Forum Moderators: open
Does the Google Algo urge Web Designers to create more pages?
Is the Web multiplying based on SEO and Google?
I've found that restricting pages to one sharply defined topic is a boon to visitors, as well as to Google (and other search engines). It seems to be the nature of HTML communication - a higher order, "emergent" characteristic of an essentially simple system.
The web allows for much more interaction than print ever could. So, subtopics make more sense as drill down pages for those who are interested, rather than being served up to every visitor.
As a user, I appreciate the ability to pick and choose which areas I want to learn about, rather than having to winnow my way through a multi-topic page. This multi-page communication style also helps create more useful site search engines. I can't tell you how often I've wished for a search engine in a hard copy book!
We might say that the web is fostering a "modular" communication style - and that makes very good sense from an Information Science perspective.
The web was originally thought of as a way to make documents available globally - documents that, in the beginning, were generated by and for offline technologies. But as more and more documents are now being created to be "native" web documents, we're all learning the nature of the medium, just as early printers learned about the nature of printed pages.
I think it's a great bit of human progress. And Google doesn't deserve the credit for generating it - but they are wise enough to recognize it.
[edited by: tedster at 8:46 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2002]
We might say that the web is fostering a "modular" communication style - and that makes very good sense from an Information Science perspective.
<snip>
Search Engines such as Google should (strive to) be able to tell what the document is about without it being broken down into small bite sized bits. The fact is, people should NOT have to write in a "modular" style in order to satisfy the search engines. It may work well with technical documents, but not with the real world - it's not practical writting. Books and articles are not always written in module form.
Also, it's exactly this "modular" style which is now causing thousands of Web designers to create small (so-called) doorway pages, cloak their pages, and other non-ethical tactics in order to get listed high in the SERPS.
In my opinion, the actual information on these pages has "decreased" in order to acheive a "higher" ranking.
Cheers.
[edited by: NFFC at 10:12 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2002]
[edit reason] Rudeness removed [/edit]
It seems lately, that I'm constantly breaking up a multi-topic pages into seperate pages to satisfy the Google algo.
You're just doing what you should be doing anyway to provide more targeted content to your users while reducing the need to scroll.
BTW, a few years ago, WIRED News had an article on a study of articles on one page vs. articles divided into multiple pages. In the study, users were given two types of article to read:
1) A long article broken into multiple pages that required very little scrolling.
2) A shorter article on one page that required a great deal of scrolling.
Not only did users prefer the article broken into multiple pages, but they perceived it as being shorter than the one-page article even though it actually contained more text.
Bottom line: Breaking articles into separate pages (with each covering a different subtopic) is good for Google and--more important--good for the reader.
I emphatically agree that Google's new algo favors the large sites.
In MY experience, in and out of my competitive terms, I am seeing 100 page sites that mention "blue widgets" once get top billing and a 10 page site on blue widgets disappears.
Also seeing sites with two pages in the top serps. Fewer choices makes a better algo?
Also, I am seeing, more, open directory pages on my search term theme (up to 200 keywords), in the top 50. How does clicking on that link, which routes me to dmoz, where I now have to choose from those listings, make my search experience easier?
I believe that just because dmoz has 1,000s of pages, it's mention of blue widgets in its results gives it top billing.
Am I going to create 100s of pages to play to Google's new algo? Only if I can create quality pages, rich in content, but not rehash and rewrite jobs.
Google's last algo forced me to accelerate and concentrate my traffic diversification plan - away from Google users. Or at least away from Google's dominance.
I will add to my site quality content pages, but I can't compete with dmoz and others. And sorry, I could probably max my site/topic out at 50 more pages. After that, quality goes down and redundancy goes up. That's the nature of my topic.
If google is trying to give searchers raw information results and less commercial results, then they should just turn themselves into findarticles dot com. :-) Take that with a grain of salt.
I am neither anti-Google, nor a Googlephile. I am on record as saying Google's dominance is not healthy for the internet. And their last algo needs a lot of work. And I hope that one day, I don't have to care if it is my favor or not.
