|Is google all about penalties or do they have a rewards system?|
Everyone knows about the many many penalties google can apply to sites. Whether they are algorithmic or manual the list is endless of ways you can get kicked.
So the google setup could be described as their core, now hummingbird, creates the serps. Then a whole host of addons, penguin, panda, -whatever, manual, etc etc then go through it and demote anyone who fits the bill.
The question is this, does anyone know to or heard of any way in which they do similar in a positive manor to say promote a site which may not have been given a fair evaluation by the core? Or is their entire philosophy about negative action?
If I uploaded a blank website I won't rank.
If I add a some keyword rich content to the page, I gain a positive ranking power.
If I add relevant keyword to the title tag, I gain positive ranking power.
If I develop quality inbound backlinks, my rankings gain more positive power.
If you are looking for a powerful positive shortcut, then you will likely have a hard time. Most of the positive signals need a good amount of effort.
Im not looking for a positive shortcut at all just posing a question for peoples views. To answer my own question I don't belive they have any penguin/panda etc type addons that will promote a site in the same way that these two examples demote sites.
@goodroi, all understood re the points you make but in my own mind I would class all these as the 'core' algorithm, much as google describes their system when they went to hummingbird. Penguin/panda are addons to the core. I guess you could view the core as the page rank a site achieves, it can then still be heavily demoted down the serps by one of the addons.
There have been rumours of a whitelisting system but nothing proven?
Do you think google could take positive manual action?
Wider views could be that they must have some 'addon' that will promote googles own sites higher than competitors even if they aren't necessarily worthy (hence investigations by European competition commission)
Various govt agencies around the world would come down on them like a duck on a june bug if anyone could make a definitive case, which means either Google isn't doing it, or they've found a way to virtually guarantee it can't be proved. One choice is way easier than the other.
It true we only hear about the "web spam team". Who is the quality control team? Who is the anti-Cutts?
|It true we only hear about the "web spam team". Who is the quality control team? Who is the anti-Cutts? |
This is a very good question, who is watching the quality of the results?
|Or is their entire philosophy about negative action? |
No, it cant be. There has to be "positive signals" in order to produce some sort of ranking. However, they definitely have been giving more and more weight to the "negative signals" over the past few years.
A long time ago, in an internet that sure seems far, far away - the grading scale was sort of like "0 - 100" where the negatives were ignored; add up whatever positive signals you had and that was your score. Now its more of a "-100 to 100" scale where the negatives are given equal participation in the overall determination.
I think what is giving so many people fits is that a great deal of the "negatives" aren't necessarily good or bad per se, their just attributes that Google feels don't fit the particular vision they have for their results.
>>>This is a very good question, who is watching the quality of the results?<<<
I guess they just hope that if they filer out all the sites that break their guidelines with penalties all that will be left in the SERPS will be quality websites?
I donít think they factored in that also leaves the terrible sites that no one gave a damn about to rise to the top.