Matt Cutts of Google Using a Big Stick to Teach an Important Lesson about Traffic Diversity

[tpw]

Matt Cutts of Google Using a Big Stick to Teach
an Important Lesson about Traffic Diversity

Important: DO NOT skim this thread!! If you do, you are bound to miss some important pieces of information.



On Jan 21st, Matt Cutts of Google announced a new round of high profile algorithm changes around the next bend. He announced changes to Google's Search Algorithms to combat search engine spam and changes that were coming soon.

Of course, those who reported this news tended to only focus on one small part of the overall announcement where Cutts said Google was "evaluating": " 'Content Farms,' which are sites with spammy, shallow or low-quality content."

Earlier today, I reported the items left out of most news stories, in a post in the SEO Forum.



Surprisingly, on Friday Jan 28th, Cutts announced that the Content Farm Algorithm had been made live the previous day -- one week after announcing that Google would be evaluating what could be done about Content Farms.

He stated that these changes would only affect 2% of all Google search queries, but fewer than 0.5% of changes would be obvious to Google's users.



On the same day, in a story at Search Engine Roundtable, Barry Schwartz reported on the fallout from this latest Google Algorithm change: "Confirmed: Google's Content Farm Algorithm Live! Sites Are Dropping!"

Authority websites that have always done things by the "book" for years, are dropping like flies!! LOL

Schwartz reported that "Webmasters who have had stable rankings in Google and stable traffic from Google for years" are reporting 40-60% drops in traffic.

Those most painfully affected by Google's Content Farm Algorithm Change are webmasters who are suggesting that they "have unique and useful content on their site!"



To understand how this has come to pass, one must understand how Google defines "Content Farms". Simply put, "Content Farms" are websites that create content.

In his Jan 21st announcement, Matt Cutts said, "We hear the feedback from the web loud and clear: people are asking for even stronger action on content farms".

Of course, anyone who follows my posts here at the Warrior Forum should not be surprised. In Dec 2010, I reported a rumor about the anticipated launch of Google's new "Unique Content Penalty". Others in that thread were also able to confirm an anticipated Jan 2011 roll-out of this new Google penalty.



So, it would seem that the rumor I reported in December had some legs to it after all... The Unique Content Penalty, also known as the Original Content Penalty, seems to have been implemented along with the Content Farm Algorithm Change.

It seems that Google really is targeting Content Farms -- those websites that create "Unique and Original Content"!!!

Remember how Matt Cutts said that the Content Farm Algorithm Change would only affect 2% of all Google search queries?

When you stop to realize that 98% of all online content is unoriginal, rehashed content, then the 2% number takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it?



There is a very large lesson in this story, for all of those folks who have always relied on Google for their traffic!!

Matt Cutts and Google have made a statement this month that they are tired of those Internet Marketers who try to manipulate Google's search engine results to get better rankings!!

While Cutts and company may have not come right out and said it, in effect, Google has shown us in a very bold way that Internet Marketers should seek traffic from more sources than just Google...

So long as we try to play to the whims of Google, at any time it suits them to do so, Google will change their search algorithms and deal webmasters a 40%-60% drop in traffic... Even if the webmaster has done his best to follow Google's webmaster guidelines...



The Lesson to be learned from this past month? Diversify your traffic sources...

What is your opinion about these new developments?

[BloggingPro]

What is my opinion?

That I need to be ramping up my Facebook and Forum Marketing for my niches/sites to start driving the traffic I know they are capable of but have been lazily relying on Google for my bread and butter.

Guess its times to dust off some reports and get my strategy re-implemented.

[celente]

great post. Never put your eggs in one basket, that is like the first rule of IM and investing also.

Thanks for the timely post!!!

[Michael55555]

interesting post.. thanks.

i guess this posts sort of says... have a plan B!

[CMCarlin]

You think you're so clever don't you

[iAmNameLess]

Very true and an amazing post. One of the best I have seen here in my short time here.

I agree 100%, diversify your traffic. Think of traffic like you do internet marketing. If there is one niche that has a lot of money in it, but very competitive, it doesn't mean to give up on it, but you should also get into other niches. Why not treat the search engines like that? Plenty of searches are done in yahoo and bing. In fact I get about 20% of my visitors through bing!

[timpears]

So last year, unique content was king. Now, lots of unique content will get you dropped from the SERP like a hot rock?????

WTF. I am throughly confused. What the hell am I supposed to put on my site then? I guess PLR is all that is left.

[AnitaCross]

YouTube - Surfaris Wipe Out video

You go, Bill... LMAO

-Anita

[jasonmorgan]

Grabbing the popcorn. It's gonna get good.

