---- Matt Cutts talks about what makes a good quality site
martinibuster - 5:03 pm on Jul 10, 2012 (gmt 0)
Google decided that poor sites with fair link building are better for users than good sites with poor link building
Google has made great strides in peppering the SERPs with sites with mom and pop level of optimization, if any at all. It has been doing that for a few years now. Panda and Penguin, in my opinion, are Google's attempts at addressing the shortcomings in citation based rankings by including sites into the SERPs based more on quality metrics.
The statement that Google is ranking poor sites with fair link building is a gross oversimplification of how Google ranks websites. The statement overlooks the non-link quality metrics inherent in Panda and ignores the quality metrics Penguin applies to links. That statement ignores the two most important changes in ranking to hit our industry.
If you believe that ranking in Google boils down to just acquiring links, my message to you is to reconsider what you think you know about promoting a website.
what a waste of my time to go link begging
Why go through the trouble and expense of building a site then balk at telling anyone about it? Nobody is entitled to rank, regardless of how good a site is.
The SERPs are an editorial opinion. They must be approached with that in mind. If you are going to apply for a job, you must dress in a similar manner as others in the company. You should share cultural touchstones. It's not enough to be competent and have a good work history. Those are the kinds of things that will tip you over to being hired. Similarly, if you are trying to get a book or article published, it pays to understand what has previously been published, what the editors lean toward in terms of writing style and topics. The SERPs are an editorial opinion.
[edited by: martinibuster at 5:23 pm (utc) on Jul 10, 2012]