Site Construction Guidelines

Why doesn't Google produce site construction guidelines?

[petehall]

I've been thinking about this for a while.

Up until recently all of our sites have been doing fantastically in Google (for years) - even surviving the Florida update that caused so many problems.

We have always constructed websites / pages to be as well structured and useable as possible.

Now Google no longer agrees with the way one of our sites is constructed and as a result it is beginning to suffer - which I really hope is a glitch there and not a fault of the site construction. (What is rather odd is it is constructed in a very similar manor to several which are still improving but that's another thread!)

The site has worked well for years, has totally unique, original and constantly changing content, and uses no "tricks" at all to achieve positions.

Luckily, the site is very well established and without a vast presence in Google it remains fine.

However... I'd really like to know where I went wrong! If no tricks are being used, designers clearly have to be incredibly careful so as not to upset Google.

Wouldn't it be in everyone's interest for a set of guidelines to be produced?

I mean, if everyone followed the guidelines wouldn't Google be full of quality sites instead of drivel which is a result of people guessing what will achieve them top positions....

Just a thought. Sorry if this one has been done before.

[rfgdxm1]

It may be that it isn't site structure that is making your site suffer, but something else such as an algo shift. For example, the Google algo is *heavily* weighted to favor offsite factors. Such as PR and anchor text from other sites. Thus, your site could drop significantly with no changes if say other sites managed to get the right inbound links, etc. and jump over yours in the SERPs.

[petehall]

But the thing is, without more detailed guidelines I will never know... :-)

[petehall]

It would just be nice to know that as long as you followed rules X, Y and Z your site would not suffer from a penalty.

Then at least if the positions dropped you know it's not your website that is "broken".

I have made a few changes to our linking structure now, but I am not entirely convinced that they were necessary.

[encyclo]

Google absolutely doesn't want to encourage "Built for Googlebot" sites - it much prefers simply indexing genuine sites, whether commercial or not.

What would they call the guide? "Spam us in Safety How-to"? If they published any detailed guidelines at all, it would almost certainly drive up the quantity of "drivel" rather than reduce it.

The only information on their site resembling what you are saying is this:

[google.com...]

Which simply covers the basics.

[rfgdxm1]

Your site may not have suffered a penalty. Other sites just managed to beat you out. Looks at it this way. Say in the town I live in I am the fastest running the 100 meter dash. If a bunch of Olympic quality athletes blow through town and decide to run in a race I am scheduled to attend, even though I can still run as fast, I now just end up in the middle of the pack at the finish line.

[petehall]

Why on earth could the guidelines encourage spam? I imagine them to guide you on how to construct a non-spammy site so you don't get penalised in any way!

I'm not talking trickery guidelines; repeating words X number of times, have Y number of internal links and get Z number sites to link to you!

All I mean are some more detailed do's and don'ts! I had great success in Google since 1999, so am not a new comer and am fully aware of the basic guidelines, thank you.

By the way, the only positions lost are 30 internal pages we still hold top slot on all the major phrases as we have done for years.

So you see, I'm not being bitter - merely making a suggestion.

rfgdxm1 what a funny little analogy. It does not apply to us as the 30 pages have gone from position 1 (in every instance) to... well I got bored after result 300!

[karmov]

More specific guidelines would give hints as to how the algo specifically worked at that point in time. This would help spammers identify what they need to do to manipulate it.

The other issue is that if they give out specific guidelines, they will have a self-fulfilling prophecy. The web will end up looking exactly the way they state in their guidelines.

From what I understand of them, Google would much rather let people do what people do since the millions of webmasters out there are always trying new things to make the web work for other people. If they continue to let people be creative and immaginative, they can alter their algo to match whatever new trends show up in sites that people like.

In order for Google to do a good job it has to reflect what people like, not tell them what they will like.

[petehall]

Fair points; however rather than a guide to ranking highly, what I really meant was a guide on how to avoid a disaster.

More what not to do, as opposed to what not to...

Anyway, I'll keep my thoughts self contained next time as they are obviously the total opposite to everyone else's.

[karmov]

It's perfectly fine to have differing opinions and voice them to the crowd around here. It's what keeps the conversation interesting.

We're just telling our side of the story as well. Your question is a fair one to ask which is why it's gotten a bunch of thought out replies. Spurring on conversation is generally a good thing around here, even if people disagree with you : )

[synergy]

In order for Google to do a good job it has to reflect what people like, not tell them what they will like.

Well put. It would be scary if a search engine as powerful as Google ran their business plan with a dictatorship mindset.

Why on earth could the guidelines encourage spam?

Reverse engineering. I think giving guidelines for how to 'build a site for Google' would give spammers even more insight to how the algorithm works. They know this, so they (as karmov said) let people do what people do.

As far as design & coding guidelines are concerned... Why should Google re-invent the wheel [w3c.org]?