At least my signature ranks #5 in google. WF got juice.

[Zeus66]

My advice to you...

[George Sepich]

Bill, it is hard to take you seriously about Google when you make jokes about it. I know you have insights that we all want to here about, but i just don't have the time to take when i don't know you are kidding around or are really being serious. I'm sure everybody else understands you.

Just a thought. Maybe it's just me.

George

[Dan C. Rinnert]

One of the big reasons I've never released PLR articles (though I have considered it) is that, by the time I finish writing the content, you know, it's pretty good. And, I want to keep it for myself and not let anyone else have it.

The benefit has been that I can fill my site with unique content and rank better for it.

But, after this latest change, I might have to look at releasing PLR materials. Because, once I get all those copies floating out there, getting rehashed and spun and whatnot, that'll only help my site in the new rankings because I won't have so much unique content anymore.

Thanks for the heads up, Bill.

[tpw]

Originally Posted by George Sepich

Bill, it is hard to take you seriously about Google when you make jokes about it. I know you have insights that we all want to here about, but i just don't have the time to take when you are kidding around or are really being serious.

Just a thought. Maybe it's just me.

George

George follow the links in the post. It should have been obvious from the words chosen, but the links will reveal even more.

[George Sepich]

Sorry that i posted. I am a busy guy, and don't have time to follow a bunch of links. I was just going by what was posted in the thread. My mistake. I apologize.

George

[tpw]

Originally Posted by George Sepich

Sorry that i posted. I am a busy guy, and don't have time to follow a bunch of links. I was just going by what was posted in the thread. My mistake. I apologize.

George

If you are that busy, why are you sitting here reading my threads and taking pot shots?

[Cathy Shelver]

You will not get me again Mr Platt, Having said that I read it knowing where you have placed your tongue (in cheek) while writing it, and I still want to believe it is true, Brilliant writing as usual.

[mikemcmillan]

Hey Bill,
I'm not an SEO expert and am not claiming to be one here. My comments are more questions than answers.

I preface everything I say about Google with the idea that Google's main objective is to return relevant, high quality pages to it's users. If Google fails to do that, the money machines--AdWords and AdSense crumble. Google has to be able to look at a page and be able to determine its meaning in order to align the AdWords and AnSense ads it delivers effectively to the pages and the searches done for those pages.

My take, and I'm asking for clarification on this, on content farms is that they create massive amounts of content, but not all of it good. What I see Google doing is trying to better judge pages insofar as how well they align with the information searchers are looking for when they search.

My perception is that Google is not looking to penalize original content, but to better separate it from content that is spammier and less useful to the people searching for information. It seems to me they are trying to reward content that is original, informative, and free from scrapped, stolen and spun low-octane material associated with "farm cultivated" text.

It seems to me that creators of informative, original content would benefit from their changes, not be penalized by them.

Again, I am no expert in the SEO arena, so I'm really asking you--what do you think the reasoning behind the algorithm change really is? Help me understand the whole thing better! --Mike

[Dennis Gaskill]

This is not difficult people. You can't have original content. You can't have unique content. You can't have duplicate content. You can't have have low quality content. You can't have scraped content.

Don't you see?

Google is just trying to confuse the executives over at Bing.

[mikemcmillan]

Now I understand .

[Mark Hess]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

This is not difficult people. You can't have original content. You can't have unique content. You can't have duplicate content. You can't have have low quality content. You can't have scraped content.

Dennis, Looks like blind sales copy...

[Dennis Gaskill]

Originally Posted by Mark Hess

Dennis, Looks like blind sales copy...

Genius! Why didn't I think of that?

Ah well, it is getting late. I might have thought of that tomorrow, or next year, or maybe last week.



Edit: It looks like that guy directly below me has been copying and pasting from his blog comments again.

[scottsheen]

You’ve a significant good point of view and that i that can compare with it. You enjoying a positive feedback with this. Your site has solved the problem a lot to restore more confidence in myself. Thanks! Ive recommended it to my buddies too.

Simply want to say your article is as amazing. The clearness in your post is simply cool and i can assume you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the gratifying work.

[tpw]

Originally Posted by mikemcmillan

My perception is that Google is not looking to penalize original content

Hey Mike. Great to see you.

To understand the Unique Content Penalty / Original Content Penalty, you really should read the post I made about it in December:
URGENT: Matt Cutts is Rumored to be Talking About a New Google Penalty...

After you take a look at that thread and the first few responses, it will all begin to make more sense to you. Seriously...

