homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.148.189
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 198 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 198 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]     
CNN: Growing Backlash to AdSense Farm Update
Brett_Tabke




msg:4272918
 3:17 pm on Feb 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

[money.cnn.com...]

Google made one of the biggest changes ever to its search results this week, which immediately had a noticeable effect on many Web properties that rely on the world's biggest search engine to drive traffic to their sites.

The major tweak aims to move better quality content to the top of Google's search rankings. The changes will affect 12% Google's results, the company said in a blog post late Thursday.

Comments from site operators lit up on the WebmasterWorld.com forum starting on Wednesday. Many webmasters complained that traffic to their sites dropped dramatically overnight, and others expressed concern that they can't adapt quickly enough to Google's changes to its algorithm.

 

chrisv1963




msg:4274475
 9:14 am on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

My site that got hit has a lot of links to other site sections


This should not be a problem. Matt Cutts always said that you should make a website with your visitors in mind. With links to other sections of the site you are making it better for visitors because you are showing them the way to more pages on your site that are relevant.

When for instance I write an article about "blue widgets", I would link to an article about "how to make widgets blue". This is perfectly normal linking.

zoltan




msg:4274505
 11:05 am on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

So far, this was OK, but what if this new algo treats this in another way? Remember, they are talking about quality, what if they consider that if you lead your visitors to other site sections, the page that gets linked from the search engine is not a quality one.

chrisv1963




msg:4274506
 11:18 am on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

I don't think it is a problem. Wikipedia is doing this too, sometimes with a large amount of links in one text.

zoltan




msg:4274510
 11:21 am on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

OK, and what about the "over"-usage of title attribute in a hrefs. I notice that I personally use it quite often on my pages. Anyone else?

chrisv1963




msg:4274511
 11:31 am on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

OK, and what about the "over"-usage of title attribute in a hrefs. I notice that I personally use it quite often on my pages. Anyone else?


What exactly do you mean with this?

zoltan




msg:4274529
 12:14 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

I use the title tag on most of the links on my website. This is what I mean.

chrisv1963




msg:4274533
 12:32 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

I don't see how this could be a problem. That is, if you use the title of the page you are linking to as anchor text for the link.

TheMadScientist




msg:4274553
 1:36 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

OK, and what about the "over"-usage of title attribute in a hrefs.

Latest I've read it's not used in scoring ...There were actually some recent tests done and posted here about the title attribute of links and it still does not appear to be used, so I would use it the way it's intended, personally.

[w3.org...]

zoltan




msg:4274558
 1:54 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

Hmm... When you have a column of 150 pixels and want to present
"Hungary Widgets"
"Austria Widgets"
"United Kingdom Widgets"
obviously you will use something like:
Widgets:
Hungary
Austria
United Kingdom
because of lack of space.

However, you can title all those links with "Hungary Widgets", etc. so a mouse over the link will actually show the visitor that the linked page is about "Hungary Widgets" and not about "Hungary".

I find nothing wrong with this.

marketingmagic




msg:4274567
 2:04 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

Anyone know about changes to Google.ca and when G will be pushing this out to your northern friends?

TheMadScientist




msg:4274582
 2:27 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

I find nothing wrong with this.

Me either ... I think that's exactly the way it's intended:
For the visitors, not search engines.

I wasn't trying to say you weren't using it that way, just saying I would use it by the standard and by the standard is to give visitors more information about the resource they will be visiting if they click. ;)

netmeg




msg:4274640
 3:40 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

I have abnormally high bounce rate on the home page of one my sites. People come to that page for a specific reason (the date and time of a popular Detroit event) and I put it in a great big blue box on the top of the page, so they find out when it is and, if that's all they want to know, they leave. Been that way for years. Doesn't seem to have hurt in Google. So far.

TheMadScientist




msg:4274653
 4:12 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

Yeah, I really don't think they can use bounce by itself and definitely not site-wide imo ... The only way I could see them using it is 'click-back, re-click' and imo it would have to be 'constant' and the surrounding results could not have a similar pattern.

Beyond that, it gets really fuzzy, because it's really tough (impossible?) to tell if the searcher found the answer they were looking for quickly on a well designed site or if the site was 'garbage' when they got there ... Really, once you stop looking at the bounce rate of your site and try to gauge what a bounce rate tells you for a site you can't 'see' (design, etc.) about a visitor you don't know it gets super noisy, because a bounce can mean so many different things in so many different situations.

Panthro




msg:4274671
 4:31 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

Yeah I always thought bounce rate was a pretty useless metric. It's kind of fun to know any little bit of data you can get about your site, but bounce can be interpreted in so many ways.

tedster




msg:4274829
 7:21 pm on Mar 1, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think it's a good metric for the webmaster, especially in A/B testing and the like. It's just terrible for ranking search results. If a webmaster has more than one site, they can't even compare one directly to the other. It takes intimate knowledge on a page-by-page basis to get actionable intelligence. No algorithm uses that kind of knowledge.

Lorel




msg:4275035
 2:24 am on Mar 2, 2011 (gmt 0)

OK, and what about the "over"-usage of title attribute in a hrefs. I notice that I personally use it quite often on my pages. Anyone else?


Title attributes do not affect ranking. They do however increase download time and I never use them for that reason.

tedster




msg:4275042
 2:39 am on Mar 2, 2011 (gmt 0)

I sometimes use title attributes - when they make sense for usability, such as pagination links that are just a bunch of numbers. It gives the visitor a way to tell the sections of an article apart when they hover.

I've never seen either a ranking problem or an advantage from the title attribute.

warner carter




msg:4275848
 11:38 am on Mar 3, 2011 (gmt 0)

I was a little surprised to see this report in CNN. Some guy saying Bing has better results and that Google may go the way of Alta Vista. The news people like to sensationalize of course.

This 198 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 198 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved