Way To Success.

Take up one idea. Make that one idea your life - think of it, dream of it, live on that idea.Let the brain, muscles, nerves, every part of your body, be full of that idea, and just leave every other idea alone. This is the way to success.
Don’t just hire any SEO company promising you the world, you should hire the best service provider that will keep your website ranked and not penalized which can result in a significant loss of time and money

We offer affordable, yet professional end to end SEO services including local listing , keyword research, meta ... Call Now : +91 9910029394

Google: By The Way, A Panda Update Is Rolling Out Alongside The EMD Update

Last Friday, Google announced the EMD update. It was billed as a small and minor update, but the effects seemed to be fairly large, with many webmasters claiming to have been hit. Google’s Matt Cutts made it a point to say that the algorithm change was unrelated to both Panda and Penguin.

He then said it was not the only update that was rolling out during that timeframe, noting that Google makes changes every day (over 500 a year). He didn’t happen to mention that there was a new Panda update, however. Finally, he has dropped the news that there was indeed a Panda update going on at the same time as the EMD update (and it’s still rolling out).

Were you impacted by one of these updates? Are you able to discern which one it was? Let us know in the comments.

Search Engine Land reports that Google released a Panda algorithm update (not a data refresh, but an actual update) on Thursday, and that it impacts 2.4% of English search queries (and is still rolling out). That’s significantly larger than the 0.6% of English-US queries Cutts said the EMD update affected. So, it seems that the majority of those claiming to be hit by the EMD update were likely hit by Panda (which would explain those claiming to be hit, that didn’t have exact match domains).

Here’s the exact statement from Cutts that the publication is sharing: “Google began rolling out a new update of Panda on Thursday, 9/27. This is actually a Panda algorithm update, not just a data update. A lot of the most-visible differences went live Thursday 9/27, but the full rollout is baking into our index and that process will continue for another 3-4 days or so. This update affects about 2.4% of English queries to a degree that a regular user might notice, with a smaller impact in other languages (0.5% in French and Spanish, for example).”

Couldn’t he have just said that in the first place? Google had to know the confusion this would cause. Since the original Panda update, Google has made more of an effort to be transparent about algorithm changes, and it certainly has been. It seems, however, like delayed transparency is becoming the trend recently.

For months, Google was releasing monthly lists of updates that had been made the prior month. The last time, they left people waiting before finally posting a giant list for two months’ worth of changes. It seems that Google is doing this again, as we have yet to see lists for August or September (assuming Google is about to release these lists).

Either way, it appears the Panda continues to wreak havoc on webmasters. Wait until they get a load of the next Penguin.

For those sites that were hit, obviously if there is not an exact match domain involved, that makes the problem a little easier to figure out, at least in terms of which update the site was actually hit by. It seems unlikely that the EMD update would have done much to impact you if your site does not use an EMD. Which leaves Panda (and of course, any other updates that Google hasn’t told us about – they do make changes every day, and often more than one in a day).

While Cutts said that the EMD update is unrelated to Panda, that is not necessarily the case, depending on how you view the comment. Algorithmically speaking, I presume Cutts means the two have nothing to do with each other. However, in concept, the two are very similar in that they go after low quality. So, doesn’t it stand to reason that if you improve the quality of your content, you could actually recover from either update? That is assuming that the EMD update is one that can be recovered from. Let’s put it this way: if it’s possible to recover from the EMD update (which most likely it probably is), improving the quality of your site and content should be the main objective.

This just happens to be the same objective for recovering from Panda. Of course quality is subjective, and Google has it’s own view of what this entails. Luckily for webmasters Google has essentially laid out exactly what it is looking for from content, specifically with regards to the Panda update.

Googe has pretty much given webmaster the rules of the road to Panda recovery, even if they’re not official rules. You’ve probably seen the list before, but if you were never hit by the Panda update until now, maybe you haven’t. Either way, here are the questions Google listed last year as “questions that one could use to assess the quality of a page or an article:

Would you trust the information presented in this article?

Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?

Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?

Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?

Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?

Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?

Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?

Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?

How much quality control is done on content?

Does the article describe both sides of a story?

Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?

Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?

Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?

For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?

Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?

Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?

Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?

Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?

Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?

Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?

Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?

Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?

Would users complain when they see pages from this site?

Of course, Google uses over 200 signals in all, but that should get you started on thinking about your site’s content.

And with regards to the EMD update, remember, Google is targeting “low quality” EMDs. Not simply EMDs in general.

We’ve provided tons of coverage of the Panda update since Google first launched it. To learn more about it

Timani Technology is a Professional SEO Company that provides best SEO Services & Internet Marketing Solutions. Don’t forget to Like My facebook Page Timani Technology  !  Consult with our SEO Consultants to evaluate your website or chat on  Skype: mukeshseo 

Should Google Use Link Disavow As A Ranking Signal?

Last month, as you may know, Google introduced its Link Disavow tool, after dropping a hint that it would do so months prior. What we didn’t know until this past week, however, is that there is a possibility that Google will use the data it gets from the tool as a ranking signal.

Should data from the link disavow tool be used to rank sites in Google? Let us know what you think.

First off, to be clear, Google is not currently getting any ranking signals from the tool. In the future, however, that may change. Danny Sullivan shared a Q&A with Matt Cutts in which he did not rule out the possibility. Sullivan asked him if “someone decides to disavow link from good sites a perhaps an attempt to send signals to Google these are bad,” is Google mining this data to better understand what bad sites are?

“Right now, we’re using this data in the normal straightforward way, e.g. for reconsideration requests,” Cutts responded. “We haven’t decided whether we’ll look at this data more broadly. Even if we did, we have plenty of other ways of determining bad sites, and we have plenty of other ways of assessing that sites are actually good.”

They haven’t decided. It could go either way, but if people are submitting enough links to the same sites, wouldn’t Google want to look at that as some sign that it is not a reputable site?

Yes, Google does have over 200 signals, and has other ways of deciding what is high or poor quality, but does that mean there is not room for data from the link disavow tool to play some role within the algorithm, even if it’s not the heaviest signal it looks at?

“We may do spot checks, but we’re not planning anything more broadly with this data right now,” said Cutts. “If a webmaster wants to shoot themselves in the foot and disavow high-quality links, that’s sort of like an IQ test and indicates that we wouldn’t want to give that webmaster’s disavowed links much weight anyway. It’s certainly not a scalable way to hurt another site, since you’d have to build a good site, then build up good links, then disavow those good links. Blackhats are normally lazy and don’t even get to the ‘build a good site’ stage.” Emphasis is ours.

No, it doesn’t seem like a very plausible strategy for competitors to hurt one another. However, that does not necessarily mean that some sites couldn’t potentially be affected if the data were to become a signal.

Since the Penguin update was launched, and Google has been sending out messages about links more aggressively, we’ve seen people scramble to get tons of links to their sites removed. Google is not telling you all the links that you should be getting removed. It’s giving you examples. As a result, we’ve seen many webmasters taking an aggressive approach of their own trying to get more links removed than they probably needed to. We’ve seen the letters webmasters have written to other sites asking to have links removed for fear that they could somehow be hurting them in Google, even if they would consider it to be a valuable link otherwise. If it’s a good link (and not one specifically meant for gaming Google), then it stands to reason it’s not something that Google should be frowning upon. Yet, these kinds of links are being requested to be removed.

So, why would paranoid and/or desperate webmasters not go overboard on the Link Disavow tool?

Sure, Google has warned repeatedly that the tool should not be used in most cases, and that it should only be used after trying to get all the links removed manually (they won’t even acknowledge your submission if they can see that you haven’t tried). But what is the likelihood that there won’t be numerous people jumping the gun and using it when they really shouldn’t be?