Originally Posted by mikemcmillan

My perception is that Google is not looking to penalize original content, but to better separate it from content that is spammier and less useful to the people searching for information. It seems to me they are trying to reward content that is original, informative, and free from scrapped, stolen and spun low-octane material associated with "farm cultivated" text.

It seems to me that creators of informative, original content would benefit from their changes, not be penalized by them.

Again, I am no expert in the SEO arena, so I'm really asking you--what do you think the reasoning behind the algorithm change really is? Help me understand the whole thing better! --Mike

I am an expert in SEO, but I am also expert in myth making.

This thread is as much about human nature as it is about SEO.

If you read the story from the Search Engine Roundtable, all of the quotes I used are accurate, but without the qualifiers given in the original story.

Barry Schwartz is a smart guy. He is definitely worth reading.

It is just like he said in the original story, "They mostly all claim they have unique and useful content on their site, but as you know, with any Google change, there are always examples of collateral damage. "

No new algorithm change is ever implemented without some "unintended consequences".

Google is not deliberately penalizing "original content", but "low-quality content".

We all know that their intended target is low-quality, spammy content -- the kind that $5 writers and article spinners spit out every day. When Google was talking about "Content Farms", they were talking about websites whose stated goal is to sell cheap content to other webmasters to help them spam Google's search index.

Google will be making alterations to their new algorithm over the coming weeks to enable the latest set of changes to have the intended outcome, instead of what it is currently doing. They will be looking to repair the algorithm to continue to penalize the crappy content they were targeting, and to restore the credibility of those websites that are credible.

The Original Post documents facts from beginning to end, except in its conclusions about Google's intent.

However, its final point about "not relying on Google" and "getting traffic from a variety of sources" are legitimate recommendations for any person serious about doing business online.

If anyone relies solely on Google for traffic, they are always ONE algorithm change away from complete business failure.

This post like many of my posts is written for two audiences:

* Those who read what I write will get a more accurate understanding of the message.

* Those who skim the bold and underlines will get a totally different, overly negative perception of the matter.

While the powers-that-be at Google might read this thread, they are not going to debunk it. They won't debunk it, because anyone who follows the advice in it, will be helping themselves by pursuing traffic from many sources, AND they will be helping Google by creating less Internet pollution -- or as Google likes to call it, webspam.

Those who skimmed this post, after being told not to do so, will leave this thread with a state of mind that will enable them to improve their business, even if they didn't understand the big picture.

[singhavn]

Don't depend entirely on SEO.Diversify your traffic source for long run.

[Barry Unruh]

Hey Bill,

Just to make sure I get the highest rankings. Which of your blogs should I be scraping and spinning the content from?

If I read all that content you referred us to properly it seems like the perfect answer. It puts us right in the middle of unique, scraped, and duplicate content so the Google Algorithm will have no idea what to do with my site. Should result in #1 rankings....right?



Barry

[Richard Van]

As soon as I started reading this, as soon as I saw the "Don't skim this thread", as soon as I saw Bill....

I knew it was time to have a jolly good laugh at the responses.

[Richard Van]

Originally Posted by Barry Unruh

Hey Bill,

Just to make sure I get the highest rankings. Which of your blogs should I be scraping and spinning the content from?

If I read all that content you referred us to properly it seems like the perfect answer. It puts us right in the middle of unique, scraped, and duplicate content so the Google Algorithm will have no idea what to do with my site. Should result in #1 rankings....right?



Barry

Barry,

The idea ia to not put your eggs in one basket.

Have a nice mix.

Some unique sites, some PLR, some scraped, some duplicate, some keyword stuffed, some legal, some illegal etc. I've just been making a 500 page site with exactly the same content on every page, Indexed yesterday, #1 for all my keywords this morning.

Also, start spamming more. I've heard this is going to be favoured soon.

Aweber I heard were removing the double opt in and will be closing accounts not engaging in spam.

By the way, you have an Uncle in Nigeria that passed away, he left his Estate with me, can you send me.....

EDIT. For those with a sense of humour bypass this, this post is an attempt at humour, it is sarcasm. Good grief.

[tpw]

Originally Posted by Barry Unruh

Hey Bill,

Just to make sure I get the highest rankings. Which of your blogs should I be scraping and spinning the content from?

If I read all that content you referred us to properly it seems like the perfect answer. It puts us right in the middle of unique, scraped, and duplicate content so the Google Algorithm will have no idea what to do with my site. Should result in #1 rankings....right?



Barry

Barry: Anything of mine is scrape-worthy. And you will be in good company, when you scrape it, take it, and spin it. All of those people at the top of the search engines are already doing it... And I am sure they will be flattered that you have the same taste in content that they do.

