Signals of good taste

What are signals of a trusted source of information?

[AnonyMouse]

In an earlier post, Martinibuster touches on the difference between sending out signals of good taste, and signals of tasting good.

He states, and I agree, that "creating a web page with the keywords in the title and H1, and keywords bolded and italicized elsewhere on the page. Otherwise known in some circles as "properly optimized." is "sending the wrong signal of having good taste but not tasting good."

He then says "So ask yourself, what are signals of a trusted source of information?"

I repeat the question, what are the signals?!?

[texasville]

Boy, talking about analyzing something to death. Basically, I would say that if you built it for your visitor, then it should have both. Why italicize something? If it is to emphasize for the viewer, fine. If it makes no visual sense, then it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Then it's just for the se's. Same thing for the underlines and print in red. Some of this just makes no sense to me. I have seen sites where it looks like they just randomly did this. Bad taste and probably perplexing to some visitors.
Although I will use the red lettering in some instances to make certain words jump out to the visitor such as the company name at the bottom of the page.

[AnonyMouse]

I was thinking more along the lines of:

* Incoming links for a variety of "trusted" sources
* Domain name registered for a longer duration
* Not seen as being on a shared server
* Outbound links to a variety of relevant sites

Any others?

[Alex70]

Every IBL should have a pretty different description and not to be too specific on one or two keywords in the anchor, as all "editors/webmasters" should have a different ability and should write in theyr own way...

[the_nerd]

Every IBL should have a pretty different description and not to be too specific on one or two keywords in the anchor, as all "editors/webmasters" should have a different ability and should write in theyr own way...

assume you (as a webmaster with all the knowledge you have) find a website that you really like. You give them a link, just because you like them and maybe want that others will find and like them as well. You know that some good keywords in your link will help them and act accordingly.

Why on earth should that reduce their credibility?

the nerd.

[whitenight]

With all the time it takes to send out signals of "good taste", one might as well actually be authoritative.(tasting good)

It takes the same amount of energy, either way.

As I've always said, an authority site is an authority site way before Google picks up on it.

Might as well put in the same energy as "mimicking" authority and know that you've actually created something useful.

* Incoming links for a variety of "trusted" sources
* Outbound links to a variety of relevant sites
happen "naturally" when building a site that is authoritative.

Bold, italics, underlines, red print, blue print, etc.
Who cares?
Either the info/product is authoritative or not.
Doesn't matter whether it's there or not.

If you want to control (somewhat) how people link to you then explain how you want the anchor text to say on your "link to us" page.

----------
If you're trying to game Google, then game them. Forget about being authoritative and go for what you want... quick money.

Silly to pretend you're a white hat when you're trying to game G somehow. Just game them.
Who cares what people think about what color hat you wear?

Otherwise, put the time and effort into creating something that's extra-ordinary and noteworthy and reap the rewards of that.

[soapystar]

if a sprinter ran the 100 meters in 8.2 seconds would you say that was the perfect run, or that was too good to be true?

[europeforvisitors]

if a sprinter ran the 100 meters in 8.2 seconds would you say that was the perfect run, or that was too good to be true?

It would depend on what turned up in the urinalysis. If traces of several different forbidden substances were found, I'd be extremely suspicious. :-)

[soapystar]

well. I personally would take all known data into account. Including profiling as to natural human progression and associated parameters for error. If you look at charted calculations for maximum achievement you will 8.3 seconds is far beyond possible unaided performance. Now you can only test for what you know exists so relying on any dope test can only ever be one part of the algo for drug detection. Natural progression profiling must be another if your at all serious at stopping cheats (spammers). How narrow that parameter is allowed to be will depend on the collateral your prepared to see.