Robert_Charlton - 7:50 am on Jun 21, 2012 (gmt 0)

Mod's note: I changed the title of this thread, when publishing it, from "Great sites don't necessarily rank say's Google" to "Search engines need time & other signals to confirm a site is 'fantastic'". This is less sensational, but IMO, more accurate to JohnMu's comments.

What does this say about folks working hard to getting out of Panda recovery recognition? Does this resonate with anyone's experience?

I'm not sure what the thrust of this question is... whether this about a Google deficiency in ranking sites or a truth of SEO that we've known for years. I don't think that it should be news that it takes time to build good links, and to evaluate them.

Also, Panda isn't about backlink spam... that's Penguin.

To put some things back in context... the SER article that discusses part of the JohnMu quote is here....

Google: Fantastic Web Sites Not Enough To Rank Well
Search Engine Roundtable
Jun 20, 2012
[seroundtable.com...]

Barry comments...

...John is answering a specific question so taking him within that context is important, which I am not doing. But clearly he is saying that having a great web site is one thing. Google still needs to verify other factors, off page factors, to validate the site is truly fantastic to others.

I myself feel that Barry's context becomes more valuable if we also look at the JohnMu quote in its context. Since links to Google's forums have a habit of breaking, with or without the WebmasterWorld link redirect script, here's the thread on which John is making his commment... note the title... along with a url that may work for you, and the bulk of John's comment.

Competitor might be doing a bad SEO attack against us. Strong traffic drop
http://productforums.google.com/d/msg/webmasters/dKxA1RSuZ8c/zhI9vZ6GXVgJ

JohnMu posted...

From what I can tell, your site is still fairly new - with most of the content just a few months old, is that correct? In cases like that, it can take a bit of time for search engines to catch up with your content, and to learn to treat it appropriately. It's one thing to have a fantastic website, but search engines generally need a bit more to be able to confirm that, and to rank your site - your content - appropriately. That said, if you're engaging in techniques like comment spam, forum profile link-dropping, dropping links in unrelated articles, or just placing it on random websites, then those would be things I'd strongly recommend stopping and cleaning up if you can.

I think the first paragraph of John's comment says what it says, quite clearly, that it will take Google some time to sort out the quality of a site based on linking signals. It likely also is intended to mean that it takes time for natural backlinks to build. In the past, it's been generally agreed among good SEOs that it might take at least a year or two to build a critical mass of real good quality backlinks.

Additionally, as I read between lines, John is commenting, in the context of the Google forum thread, about whether it was negative SEO or questionable link building tactics that have caused weak rankings. That's being debated on the Google thread, as it had been previously been debated here. IMO, John's saying that he's seeing a bad link profile for the OP's site... and that if the site is actually good, it's going to take better quality linking signals to make it rank. That may or may not have implications about whether negative SEO can hurt a new site with an emerging link profile (as opposed to a bad link profile).

Regarding the original post in this thread... whatever one wants to make of the fact that good backlinks take time both to get built and to get sorted out (and that's getting more complicated), I'm not sure there's anything new here about Panda. I don't think Panda is about backlinks.

If [Whitey's] original post is about time and patience... IMO it's a pretty obscure way of making the point.


Edit note: Fixed Google forum url, and clarified which "original post" I'm talking about. I have no trouble with JohnMu's comment.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 6:56 pm (utc) on Jun 21, 2012]