What is 'Good Content'?

by trnz
90 replies
In all the fuss over Google's new rules, I keep reading 'good content' is a must. But what is good content? I know what good writing is. There are lots of rule books. But what are the rules for 'good content according to google'?
Perhaps some of the knowledgeable people on here who could help clear up the fog. Perhaps some hints on what Google like to see and what they don't like to see? I'm sure a LOT of the readers would appreciate some facts about this important area. :-)
#content #good
  • I think good content is when you write for your readers, and not Google.

    I think a sign of good content is where people go to the effort of sharing, tweeting, liking or commenting on your work.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158432].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kb10248
      If you want to rank on google now, it appears that you have to have a 'poor content' site. Has anyone done searches since the new algorithm? Try 'weight loss', or 'fast weight lose', and page 1 is full of 'Get Diet Pills Here'. How is that good content?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158469].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author phpg
        Originally Posted by kb10248 View Post

        If you want to rank on google now, it appears that you have to have a 'poor content' site. Has anyone done searches since the new algorithm? Try 'weight loss', or 'fast weight lose', and page 1 is full of 'Get Diet Pills Here'. How is that good content?
        Much of what's going on with their results right now looks like a giant error, and i'd bet they'll get it sorted out soon.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158503].message }}
      • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160834].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
          Banned
          Originally Posted by mojojuju View Post

          Really?! Here's the first ten pages returned by Google when I search for 'weight loss'.

          Healthy Eating & Diet Center - Find healthy eating, fitness and diet tools

          I searched for 'fast weight lose' and found the following:

          Are Fasting Diets Safe and Effective?


          Those look like pretty decent results to me.
          Went ahead and snipped that down a bit...

          Your logic is no good here. Be gone! :p
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160964].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author bigwhiteshark
            To understand what good content is, first try to understand what bad content is.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161046].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
              Originally Posted by bigwhiteshark View Post

              To understand what good content is, first try to understand what bad content is.
              This is more important than most folks think.

              Lots of folks, even in this thread, assert that Google (or any other SE) can't determine what 'good quality content' is. Doesn't matter.

              All they have to do is pattern the stuff they know is crap and get rid of anything that matches the pattern. What's left is the good stuff.

              When you harvest grain, you don't have to pick out the individual grains. You get rid of the chaff and the stalks and the pebbles, etc. What's left is mostly grain. Then you can work on grading that grain, from 'acceptable' to 'premium'...
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161346].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                Lots of folks, even in this thread, assert that Google (or any other SE) can't determine what 'good quality content' is. Doesn't matter.

                All they have to do is pattern the stuff they know is crap and get rid of anything that matches the pattern. What's left is the good stuff.

                When you harvest grain, you don't have to pick out the individual grains. You get rid of the chaff and the stalks and the pebbles, etc. What's left is mostly grain. Then you can work on grading that grain, from 'acceptable' to 'premium'...
                Exactly so.

                I completely agree with this. I think the people asserting that Google can't determine what "good quality content" is are missing the point, and may actually even be "just plain wrong", because Google's undoubted ability to determine "what's crap" boils down to exactly the same thing, for our purposes.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6164688].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author phpg
                  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                  I think the people asserting that Google can't determine what "good quality content" is are missing the point, and may actually even be "just plain wrong", because Google's undoubted ability to determine "what's crap" boils down to exactly the same thing, for our purposes.
                  What kind of "crap" do you think google is really able to detect?

                  From what i know, computers still can't understand natural language.

                  Google can analyze it with some very sophisticated methods, it probably can detect software generated / spinned etc. content in many cases, duplicate content of course, but if something is written by a human, i don't see how it can decide is it good or bad with any degree of objectivity?

                  There are editors, perhaps they are a bit better at it, but they have there subjective preferences too. E.g. it's a well-known fact that many of them think of anything "internet marketing" related as a scam
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6169694].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                    Originally Posted by phpg View Post

                    Google can analyze it with some very sophisticated methods, it probably can detect software generated / spinned etc. content in many cases, duplicate content of course, but if something is written by a human, i don't see how it can decide is it good or bad with any degree of objectivity?
                    As I understand it, the human raters' real job is to identify whether or not the content they are asked to rate meets or does not meet the rating criteria. According to that rater's manual, there were a few gradations between yes and no.