[suemax]

Originally Posted by mikemcmillan

Hey Bill,
I'm not an SEO expert and am not claiming to be one here. My comments are more questions than answers.

I preface everything I say about Google with the idea that Google's main objective is to return relevant, high quality pages to it's users. If Google fails to do that, the money machines--AdWords and AdSense crumble. Google has to be able to look at a page and be able to determine its meaning in order to align the AdWords and AnSense ads it delivers effectively to the pages and the searches done for those pages.

My take, and I'm asking for clarification on this, on content farms is that they create massive amounts of content, but not all of it good. What I see Google doing is trying to better judge pages insofar as how well they align with the information searchers are looking for when they search.

My perception is that Google is not looking to penalize original content, but to better separate it from content that is spammier and less useful to the people searching for information. It seems to me they are trying to reward content that is original, informative, and free from scrapped, stolen and spun low-octane material associated with "farm cultivated" text.

It seems to me that creators of informative, original content would benefit from their changes, not be penalized by them.

Again, I am no expert in the SEO arena, so I'm really asking you--what do you think the reasoning behind the algorithm change really is? Help me understand the whole thing better! --Mike

To my mind, Mike is writing a much more easy-to-run with post here. There is NO logical sense in Google "dumbing down" results.

I am wondering whether I have got hold of the right end of the proverbial stick here. When I first read about "Google cracking down on content farms", I had thought that Google was REWARDING unique content as opposed to, for instance, sites with neat PLR (ie unchanged, published elsewhere), or "ReviewAzon sites" (rehashed from Amazon, again verbatim). That made sense to me - content might be well SELECTED, but NOT unique.

Now what has been written in this string has confused the heck out of me! Surely Google is NOT going to penalise unique fresh content?

[jasonmorgan]

More popcorn please. My funny bone has been tickled.

[Richard Van]

Originally Posted by jasonmorgan

More popcorn please. My funny bone has been tickled.

The humour is so much in the comments.

My popcorns all over the floor now and I've coffee coming out of my nose.

[Richard Van]

Originally Posted by suemax

I am wondering whether I have got hold of the right end of the proverbial stick here.

That would be accurate.

Sue I'm a Watford man. In Bushey working today. Nice to meet you.

Edit. Just saw your signature video, your obviously not Sue! Apologies.

[tpw]

Originally Posted by jasonmorgan

At least my signature ranks #5 in google. WF got juice.

Try logging out of Google, and then searching.

If the results are the same, go to a buddy's house and try.

I am not seeing you in the first 10 pages for your keyword.

[wanna-succeed]

Originally Posted by Richard Van

By the way, you have an Uncle in Nigeria that passed away, he left his Estate with me, can you send me.....

I have some relatives there as well
It seems as if my uncle was a minister there....who knew!
He has a few million sitting there, waiting for me. All I need to do is surrender all my credit cards, my paypal account, and pretty much my identity to get that money.
What do you guys think, should I fly over there and get the money?

[jasonmorgan]

Try logging out of Google, and then searching.

If the results are the same, go to a buddy's house and try.

I am not seeing you in the first 10 pages for your keyword.

I meant the venomous fumes song quote, not my little test link. A WF thread pops up at #5 for it.

That little quote test does kinda kill a lot of duplicate / syndicated content myths. I added that little quote last night and it hit #5 pretty quickly despite all of the other preexisting sites with the exact same quote. Lesson learned, authority of site means everything when ranking duplicate / syndicated content.

While the results for the PLR link were non-existent, no test is ever a failure.

I did learn that a WF backlink alone isn't enough to get an empty, slightly SEO'd site on the map for a competitive keyword. I need to repeat the test with a less competitive keyword to see how that does. I wanted to see how much weight and authority 1,000+ signature backlinks from WF has.

I've neglected moving on to Step 2 which is adding some text content to the site to see what difference, if any, that makes.

After that, Step 3 is to add a couple of additional backlinks via commenting at a couple of power blogs.

So, it's a slow, step by step test to see what makes google happy from a backlinking perspective for a brand new site.

The only problem is these tests take so long to do correctly. It's would be much faster to just blast away with backlinks from various sources which I know works but I want to narrow down not only what works but what works more efficiently.

The science and mad methodology behind the sock puppets schenanigans.

[mikemcmillan]

<<* Those who skim the bold and underlines will get a totally different, overly negative perception of the matter.>>

Bill, I think the problem was I read the fine print and skimmed your bold and italicized text . --Mike

[jazbo]

My original content has been nudged up a lot of its searches in the past week, so I'm happy.

But, but, one of my content farms is also up and away.

