How Special is Your Website?

[TheMadScientist]

People seem to be totally confused about the new quality piece for Google's algo, and I wonder how 'special' the sites of those who used to rank and no longer do really are?

How many sites do you run?

How many sites do: Amazon, eBay, Twitter, FaceBook, WikiPedia, and all the other big players run? Now, again, how special is your website, really? Is it so special you only need one?

I only work on 5 right now, only run 4 of them, of the ones I run 1 is for a separate business, 1 is personal, and 2 are sites I can concentrate on basically full time, 1 of which is noindexed ... How many do you run?

Do you have the latest word press installed? It's a dime-a-dozen piece of software. Nothing special about WP ... Do you have the newest directory software on all of them? How many other people do too? How about eCommerce? Do you have the latest osCommerce or Zen Cart installed with friendly URLs? You and how many 1000s of other people?

Really, sit down and look at your site(s) and ask yourself how special it is when you compare it to the sites the 'big players' build ... Is it close? Is it really the quality of the highest caliber?

None of the sites I saw listed on Google's report a quality site wrongly demoted page were anything 'special' to the point where I thought I would really be missing out if they weren't included in the results ... Not one.

I see so many 'nothing special' sites out there I don't know what people are actually complaining about and I really wonder how honest their evaluation of their own sites is?

If you're wondering why you might not rank like you used to, imo you might do well to sit down, really look at your site, and ask yourself, what makes my site special?

Forget about other people's sites and the sites out ranking yours and trying to chase the algo for another round, and sit and ask yourself what makes your site special and then: what could I do better?

[TheMadScientist]

Again, everyone seems to keep ignoring the fact the eHow's really horrible, completely unspecial, in some cases flat out stolen content actually gained in the Panda update.

I haven't said a word about the content uniqueness ... That was others ... I'm talking about the site as a whole, most specifically, the interaction, usefulness, design, function, ease of use, uniqueness of the site itself as a whole, and other things that often go overlooked by the 'little guys' when compared to the 'big guys' ... Yes, the site as a whole includes content, but I think people are a little too stuck on content alone after this update ... People seem to think they should be allowed to compete at the top of the results with a 'cookie cutter + content' approach, and I can't help but wonder if Google used human editorial input to base an algo on how many people realized WP, vBulletin, osCommerce, etc. are dime-a-dozen sites and thought they were nothing 'special' regardless of content, because there are so many. Doesn't anyone else see how that could happen?

I know I get tired of them after a while...

Really, give me 3 or 4 WP sites in a row and I'm looking for a different reference ... Maybe I'm the only one, but it's the way I am, and I could see those who review sites for a living feeling the same when, when they're basically 'nothing new'.

that sounds all noble and pie-in-the-sky wonderful, but have you seen the amazing amount of drivel and cr@p that ranks well? Don't get me wrong, I love good quality content and sites that really make me think, "hey this is special". But I honestly don't think that a well-crafted, quality site will do any better or worse in any particular algo update.

Then what will do better or worse? How comparatively unique are the sites you mention seeing in the results? Feel free to enlighten me on what you think will matter over the next 5 years as the new 'quality' portion of the algo is adjusted and the 'machine learning' begins to mature rather than just saying how wrong I am ... It's entirely possible I'm completely off, but please, if you think I am, offer readers a better approach...

[TheMadScientist]

Let me see if I can rephrase and give some perspective this way:

Do you want your soup:
a.) Canned
b.) Home Made
c.) Made by a Chef

Personally, I'll take the stuff the pro makes ... Sorry I don't want to try your canned, or even home made when there's a professional making the same thing and that's an option.

I guess my question could be rephrased as what type of soup is your website?

You might find 'chef made' websites tend to attract attention (traffic) in other ways than simply search, and imo that may cause a specific type of event(s) that in turn may increase rankings ... Again, my opinion only, and you're welcome to have a differing opinion, but please, share some alternative advice for people to choose from if you think I'm just plain off...

[jinxed]

Personally, I agree with you TheMadScientist.

I don't see a problem with using a WP type CMS in the back end - with a totally unique front end output, as a problem (not that I've ever done this).

But, when there are 1000's of sites using the same free 'WP template' I think in the long term they will struggle to stand out and offer their users something new.

[johnblack]

Personally, I'll take the stuff the pro makes

And that's fine ...