                    They use that rating information to help 'train' their algorithms. From that point, it's a matter of pattern matching.

                    The uneven results we're seeing from Penguin will settle out as this iteration of the algo gets 'smarter'.

                    You have to understand that when they say a page is good or bad, they are not making a moral judgment. They are making a judgment of how well a given page meets their criteria, and how well they believe such a page will match the intent of a given family of related searches.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6169967].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author phpg
                      Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post


                      You have to understand that when they say a page is good or bad, they are not making a moral judgment. They are making a judgment of how well a given page meets their criteria, and how well they believe such a page will match the intent of a given family of related searches.
                      Of course they shouldn't make any moral judgement, but in practice i'm not sure that they don't. When they read something they don't like, their opinion can affect judgement, even unintentionally.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170157].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
                        Banned
                        Originally Posted by phpg View Post

                        Of course they shouldn't make any moral judgement, but in practice i'm not sure that they don't. When they read something they don't like, their opinion can affect judgement, even unintentionally.
                        I doubt it would just be one person reading it though. I'm sure the content that they read to base their algorithms off of is reviewed amongst a group of raters (much like standardized writing exams here in Florida) that then comes to a consensus.

                        I'm sure they make sure to diversify the group to get different opinions and prevent patterns based on personal feelings. Of course, this is also just speculation on my part. I could be hilariously wrong.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170174].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      If you take them at their word, 'good content according to google' is relevant, interesting and useful to a visitor. Sounds a lot like good writing, doesn't it? 'Content' also takes in multiple media, not just text. While they haven't quite figured out how to 'read' graphic images, they're making strides with audio and video content.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158474].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ProAffiliate01
      Originally Posted by GoodnightSweetRatRace View Post

      I think good content is when you write for your readers, and not Google.

      I think a sign of good content is where people go to the effort of sharing, tweeting, liking or commenting on your work.
      I think you are right. If people would remember this simple tip, creating content for sites would not be such a stressful action.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6167804].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author phpg
    I doubt anyone really knows what is 'good content according to google', except some google employees, who won't share the truth anyway

    Original (not duplicate) and human readable - not software generated or so good that a human editor can't see it's generated - should be enough.

    Anything above that is pure speculation and a matter of taste (which the software doesn't have and human editors could have any).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158471].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dracoboar
    Good content is content that is easily promoted to draw attention to your website or service.

    As far as google is concerned google doesnt know what "good " content is unless someone tells them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158476].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin Perry
    I try to pay less attention to what Google is saying and more attention to my visitors. Write for them. They are the ones that click on your ads and purchase your products. Make sure your articles read well and are informative and put less emphasis on what Google is telling you.

    Kevin
    Signature
    Owner and Operator of 6StarMedia.com - A website design and marketing firm
    Marketing Consultant for AuctionAutoBidder.com - An eBay Auction Sniper service
    Check out one of my clients for Database Services - Pebble IT
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158481].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author cashp0wer
      To me good content is informative, interesting and well written with no grammar issues. Also no duplicate content. Who knows what Google wants.
      Signature
      My Internet Marketing Blog - Warts And All!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158490].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Nick Pearson
      Originally Posted by The Godfather View Post

      I try to pay less attention to what Google is saying and more attention to my visitors. Write for them. They are the ones that click on your ads and purchase your products. Make sure your articles read well and are informative and put less emphasis on what Google is telling you.

      Kevin
      I have to agree with you on that one Godfather. You should write for the visitors not the search engines.

      My idea of Good Content would be content that you would read yourself. If you wouldn't read it then others probably wont either.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160684].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author The Marketeer
    Content that is valuable to the target audience and not just trying to sell them something.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158489].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chri5123
    Good Content = Content that provides value to the READER.

    It will differ in each niche.

    However as an example:

    "How to build a house"

    "If you are looking to build a house then you need a good "how to build a house" guide. The main things that you need to look for in a guide that tells you how to build a house is a bricklaying guide, foundation guide etc..."

    ^ Bad content

    Good content would be an indepth guide that ACTUALLY tells you how to build a house from scratch.

    Bad example I know but hope you see what I mean?

    So think about how you can offer value to the reader.