So its another load of google-bobbins.

[LetsGoViral]

Well...since content on the internet is ever increasing this is only logical. I mean, day by day we get more websites, articles, videos up and running all over the net. Eventually, the offer (sites) will be larger than the demand (users). If search engines don't start filtering the content now, it will eventually become one big mess.

[Oggyoi]

Originally Posted by Richard Van

Barry,

The idea ia to not put your eggs in one basket.

Have a nice mix.
.

I have advised this to offline companies, not to rely on just having 1 major client.
If you lose that client you are well and truly stuffed, it's better to have several eggs in various baskets.

[Alex Barboza]

My opinion: I will write more articles and post them to Ezines and I will create videos and send them to Youtube. I will probably try forum marketing

[kindsvater]

My Google traffic and rankings are up. I also have original content.

[cashcow]

WTF. I am throughly confused. What the hell am I supposed to put on my site then? I guess PLR is all that is left.

Well, if you didn't depend on the search engines for getting traffic it really wouldn't matter what you put on your site. What would matter is that whatever it is (unique, PLR, spun, whatever...) got the visitor to perform the desired action.

Lee

[Richard Van]

Originally Posted by mikemcmillan

<<* Those who skim the bold and underlines will get a totally different, overly negative perception of the matter.>>

Bill, I think the problem was I read the fine print and skimmed your bold and italicized text . --Mike

I knew as soon as it said "don't skim" it was one of Bills funny ones, when you didn't fall in, I started questioning myself and went back and re-read it all.

It was just too Bill and as as soon as he mentioned the unique bit again, it was game over

[Kevin Riley]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

This is not difficult people. You can't have original content. You can't have unique content. You can't have duplicate content. You can't have have low quality content. You can't have scraped content.

Yep. I've been putting up blank websites and they're all grabbing number one positions. Soon, when you use Google you'll come up with nothing but blank websites. That will get rid of information overload.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by Kevin Riley

Yep. I've been putting up blank websites and they're all grabbing number one positions. Soon, when you use Google you'll come up with nothing but blank websites. That will get rid of information overload.

Kevin,
You should consider at least placing a Buy Now button on the page.
Just make sure you leave the "alt tag" empty.

Have a Great Day!
Michael

[rts2271]

Google is irrelevant to search. You will get more accurate results from Bing Yahoo or Ask. Google has spent so much energy in diversifying it forgot where it came from.

From what I've heard from a couple of friends at the company the upper execs are running scared that the public will find out just how broke adwords/adsense and search is in the same quarter.

[Brandon Tanner]

Bill, once again... nice blend of truths, half-truths, un-truths, humor, and craziness.

Seriously though, I used to pay a lot more attention to what Google and M.C. used to say regarding SEO and how they rank websites, but I've found over the years that doing so is often just a waste of time.

Far more more beneficial for SEO'ers to concern themselves with what Google actually does (by constantly experimenting, testing, and tracking), which can be a lot different than what they say they do.

I can't blame them for a certain amount of "smokescreening" though... if they didn't do that, it would be much easier for the "lazy" SEO'ers (the ones who don't actually experiment, test, and track) to game the system.

[tpw]

Originally Posted by Brandon Tanner

Bill, once again... nice blend of truths, half-truths, un-truths, humor, and craziness.

Thank you...

Originally Posted by Brandon Tanner

I can't blame them for a certain amount of "smokescreening" though... if they didn't do that, it would be much easier for the "lazy" SEO'ers (the ones who don't actually experiment, test, and track) to game the system.

Many good points you have made. And yes, I cannot blame them for smokescreening either...

If they gave us "all" keys to the kingdom, there would be no kingdom...

[pavionjsl]

Originally Posted by Brandon Tanner

Bill, once again... nice blend of truths, half-truths, un-truths, humor, and craziness.

Seriously though, I used to pay a lot more attention to what Google and M.C. used to say regarding SEO and how they rank websites, but I've found over the years that doing so is often just a waste of time.

Far more more beneficial for SEO'ers to concern themselves with what Google actually does (by constantly experimenting, testing, and tracking), which can be a lot different than what they say they do.

I can't blame them for a certain amount of "smokescreening" though... if they didn't do that, it would be much easier for the "lazy" SEO'ers (the ones who don't actually experiment, test, and track) to game the system.

Agree completely. They want to be all that, and in turn create more crappy ebooks and software opportunity's for the merchants of seo...........but the truth is scary simple.

[Rukshan]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

Kevin,
You should consider at least placing a Buy Now button on the page.
Just make sure you leave the "alt tag" empty.

Have a Great Day!
Michael

ah ha nice technique