Whinging about Mayday Google Update

Oh Really?

Do a search for "search engine" and the first result is "Dogpile"

Yes, it is a B F Dogpile to us all!

Links are still a core, fundamental aspect of Googles ranking algorithm and will be for a long time, so links are by no means "dead", nor are they a waste of time.

That said, Google is getting consistently better - and I personally believe just leapt forward quite significantly with the latest update(s) - at using its own judgement to "understand" content and detecting what content is relevant to certain keywords, and just what content is better full top.

Now, before people shoot me for saying that and go on to say "prove it", just conisder the following points.

Googles aim is to match people inputting a search query to the most relevant and *useful* content available to satisfy said search.

In times when webpages about a specific topic / keyword phrase may be somewhat scarce and hence competition not that great, your somewhat thin, nonsensical "filler" content may be the best Google can offer up to a searcher. In that case, get the most/best links and you will win.

For more competitive queries however, simply having the most links or a greater link velocity than other competing websites may not ever be enough to rank you in the top position, if your content still looks somewhat primitive, thin or less informational than that of other competing sites.

In such instances, I believe Google is getting wise enough to make it's own judgement about that content based not only on the amount or strength of incoming links, or such things as keyword density.

The links/votes based system of ranking is obviously open to manipulation and the number of people getting wise to how it works is ever-increasing. Although their PageRank mechanism goes so far to value links differently (for better or "worse"), making it a little harder for people to rank highly for competitive terms simply by link spamming (given that finding and building high PR links isn't something that can really be automated with ease, unlike is the case with low quality links), it is not the be all and end all anymore.

If Google ever wants to truly be able to determine the best and most useful content for any given search, it needs a human-like judgement, and although that may not be possible for a long time to come (if ever), they are certainly focusing heavily on developing systems/algorithms to be able to make a relatively primitive guesstimation of whether a piece of content looks to be the best and most suitable, and whether it is deserving of the number of links it has relative to the age and quality of content (together with the number and quality of links pointing to *that* content) available on competing websites.

Google is probably never going to (or at least, not for a long time) shift away from ranking content based heavily on links and PR / overall domain authority, but they are making progress towards being able to scrutinize content on a case-by-case basis to determine if a site looks genuinely deserving of the linkage it obtains in comparison to other sites, and whether it is wise to rely on that data to determine the ranking or not.

The fact of the matter is, we've moved away from being able to manipulate Google by keyword spamming alone. The "number of votes" linking system made that more difficult. Thanks to PageRank, we've moved away from being able to easily manipulate rankings in many cases simply by link spamming to obtain the most links (without raising red flags with Googles spam team), since not all links are equal anymore. But with the development of complex systems and peoples willingness to sell links from high PR sites, that is no longer (if it has ever been) a "foolproof" way to determine rankings.

The more Google does to make it harder for us to "cheat" our way to the top position, the more straight forward and logical the need for truly quality, information-rich, relevant, natural content.

With every update Google is getting closer to that goal. It is coming to the point - if we aren't already at it - where trying to cheat top rankings using "technical methods" becomes harder than simply doing deep research and writing (or paying someone else to write) truly great content that adds value to and solves our visitors queries.

When every webmaster/publisher publishes consistently good, well-researched content, the need to determine which deserves to be at the top will become somewhat moot, since all content on the first page(s) is likely to be as good as the competitions. Then it's really just down to people to vote - through links or any other means - to determine their overall favourite which will end up in the top spot.

Fresh New Content + Quality Backlinks = Good Rankings

This has always been the way for me and it works great! Dont make things complicated we only live once

Google's entire search engine was built on Links and mainly Links alone. Google was actually called "Back Rub" back in the day because of this. Links aren't going anywhere unless Google COMPLETELY reinvents the wheel.

The truth is that CONTENT has always been important, and it's still the same today... But that doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned, all my sites are getting the same amount of traffic and rankings.

I think it mainly effected SUPER long tail exact domains and people that were spamming translated garbage... Google just wanted to clean up the SERPS.

IMO the "patented update" was Google adding in better linguistics into the algo... as well as Perhaps building in Category based rankings.. which would explain the drop in long tail a lot of people saw from autoblogs with random -generated content.

Example: Someone types in San Diego Zoo .. I've got an article on my that includes the word San Diego Zoo but my site is about my personal life... Why should I rank on San Diego Zoo? I'm actually using a REAL example from one of my own sites.

Before MayDay I actually was getting traffic from San Diego Zoo .. It made no sense.

Something else to ponder... perhaps the algorithm no longer takes favor to X amount of character domains, thus explaining why the "Snipers" lost a lot of their traffic...

Someone else on the Warrior Forum has already said it.

Google CAN'T delete all the Adsense domains, because the Content Network makes up a HUGE portion of their revenue. But it's pretty damn easy to tweak Quality and Relevancy settings to filter out all the Bullcrap.



My .02

I won't go as far as to say this is completely wrong but the need for quality content AND backlinks are not mutually exclusive. They work together as they should.

POINT 1. You can have THE BEST content in the world but if nobody votes for it by linking to your site IT DOESN'T MATTER. Your site won't rank and you won't get traffic.

POINT 2. You can have a TON of backlink but if they aren't relevant to your site you won't rank for your targeted keywords.

The recent update by Google has made a marked improvement in improving how the two items above work together.

If your sites have any of the below attributes you have or will probably experience a decline in your SERPs.

1. Thin sites made for advertising (adsense and autoblog sites)
2. Thin sites with exact keyword domain sites
3. Sites that have backlinks to just the homepage
4. Sites that have backlinks with just a single anchor text
5. Relatively new domains

What's really ironic is that people complain about Google here but all of the information Google needs to combat spammy SEO tactics is in plain sight on this forum.

Problem number one for that idea of content + current + fast = rankings:

People ripping current content from news agencies AND (automatically) posting it fast, are getting top rankings with spam sites and copied content.

Google needs to find a solution for this FAST, otherwise CURRENT RANKINGS will turn a piece of **** in a couple weeks.

Content does not have to be new to be current. History doesn't change. I really think this push towards fresh content is ignorant of quality work documented documented at any point in time.

I would also like to add that I think it is easier to SEO for terms now because the large 'authority' sites that rank high due to their internal linking no longer get the huge leap over the rest as they once did. Amazon pages are a piece of cake to over take now.

The quality of content is subjective and varies from reader to reader. I'm the dating niche, since I've seen most of the tips and hints before, and since I run a site in that industry, what newbies think as "mind blowing" was "so last year" to me. Thus, I would discount the quality of the content already.

However, links on the other hand are not subjective.

Links play a HUGE factor.

I have a site that's written in ENGLISH with ZERO Chinese.

But it's on page 1 number 1 for the Chinese keyword.

I was just doing it as a test to see how much anchor text matters.

It matters ALOT.