For other people the home made will suffice and some will even cope with the canned, horses for courses as they say ...

I have some sites which I am proud of (irrespective of the money I make from them) and I have some sites which make me go OMG! But if the 'OMG' site earns me a crust cos some folks like 'canned soup' so be it!

I'm a realist, not a dreamer ...

[TheMadScientist]

This is a fun discussion isn't it?
Sometimes I think they are the best for learning and new innovation...

[johnblack]

This is a fun discussion isn't it?

Quite agree!

Surely the method of content delivery shouldn't matter, whether it's 'Yet Another' WP template or whether it's a beautifully hand-crafted UNIQUE content management system, it's the actual info contained within that should matter.

[TheMadScientist]

Surely the method of content delivery shouldn't matter...

Unless you're looking for the sites your users are perceived to 'enjoy' the most since this is the Internet and most queries have multiple possible answers ... In the case of the preceding, imo, the presentation of those answers is likely to directly impact the 'enjoyment' of the end user and should, imo, be factored into the rankings...

Think about it for a minute: You have somewhere near a trillion pages to choose from and your job is to present your users with results they like (<-- that's important, imo) over nearly everything else ... When your job is to present results if the end user doesn't like the result you present they don't like your site any more ... It doesn't, imo, matter nearly as much if your answers are 'the best' content or not if your users don't like the answers you present them with, which, imo, means the presentation of those answers matters...

They have too many similar results these days to need to present an end user with an answer presented in a way the end user is not perceived as liking, imo.

[edited by: TheMadScientist at 11:22 am (utc) on Mar 22, 2011]

[Dan01]

What will the internet be like in 5 or 10 years?

Right now many of the top results are usually Wikipedia, government and media companies. Magazines, TV stations, and newspapers moving their content to the web. So far the big problem has been the lack of advertising revenue to support large staffs, and they still make the bulk of their money from old media.

Will that hold and will the old media companies become the new dominant companies on the web? That is my question.

A lot of those companies use Drupal. By the time they get done, it doesn't look anything like the CMS. How many sit there and design their own CMS from scratch? Who knows?

I saw Eric Schmidt on a PBS show once. He suggested that the large staffs with writers, artists, programmers, janitors, etc will NOT dominate the web. Is he right? I don't know. Will the internet consist of more smaller website or fewer media sites?

[edited by: Dan01 at 11:20 am (utc) on Mar 22, 2011]

[TheMadScientist]

Alright, Dan01, but what footprint does the reworking of a system like Drupal present to an algorithm? Is it anywhere near the same as the footprint of the site that does a basic installation of Drupal?

Drupal is open source software, so my guess is they use drupal as a starting point, because it's cost effective, but by the time they're done it does not present the footprint of stock-standard Drupal any more, which makes it unique...

[viggen]

Forget about other people's sites and the sites out ranking yours and trying to chase the algo for another round, and sit and ask yourself what makes your site special and then: what could I do better?

My site is so special that i have about 500 sites citing me as a source but thank me with a nofollow link, I am so special that i have half of my articles stolen by other sites some of them are even listed on the stock exchange, what could i do better? I could get a better lawyer (if i had more money) and i could disallow all search engine (if i had the balls)...

[johnblack]

then imo the presentation of those answers is likely to directly impact the 'enjoyment' of the end user and should imo be factored into the rankings...

So are you saying (and I don't think you are) that a site that has funky ajax code, facebook share links, a twitter feed with mediocre content should outrank a basic html page with the precise answer to the query?

[Dan01]

John, I was thinking the same thing.

Drupal is open source software, so my guess is they use drupal as a starting point, because it's cost effective, but by the time they're done it does not present the footprint of stock-standard Drupal any more, which makes it unique...

Absolutely, whether you use Drupal or WP, or any other CMS, the more unique it looks the better.

It sounds like you are saying that the more unique the layout is, the better the site will rank in the future. Something that is appealing to the real person will win out. I think that is Google's goal, but is it more important than quality content - good graphics, video, charts, in-depth commentary? I have no idea.

[TheMadScientist]

So are you saying (and I don't think you are) that a site that has funky ajax code, facebook share links, a twitter feed with mediocre content should outrank a basic html page with the precise answer to the query?

What does the end user like to visit or use?

