Do low quality content sites still rule?

[pkKumar]

What i can see nowadays is the sites having low quality content like keyword stuffed paragraph with outgoing links to reputed sites and too many ads on the page still rules the SERP's surpassing the quality content sites. This normally happens at a particle event in a local niche area. The results are nowhere close what user actually wants.

[tedster]

This normally happens at a particle event in a local niche area. The results are nowhere close what user actually wants.

I can see what you're saying - and it makes some sense. With today's complex algorithm, the lower the search volume, the more we can notice the problems. It used to be you could begin a site with some search volume in that area. Now it's harder to hold on - hence the stronger need to develop non-search traffic sources.

[goodroi]

Knowledge still rules. If you know what you are doing it is possible to churn out low quality sites which exploit weaknesses in the Google algorithm. You just need to hope you are smart enough to make enough money before Google closes the exploit and you need to seek out another weak spot.

Google's algorithm will always have some flaws. That doesn't mean its a bad algorithm. When I find unusual serps I like to take the time and reverse engineer it. It helps me to learn new techniques which sometimes can benefit my mainstream sites and other times helps me to discover new spam areas to avoid getting accidentally flagged with.

[rish3]

I don't think this accounts for all of the low-quality results, but one thing I've observed, in some specific niches:

a) Regardless of the "Webmaster Guidelines", there were niches that, for many years, were dominated by those that were manipulating the SERPS, often times 100% garbage sites.

b) The situation in a) enticed some webmasters that ran otherwise high quality sites, with great content, to also manipulate the SERPS. (kw stuffing, inorganic links, etc)

c) Over time, again for many niches, though not all...the SERPS started to get dominated by the people in b). They had not only great sites, good content, etc, but also had the shady backlinks. So, they effectively beat the total garbage sites with "match and exceed".

d) Google rolls out Panda, Penguin, etc. It punishes not only the total garbage from a), but also the "high quality" sites from b) that did some things they shouldn't have.

e) Whatever is left rises to the top. The "whatever is left" consists of
- sites with great natural backlinks, but old, or missing content
- mediocre sites with mediocre content
- garbage sites...but new ones, ones that were created after the last panda and/or penguin update and haven't yet been slapped.
- *maybe* some great sites, but only if the owner of said site was willing to maintain the site during the time period where everyone that was "cheating" kept them off the front page.

[tedster]

garbage sites...but new ones, ones that were created after the last panda and/or penguin update and haven't yet been slapped.

Yes, it's the old "churn and burn" tactics that spammers love so much. Google doesn't catch them fast enough and spamming can still be lucrative. I don't expect Google to get it perfect anytime soon - unless they lose big market share. Then spammers will focus on whoever takes over... but i'm not hloding my breath for that, either.

[pkKumar]

garbage sites...but new ones, ones that were created after the last panda and/or penguin update and haven't yet been slapped.

This is the worrying thing, i mean there is a time period where you can expect some substantial traffic to come to your way and than these low quality sites pushes you back.
The thing i am not able to understand till now is how these sites comes on top. They neither have great content, have link to other sites, full of ads. Speaking about backlinks one have around 1000, others have as little as 20-30 links. What is the factor that brings them to top ?

[mcskoufis]

But what about if you want to avoid using any spam techniques at all costs? Do I need to keep doing SEO as I have done in the past hoping that at some point Google will penalize such websites and reward our efforts?

I am very keen to not use any such tactics on my clients' websites, I consider it totally unethical to be paid for employing spam techniques as many companies propose. How can you be sure your actions are not going to burn the clients' website on a future algorithmic update?

Even if you discuss this with the client and present them with a spam option, they are not in a position to make an educated decision simply cause they don't understand the principles of how search engines work.

That said, working on major brand websites I've noticed that making on-page changes requires a lot of time to get a steady high ranking on Google these days, so doing changes then forgeting for a month and a half and the top ranking is reached. Always that is when I forget. If I constantly monitor and re-tweak on-page text I get to nowhere.

[chrisv1963]

The thing i am not able to understand till now is how these sites comes on top.

Because Google developed the "great Panda" that penalizes good quality websites and destroys businesses, but is unable to detect low quality spam websites when indexing them. Google is no longer a good search engine. Too much crap showing up. My teenage sons are already complaining and switching to Bing.

Panda was Google's first step in the wrong direction. By penalizing good websites they created more space for a sort of low quality websites and content scrapers which they are clearly not able to detect fast enough. On top of that they started polluting the search results with Pinterest and Facebook pages.

[pkKumar]

so doing changes then forgeting for a month and a half and the top ranking is reached. Always that is when I forget. If I constantly monitor and re-tweak on-page text I get to nowhere.

so what is this thing that google always likes dynamic content rather than static one.

[pkKumar]

but is unable to detect low quality spam websites when indexing them

This is the basic thing that needs to be taken care of by google. And whether google is bad or good search engine i don't know. But what i experience is search quality has gone bizarre, i mean whats the point if user doesn't get what he wants.

