Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
I was wondering if someone could confirm that this in fact is correct or not?
Thank you
That being said, would it be safe to say that Google would not be able to catch websites that have pages full of gibberish, but also with their keywords thrown in there a few times?
At least they couldn't be caught solely on not being full sentences, but could maybe detected by other means as spam.
Tthe reading-level tests might also come in handy. Certainly I'd love it if they used reading-level tests. My space is plagued by high-ranking pages written by primary school students...
Indeed, for a dedicated searcher, reading-level stats would be a very effective way to narrow ones' search (ie., for the "advanced" page). I mean, if you are a college student learning about paleontology (or mummies, or etc. etc.) you are continually being served kid-oriented sites...
There are, however, serious processor time issues when you get into serious semantic parsing. What's trivial for a single document is not necessarily trivial for billions.
I develop an informational site, where each widget has its official description, written in as good English as possible, and then there are users' reviews, written in language quality they could afford. But these reviews are very valuable source of information for people who the website is intended to.
If Google can distinct between random generated keyword stuffed spammy phrases and normal English written by human, that's ok, but they'd better don't penalize sites with user-inserted content, which may include gramatical errors.
For example, WebmasterWorld is a valuable resource of information, while many posters (including myself I guess) make many language mistakes. It doesn't mead it's a spam :))
And spam sites can be detected with so many other methods, especially with careful analysis of its outbounds - I don't know if Google does it, but they definitely should.
Pure rumors, IMO.
Stop words, word stemming, and concept of LSI should be able to help confirm that googlebot won't read sentences gramatically.
For example, WebmasterWorld is a valuable resource of information, while many posters (including myself I guess) make many language mistakes. It doesn't mead it's a spam happy!)
But if a page existed that had the same content in better English, then I would consider the grammatically correct one better result and rank it first (in my search engine).
What Google ranks where is their business, but I believe the sites they wish to rank highly would generally include properly formed scentences and minimal spelling errors.
I can see a use for a grammar filter if you're specifically looking for articles and essays, but it shouldn't be applied to the general results.
What Google ranks where is their business, but I believe the sites they wish to rank highly would generally include properly formed scentences and minimal spelling errors.
I just spellchecked something I wrote, and Word found about 20 words it didn't recognise. None of these were errors. Unique names, specialist jargon and obscure vocabulary will be more common in documents with a higher reading age. Then there are local variations in language to account for. I don't believe accurate grammar or spellchecking is possible for a search engine, at least not in the near future.
I don't believe accurate grammar or spellchecking is possible for a search engine, at least not in the near future.
Will have to respectfully disagree with you on that. Google has the best data set ever to base spelling and grammar checks on. They're already doing it. Drop or add a letter out of your favorite word, dump the result into Google's search bar. "Did you mean: ____?"
I'm not suggesting they do check for proper grammar or spelling when it comes to ranking pages. I've seen no evidence to support that theory yet, but I've seen no evidence to disprove that theory either so i don't know. But it is another factor. If they're looking at every little piece of information they can to help them rank sites, why shouldn't they consider spelling/grammar? I don't imagine it will ever become a death sentence for your site if you can't spell, but it could/should be a factor. I mean really, if the words in your URL matter, why not this? Neither one carries a lot of weight, but all other things being equal, it's another factor to tip the scales in favour of a better site.
As I recall (it was early in the morning) he said this is something that is being worked with behind the scenes, but it's experimental and not at all ready for prime time. It needs to be a pretty complex algorithm and while it is naturally of serious interest, it's apparently not zapping our pages up or down at the moment.
This was also one of those topics where words were "very carefully chosen" in the answer, and my paraphrase may be off a bit from the actual intended meaning - so take my report with a grain of salt. It's always fun when you ask a search engineer something and they become very attentive to what they can and can't say ;)
You didn't know that did ya....?
The simplest reason for the care in the response is that such a statement is likely to make it onto the boards such as webmaster world, and they understand that the rumors are going to run rampant.
The fact that you got an affirmative answer at all would lead me to take the carefully worded response at face value. It is an area of interest, but it isn't anywhere close to ready for prime time.
