Pandified Posting Tips

[Will Edwards]

Hi Guys

As you know, our friend Ms G is constantly reworking her ideas on how to filter out low quality content from the SERPS. So here are my thoughts on how you can benefit.

Here are some quick tips for what I call 'Pandified Posting' < nifty name eh? Expect someone to do a WSO (not me) on it soon

Firstly, Low Quality Sites are Characterised by:

* Low Value Add for Users
* Copied Content
* Sites that Not Very Useful

And High Quality Sites are Characterised by:

* Original Content
* Original Information such as Research
* In-Depth Reports
* Thoughtful Analysis

So Here are my Pandified Posting Tips:

1. Post longer articles (I'm shooting for around 1,000 words)
2. Reference quality external sources
3. Quote research sources
4. Provide good quality analysis of subject matter
5. Good spelling/grammar/punctuation (including comments)
6. Use LSI keywords - use Google KW Tool to find them
7. No pop-ups (controversial I know)
8. No excessive advertising
9. Make use of longer paragraphs

Here are Some Examples of Quality Sources:

IRS Internal Revenue Service
Wikipedia
New York Times
Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness + Find a Therapist
Telegraph.co.uk - Telegraph online, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph

Here are Some Resources for Finding Quality Sites to Quote/Reference:

http://infomine.ucr.edu/
ipl2: Information You Can Trust
Research Beyond Google: 119 Authoritative, Invisible, and Comprehensive Resources | OEDb

Not everyone will agree with my tips, but I think if you follow them, you will set your articles apart from the crowd and, if you stick with it, over the course of time, Google will come to love your stuff.

Will

[zoonix]

I think number 8 is going to be a big deal soon. Tons of ads has always been a bad idea, but Matt Cutts just emphasized it a week or two ago. Looks like they'll be penalizing sites with a lot of ads above the fold.

[Alexa Smith]

Originally Posted by zoonix

I think number 8 is going to be a big deal soon. Tons of ads has always been a bad idea, but Matt Cutts just emphasized it a week or two ago. Looks like they'll be penalizing sites with a lot of ads above the fold.

Yes indeed ... it may well be a big deal very soon.

As you say, it's always been a bad idea anyway. But recently there's been a real trend of Google taking "sudden" action over things which Matt Cutts "just happens to have mentioned a week or two ago".

Marketers ignore stuff like this at their peril.

There's a gradual but understandable increase in the proportion of marketers who are beginning to appreciate that if you depend on Google for all your traffic, your business is only ever going to be one algorithm-change from a potential accident.

[John Romaine]

Originally Posted by zoonix

Looks like they'll be penalizing sites with a lot of ads above the fold.

Right

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Right

I knew I wouldn't have to wait long for something like this.

It reminds me of a radical feminist author from the seventies named Andrea Dworkin. Ms. Dworkin, on one hand, spewed her anti-male theory that all heterosexual intercourse was rape. On the other hand, she paid the bills by writing "erotica", some of it pretty nasty.

When asked about this, and how she justified making her living writing porn, she told the interviewer that she didn't write porn, she wrote 'erotic literature'. When asked the difference, she claimed it was entirely her skill as an author. Humble and soft-spoken, she was not.

Google seems to be taking the same approach. If you show a lot of ads above the fold, it's a poor user experience. If they do it, their facility in selecting ads to show offers searchers good value.

Go figure...

[Will Edwards]

@Johnny & @John

You got it one. I did blog about that very point just a short while back i.e. Google does not appear to be 'walking' its 'talk'.

Will

[awddude]

I have also found 1000 word articles seem easier to rank for these days. But besides that as long as you don't copy content and have 500+ words it's gold. I believe the post-panda world is simple. Just don't spam your own websites and you will be fine.

[Fraggler]

Will, what about the numerous ecommerce sites and shopping comparison that are doing perfectly fine post-panda?

Your tips are good rules to follow for providing a good user experience - when creating information sites - but that isn't the only type of site kicking along nicely.

[Will Edwards]

Originally Posted by Fraggler

Will, what about the numerous ecommerce sites and shopping comparison that are doing perfectly fine post-panda?

Your tips are good rules to follow for providing a good user experience - when creating information sites - but that isn't the only type of site kicking along nicely.

Hi Fraggler

You quite right. But, G also has people manually reviewing the top sites, so these things will help to keep your site looking good in the eyes of those people once you get to the top of the SERPS. An algorithm is one thing; humans are quite another.

