it’s actions (or the actions of others) – and even though Google doesn’t want to say the word ‘penalty’, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t one. Google is great, yes, and perhaps they could change definitions of everyday words over time if they wanted to – but at this time the definition of penalty remains the same. It doesn’t matter whether the referees are human beings or robots – when the Hockey Player gets thrown into the penalty box, it’s still a penalty.
I don’t really think there’s much disagreement on what Penguin actually did, the only issue I see is that Matt Cutts doesn’t know the definition of penalty.
In case he shows up: The disadvantage or painful consequences resulting from an action or condition.
Also, thank you Matt Cutts! Looks like penguin only helped Michael & I! A lot of spam is now gone.
Nice post – good work!
Thank you for the comments and reading the post Jeremy. Pleases me that you enjoyed it.
However, still disagree with your statements that Penguin is indeed a penalty. Though, as with Ian, I can completely see your opinion.
But… Once again drawn into writing a response. :-)
Why are we automatically assuming that because Penguin has targeted “bad links” that it is a penalty? The “Ads Above the Fold” update targeted sites with “top heavy” advertisements. Panda targeted thin content, content farms, along with other quality issues. Go back 5-6 years when Jagger was released, did we forget that it too targeted “bad linking” practices? How are these any different?
To me, these are simply inputs into an massive equation in order to help determine what deserves to rank and what does not. Regardless of the updates specific target, they are all part of determining quality or performance.
Now, as Ian mildly touched on, I could see that Penguin also acts as some type of add-on or plugin to flag sites once the domain crosses a spam threshold, then it would penalize them and decrease their rankings dramatically. Still, I have yet to see any conclusive data that would truly prove Penguin only being a penalization.
While I do appreciate what Google are trying to do, the results they’re serving up still make me want to go all “SPARE ME THIS MOCKERY OF JUSTICE”.