The Funny Thing About Google 'Panda' And 'High-Quality' Websites

11 years ago

Yep, Google reminds me of the perennial complaint of men and women when talking about the opposite sex: "What men/women say they want doesn't match what they go for."

At least for short-term assets, it obviously makes more sense to pay attention to what the Google algorithm actually rewards than to what those damn humans blabber on about.

Now, I probably should get myself some of those Fiverr video testimonials for my struggling sites and kill my last shred of humanity in the process, but every time I visit Fiverr, I get carried away with those dudes and chicks who are willing to write my name on their torsos and do jumping jacks.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8501701].message }}

PerformanceMan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by JamesBorg

Yep, Google reminds me of the perennial complaint of men and women when talking about the opposite sex: "What men/women say they want doesn't match what they go for."

At least for short-term assets, it obviously makes more sense to pay attention to what the Google algorithm actually rewards than to what those damn humans blabber on about.

Now, I probably should get myself some of those Fiverr video testimonials for my struggling sites and kill my last shred of humanity in the process, but every time I visit Fiverr, I get carried away with those dudes and chicks who are willing to write my name on their torsos and do jumping jacks.

LOL, it's like the same people have done reviews for EVERY product around. That's high quality alright

Cutts made a

video

on 9/11/2013 where he mentions 'quality' again and again....

Thanks

Signature

Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8501790].message }}

Michael Levanduski

11 years ago

I have a feeling we'll see a Google "Giraffe" algorithm change coming in the next 12-18 months. This update will involve Google's systems 'watching' videos to see their quality and whether or not they are legit. These fiverr reviewers who review every product on the net, for example, will have their videos devalued.

It wouldn't take much for Google to do a quick facial recognition on them, or voice to text them to scan what they are saying.

Mark my words all of you people running out to create low-quality videos to try to rank your sites! When the Google Giraffe hits, don't come crying to me!

Michael

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Need Quality Written Content? Hire Me!
OR...
Learn how to write for money online!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8501872].message }}

overtonis 11 years ago

makes me want to create a youtube video
- Thanks
- 2 replies
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8501900].message }}
- PerformanceMan 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by overtonis
  
  makes me want to create a youtube video
  
  If you can make something better than a 61 second totally non-convincing video - be my guest.
  
  Most of these videos couldn't sell a glass of cold water in the middle of the desert
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8501977].message }}
- JSProjects 11 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by overtonis
  
  makes me want to create a youtube video
  
  Been creating a handful each week in low to medium competition keywords. They rank incredibly well with a little bit of a push.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8502168].message }}
JamesBorg 11 years ago

Hey, you gotta admit it's a step up from horizontal flipping of images for photo testimonials.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8501903].message }}

dennis09

11 years ago

What's even funnier is that they have no way of measuring most of that crap.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

There is no elevator to success, you have to take the stairs

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8502143].message }}

PerformanceMan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by dennis09

What's even funnier is that they have no way of measuring most of that crap.

True. They also refer to 'article' as if that's the only form of content around.

It's a lot easier to believe that Google updates are about Google profits than about 'quality' of 'articles.'

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8502155].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Originally Posted by PerformanceMan

It's a lot easier to believe that Google updates are about Google profits than about 'quality' of 'articles.'

I think for Google, the two largely go hand in hand.

If they are not serving up the search results that users are looking for and someone else finds a way to do it better, they will lose market share. Losing market share means less users. Less users means less advertisers as well as fewer clicks and lower costs per click for advertisers.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8502383].message }}

PerformanceMan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

I think for Google, the two largely go hand in hand.

If they are not serving up the search results that users are looking for and someone else finds a way to do it better, they will lose market share. Losing market share means less users. Less users means less advertisers as well as fewer clicks and lower costs per click for advertisers.

I agree they should serve their users first and foremost.

But these so-called 'Panda' quality rules do not reflect User Generated Content on websites like YouTube, press release websites, and document sharing websites.

Right now Parasite pages are running amok and it's largely because the Parasites have embedded themselves on domains with apparently unimpeachable authority.

They're inheriting the main domain's authority - yet they have ZERO credibility. That really makes Google look bad IMHO.

