austtr - 11:26 pm on Apr 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

Some great posts in this thread... lots of thought provoking ideas and opinions.

The theme so far is about trying to analyse the how/what/when that create negative outcomes for certain sites... the logic being that if those factors are recognised and understood, then that knowledge can be applied to remedial action.

Are we perhaps not placing enough attention on the opposite... ie... the how/what/when that create positive outcomes for certain sites? When we see sites that demonstrate, and hold, big SERP improvements, are we putting enough time into understanding what is different about those sites that causes Google to favour them? I'm talking about in depth review, not just labelling them as spam because they outrank you.

As a group we are very focussed on perceived filters and penalties but I see very little sustained focus on what creates reward and improvement. Some will say that when we know the reasons for the filters, then improvement will follow automatically.... that would be a big assumption.

Google's interpretation of a good site is well documented and has been spelled it out in their guidelines since day 1. The algo(s) that rank sites are far too complex for us to know with any certainty what they are doing at any given point in time... algo interpretation is always going to be guesswork.

But looking at sites that show good rankings gain would seem to be a controlled process that can be measured against known, published guidelines. In other words, you start measuring the reasons for success instead of trying to guess the reasons for failure.

Perhaps rather a simplistic view but the KISS principle has worked for me for more years that I care to recall.