Latest Panda Update Results

[benitez17]

Teliad released some data regarding their RankingIndex results before and after the Google Panda update, and here are the results (sorry, this was sent via email, so there is no article to link to):

The biggest winners:

1. youtube.com: 54.096,74 (+139,8%)
2. facebook.com: 24.167,27 (+124,26%)
3. squidoo.com: 11.467,18 (+63,60%)
4. ehow.co.uk: 6.035,64 (+58,27%)
5. thefreedictionary.com: 5.676 (+38,45%)
6. flickr.com: 12.905,11 (+38,00%)
7. alibaba.com: 7.523,97 (+35,74%)
8. myspace.com: 6.660,76 (+30,86%)
9. nextag.com: 11.453,02 (+30,77%)
10. informe.com: 8.796,46 (+28,89%)

The biggest losers:

1. associatedcontent.com: 9.129,76 (-56,84%)
2. suite101.com: 9.590,36 (-52,82%)
3. wisegeek.com: 3.921,63 (-52,66%)
4. thefind.com: 4.077,09 (-43,76%)
5. findarticles.com: 3.872,02 (-39,98)
6. examiner.com: 3.116,22 (38,69%)
7. ezinearticles.com: 14.712,47 (38,62%)
8. buzzle.com: 7.375,12 (-37,74%)
9. ehow.com: 24.304,51 (-28,26%)
10. brothersoft.com: 3.895,10 (-27,36%)

I think it's suspicious that YouTube was the biggest beneficary of this change, and it's funny that ehow.co.uk was one of the winners and ehow.com was one of the losers. Overall, it looks like the change had the desired impact.

[Dave McM]

Interesting list, Benitez - and I agree that YouTube's surge looks a bit fishy.

Is there anything in your email to say what criteria Teliad used to select the websites that made it into the list - eg size? I'm sure that a lot of smaller sites must have gained or lost even more than the ones listed.

It would be interesting to see who were the big winners and losers in absolute terms as well. Percentages are useful, but a big percentage leap on a smaller base may not necessarily be as significant as a slightly lower percentage leap from an already high base score. For instance, flickr.com's 38.00% increase (3,553.58 up on a base of 9,351.53) is much larger in absolute terms than ehow.co.uk's apparently much more impressive 58.27% (2,222.13 up on a base of 3,813.51).

[benitez17]

This list is based on their top 100 sites, so they are only looking at major websites.

[JJMcClure]

I think it's suspicious that YouTube was the biggest beneficary of this change

Why? It makes perfect sense to me. Google know what they want and they own youtube, the biggest video sharing site and the second most used search engine on the planet so if they can't get their own site performing well in their own search engine then what chance has anyone else got, and no one can argue that youtube doesn't deserve to rank well.

Facebook came second and that's despite them not allowing google access to their data and engaging in dirty tricks campaigns to smear google, how much more proof do you need of impartiality?

[benitez17]

Why? It makes perfect sense to me. Google know what they want and they own youtube, the biggest video sharing site and the second most used search engine on the planet so if they can't get their own site performing well in their own search engine then what chance has anyone else got, and no one can argue that youtube doesn't deserve to rank well.

Facebook came second and that's despite them not allowing google access to their data and engaging in dirty tricks campaigns to smear google, how much more proof do you need of impartiality?

Assuming that this third party analysis is correct and YouTube benefited the most from this update, Google is sharing ranking algorithms within their company so YouTube can rank as high as possible, they are putting their finger on the scale to push YouTube up the rankings, or YouTube happens to be really good at SEO completely on their own. Only the last option would make them impartial, and I believe it is the least likely because it makes no business sense.

The reason I said it is suspicious is because Google is supposedly up in arms about content farms "beating" their algorithm, and YouTube is mostly made up of pirated content, making it a type of content farm, and a worse one than eHow in my opinion.

Facebook would have to be the target of a manual slapping to be hurt just because of their attack on Google, which wouldn't have anything to do with Panda.

[crabfoot]

While we're talking content, wasn't the stated objective to hit the directory sites? - so how come Squidoo gets a big hike up, while ezinearticles takes a big hit?

[JJMcClure]

Assuming that this third party analysis is correct and YouTube benefited the most from this update, Google is sharing ranking algorithms within their company so YouTube can rank as high as possible, they are putting their finger on the scale to push YouTube up the rankings, or YouTube happens to be really good at SEO completely on their own. Only the last option would make them impartial, and I believe it is the least likely because it makes no business sense.

Or youtube is the second most used search engine on the planet and the biggest video sharing site and deserves to rank well because it's a useful resource, you forgot that one. The reasons you listed aren't very likely to be true.

[benitez17]

Or youtube is the second most used search engine on the planet and the biggest video sharing site and deserves to rank well because it's a useful resource, you forgot that one. The reasons you listed aren't very likely to be true.

Isn't eHow a useful resource? At least that's legal content.

Google's opinion on the usefulness of YouTube is far from subjective, and if the rankings are being influenced based on that opinion, that would be covered under possibility #2 in my list.

[JJMcClure]

Google's opinion on the usefulness of YouTube is far from subjective, and if the rankings are being influenced based on that opinion, that would be covered under possibility #2 in my list.

Google's opinion on the usefulness of anything is what makes the rankings work and given that they actually paid money for youtube and it's run by googlers who, let's face it, are going to know what Google want without having to know the inner workings of the algo, coupled with the performance of the site itself, I'd be really surprised if youtube hadn't done so well.

Facebook and myspace are in that list but I don't see Google Buzz, because it flopped. Why is it so hard to believe youtube deserves to be there?

[benitez17]

Why is it so hard to believe youtube deserves to be there?

As I said above, because YouTube is a type of content farm itself, and a worse one than the likes of eHow in my opinion, since much of the content on YouTube is pirated.

I highly doubt Google would look so kindly on YouTube if it weren't part of the family.