Plus, as far as YouTube video goes, most people know they can search for videos directly from there. Are people really expecting 8 or 9 videos for their searches?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8503285].message }}

MikeFriedman

11 years ago

Originally Posted by PerformanceMan

Plus, as far as YouTube video goes, most people know they can search for videos directly from there. Are people really expecting 8 or 9 videos for their searches?

Depends what you are searching for. If I am searching for "Jon Belushi scene breaking guitar in Animal House", then yes, I expect to get mostly video results.

Even searches for reviews of products I would expect to see a lot more video results. I think the average user would rather watch a 2 minute video review than read a big long written review. I think that is why places like CNet now post video reviews along with their written reviews.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8503315].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8506096].message }}

patadeperro

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

I've seen alot of Web2.0 properties pop up on page 1 for example. Just because a lot of the money sites they where pointing too got tanked. The links they where using to rank. Are now the strongest properties in town. That would include videos I guess.

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

I guess the truth be told. This whole on-page content quality thing is a load of crap anyway. There is clearly no way that Google can look at any page, and make a decision whether this page offers value to visitors.

Kev, I am quite surprise that is you the one writing these, the on page content quality is not a load of crap, what happens is that Google samples first text from your site and then it "evaluates" if it makes gramatical sense, this does not mean that it makes real sense example:

"It is a common misunderstanding that monkey's swing from trees. As the shrew looks onward towards the flying banana, a flying yellow pig slams into mars."

That is a phrase that makes gramatical sense but no real sense a machine can't understand it, it wont be able to say it is fake or not, nevertheless here is where other Google properties bring data to improve the analysis example Google Analytics, this platform gives them a bunch of data to compare so they classiffy pages based on the onsite optimization, they rank them according with the backlinks... but then they compare the bounce rate, average time spent etc... and then they adjust the ranks based on the becnhmarks they have comparing your website with the others that are trying to rank for the same terms.... or why do you think they give Google Webmaster Tools for free? because you are feeding them with a bunch of information that allows them to refine their searches.

Now going to the Web 2.0 properties (this is mere speculation, but I have seen them ranking high for certaiin "competitive terms") this properties have some type of "public confidence" so people click more on those and spend more time on those pages than in the rest of the pages example: if you are looking for "crazy sex positions" what will you be more tented to click a site or a Facebook page that is called "sexy sex positions" even just as a mere curiosity you would click on the facebook page just to see if it really contains pics... so those properties keep ranking because they get more clicks, more time etc...

Respectfully
patadeperro

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Start Banking Hard With The Adult Evergreen Method!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8506457].message }}

nik0

Banned 11 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8506643].message }}

patadeperro

11 years ago

Originally Posted by nik0

I highly doubt that as I have sites ranking where the grammar doesn't make any sense at all. Yes I used real poor writers for a certain site that I own, still it brings in a ton of traffic and amazingly it also converts pretty damn well.

nik0, I am not sure exactly what is your case, it may be that your competitors are using the same strategy, my point here is the onsite part is just a small one, it may even be as simple as to take a sample of words and get the context such as this:

dog, puppy, training, repetition, punishment, alpha dogs

even the text is something like:

"When dogs become a puppy the training is based on repetition, punishment is the real issue when facing alpha dogs"

In this case the page would be classified and ranked with dog training related pages even if the text is poor and makes a little sense, the rest of the factors will define where you are, not just an isolated one.

Maybe your competitors are creating even worst crap or you may be in a niche where people look for visual content more than sentences, so the quality of your writing may not influence at all such is the case of people looking for videos, you may scrap the content from somebody else, but be able to retain the visitor for longer than the original creator of the content and then you will rank better..

Respectfully
patadeperro

Thanks

Signature

Start Banking Hard With The Adult Evergreen Method!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8506700].message }}

Kevin Maguire 11 years ago

Either the visitor or the host need to be plugged into a Google tracking device for this data to be obtained. There is far too much traffic that is not plugged into Google like this, for them to be able to use it as a major ranking factor. However, if we are talking exclusively about article based pages, bounce rate would be an obvious factor
in your optimization. It gives you more information about your site quality then it does google.

