Google Is Working on an Algo Fix - to help wrongly demoted sites

[tedster]

Here's official news that many sites have been waiting to hear. Google fellow Amit Singal is quoted in Wired:

"We deeply care about the people who are generating high-quality content sites, which are the key to a healthy web ecosystem," Singhal said.

"Therefore any time a good site gets a lower ranking or falsely gets caught by our algorithm - and that does happen once in a while even though all of our testing shows this change was very accurate - we make a note of it and go back the next day to work harder to bring it closer to 100 percent."

"That's exactly what we are going to do, and our engineers are working as we speak building a new layer on top of this algorithm to make it even more accurate than it is," Singhal said.

[wired.com...]

[TheMadScientist]

Right, and Santa Claus left me a Ferrai for Christmas.....

Cool! I got coal again...

[caribguy]

TMS thanks for the link. Don't read the WMF as often as I should, there's some gold there.

[wyweb]

Cool! I got coal again...

I got a rock. Same difference I guess.

You're on the ball mad scientist. I like the way you write.

[TheMadScientist]

Welcome & Thanks!

It's cool to know some of what I share helps and makes sense to someone besides me... I appreciate the feedback.

[walkman]

Too many tags may have done daniweb in. As for thin content, sometimes you just need a line of text to answer the question.

[brinked]

browsee,

I have been reading these forums for many many years. I especially make it a point to come read them whenever google makes an update. Every single time, people come out and talk about how aweful an update it was, how they really messed up, how this is going to put them out of business etc. Quite frankly, this is no different than any other update. They made an adjustment to their algo, is google a better search engine than it was a week/month/year ago? We dont know yet. Just like any update, there are losers and there are winners.

[Lapizuli]

I looked at four of the sites that complained they were a victim of this change. All I can say is Wow! Looks to me like Google did a pretty good job in the four cases I examined. It was hard to find any information among all those ads. Clearly the sites were not made for visitors, rather to only make a dime.

I'd have to agree, at least about some of the first websites listed; they get better, though, as you go down the page.

Many sites claimed on that thread are unimpressive - lots of visual problems and navigation problems and thin content. I'm surprised they ever ranked at all, though they are not what I'd call content farms.

But there were several sites I thought were just fine - the worst that could be said of some was that they looked amateurish; others looked like your average websites to me. Not necessarily outstanding (except for one pretty nifty science site) but, you know, nice sites. I was pretty cursory, so I may be missing some serious flaws there, but my first impression says that if these websites are not good enough for Google, they're getting a LOT more selective than they were in terms of site "slickness," bigness, whatever.

Like everyone under the sun right now, I'm wondering what links together all these sites and the affected sites I write for. What are the signals that make them "content farms" in Google's eyes? It's driving me bonkers, because I'm seeing no correlation with quality, relevance, or usefulness - none. The signals, whatever they are, are apparently only intelligible to the algorithm - not to humankind.

Sorry - I'm definitely in grumble mode. I've put together fewer than ten websites in my life and I'm way outside my comfort zone trying to analyze source code and stuff to figure this out. I hate bad content more than Google, probably. But this broadscale targeting in answer to broadscale complaints has been the equivalent, to me, of saying "I keep hearing people complain that mauve is tacky. Every day I hear it - mauve equals ugliness. Well, we're listening to you, oh haters-of-mauve. No more mauve in our lineup! Any dress with a hint of pink, you're gone! And as for blatantly mauve garments - sorry for all you people who thought you liked mauve - turns out it's low class; you're better off wearing azure."

Not saying content farms are angelic, but the ones hit are not the worst - in fact, I think that some of them are the best, serving as no less than a publishing platform for the non-techie little guy who's riding a new wave of opportunity and creativity not seen since the Golden Age. But right now, it looks like only humans can tell junk from jewels. I was kind of hoping Google could do it, but they're still a long way away from AI.

[CainIV]

"Perhaps some legislation is needed to regulate the World Wide Web search business. "

I would agree wholeheartedly.

Money is power and power corrupts, absolutely.

Where there is money, there will be bias - period.

Countdown to the "Open Web" is on...

[CainIV]

Google can't make manual changes to the update -it's official

Actually, that is not entirely accurate. They can make specific changes and do make specific changes, regardless of what side of the spin your happen to follow.

[vandread]

About tag pages: Should not every Wordpress blog under the sun have been hit by the algorithm then? Is not it so that Wordpress tags get indexed by default?

[Jane_Doe]

I looked at four of the sites that complained they were a victim of this change. All I can say is Wow! Looks to me like Google did a pretty good job in the four cases I examined. It was hard to find any information among all those ads. Clearly the sites were not made for visitors, rather to only make a dime.

Yeah, I would not have posted my URLs if I were most of them. I think to survive in this business you have to be a little more realistic about how your stuff compares to the competition than what I saw on most of that thread. There were a few good site in there that didn't seem to fit but many of them were more ads than content.

It is a good read though. Looking through the sites on the list kind of lets you see the patterns of what Google was going after.

[walkman]

Jane, I'll be honest. Most could get away with a manual review, if it wasn't for the maximizing ad revenue by placing too many ad blocks, placing them in top of the article, having splog looking templates etc.

There was top travel site, complaint site, a homeimprovement one, a recipe site, universe today, some answer sites etc that were really good ones. If you have a lot of pictures, which are great for travel, you are bound to have little text in that page. Or some answers are just short.

Some sites were an obvious attempt to target a keyword here and there though with cheese domain names and articles.

[tedster]

It does make me wonder if Adsense placement isn't at least part of the scoring.

[wyweb]

It does make me wonder if Adsense placement isn't at least part of the scoring.

I've wondered that myself. How to test though?

