Forum Moderators: open
Visitors=Wvisiters, as a whole
Just like GNP=National Income (for the economists of us in the group)
Revelancy in its ideal is defined as:
Not only on-target to the search topic, but also:
Web site quality and contemporary design
Good products combined with good pricing- in the case of products and services
A clear message, contemporary topic, and sound thinking, in the case of ideas.
In short, a "salable" package.
Further:
Those that put the effort required into SEO whether by themselves, or by incorporating the use of an SEO pro, generally will have better site quality than those that don't. If you pay time & effort, or money to and SEO pro., for rankings in Google than generally you would want an revelant site once you have the visitors, or what would have been the point of the effort to begin with?
In the big picture:
Google & Webmasters are on the same side. There would be no reason for Google to discourage the most relevant results from showing up in the best ranking positions as far as I can see.
For Webmasters:
Achieving high rankings- does pay off IF your site is effective at promoting whatever it is promoting. Otherwise, it's a waste of time and/or money.
Google's algorithms do reflect these ideas apparently:
a) The have PR to reward those sites that have shown in quantifiable ways, that they have revelancy. This method has it's weaknesses, however since Google cannot measure visitors on every web site over a period of time, it's the next best thing.
b) The have content analysis added to PR, as a way to give newcomers nonetheless the chance to rank high with the established sites in a reasonable amount of time. To provide- diversity and dynamics in ranking results over time.
c) They incorporate more & more QC techniques to try and prevent those that would cut corners from rising to the top of the pack unfairly: Rules to try and insure that either you do put in the required effort, or alternatively bear the costs of using an SEO (Google should be indifferent as to which method a webmaster would use), to attempt to rise to the top. That you put up your good faith deposit, of endeavering to succeed. To the extent you put up your good faith deposit, it provides some degree of comfort to Google that your website also has true revelancy.
Am I right, or am I wrong? I put it to the tribunal, if anyone cares, and no one may.
you just reposted what you said the first time...
""it could instigate a similar approval programme with algorithmic pages - for a fee?"""
"for a fee", believe is the operative phrase. hence my comment.
anyway, this topic seems to have run its course. thanks for the feedbacks on a purely academic post. cool that people decided to respond.
tootaloo
On the same side of the fence as Google: A Webmaster who structures a site for users and provides "spider food" in the form of descriptive titles, anchor text, etc. In this case, what's good for the Webmaster is also good for Google, and vice versa (and for the user as well).On the opposite of the fence from Google: A Webmaster who analyzes Google's vulnerabilities and exploits them. This kind of "aggressive SEO" may be good for the Webmaster (as long as it works, anyway) but it won't be good for Google, which is trying to deliver search results that are untainted by artificial manipulation.
How about:
A. Good for Google, good for users, within guidelines:
Spider food, anchor text, titles, etc...
B. Good for Google, good for users, outside guidelines:
"Aggressive SEO" that exploits algo vulnerabilities
C. BAD for Google, BAD for users:
Doesn't really matter how they got there.
The thing is in some sectors there can be 100's or even 1000's of relevant sites for a query, but there are only 10 slots in the SERPs that really matter. SEs are not sophicated enough, searchers are not sophisticated enough, which leaves the ball square in our court.
