Why Emulating Google Isn't Usually Good SEO

[koan]

---

System: The following message was cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4851947.htm [webmasterworld.com] by goodroi - 1:05 pm on Jun 3, 2017 (utc -5)

---

Either way, as opposed to most of us, Google can do what it wants since they don't depend on anyone else's rules for their traffic and have few real competitors.

[keyplyr]

You haven't explained your statement "Why Emulating Google Isn't Usually Good SEO"

I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[goodroi]

This is a post that was split off from the monthly update thread, thus it had no title. I had to create the title and I tried to summarize the tangent topic that was being discussed in the other thread. I invite everyone to post their opinions on this topic including if they agree or disagree with my title.

[robzilla]

Emulate Google... how? And why? This needs more context, even having read the Updates thread.

[lucy24]

Does it come down to “Do as we say, not as we do”?

[keyplyr]

Why it made no sense makes more sense now.

[tangor]

The boss can do what he likes. Employees have to do what the boss says.

That simple.

[keyplyr]

Google can do what it wants since they don't depend on anyone else's rules for their traffic and have few real competitors.

They depend on the public having faith in their products. They are not too big to fail. Take away confidence and they loose everything. There are many waiting to take their place.

[tangor]

... which has nothing to do with SEO and emulating g's coding/layouts/"black magic" (fi any)

[keyplyr]

... which has nothing to do with SEO and emulating g's coding/layouts/"black magic" (fi any)

It was a reply to the OP (koan) in the posted quote.

[tangor]

True, I was responding to the thread title and the conversation which ensued .... which relates to SEO and emulating g. :)

Thread in general is rather confusing.

[koan]

My post was a reply in another thread to some people complaining that Google was hypocritical for not following the same rules it give to publishers, and it was forked into this new thread by a moderator who also created the "Why emulating" title. So yeah I do stand by what I wrote, Google can choose the conditions for sending us traffic, and they themselves don't have to follow other people's conditions as their traffic doesn't come from other search engines.

[keyplyr]

Don't think Google employs any SEO at all, why would they need to... but they do many things in their own mark-ups that they chastise us for doing.

Example: if you publish Adsense on your pages, Google Pagespeed will deduct points for lack of compression, caching and blocking via robots.txt... all on Google files.

[EditorialGuy]

Emulating Google wouldn't even make sense if you were running a search engine. (Searchers aren't looking for a faux Google as a substitute for the real thing.)

If you're running a site that isn't a search engine, why would you use Google as a role model? Wouldn't it make more sense to take inspiration from sites that are successful in your category or niche? (E-commerce, news, reference, product reviews, local service businesses, or whatever?)

[smilie]

@keyplyr:
Emulating Google is destructive.

Google dislikes and penalizes affiliate sites and sites with lots of above-the-fold advertising.

Yet, Google is an affiliate site with lots of above-the-fold advertising.

[keyplyr]

Emulating Google is destructive.

As discussed above, that statement doesn't make sense unless you operate a search engine.

Google dislikes and penalizes affiliate sites

That depends on what your definition of "affiliate sites" is. I manage several sites that publish affiliate links and none of them are penalized.

...sites with lots of above-the-fold advertising

Yes and thankfully so. That's just bad webmastering to put a lot of ads above the fold. Nothing makes me hit the back-button faster.

Yet, Google is an affiliate site with lots of above-the-fold advertising

I wouldn't call Google an affiliate site. They own a company called Adsense that sells advertising. That's not what typically is seen as an affiliate. However I agree, they put as many as 3 or 4 Adsense ads at the top of some SERP. I think most everyone dislikes that.

If you're just trying to find reasons to trash Google (as you often do) then there are lots of reasons to, but what's the point? It just tends to drag down discussions and adds nothing constructive.

[EditorialGuy]

That depends on what your definition of "affiliate sites" is. I manage several sites that publish affiliate links and none of them are penalized.

Ditto. We do very well with affiliate links on an informational site (and have done since 2001).

For years, Google has stated publicly that it distinguishes between useful sites with affiliate links and "thin affiliate" sites. It has a lengthy page on the topic of affiliates here:

[support.google.com...]