Attention internet marketers, this is what google says it wants.

[theaffiliategeek]

No, Google still has not and of course will not ever reveal their algorithms. But they are finally giving us more details on exactly what they want. It's been no secret that they want good, original content. The sticky point has been, how the heck do they decide what is good and what isn't? That's been open to a lot of speculation, until just recently. Brad Hauck recently summed it up this way:

"In simple terms, Google is saying that you should write for people, not for them.

If you’re looking at building long term cash flow from your sites, you need to write for people first. People read your content, they make assumptions about you from it and they decide whether you’re a trusted source BEFORE they even consider buying from your links."

Here is a sampling of what google says they want:

Google says you should ask yourself:

Would you trust the information presented in this article?
Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?


This goes on and on. See the entire post at:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...h-quality.html

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by theaffiliategeek

In simple terms, Google is saying that you should write for people, not for them.

So is pretty much everybody that doesn't sell or buy expensive SEO services.

[GeorgR.]

Cheezus, the HYPOCRISY.

Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?

With the recent panda update, Google has proven that it prefers "shallow" content, as long as it's on an "authority" (giggle) site.

Reader's Digest can publish a pathetic one pager list of "5 ways to lose weight" which is on the writing level of a 7 year old kindergarten child...it will DOMINATE the search engines.

How does that make sense?

[DrewClement]

Tip #1

Dont listen to what Google tells you. Often all their blog does is hype up "cute" ideas that they can never properly implement.

lol duplicate content lol

[IM Ash]

Well, it looks like Google are engaging in another PR campaign to get webmasters to do what their algorithm cannot

[yourreviewer]

Reading the comments to that post is enough to understand what users ACTUALLY feel about this issue.

[theaffiliategeek]

Hey, everyone can have their own take. I don't know who to trust and was kind of wondering if anyone of you do know of a reliable source. All I ever do is step in a bunch of do-do. By the way, please don't shoot the messenger. I never said it was the gospel, I sited the sources instead. Let the readers decide.

[Jeremy Morgan]

Originally Posted by DrewClement

Tip #1

Dont listen to what Google tells you. Often all their blog does is hype up "cute" ideas that they can never properly implement.

lol duplicate content lol

I agree somewhat with this statement. Google will never give you the real story, but they will put out things like this to get the majority of people to listen, and that makes them happy.

Personally I do try to follow these guidelines, but I also try to get every advantage I can. I found a nice balance between white hat and some black hat and it's worked very well for me.

[Rob Howard]

So now we know, huh?

Google has been screaming this for years. But yet, they base a big part of the ranking algorithm off of backlinking.

Anytime you have a bot checking and deciding stuff, you can dupe it.

This panda/farmer update affected a lot of people, both positively and negatively.

Oddly enough, though, the process for ranking is the same: Good, useful content for humans and plenty of backlinks.

As far as I know, that's always been the case, and until Google drastically changes how it ranks (meaning putting far less weight into backlinks), then no matter what small change they make, the process will always be the same.

George, I completely agree. But you know, that crappy article really isn't crappy...look at the magazine stands at Wal-Mart. They all have the same crap - lose 5 pounds doing this...how to have better sex...10 tips to healthier eating...

It's just the way it is - and no matter what Google says, the same crap is going to get regurgitated again and again and again. There is only so much one can say about something.

Rob

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by ccmusicman

Google has been screaming this for years. But yet, they base a big part of the ranking algorithm off of backlinking.

Here's what nobody seems to grasp.

Google, and Bing, and Dogpile, and everyone else with a search engine...

SUCK.

They are unimaginably, extraordinarily BAD at what they are trying to do.

But they are getting better. And it happens in these big "shelves," where they are plodding along doing a crap job of something on Monday, then BOOM they start doing a much better job on Tuesday.

What they keep trying to tell everyone is that even though a huge part of their ranking algorithm is based on backlinks, this is a bug.

Even though they are very very bad at discerning good content from crap content, this is a bug.

Even though they are ranking things COMPLETELY wrong half of the time, this is a bug.

And because all of these things are bugs, they are trying to fix them.

When they are fixed, all your hard work exploiting them goes ***PTHBTT*** and your site goes down the crapper.

What they are telling you to do will work forever, even if all the bugs are fixed.

This falls right in line with the word "unsupported." Rob, you're a technical guy. You know what "unsupported" means, right?

You can DO it. We won't STOP you. But when it suddenly stops working, you don't get to bitch about it. We told you it was unsupported.

[celente]

how the hell can you ever tell what googles wants.

its 2011 and how many times has google changed things. once or twice?

nope...i think not. Google is fast becoming a victim of their own success but alas they have the monopoly and can do what they want.

[Rob Howard]

Originally Posted by CDarklock

This falls right in line with the word "unsupported." Rob, you're a technical guy. You know what "unsupported" means, right?

You can DO it. We won't STOP you. But when it suddenly stops working, you don't get to bitch about it. We told you it was unsupported.

Don'tcha love the SE's

Rob

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by ccmusicman

Don'tcha love the SE's

Absolutely. Especially Bing.

[Rob Howard]

Ya know Caliban, this made me think:

Since backlinking is unsupported and is a glitch or whatever - everyone is using it. Which means if I don't use it, then I won't get ranked.

So here is my plan: I never do any more backlinking and when Google get's it fixed, I'll be the guy sitting on top. That may happen in a few years or more...perhaps while I wait for the fix, I'll put up about 50,000,000 sites, one for every niche I can think of and then play the big waiting game.

Who knows, maybe it will all come crashing down and then I'll be the only one in google

I think I see millions in my future...

Rob

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by ccmusicman

Which means if I don't use it, then I won't get ranked.

I don't use it, and I get ranked.

Challenge your assumptions. Test.

[Rob Howard]

Originally Posted by CDarklock

I don't use it, and I get ranked.

Challenge your assumptions. Test.

Oh I get ranked with some too...but they are generally not big money/traffic keywords. Though I have discovered many keywords which aren't very competitive.

But that is a different topic all together.

In any event - SEO isn't my main traffic source, so I really don't care what Google does.

Rob

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by ccmusicman

In any event - SEO isn't my main traffic source, so I really don't care what Google does.

Same here. My interest in search engines is limited to whether I can find what I want, and whether people who want me can find me.

I am really not concerned with what most people mean when they say "organic search traffic," which is basically people who want something I happen to have and are willing to consider me as one of their options.

[simonbuzz]

Originally Posted by DrewClement

Tip #1

Dont listen to what Google tells you. Often all their blog does is hype up "cute" ideas that they can never properly implement.

lol duplicate content lol

Yah Google is simply lying to people...because I have seen sites that are outranked by free blogspot sites and autoblogs so what does that mean if they care so much about their visitor then why they rank autoblogs instead of high quality blogs..and I also found that seo is the big deal and trust me it is the truth if you site has good seo then you will rank no matter what.

[tanaris]

Well, I guess we have to follow Google.. sigh. Good luck to all those websites that use automated content grabber. I think Google is about to destroy bad SEO services (spam and dupe)