varun21
msg:4492409 | 5:21 pm on Sep 7, 2012 (gmt 0) |
And once you assure that your page is actually an excellent resource, you get Penguin :(
|
aristotle
msg:4492475 | 6:56 pm on Sep 7, 2012 (gmt 0) |
goodroi -
What do these "quality checkers" do if they decide that a page doesn't have much value? What action do they take?
|
netmeg
msg:4492478 | 7:02 pm on Sep 7, 2012 (gmt 0) |
They fill out the EWOQ form.
There was a document being passed around yesterday purporting to be the leaked 2012 Google Guidelines. I dunno whether or not it was genuine, and I dunno whether or not it was taken down from whoever posted it. But it was grabbable yesterday.
|
aristotle
msg:4492494 | 7:37 pm on Sep 7, 2012 (gmt 0) |
They fill out the EWOQ form.
- Thanks netmeg.
|
|
That's all well and good.. But now I'm wondering what happens to the form after it's filled out. Is anything done with the information?
|
goodroi
msg:4492499 | 7:53 pm on Sep 7, 2012 (gmt 0) |
These basic ideas have been announced and confirmed by Google before:
Google launches "above the fold" algo update that looks at page layout & ad space
[webmasterworld.com...]
Google announces update to go after MFAs using copied content aka Panda
[webmasterworld.com...]
Google can be using these quality checkers to manually apply penalties or help research the automated updates or maybe just double checking the accuracy of the updates. Either way webmasters should remind themselves everyday what Google's idea of a good webpage is.
|
lucy24
msg:4492502 | 7:58 pm on Sep 7, 2012 (gmt 0) |
| Content is <snip> the top ranking result. |
|
If you google "recursion" does "google" come out #1?
|
zeus
msg:4492506 | 8:15 pm on Sep 7, 2012 (gmt 0) |
I have now looked at several 1-5 sites for different keywords and I can not see any that go by googles suggestion for a good site, not 1, I even saw one that go complete the other way as what google says and ranks no.1 with 5 banners above fold, keyword stuffed title, link exchanges, very low unique text, we are talking 2 words that is changed on each page..... I can go on. Slowly I think its all about luck or you need a big company to rank.
|
aristotle
msg:4492526 | 9:00 pm on Sep 7, 2012 (gmt 0) |
zeus --
In my opinion less than 1% of all webpages are high quality. The rest are low to medium quality. So for a lot of searches, no high quality relevant pages exist, and therefore you necessarily see low to medium quality pages at the top
|
seollc
msg:4492558 | 11:39 pm on Sep 7, 2012 (gmt 0) |
I've been haviong great luck in Google results simply by doing my very best to build the best websites on any given topic.
If you build a site good enough, it will actually raise red flags with Google's alorithm and a human reviewer will look at your site. If it is indeed a very relevant and useful site, the reviewer will designate the site as an "Authority Site" and it will become almost unbeatable in the search engine results. In addition, when a site is designated as an authority site, it has extra links in the search result listing, so it draws more attention and might allow a visitor to jump right into a more specific link in your website.
Aristotle is actually right. Most websites and webpages are actually fairly low quality, so it is still relatively easy for an excellent web developer with an SEO and site conversions background to create a site that will literally be the best in the world and worthy of being on page 1 for thousands of keyword phrases.
|
aristotle
msg:4492565 | 12:44 am on Sep 8, 2012 (gmt 0) |
it is still relatively easy for an excellent web developer with an SEO and site conversions background to create a site that will literally be the best in the world and worthy of being on page 1 for thousands of keyword phrases.
|
|
I wouldn't say that it's "easy". I do agree that it's still quite possible to create the "best" website in most niches. But it usually requires not only knowledge, but also hard work, time and effort. The reason there are so many bad websites is that most people either don't have the capability to create a good site or else aren't willing to expend the necessary time and effort.
|
|