[zoltan]

Indeed, on some of the sites, big AdSense ads (2 336x280 on top + a 160x600 on left) are occupying 80% of the screen. Without scrolling, you actually only see the ads...
However, this might not be the only factor, as my site that is affected is quite moderate on AdSense ads (for example on our homepage, we only have one 728x90 on the very bottom).

[masterchief]

This is my first post since the update fiasco. We manage a 11 years old site, original content, all written by our hands, never an update had affected us so hard as this one we have lost 20-30% of traffic. Meanwhile automatic scrapers now RANK HIGHER than us, we have always trusted google's algo but this time i think they have to go back as before and test the update thoroughly.

[limoshawn]

It does make me wonder if Adsense placement isn't at least part of the scoring.

Part, for sure, but only a part. if the first thing gbot finds on a majority of your pages is an adsense block, not good. if gbot finds adsense on a majority of your pages, not good.
add in affiliate links, bad inbound link pattern, considerable inbound links from content farms, questionable outbound links, thin content pages, doorway pages, blah blah blah... toast and probably should be.

[zoltan]

If you read the post in the google blog, on the comments you can see a site that was featured on Google AdSense for years! Yet they were affected!

[edited by: zoltan at 1:27 pm (utc) on Mar 3, 2011]

[Content_ed]

masterchef,

Remember that the algo is US only, when it roles out overseas, your 20% - 30% will go up:-)

We're in exactly the same boat, but not alone, and it is getting some attention. The WSJ ran a story this morning that concluded with a author's site getting eaten by eHow traffic - eHow had no comment.

[TheMadScientist]

Google can't make manual changes to the update -it's official

Actually, that is not entirely accurate.

Actually, it is entirely accurate ... Follow the reporting sites to Google link (in this thread: Farmer Update - Report Good Sites Negatively Affected to Google [webmasterworld.com]) to see the official statement if you believe my copy and paste quote in the thread is erroneous.

If you choose to: not believe what they are saying, believe what they say is FUD, believe they just plain lie, believe whatever you need to that would make their statement untrue; then that's your prerogative, but the statement I posted is an official statement, and it's accurate as such.

Or are you trying to split hairs over my use of the word 'changes' rather than 'exceptions'? If so, then please, let's stop the stinking hair splitting. It does no good...

[edited by: TheMadScientist at 1:45 pm (utc) on Mar 3, 2011]

[gotmetoo]

It does make me wonder if Adsense placement isn't at least part of the scoring.

Part, for sure, but only a part.

AdSense is not only the part of the scoring it is the trigger.

This update seems to be directed at web sites running AdSense in general, as Google's definition of a "content farm" seems to be "a) a site with AdSense; b) any other variable", however odd this might sound.

[TheMadScientist]

It does make me wonder if Adsense placement isn't at least part of the scoring.

AdSssss ... Generally more than AdSense exclusively imo.

[limoshawn]

directed at web sites running AdSense in general

don't limit it to adsense, look at outbound linking in general.
1. adsense
2. affiliate links
3. any other questionable (paid?) outbound linking

here's a good question to ask yourself if you've been hit by this algo: is your site a destination site? OR are you trying to get people to your site so you can send them to my site? If it's the latter it doesn't make yo a bad site, you just need to find a different way to get people to your site, you're competing with google and google will crush you.

[TheMadScientist]

If it's the latter it doesn't make yo a bad site, you just need to find a different way to get people to your site, you're competing with google and google will crush you.

Oh, that's a good point to remind people about limoshawn...

[dangerman]

This update seems to be directed at web sites running AdSense in general, as Google's definition of a "content farm" seems to be "a) a site with AdSense; b) any other variable", however odd this might sound.

I am not sure about that. Demand Media is loved by Google as it brings them in many millions of revenue every year.

You don't see that awful eHow being hit in the latest algo shift, which I liken to a blunt instrument battering by the front line.

There's a growing team of snipers in the background to pick off Google's competitors, especially in vertical search markets.

[chrisv1963]

For one keyword (one word - 1,420,000 results) where I used to be on the second position I am now on the 5th postion. One of the "quality websites" outranking me is a Twitpic: one picture, one phrase with 8 words and two banners. The new algo seems to think this is a top quality page. It is clear that Google needs to do (a lot more) tweaking. It would be better to reverse the update, fix it and do decent testing before ever releasing it again.

[limoshawn]

The new algo seems to think this is a top quality page

well, is it? would the average user searching for that keyword prefer to see the twitpic or your site? if you say your site what are you basing that on? what data do you have that shows more average users would prefer to see your site over the twitpic when searching for that keyword?

[chrisv1963]

what data do you have that shows more average users would prefer to see your site over the twitpic when searching for that keyword?

Several articles (original content written by professionals) about the subject. Articles with pictures, drawings, ... A Q&A section where people can send in questions about the subject. Not UGC. Users send their questions by email and then the question + answer is published by us on the site.

[dickbaker]

It does make me wonder if Adsense placement isn't at least part of the scoring.

I've wondered that myself. How to test though

Maybe. I have a small (200 pages) site that's been online for three years, one that I haven't worked on in at least a year. It gets very light traffic, is in a very competitive niche, and has Adsense skyscrapers on the right side of every page next to the text. It wasn't hit at all. Don't know if the AdSense not blocking the page text had something to do with it, or if the site was too small to bother with.

If any site deserved to get hit, this one did.

[limoshawn]

Several articles (original content written by professionals) about the subject. Articles with pictures, drawings, ... A Q&A section where people can send in questions about the subject. Not UGC. Users send their questions by email and then the question + answer is published by us on the site.

Great, but the question is: what data do you have that shows that the average user/searcher of that keyword prefers to see your site over the twitpic page?