Whitey - 7:03 am on Apr 10, 2013 (gmt 0) [edited by: Whitey at 7:22 am (utc) on Apr 10, 2013]
@AnthonysItalianFood traffic got whacked hard dropping 40% swiftly as of the morning of Oct. 14th. When will the nightmare end. And of course BIG brands taking my place instantly! Minor Tweak?.. Really? grrrrrrr! [webmasterworld.com...]
@Tedster Yes, it does appear that more big brands are now ranking well (but not exclusively big brands.) Given what Google said Panda is trying to measure, that's not really a surprise.
Big brands in general are not agile enough to play the technical SEO game and "chase the algo" - but they often can throw a lot of resources (financial and human) at developing good content, analyzing their market and keeping their visitors happy. So I'm not surprised that Panda, on the whole, seems to favor brands. But every iteration has also brought pain to the occasional brand, too. For example, The Motor Report and The Today Show were both losers. [webmasterworld.com...]
@Londrum so, as much as i would like google to stop pushing the same old brands to the top of the SERPs, the truth is that i carry on using them because i know what i'm going to get... the results are predictable enough to make you expect a particular link.
its as if its taken over from amazon's (and wikipedia's.. and tripadvisor's... and the bbc's...) own site search [webmasterworld.com...]
@Tedster Last year I mentioned the new "Holy Grail" for search engines - measuring engagement. That is a term borrowed from social media, but it seems clear how important engagement metrics can be for search, especially in the e-commerce space.
If an online business doesn't engage its market in some real way, you have a danger signal that the "business" may just be good at manipulating the more traditional ranking signals. and if you can measure engagement in a refined and hard-to-game manner, then you have a very potent signal.
So I say Yes to "brand-aware" - even "engagement-aware." [webmasterworld.com...]
I dug up some previous posts, but see nothing much more spoken since 2011 of the involvement of brands in either Penguin or Panda and whether more or less emphasis was given to them. There weren't that many posts, so I kinda thought it might have been missed.
Some further digging around
Searchmetrics, going through the list, summarized the losers as mainly this way:
•Sites using databases to aggregate information
•Press portals and aggregators
•Heavily-templated web sites
If I compare in depth a couple of key sites, with branded sites offering less value add features, there appears to have not been the drop on the brands. So it makes me wonder if Google's blurb about "thin affiliates" "value add" and "great UI" really counts as much as Google claimed it could? I can't imagine the bounce rate was inferior on those examples I reviewed. Certainly the service elements were not an issue as they have non [ meta search sites ]. The UI's of the non brands were far slicker and information rich.
Another dig, I see specific core keywords excluded from non branded sites in the SERP's, and those keywords reserved for brands - site wide. Even on thin pages the brands have "reserved" placement. [this kinda ties into the earlier post of good content not always surfacing].
What's the consensus on those updates now, with regards to brands and non brands? Does that firm up your views? Did your hard remedial work pay off or did you meet a brand barrier, no matter what you did?
Is Google surreptiously linking ad spend to rankings via consumer retention methods - I mean where else do business' spend big online to create brand signals that Google uses.
More questions .....
[edited by: Whitey at 7:22 am (utc) on Apr 10, 2013]