I think, from a purely ranking perspective, people need to stop thinking so much about having the 'right' answer (as far as 'absolute accuracy' being the best answer for Google to present to end users) as much as having the 'best answer for Google's users' ... Isn't eHow a great example of this 'theory' in action?

The right answer for Google's users takes into account much more than 'absolute accuracy' of the answer presented on a given web page, imo. I think WikiPedia is probably another great example of this 'theory' ... They don't always present the most accurate answer to a specific query, but imo, often present a relatively accurate answer and do so in a way the end user likes to use and visit, so from a Google perspective, it's a 'quality' ranking choice.

I'm not saying having the 'wrong' answer from an accuracy pov is in anyway advised, because I think that will 'work it's way out', but I also think having the 'right' answer from an accuracy pov will not be enough.

It sounds like you are saying that the more unique the layout is, the better the site will rank in the future.

Uh, different in a 'better' sort of way ... If that makes any sense.

Something that is appealing to the real person will win out.

That's exactly what I think...

[johnblack]

having the 'best answer for Google's users'

Well that's the kicker isn't it? Do you build a website for Google's users who are admittedly in the majority right now or for build it for websters in general?

To be honest I'll build a site for Googlers, check the numbers. But is that the right thing to do? Are we not letting Google dictate to us the shape of the web by doing so?

[TheMadScientist]

Do you build a website for Google's users who are admittedly in the majority right now or for build it for websters in general?

I think the two are not mutually exclusive ... In fact I think of them as parallel ... If you build a site the general visitor will like, then imo Google's users will also enjoy the site, because they're one-in-the-same, imo. So, I try to build sites people will 'talk about' or 'be impressed with' (for lack of a better way to describe what I mean) and imo that helps in the rankings.

In other words: I think if people focus on the 'wow, unique, cool, usable' factors that concentration will have some translation to rankings, because if the general public likes it then Google's users will also like it, since they are generally the general public.

[johnblack]

Yeah, I agree Google must be (or should be) monitoring stickiness, clicks on FB shares, etc via whatever means they have.

And yes it is a generally a good indication of a site's value, if you are prepared to put that effort into your site to enable your users to pass on the info then it's unlikely your content is copied/spun or whatever.

It's just that the lack of that functionality should not be a negative factor for a site.

[TheMadScientist]

It's just that the lack of that functionality should not be a negative factor for a site.

From who's perspective ... The site owner's or Google's?

I think this is probably query (document classification type) dependent, actually ... If you look at WikiPedia there's not much functionality even though there's a high level of 'usefulness', but if you look at Twitter or Amazon there is great deal of functionality.

This really is a great discussion, imo, so thanks to all who are contributing!

[chrisranjana]

I have a nagging doubt that google sometimes employs scores and scores of people to check websites which appear in the top 20 or 30 at the least.

[brotherhood of LAN]

>which appear in the top 20 or 30 at the least.

Last I remember hearing is that the top 10K queries are regularly checked.

[johnblack]

I think that's my point - sorry it's late here in NZ and things are getting blurry! Wikipedia, zero functionality, yet good content (in theory) written by people who know what they are talking about (if you disagree, I'm not gonna argue with you) yet twitter? well I can't really comment as I've never been to the site, but I guess it rocks if you are a Charlie Sheen fan and Amazon sells stuff.

I'm talking more about a 'red widget' site based around a 'mom and pop' store. Been selling red widgets for years, know everything there is to know about red widgets, but Facebook is something their kids use.

Should their supposed lack of IT savvy negate their site?

[Dan01]

Right now Google is working on countering black-hat SEO. Perhaps, if they can sort that out, the sites with the best user experience will prevail. But isn't the best user experience the site that answers your question, whether they have cool widgets or good navigation? This is why I hope Google and Bing don't judge website page on a website-basis. I don't like finding my answer on page five of the SERPS.

Those are my thoughts.

[edited by: Dan01 at 12:31 pm (utc) on Mar 22, 2011]

[TheMadScientist]

I'm talking more about a 'red widget' site based around a 'mom and pop' store ... Should their supposed lack of IT savvy negate their site?

They are likely in direct competition with: Amazon, eBay, CraigsList, the manufacturer, Overstock, and others ... Does the end user generally care about the information Mom & Pop present in a shopping based query, or is it more likely they prefer to visit and buy from the 'household names' they are already comfortable with?