How many of the webmasters out there that have been hurt by updates like Penguin are tired of jumping through hoop after hoop, and will see the tool as a shortcut?

SEO analyst Jennifer Slegg writes, “People who have been affected with bad links will very likely take a very heavy-handed approach to the links they disavow in their panic of seeing their traffic drop off a cliff. There is no doubt that some of those good links that are actually helping the site will end up in the list along with poor quality ones because the webmaster is either unclear about whether a link is a bad influence, or just think the starting fresh approach is the best one to go with.”

“So good websites could also have their sites potentially flagged as a possible bad source of links because of clueless webmasters, even though those clueless webmasters are actually making more work for themselves by disavowing links that are actually helping them,” she adds.

And that’s exactly the point. If data from Link Disavow were to become a ranking signal, this is where things could get tricky.

HTTP status codes

When a request is made to your server for a page on your site (for instance, when a user accesses your page in a browser or when Googlebot crawls the page), your server returns an HTTP status code in response to the request.
This status code provides information about the status of the request. This status code gives Googlebot information about your site and the requested page.
Some common status codes are:

• 200 - the server successfully returned the page
• 404 - the requested page doesn't exist
• 503 - the server is temporarily unavailable

A complete list of HTTP status codes is below. You can also visit the W3C page on HTTP status codes for more information.
1xx (Provisional response)
Status codes that indicate a provisional response and require the requestor to take action to continue.

Code	Description
100 (Continue)	The requestor should continue with the request. The server returns this code to indicate that it has received the first part of a request and is waiting for the rest.
101 (Switching protocols)	The requestor has asked the server to switch protocols and the server is acknowledging that it will do so.

2xx (Successful)
Status codes that indicate that the server successfully processed the request.

Code	Description
200 (Successful)	The server successfully processed the request. Generally, this means that the server provided the requested page. If you see this status for your robots.txt file, it means that Googlebot retrieved it successfully.
201 (Created)	The request was successful and the server created a new resource.
202 (Accepted)	The server has accepted the request, but hasn't yet processed it.
203 (Non-authoritative information)	The server successfully processed the request, but is returning information that may be from another source.
204 (No content)	The server successfully processed the request, but isn't returning any content.
205 (Reset content)	The server successfully proccessed the request, but isn't returning any content. Unlike a 204 response, this response requires that the requestor reset the document view (for instance, clear a form for new input).
206 (Partial content)	The server successfully processed a partial GET request.

3xx (Redirected)
Further action is needed to fulfill the request. Often, these status codes are used for redirection. Google recommends that you use fewer than five redirects for each request. You can use Webmaster Tools to see if Googlebot is having trouble crawling your redirected pages. The Crawl Errors page under Health lists URLs that Googlebot was unable to crawl due to redirect errors.

Code	Description
300 (Multiple choices)	The server has several actions available based on the request. The server may choose an action based on the requestor (user agent) or the server may present a list so the requestor can choose an action.
301 (Moved permanently)	The requested page has been permanently moved to a new location. When the server returns this response (as a response to a GET or HEAD request), it automatically forwards the requestor to the new location. You should use this code to let Googlebot know that a page or site has permanently moved to a new location.
302 (Moved temporarily)	The server is currently responding to the request with a page from a different location, but the requestor should continue to use the original location for future requests. This code is similar to a 301 in that for a GET or HEAD request, it automatically forwards the requestor to a different location, but you shouldn't use it to tell the Googlebot that a page or site has moved because Googlebot will continue to crawl and index the original location.
303 (See other location)	The server returns this code when the requestor should make a separate GET request to a different location to retrieve the response. For all requests other than a HEAD request, the server automatically forwards to the other location.
304 (Not modified)	The requested page hasn't been modified since the last request. When the server returns this response, it doesn't return the contents of the page. You should configure your server to return this response (called the If-Modified-Since HTTP header) when a page hasn't changed since the last time the requestor asked for it. This saves you bandwidth and overhead because your server can tell Googlebot that a page hasn't changed since the last time it was crawled.
305 (Use proxy)	The requestor can only access the requested page using a proxy. When the server returns this response, it also indicates the proxy that the requestor should use.
307 (Temporary redirect)	The server is currently responding to the request with a page from a different location, but the requestor should continue to use the original location for future requests. This code is similar to a 301 in that for a GET or HEAD request, it automatically forwards the requestor to a different location, but you shouldn't use it to tell the Googlebot that a page or site has moved because Googlebot will continue to crawl and index the original location.

