Google Consensus Algo - observations?

[whitedove is]

Lets get this out of the way: Like it or not, and I'm in the not category as I desire to have well rounded, (all viewpoints), information when doing research.

Has anybody noticed improvements in pages that merely repeat the talking points from the consensus?

[keyplyr]

You haven't received a reply possibly because forum members may need a more explicit question.

What talking points? What consensus?

[aristotle]

It's best to have unique content that no other site has. You won't get unique content by repeating consensus talking points -- people can find that at other places. To make a name for yourself, you need to offer something unique and different.

[NickMNS]

@aristotle I think your answer should be nuanced a little. The goal should not be to have unique content for the sake of uniqueness. The goal is to offer an answer that users are looking for but cannot find anywhere else. The challenge today, is that there is so much content on the web, to find such a niche or topic is almost impossible.

Presenting something in a unique that no one has thought of before can work. But it is completely new and there are no, or few, searches for the information. So there is limited opportunity to rank for the info presented. You'll need find your target audience, educate them, and then if they like it you will have a first mover advantage. That is provided that you do not educate your competitors in the process and they move in steal your newly educated audience.

Given the above, the strategy of simply regurgitating the same content as everyone else begins to seem appealing. Produce the same content tweak it and refine it a bit over time and work at getting links, and optimizing title tags, and bingo, top of the serps. Well one site, of the many, will top the serps. While the innovator of the content is lost deep on page 10. You know the person that focused all their time, researching, and studying a topic and worked hard to present it in understandable way, but spent no time on SEO.

Sorry I digressed...

To answer the op's questions: The consensus always wins, not because it is better or good but simply because user frame their searches to find answers that they know or believe exist. Google simply gives users what they want, they want what they know so Google feeds them that, the consensus. Has there been a change in that respect, it would be very difficult to determine. Especially from a broader perspective. If you are watching a specific niche maybe you could see a change but there is a high degree of subjectivity involved.

[aristotle]

The goal is to offer an answer that users are looking for but cannot find anywhere else. The challenge today, is that there is so much content on the web, to find such a niche or topic is almost impossible.

I don't agree with that. Many of my old books have lots of information that you likely won't find anywhere on the web.

Also, I don't worry much about other people copying my content. Some of my articles have been scraped and re-published dozens of times, but google apparently knows that mine are the originals and continues to rank them above the others.

Also, a well-designed site can combine and present information in new and unique ways.

As for the consensus, it can be wrong, and what was the consensus 50 years ago may not still be. . I may say more about this later when i have more time.