[mcskoufis]

so what is this thing that google always likes dynamic content rather than static one.

In the niches I monitor I see static ones fairing ok..

[nippi]

---

System: The following message was spliced on to this thread from: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4571466.htm [webmasterworld.com] by tedster - 7:22 am on May 7, 2013 (EDT -4)

---

OK, call me naive, but I would have thought the job of a search engine was to determine which sites were the best sites for a search result. Seem reasonable?

But this is no longer the case. In one niche i monitor, the top 10 sites used to be large information sites, lots of useful content, well written and DMOZ. The websites returned would have been what the punters wanted.

Some sites started to rise through link exchanges and buying links, the other sites that dropped down, copied them.

So now? All of those information sites have penguin penalties. All of them. They still have the best content, its just not shown.

The top 10 now contains 6 not for profit sites that offer information only about a very obscure part of this niche.
There is no way this is want the searcher is interested in. Sure, these not for profit sites have done no SEO, and all their links are natural, not on keywords though their business name contains the main search term.

Think doing a search for "widgets" and 6 of the top sites are ONLY about "large blue widget training".

yes yes, bad linking building is bad mkay? but so what? If the role of a search engine is to return what is being searched for... and its not doing it... that's bad too right?

[backdraft7]

All of the above problems could be easily solved if everyone simply switched to Bing. What's so hard about that? What's funny is that Google is quickly becoming the "Edsel" of search engines and everyone is so entrenched in using them that they won't take the Ferrari for a spin.

[pkKumar]

All of the above problems could be easily solved if everyone simply switched to Bing.

Well that it is easy to say but difficult to do, specially when you know that more than 90% of your traffic is expected to come from google only.

[chrisv1963]

So now? All of those information sites have penguin penalties. All of them. They still have the best content, its just not shown.

This is exactly what I am seeing. People are no longer getting what they are searching for and at some point it will backfire.

What's funny is that Google is quickly becoming the "Edsel" of search engines and everyone is so entrenched in using them that they won't take the Ferrari for a spin.

There was a time when everyone was using Alta Vista. Things can change suddenly and rapidly.

[Dymero]

All of the above problems could be easily solved if everyone simply switched to Bing. What's so hard about that?

It's not hard, but generally people won't do it unless Bing offers something substantially better than Google or unless Google has a fatal PR fumble.

I'm not convinced that Bing has the first thing down yet, despite their ads and attempts to socialize their results. And perhaps Google has had some minor mishaps of late, but nothing really big in the public consciousness. In fact, because of Glass, they've had a lot of good PR recently (other than mixed opinions on privacy).

[Sand]

Sometimes it feels like it is when I'm searching (trying to find something for a personal reason). But in my very competitive niche, the first page is normally dominated by quality sites.

[arutoria]

Have to agree with what rish3 said.

In some niches that I have been observing, spam has long dominated the SERP, forcing webmasters to adopt shady tactics to "match" the spammers, or they are simply trying to copy other websites' backlink profile. Either way the result is nearly all sites in that niche have shady backlinks.

Then came Penguin and Panda, and the great content got purged.

In a niche that I am currently observing, a big brand site seems to be getting a free pass with thin and repetitive content, while independent sites (used to be on front page) sank, some new spam are coming up.

In the end, "churn and burn" tactics continue to work well while independent sites got purged.

[Dether]

Maybe the low quality websites are only for making a backlinks ?
I own few (50+) low quality websites just to link from them.

[pkKumar]

Maybe the low quality websites are only for making a backlinks ?
I own few (50+) low quality websites just to link from them.

Does these low quality sites tops the SERP's, if yes then how google can allow this, its completely wrong. If No then its not relevant the question i guess.

[ColourOfSpring]

I have a site that I've worked on so hard - great mobile experience (responsive design), really tweaked the usability to maximise good user experience. Site has a high conversion rate which is testimony to my constant updates to help the visitor, but low traffic since Google deem it as "spam" because of some off-page signals. This is the problem - Google simply don't want to know about how GOOD your site ACTUALLY IS if your off-page signals are deemed as "bad" - signals I cannot control anyway. So what's the incentive to create a really great user experience and spend hundreds of hours on a site when the main traffic driver (Google) do not care about that if off-page signals are deemed as "spammy"? It's like hearing that a prospective new partner is kind, has a great personality, is very clever, has a great sense of humour, and she's beautiful. But all of those good points are negated by the fact that her father did some time in jail. That's beyond her control. Off-site links are beyond our control. Not sure if my analogy is the best one, but it's basically trying to describe this: your good points should be the only consideration. You should not be judged by that which you cannot control. Google reward churn and burn, and punish those who are in it for the long-term. I look at the top results in my niche - crappy user experience, non-responsive design, no delivery / returns / terms and conditions, no contact addresses, sites are less than a year old - no signs I should trust them - but they're top because they're new and haven't been hit by any updates.

[pkKumar]

your good points should be the only consideration. You should not be judged by that which you cannot control.

Fully agree with you on this.