4xx (Request error)
These status codes indicate that there was likely an error in the request which prevented the server from being able to process it.

Code	Description
400 (Bad request)	The server didn't understand the syntax of the request.
401 (Not authorized)	The request requires authentication. The server might return this response for a page behind a login.
403 (Forbidden)	The server is refusing the request. If you see that Googlebot received this status code when trying to crawl valid pages of your site (you can see this on the Crawl Errors page under Health in Google Webmaster Tools), it's possible that your server or host is blocking Googlebot's access.
404 (Not found)	The server can't find the requested page. For instance, the server often returns this code if the request is for a page that doesn't exist on the server. If you don't have a robots.txt file on your site and see this status on the Blocked URLs page in Google Webmaster Tools, this is the correct status. However, if you do have a robots.txt file and you see this status, then your robots.txt file may be named incorrectly or in the wrong location. (It should be at the top-level of the domain and named robots.txt.) If you see this status for URLs that Googlebot tried to crawl, then Googlebot likely followed an invalid link from another page (either an old link or a mistyped one).
405 (Method not allowed)	The method specified in the request is not allowed.
406 (Not acceptable)	The requested page can't respond with the content characteristics requested.
407 (Proxy authentication required)	This status code is similar 401 (Not authorized); but specifies that the requestor has to authenticate using a proxy. When the server returns this response, it also indicates the proxy that the requestor should use.
408 (Request timeout)	The server timed out waiting for the request.
409 (Conflict)	The server encountered a conflict fulfilling the request. The server must include information about the conflict in the response. The server might return this code in response to a PUT request that conflicts with an earlier request, along with a list of differences between the requests.
410 (Gone)	The server returns this response when the requested resource has been permanently removed. It is similar to a 404 (Not found) code, but is sometimes used in the place of a 404 for resources that used to exist but no longer do. If the resource has permanently moved, you should use a 301 to specify the resource's new location.
411 (Length required)	The server won't accept the request without a valid Content-Length header field.
412 (Precondition failed)	The server doesn't meet one of the preconditions that the requestor put on the request.
413 (Request entity too large)	The server can't process the request because it is too large for the server to handle.
414 (Requested URI is too long)	The requested URI (typically, a URL) is too long for the server to process.
415 (Unsupported media type)	The request is in a format not support by the requested page.
416 (Requested range not satisfiable)	The server returns this status code if the request is for a range not available for the page.
417 (Expectation failed)	The server can't meet the requirements of the Expect request-header field.

5xx (Server error)
These status codes indicate that the server had an internal error when trying to process the request. These errors tend to be with the server itself, not with the request.

Code	Description
500 (Internal server error)	The server encountered an error and can't fulfill the request.
501 (Not implemented)	The server doesn't have the functionality to fulfill the request. For instance, the server might return this code when it doesn't recognize the request method.
502 (Bad gateway)	The server was acting as a gateway or proxy and received an invalid response from the upstream server.
503 (Service unavailable)	The server is currently unavailable (because it is overloaded or down for maintenance). Generally, this is a temporary state.
504 (Gateway timeout)	The server was acting as a gateway or proxy and didn't receive a timely request from the upstream server.
505 (HTTP version not supported)	The server doesn't support the HTTP protocol version used in the request.

 https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=40132&topic=1724951&ctx=topic

Google Reveals Yet Another Domain-Related Algorithm Tweak

Google finally released its big lists of algorithm changes for the months of August and September. There are 65 changes on the lists in all. We’ll be discussing various components in different articles.

