Semantic matching is in play - why write lots of content?

[Whitey]

I'm seeing site's without exact match referal links or content for search query phrases that are ranking. Semantic matching seems to be in play on the sample I've seen.

So what's the point of writing lot's of unique content if the information ( content and products ) in different forms is already out there in similar forms, and sites outrank you with other metrics?

[MrSavage]

I'm not that smart so you might need to clarify for idiots like me. Are you saying regarding semantic matching, that if you type in a search phrase, that the results in return are less targeted to that phrase? As in, you're saying Google is making assumptions about what you really mean by the search phrase and then taking those assumptions to fetch what they think you really want?

I'm might be talking about something totally different and sorry if I am. If you really want specific information, and enter a phrase or even a phrase in brackets, that the results are a bit off? To simplify, it's like the difference between a sharp knife and a dull knife. The sharp knife can make a precise cut. The dull knife takes more effort to make that same cut. I ask because I'm finding Google more difficult to get those precise results that I'm seeking. I'm trying various things like brackets, but oddly enough those aren't even pulling in the reigns on results.

Again, some people here, like me didn't pay attention at school like we should have.

[Whitey]

@ MrSavage , well to answer your question and clarify, let me describe how this came to my attention - apart from all the previous discussions about semantic search results you'll find elsewhere on threads here.

When i went to the analytics of several sites, following Panda , i found many of those sites throwing up keyword searches for phrases and words that didn't exist on the the specific URL pages. When i checked the backlinks to those pages , non of them had anchor text pointing to the page with the words or phrases in them.

In fact , some of them had no external backlinks, or internal links except via sitemaps.

This thread questions more about Google knowing what the site's page is about, and matching it to the user query regardless of whether the content spells it out or not. Then asks , "well what's the point of writing ton's of content in all circumstances if Google ranks you by semantics?".

[mrmobility]

How well would you say the page matched the intention of the search? Also how well did you rank for the terms? Where you above sites who had targeted the search terms?

[Whitey]

@mrmobility - it matched 100% . The rankings vary and I have only checked back on 10 or so results.

[nickyo]

I'm also seeing some strong semantic matching on a keyword I'm after.

[MrSavage]

Whitey, then I think your saying using Google for search right now is sort of like using a butter knife to cut a steak?

[tedster]

what's the point of writing ton's of content in all circumstances if Google ranks you by semantics?

1. To give the most useful and understandable information to your visitors that you can.
2. To make the meaning and value of your page as unambiguous as possible.

[pageoneresults]

Semantics? It's all synonymous.

I know, short and cryptic but, think about it.

[coachm]

1. To give the most useful and understandable information to your visitors that you can.
2. To make the meaning and value of your page as unambiguous as possible.

What visitors? :)

I've talked about this elsewhere, but when google won't rank our longer articles anywhere for obvious key words -- articles written for humans, by a non-virtual recognized authority in his fields, visitors aren't seeing those pages much.

I've suspended developing any new longer content for our web sites. I'm not doing this in a pique of annoyance, but to stave off bankruptcy by using my time for things that pay the bills in some ways.

I will, for the first time, consider black hat techniques in the Fall, if things don't change.

[MrFewkes]

coachm - this is exactly where I am at.

I really need to know how to do something which google wants - I cant afford the time anymore researching in great depth. Bankruptcy is 2 months away for me.

[MrFewkes]

Sorry - what I really mean is that I cant afford the time anymore chasing my tail like a two legged sick drunken dog. Because that - with all the best will in the world - is what SEO with google surmounts to.

[Whitey]

what's the point of writing ton's of content in all circumstances if Google ranks you by semantics?

@Tedster - but "tons" ? Google appears to be ignoring a lot of it.

A lot of the long tail seems to have disappeared in this Panda update and relevance signals can be heavily weighted elsewhere. Any thoughts in the context of the semantic matching ?

[semanticSEOtech]

the only "Semantic Matching" patent is assigned to Raytheon.

The patent gives a good description of the term. We are sure panda is using some sort of semantic matching to determine how similar 2 articles are to one another. It makes total sense. (especially with all those article farms out there)

[Planet13]

There is one thing that is kind of bugging me about this...

Since the latest Panda update, I would say that "semantic flexibility" has been dialed back (at least in terms of URLs and titles) in the narrow niche I am looking at.

You either have (at least one) exact keyword in your URL AND your title element or you are on page 3. Closely related semantic variations no longer cut it.

Again, this is in a very specific small niche. Your mileage may vary.

[Shatner]

Today it seems like this "semantic flexibility" has been seriously dialed up to me.

For instance, there's one particular key phrase that I track a LOT and have for years. Let's call it "blue widgets"

I've been tracking "blue widgets" for five years now. In the past searching for "blue widgets" always brought up a listing of pages which at least contained the words "blue widgets" most of them with "blue widgets" in the page title. 100% of the listings on both pages 1 & 2 contained the words "blue widgets".

This morning I ran the "blue widget" search, and now only around 60% of the pages Google returned actually contain the words "blue widgets"

Instead many instead just had "widgets" or just "blue", a couple had neither word at all.

In all cases, by the way, the results were significantly less useful. Many of the new listings weren't related to my search at all anymore.