| 9:38 am on Mar 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I start with what my history teacher asked us once: “What is quality?”. We couldn't provide a good answer.
Have you seen what’s going on Facebook.
Some of the discussion there is complete garbage but still it is what some people want.
I don’t like the idea that a machine (learning), and be it the best intelligent machine in the world, determines the quality of a content. What is quality?
People have tastes and people change tastes and likes - What this has to do with what I get when I search for something in Google or Bing?
That is why I wish to pay (or share with) any Apple like iContent to include my content on the right place for the right people. Just like iTune, Aps etc.
I appreciate Google Search and what it gives to me, but the search engine should be personalized and changed for the different types of people and their taste.
| 12:28 pm on Mar 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
For some reason I'm just not buying it... Google preaches "good content" yet half the sites they list are thin content surrounded by Adsense Ads, and they rank highly.
I know we all think our sites are like our children and can do no wrong, but my own site is unique, original, useful content that people have purchased with their cc for over 10 years. No matter though, I still get whacked by every algo update that rolls along. The last one that must have hit on Match 10th, does not appear to have removed me totally from the SERPS, but bread & butter keyword searches now have my #1 position on page 1 down to #1 on page 2. Traffic is substantially lower as are sales conversions. We've been usurped by Amazon, Wikipedia and a bunch of less related (IMHO) sites. For over 10 years we were considers (by apparent rank) to be the good content, now overnight that changes. We worked hard to follow the WMG, but either those guidelines have changed or the system is still churning.
| 1:48 pm on Mar 22, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|For over 10 years we were considers (by apparent rank) to be the good content, now overnight that changes. |
I don't think there is any basis for assuming that. Until last year, Google claimed to be ranking results on the basis of "relevance." They never talked about quality until about a year ago.
Panda was an attempt to push down mass-produced "low quality" content. Google didn't claim to be trying to figure out the difference between "great quality" and "average quality."
| 3:36 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
SEO rules Google as long as they don´t want to hire editors who have some clues about what is junk and valuable.
| 3:53 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
@night707, the way you phrase that observation, it sounds like you want Google to be a hand edited directory rather than an algorithmic search engine executed at the scale of the entire web. That's not a practical direction at all - it's why even the few good directories are dying.
It's true that Google uses editorial input, but that input is at the level of assessing the quality of the entire SERP - and the feedback is not used to make manual ranking changes, but rather it gets sent to the algo engineers. Then they need to understand why the algorithm is misfiring in the particular way it is and change the algorithm so that issue is adjusted.
| 5:04 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Read and weep/laugh. This is what one of the guys from Google thinks describes a high quality website: |
To me, it is as if he is just describing Wikipedia and does not even understand the diversity and complexity of the web. The web is really about people not data. It is a record of their interactions, hopes, dreams and businesses.
I think there is a problem. Much of the time, I want to answer questions. Wikipedia is good for some general info, but specific questions are usually answered elsewhere.
From the blog you linked to:
|Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name? |
This sounds like they white-listed some of the "big name" sites.
| 5:10 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
From JMCC's link:
|Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations? |
This would mean that the Wall Street Journal should be dinged, right? How many times do they use the term Dow Jones Industrial Average or the same ticker symbols in their articles. Every day they produce nearly the same content with different numbers in them.
So, should they be dinged or are they white listed - if there is a white list in the algo? Also, wouldn't you consider them an authority if they write about the same thing every day (producing similar content over and over)?
| 5:12 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Using a term over and over in articles is a lot different than spun material that is just basically the same story again and again.
Plus you're just focusing on one element. It's no longer a laundry list. You *must* start looking at forests and not trees.
| 5:39 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Using a term over and over in articles is a lot different than spun material that is just basically the same story again and again. |
I think that is true, but can Google distinguish between the two? Authorities will use the same keywords over and over. Some of the material may be spun over again because readers will not be aware of the relevance.
I see your point though. There are sites that will spin the same story over and over again.
| 6:07 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
It is also more complex when it comes to newspaper sites as many use wire services and the same article will end up in many newspapers. And journalists will often lift large sections of stories citing the original article.
|This would mean that the Wall Street Journal should be dinged, right? How many times do they use the term Dow Jones Industrial Average or the same ticker symbols in their articles. Every day they produce nearly the same content with different numbers in them. |
When a big story breaks, there will be massive uptake and it would appear to be a blizzard of spinning.
| 6:25 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
For an eccomerce site we use the following:
1. Unique product title and description.
2. Most of the time we will also have the product specifications and user manuals linked in a pdf forms.
3. At least two images on the product.
4. A you tube video describing the product and showing how the product works.
5. A link to the terms and conditions or return policy.
6. A 800 phone number.
7. Pricing of course and pricing for bulk purchases if there is any for the item.
8. Email address for people to contact you via email.
9. Links to the manufacturers website if applicable. We think solid outbound links to manufacturers help the site to rank better and it also gives your website a bit more trust from shoppers.
10. Warranty information.
11. Reviews, I always shop and look at reviews and I think that is important. My company is going to be working that area this year hard. It's a great way to have your users add unique content.
12. Seals.... SSL seals, bbb.org if your a member, credit card merchant seals, etc.... Anything you have.
13. A section on the bottom showing what other customers purchased in the past with this item and/or similar items. This helps customers find those other products and might give you some spin off sales.
14. Last but not least, a search box for your website at the top, bottom and even sides of your website so people can search in case they hit the wrong product.
| 6:58 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Great list, thanks.
#9 was a new one by me. Do you actually have evidence supporting ranking better due to this? With so many manufacturer's selling online directly now, aren't you afraid of the customer leaving and not coming back?
#12 I've given a lot of consideration to and done a lot of testing of this one in the past year as far as SSL seal, particularly in light of the google Panda question "Would you trust this site with your credit card?" I figure they may be looking for a seal as a factor in coming to this conclusion. Haven't found any difference with SSL seal, or customer conversion, with or without it on product pages. We always have it in the cart though and haven't tested without in the cart.
| 10:40 pm on Mar 31, 2012 (gmt 0)|
On number 9, Some of our manufacturers do not sell direct so it is not an issue, you have to be a bit picky here when you link. We do not always link the manufacturer but the good ones we do. For example, the link could be to the manufacturers "product warranty" section or something along those lines. I suppose you might also get permission to use a logo. For example, we sell Philips Lighting products, we have permission to use Philips Lighting logo on the web pages that advertise their products.
On Number 12, seals do have some impact, there are some that are widely recognized and some that are not. But if the seals are linked properly to the issuer the shopper can research on their own. It is a trust factor and I think you are right when you are speaking about "Would you trust this site with your credit card"
| 7:07 am on Apr 1, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Great list Trin.
|It is also more complex when it comes to newspaper sites |
I wonder if Google takes that into consideration and gives them a pass on that criteria (similar articles just different numbers AND duplicate content). If so, that is like a white list IMO.
| 11:31 am on Apr 1, 2012 (gmt 0)|
You beat me to it. Personally, I think this is the most important one.
|How was the grammar and spelling? |
| This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 45 ( 1  ) |