Exploring Google Quality Signals After August Update

[Rameez Ramzan]

---

System: The following 3 messages were cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4915961.htm [webmasterworld.com] by goodroi - 1:58 pm on Aug 16, 2018 (utc -5)

---

Dan shure, shared some information on the Twitter regarding the Google last update back in 2011, In that post, Amit Singhal mentioned some questions which we need to revise again. What are they?

1- Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
2- Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
3- For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?

I hope that I am on the right track

What're your thoughts guys?

[EditorialGuy]

@Rameez Ramzan:

That's pretty much what Google still says in its guidelines for Search Quality Rating Program evaluators:

[static.googleusercontent.com...]

[Rameez Ramzan]

@EditorialGuy

But Barry said in his post that

"Now, again, as we said so many times, these quality raters guidelines is NOT how the Google algorithm works."

[EditorialGuy]

@Rameez Ramzan: I wasn't suggesting that the quality raters have direct input into the algorithm, or that the algorithm is based on the quality raters' guidelines. The quality raters (and the guidelines) are there for QC purposes.

However, the quality raters' guidelines are a good indication of the search team's objectives. They're also a useful guide to "best practices" for content creators and publishers, and they can help to explain why (for example) MFA Monty's Amateur Cancer Cure Site might have taken a big hit in the latest update.

[egyfitness]

It has to be about backlinks . Healthline and webmd are cited a lot , especially in non-english websites . Thats what raised them to top...

[Dimitri]

They are also 20 years old businesses, it might be a signal of authority in their domain ...

[EditorialGuy]

Right, and Google is smart enough to know the difference between a link from an authoritative source and a link from Bubba's "I Wish I Were a Doctor" Blog.

[tangor]

new sites trying to compete with the likes of webmd is an apples and oranges thing. One is built on actual medical resources and recognized practice, the other is an unknown.

Suggest finding a different niche as this one is not only difficult to enter, it is also scrutinized by search engines, governments, and NGOs for accuracy, fraud and has the potential to put the webmaster in a liability situation.

When it comes to medical sites, unless you are coding for a medical entity and you (webmaster) are not personally liable for the content created by that entity, is like playing with things that can go boom.

[graeme_p]

I thought the algo was now ML and the quality rater's score used to train it, in which case the end result is that the algo produces the same results as the guidelines (or tries to), although not in the same way.