Cheers,

Will

[Fraggler]

It will make info/content sites look great but there is nothing wrong with having an online store; a download page; a calculator; an image or video gallery; a business's homepage that lack the features you mentioned above. All of those sites and many other non-content/information based sites are still performing well with the updated Google algorithm and would pass an unlikely human review with flying colours.

What's important is providing the solution to the searcher's problem. You then need to have a trusted site that is an authority on the subject. (Back links are still the key factor to a well ranked site in the Google SERPs.)

Your tips are great for people providing a quality user experience for info based sites but it doesn't mean it will help with Panda.

[Will Edwards]

Originally Posted by Fraggler

It will make info/content sites look great but there is nothing wrong with having an online store; a download page; a calculator; an image or video gallery; a business's homepage that lack the features you mentioned above. All of those sites and many other non-content/information based sites are still performing well with the updated Google algorithm and would pass an unlikely human review with flying colours.

What's important is providing the solution to the searcher's problem. You then need to have a trusted site that is an authority on the subject. (Back links are still the key factor to a well ranked site in the Google SERPs.)

Your tips are great for people providing a quality user experience for info based sites but it doesn't mean it will help with Panda.

Hi Fraggler

Yes - we are in agreement. Sites can certainly provide value and pass the human test without providing in depth analysis. Never meant to imply the reverse.

Will

[Thomas Prendergast]

Which leads me to this question:

How do you do a Google search and by that very search skew the results different than what someone else will do or see?

[yourreviewer]

I think original content just like "unique content" is highly overrated. What we should be focusing on is high quality relevant content.

And this relevant content can be original or unique or syndicated content (content that you use from other websites with their permission and giving them complete attribution).

But again, content by itself need not be text itself.

You can embed a YouTube video and write a short summary/commentary.

You can embed a podcast and do the same.

You can embed a Powerpoint presentation and do the same etc.

For example, if I run a IM website, I will go ahead and publish an article like the one below on my website (of course after I get their approval)

How I Reached #1 on iTunes: A Guide to Launching a Podcast

I don't give a hoot about whether Google will penalize me or filter my content because this content is RELEVANT to my readers, which is more important than unique or original.

And say, I need some content for list building, I will just use a video like the one below as a blog post without even posting a summary because the content speaks for itself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

And I will do something similar if I need some content on content creation.

Andrew Warner from Mixergy.com Reveals His Best Interview Content Creation and Production Strategies Internet Marketing Business Blog James Schramko

At the end of the day, what matters most is the user experience.

Being obssessive about Google is like putting the girl you have a crush on, on a pedastal. While you may think that is the best way to win her, you may just end up doing the exact opposite.

[JOSourcing]

I think Will's tips strongly complement what Google recommends at its blog: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: More guidance on building high-quality sites. Both tips combined make for a rather extensive checklist!

[Kurt]

Originally Posted by Fraggler

Will, what about the numerous ecommerce sites and shopping comparison that are doing perfectly fine post-panda?

Your tips are good rules to follow for providing a good user experience - when creating information sites - but that isn't the only type of site kicking along nicely.

Yep...And since about 30% of Google queries are commercial in nature, lots of info isn't what everyone is looking for.

If someone types in "cheap inkjet printer", they probably don't need a lot of info other than the very basics about a printer and the price. And comparing the prices of a couple of printers is probably exactly what most searchers using that phrase are looking for.

I believe SEO noobs too often get caught up in the concept that Google uses the same ranking criteria for all searches. It's been my opinion for over a decade Google uses multiple "algos" for different types of queries.

For example, I believe for popular queries, Google relies on more off-the-page things like links and PR, etc. For more obscure queries with few results, Google uses more "on page" factors.

For topics Google considers "newsworthy", the new "fresh" update is probably a bigger factor. And for queries Google deems "commercial in nature", they probably have a different set of ranking criteria.

And if someone wants to convert 32F to C, a couple of digits will do.

I suggest that people don't get caught up in a "one size fits all" strategy...

[Will Edwards]

Originally Posted by Kurt

I suggest that people don't get caught up in a "one size fits all" strategy...

Hi Kurt

You make a good point but this isn't meant to be a one size fits all strategy. It's a few good tips for people who have a site to which they post articles - hence my title 'Pandifed Posting'.

Will

[mosthost]

Originally Posted by ramone_johnny

Right

HAHA. What Henry VIII style hypocrisy out of Google!

You call THAT a quality page?

[martinpeter]

As you say, it's always been a bad idea anyway. But recently there's been a real trend of Google taking "sudden" action over things which Matt Cutts "just happens to have mentioned a week or two ago".

[James Schramko]

Since they are focusing on social signals make share worthy content
and put sharing devices (+1, twitter and facebook).