Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
joined:Apr 27, 2012
joined:Apr 27, 2012
Actually it is a rating service. That was the whole purpose behind its initial design, the updates and all the Animal Farm patches. Rather than just being an ordinary search engine, it rated sites based, initially, on the site's link authority. However that's broken now.
joined:Apr 27, 2012
"How can I be more popular with Google"
Actually it is a rating service. That was the whole purpose behind its initial design, the updates and all the Animal Farm patches. Rather than just being an ordinary search engine, it rated sites based, initially, on the site's link authority.
The new average user actually expects Google to only include QUALITY businesses and tradespeople they can TRUST, apparently thinking that someone on this earth would create a free service that actually thoroughly investigates businesses to make sure they are reputable.
There is just no way the old algo can keep up with this. It's like an operating system that's 10 years old - you can patch it 500 times a year, but it would still be better to go back to the drawing board and start all over again.
If you want to rank well in a search engine that cares about page content, then write pages with content of intrinsic value
But it isn't a business rating service. It's a site or page rating service, if you prefer the term "rating service" to "search engine."Wrong again. Its whole dynamic of the last few years has been pointed towards being a business rating service. Its purchases and even its efforts in Local Search have been geared towards rating businesses.
I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that the 200+ factors in the Google organic-search algorithm include shipping speed, returns policies, restocking fees, customer-service hours, and similar "retail factors."A few years ago, someone used a lot of negative commentary on these subjects to get to their site to the top of Google. Even Google and its FUD buddies (the cargo-cult SEOs that believe every rumour and speculation) have been going on about Trust Rank and this looks very like an attempt to implement a business rating service.
Matt Cutts & Co. have been telling us to focus on building great content for users if we want to do well in Google Search. They haven't said anything about keeping merchandise in stock, providing tracking numbers, or being quick to ship.Whatever happened to Google Merchant?
If you want to do well in Google organic search, you need to publish original content of intrinsic value to users and attract freely-given links that Google can count as "votes."People don't link the way they used to link. They assume that search engines will find their sites without links. Without link data from new websites (either from bugged browsers, Analytics or Adsense) Google is missing a lot of new websites, especially ccTLD sites, because they have no inbound links.
This is where most small e-commerce sites are at a disadvantage compared to megasites like Amazon.com or Booking.com.More cargo-cult SEO and noise from Google's FUD buddies? :) Links to Amazon.com and Booking.com at an index page level are rare. The most common sites with links from index pages now are likely to be to Social Media sites like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Linkedin.
The latter are big enough to attract a critical mass of user-written reviews.Amazon is a kind of walled garden when it comes to reviews and content. Amazon associate links, with articles on various products or books, rather than laudatory reviews of Amazon are far more common.
The bottom line is pretty simple: If you want to rank well in a search engine that cares about page content, then write pages with content of intrinsic value--or pay someone to write those pages for you.Search engines do not care about content. They are typically a set of algorithms working together to produce a result and often a result that can be monetised. The whole Page Rank model worked well but it was, like any simple system, exploitable. Rather than fixing the basic problems, it would seem that Google has merely tried to patch a very large string bag one hole at a time. Now it has an accretion of patches masquerading as an "algorithm". The instability in the SERPs seems to be due to the way that these patches are tweaked and the unexpected effects on existing patches when new ones are applied.
site owners should really be developing their site's social network.
joined:June 10, 2013
[G.] isn't a business rating service...
But it is in the eyes of a "normal" user who IMO sees Google as ultimately trustworthy. How many people rely on G. as their first port-of-call for emotional/health problems type searches every day? (things you'd only discuss with your partner/doctor). This extends to commercial searches too and users inherently trust that G. only gives them quality results. I would speculate that many people wouldn't be able to separate quality content and business reputation when it comes to rankings in search results. (ie "I found them on Google, so they *must* be legit").
As I've suggested before, maybe that's one of the reasons why Google is starting to let ads dominate its commercial search results.
these small algorithm changes are causing huge shifts
joined:Oct 11, 2011
joined:Mar 9, 2013
Would you guys take your retarded discussion about google ranking adwords users higher into another thread. They denied it, they wont change their stance ever- who cares if they do, none of you are going to use adwords anyway.