SHAAAMON PAT BRING IT
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8545822].message }}

yukon

Banned 11 years ago

Originally Posted by PerformanceMan

I've noticed for several searches since the un-named September 4th 2013 'Panda Update' that 8-9 out of the Top 10 queries have YouTube Videos listed.

Before Youtube made changes to their internal link structure (Spring 2013) I helped my brother dominate Google SERPs with Youtube videos for his keywords. We pushed the #1 ranked page all the way to page #3 in Google SERPs. We built YT playlist of the most popular videos in the niche, then added his videos to position #1 on the YT playlist (piggyback). Next added relevant keyword anchor-text links inside of the video comments on the video pages while watching the playlist (that was the key to getting the keyword anchor-text link in comments).

I can say this now since YT changed everything.

Now I don't play around with YT, I rank my own video pages. YT is too much like FB, constantly changing internal pages/links. Not that I care about FB, just making a comparison about constant change.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8502629].message }}

Kevin Maguire

11 years ago

I wouldn't be doing too much SERPs case studies around the same time as a medium sized scaled algo update being rolled out. SERPs are a little funny right now because of it. So its hard to make any kinds of assumptions.

I've seen alot of Web2.0 properties pop up on page 1 for example. Just because a lot of the money sites they where pointing too got tanked. The links they where using to rank. Are now the strongest properties in town. That would include videos I guess.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8503713].message }}

Kevin Maguire

11 years ago

I guess the truth be told. This whole on-page content quality thing is a load of crap anyway. There is clearly no way that Google can look at any page, and make a decision whether this page offers value to visitors.

Like maybe my search is.
"Formula to turn lead into Gold"

The person doing the manual review. Would have to have expert knowledge in the subject. To determine which search result is the best to return.

Theres also too many languages and dialects for them to ever understand half of the web. They said themselves they only have 40 languages covered in Webspam.

Does the webspam team fight spam in non-US...

According to Wiki there over 100 languages with 7 million+ speakers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ative_speakers

Are those the actual points from Google?

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?
Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
How much quality control is done on content?
Does the article describe both sides of a story?
Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
Would users complain when they see pages from this site?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8503747].message }}

PerformanceMan

11 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

I guess the truth be told. This whole on-page content quality thing is a load of crap anyway. There is clearly no way that Google can look at any page, and make a decision whether this page offers value to visitors.

Like maybe my search is.
"Formula to turn lead into Gold"

The person doing the manual review. Would have to have expert knowledge in the subject. To determine which search result is the best to return.

Theres also too many languages and dialects for them to ever understand half of the web. They said themselves they only have 40 languages covered in Webspam.

Does the webspam team fight spam in non-US markets such as India? - YouTube

According to Wiki there over 100 languages with 7 million+ speakers.
List of languages by number of native speakers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are those the actual points from Google?

Yes, those are the 'official' quality questions written by Amit Singhal from May 6, 2011. You can check it out here.

I don't feel like the same criteria can possibly be applied to UCG so clearly Google can feel free to ignore these criteria at will as long as the content is on an 'authority site.'

There are at least two sets of rules going right now. Google has done very little to address the Parasite problem. They just go after domains that host their own content mainly.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8503846].message }}

Kevin Maguire

11 years ago

Originally Posted by PerformanceMan

Yes, those are the 'official' quality questions written by Amit Singhal from May 6, 2011. You can check it out here.

I don't feel like the same criteria can possibly be applied to UCG so clearly Google can feel free to ignore these criteria at will as long as the content is on an 'authority site.'

There are at least two sets of rules going right now. Google has done very little to address the Parasite problem. They just go after domains that host their own content mainly.

Yeah you do see a lot of that.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8505663].message }}

netanel23

11 years ago

Newsflash - Google really cares about keeping results only so "relevant".

The better the actual SERP results the less their paid ads get clicked. Paid ads drive Google's revenue. There's a delicate balance between all-out amazing results, and decent enough results to get users to continue to use Google.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8545969].message }}

The Funny Thing About Google 'Panda' And 'High-Quality' Websites

Trending Topics

How did you turn it all around?

Any thoughts on golf's latest phenom...Scottie Scheffler??

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?

Some interesting stats about brand comms

best high quality crypto traffic.