The first thing that strikes me about the two-month list is that the word “domains” is only mentioned once. We know that Google launched the “Domain Diversity” update in September, as Google’s Matt Cutts tweeted about it when it happened. Then, this past Friday, he also tweeted about the EMD update targeting exact-match domains. With both of these actually announced via Twitter, it seemed to indicate a new focus on domain-related signals from the search giant.

That’s why I’m a bit surprised that there aren’t more entries to this list that are directly related to domains. In fact, there aren’t even two (which would account for both of the ones Cutts tweeted about). Perhaps they didn’t bother to include them, because they thought the tweets were enough (though they still included a previously tweeted about Panda refresh).

Anyhow, here’s the one domain-related entry from Google’s latest lists, and it happened sometime in September, interestingly enough, under the “Freshness” project banner:

#83761. [project “Freshness”] This change helped you find the latest content from a given site when two or more documents from the same domain are relevant for a given search query.

So what do we know about how Google is treating domains differently now? For one, the domain name signal itself appears to have been reduced with the exact-match domain update. Google is wanting to show less results from the same domain in more instances (with the domain diversity update), and for search results pages that do still show multiple results from the same domain, Google is likely to rank the newer one higher (based on the listing above).

Matt Cutts Just Announced A Google Algorithm Change

Googles Matt Cutts just announced a new Google algorithm change via Twitter. He says it will reduce low-quality ’“exact-match” domains in search results.
It sounds like an extension of the last change he tweeted about, which was aimed at improving domain diversity. Here’s the new tweet:

Minor weather report: small upcoming Google algo change will reduce low-quality “exact-match” domains in search results.

New exact-match domain (EMD) algo affects 0.6% of English-US queries to a noticeable degree. Unrelated to Panda/Penguin.

Google is about due to publish its big list of algorithm changes for the months of August and September. When that happens, it will be interesting to see how many entries are related to domains. It seems like there are typically visible themes in the lists. For example, in the June list, there were a lot of changes related to improving how Google deals with natural language.

Google Launches New Page Layout Update

Google is on a roll with these updates. I think webmasters are starting to understand what Google’s Matt Cutts meant when he said a while back that updates would start getting “jarring and jolting”. It seems, that rather than one major update, we’re getting a bunch of updates in a short amount of time. This past Friday, Google launched its latest Penguin refresh. A week before that, it was the EMD update and a new Panda update.

The Page Layout update was first announced early this year, months before we ever saw the first Penguin update. It’s sometimes referred to as the “above the fold” update. It was designed to target pages that lack content above the fold. At the time, Cutts wrote in a blog post:

As we’ve mentioned previously, we’ve heard complaints from users that if they click on a result and it’s difficult to find the actual content, they aren’t happy with the experience. Rather than scrolling down the page past a slew of ads, users want to see content right away. So sites that don’t have much content “above-the-fold” can be affected by this change. If you click on a website and the part of the website you see first either doesn’t have a lot of visible content above-the-fold or dedicates a large fraction of the site’s initial screen real estate to ads, that’s not a very good user experience. Such sites may not rank as highly going forward.

We understand that placing ads above-the-fold is quite common for many websites; these ads often perform well and help publishers monetize online content. This algorithmic change does not affect sites who place ads above-the-fold to a normal degree, but affects sites that go much further to load the top of the page with ads to an excessive degree or that make it hard to find the actual original content on the page. This new algorithmic improvement tends to impact sites where there is only a small amount of visible content above-the-fold or relevant content is persistently pushed down by large blocks of ads. For more http://www.webpronews.com/google-launches-new-page-layout-update-yes-another-update-2012-10