lazycat - 9:39 pm on Feb 27, 2011 (gmt 0)
Quality pages? Meh.
OK I rarely post here but am a long-time reader. Here's one experience I have with the new algorithm and something which makes me think this can't be *it* and there's more to come.
Some time early in Dec. I posted a couple of articles on one of the sites people are referring to as content farms, just as an experiment. They ranked 'ok' for the search terms I targeted but were basically hovering around the bottom of page 1 or page 2 for most of them.
So, as an experiment I pointed some backlinks to some of those articles from a few of the usual suspects for gaining quick ugly links (certain article directories, dofollow social bookmarking sites etc.)...junk, basically.
The pages with inbound links dropped as low as page 3, none of them went up. Fine, I wasn't really expecting them to to rise but it was certainly interesting (and hopefully coincidental) that they dropped.
This algorithm update made all those articles disappear for virtually all of the keywords I was watching.
I'm not drawing conclusions that it was those links which killed them off because a lot of the content on that site dropped also but here is something interesting...
...the junk pages I created on those bookmarking sites, article directories etc. rank from page 1 to 3 out of on average 2 million results for their keywords. That's right, the useful pages that garbage links TO are virtually non-existent, yet the garbage itself (which is in the majority of cases is a page with just a line or two of text I wrote and a pile of ads) ranks anywhere from the first page to page 3.
Those types of pages are not useful to a searcher and there's no way they could possibly be considered to be high quality in any way, shape or form, yet there they are and gone is the actually useful article they link to.
Bizarre. I really have no clue what G. was really trying achieve with this update but quality results don't seem to be it.
On a side note: expired craislist ads are worth ranking too? Sheesh.