Remember they're trying to return results for the general population, not the people Mom & Pop know, or even webmasters ... They have to be 'quality results' in the eyes of the end user ... Most people I know don't want to buy online from Mom & Pop, they want 'known' and 'trusted' sources for products.

IMO Mom & Pop need to present a 'more trustworthy' source for the product, rather than 'better information' for them to be a 'quality ranking choice' on the part of Google, and that would have to be demonstrated by the behavior of Google's end users. Mom & Pop have some huge challenges ahead as I see things, because I doubt they are the choice the end user of Google is likely to be looking for in a general query ... Do you want your next tv from Mom & Pop OR Amazon, Overstock, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc.

[Dan01]

Speaking of mom and pops - I think Amazon really took off after they started accepting outside vendors - the Mom and Pops could sell their products through Amazon. It didn't start out that way. Amazon handled all sales at first. My wife saw that Sears in now doing that.

I agree with you, it is difficult form Mom and Pops to get noticed, but thanks to eBay etc, they can.

[wyweb]

How many sites do you run?

30 of my own and then another 40 for clients. I host sites also.

Of my 30, 17 are selling products. The other 13 are personal. I've been known to make a website for a dog. Just because I liked him.

Really, sit down and look at your site(s) and ask yourself how special it is when you compare it to the sites the 'big players' build ... Is it close? Is it really the quality of the highest caliber?

No. I'm in affiliate marketing. The advantage I have is that I was there even before the people I work for. My sites were there first and google rewards age of site in a way that makes me smile.

If you're wondering why you might not rank like you used to, imo you might do well to sit down, really look at your site, and ask yourself, what makes my site special?

Nothing makes my sites special, but I see where you're going with this.

I caught this one late.. sorry...

[TheMadScientist]

I've been known to make a website for a dog. Just because I liked him.

lol ... That's cool! ... But, do you complain because it doesn't rank for dogs?

I agree with you, it is difficult form Mom and Pops to get noticed, but thanks to eBay etc, they can.

True, enough, and with the avenues for sales you mention, why would it be a good decision for Google to rank Mom & Pop's website above the Amazon's, eBay's, Sears', etc? IMO it wouldn't...

[TheMadScientist]

Nothing makes my sites special...

I disagree.

My sites were there first...

You didn't copy something someone else was doing ... You did something before it caught on ... You were an originator, not a follower or a re-doer ... IMO that's a bit of 'specialness' relating to your sites.

[wheel]

I can hardly keep up with my one quality website. I picked up work this week that can easily last me the next month if I did nothing else.

But I also spoke to someone yesterday with 200 live sites. I doubt any of them are high quality, but they're making a living.

And the guy I spoke to on the way home from pubcon, who was making $300K, I know he wasn't building high quality sites, he was working on the churn and burn.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Some folks start at the head, others the butt. In the end, they're both valid ways to make a living.

My way is relatively stable, less risk but it's hard to scale. Others scale better, but have more risk.

I'm reasonably good at what I do, and an expert in my vertical so building content others can't is a good route for me. And I'm building a 'business' that can be sold in the future. Other routes might make me more money, faster (or maybe not).

[wyweb]

Forget about other people's sites and the sites out ranking yours and trying to chase the algo for another round, and sit and ask yourself what makes your site special and then: what could I do better?

LOL... I do like the way you write mad scientist but I am trying to chase the algo. I'm trying to make money and I'm not bashful about saying it.

I have some purely informational sites that aren't commercialized at all. No ads. Just text. They're not even attractive sites but they tell people what they need to know and that makes me feel good.

Nothing makes my sites special except the fact that I was here first. I was here way before my competitors and I'm still reaping the benefits.

Of being there first.

[edited by: wyweb at 1:51 pm (utc) on Mar 22, 2011]

[wyweb]

@TheMadScientist

But, do you complain because it doesn't rank for dogs?

Nope. Not a bit. Buddy was a dog I had once. He died a while back. It's just a tribute site. I don't care if people see it or not. It made me feel better because I'd done it.

And every year I renew the domain and keep him online.

This is a good thread. It slipped right by me though.

I'll catch up....

[TheMadScientist]

I do like the way you write mad scientist but I am trying to chase the algo.

hmmm ... How about trying to get ahead of it?
What path does that train of thought lead you down? ;)

This is a good thread.

Thanks! I'm rather enjoying it myself.