    Chris
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158499].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Miss Bee
      Originally Posted by Chri5123 View Post

      Good Content = Content that provides value to the READER.

      It will differ in each niche.

      However as an example:

      "How to build a house"

      "If you are looking to build a house then you need a good "how to build a house" guide. The main things that you need to look for in a guide that tells you how to build a house is a bricklaying guide, foundation guide etc..."

      ^ Bad content

      Good content would be an indepth guide that ACTUALLY tells you how to build a house from scratch.

      Bad example I know but hope you see what I mean?

      So think about how you can offer value to the reader.

      Chris
      Sorry if this is a silly question, but does this mean that articles and posts with a higher word count are better (for visitors and Google)?

      Using the house example, 600 words wouldn't allow for a very informative post/article. It would to have to be rather generic and only cover the basics. A 1000 word + article could really get down to the nitty gritty though.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159348].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Miss Bee View Post

        Sorry if this is a silly question, but does this mean that articles and posts with a higher word count are better (for visitors and Google)?

        Using the house example, 600 words wouldn't allow for a very informative post/article. It would to have to be rather generic and only cover the basics. A 1000 word + article could really get down to the nitty gritty though.
        This has been my experience so far. Longer articles have produced more for me as far as traffic, opt ins, and sales go. That being said, striving to hit a word count just so you can hit it won't be good enough. Use as many words as you need to so that you can get the piece's point across. Never more, never less.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159477].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Miss Bee
          Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

          This has been my experience so far. Longer articles have produced more for me as far as traffic, opt ins, and sales go. That being said, striving to hit a word count just so you can hit it won't be good enough. Use as many words as you need to so that you can get the piece's point across. Never more, never less.
          Thanks for your reply. I can only go from my own experience of visiting sites. When I need information and only get 500 words that say the same thing as every other site on page 1 of Google, I hit the back button. Immediately!

          There must be other people out there who do this too. While bulking articles up with fluff is pointless, if you're going to write unique content it should be, well, unique.

          Finding the same rewritten article on a subject over and over again is very annoying. People should remember that real flesh and blood people are reading this stuff, not Google.

          The last couple of articles I have written were 1200 and 2100 words. Both were on sustainable forestry. That might seem excessive, but there's whole PHD's to be written on subjects like that!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159745].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Miss Bee View Post

            Finding the same rewritten article on a subject over and over again is very annoying. People should remember that real flesh and blood people are reading this stuff, not Google.
            If people thought like this, there wouldn't be anywhere close to the number of "Penguin sucks, I hate Google" threads as we are seeing. Count yourself as one of the smart ones, realizing this is the key to a sustainable business .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159790].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
            Originally Posted by MattJackson View Post

            I think google will have a bunch of metrics it uses to decide what good content is, how long people stay on the page for, how many people share it, bounce rate - that kind of thing.

            I still think the problem is these are just as easy to game as backlinks and keyword density.
            Some content people won't shared, an amazing article on how to deal with genital warts isn't going be plastered all over facebook and surely a page that solves your problem within a minute of reading is better than one that takes 7.
            It will be just as easy to game only if Google adopts the idea that more is always better. I really think that with the staggering amount of money they pay for brain power, they won't do that. Like linking, they will establish "normal and natural" parameters for things like time on page, social sharing, etc.

            Originally Posted by bigslamgyrl View Post

            My understanding is also that the more your content is shared socially (ie Facebook, twitter, stumble, etc.) the more "reader friendly" Google views it based on the fact that if people are sharing it socially then it is obviously something that people want to read.

            That is just something I read in a blog, I didn't get it from Google themselves or anything - but it does make sense
            Again, I think that they will have to establish ranges of normal behavior and look for the exceptions. Is the 1:04:52 spent on the genital warts article page above natural, or the result of someone leaving a browser open, or a deliberate attempt to increase time on page?

            Similar to the way that getting 50,000 links from forum profiles on nuclear physics department sites with 12 posts just isn't natural for a site selling a cure for genital warts.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159829].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author deejones
            Good content makes me want to read the other articles and blog posts on the site. And if the other articles on a site are as good as (or better than) that first article, that site usually gets bookmarked, revisited, and recommended to anyone I think might be interested.

            Originally Posted by Miss Bee View Post

            Thanks for your reply. I can only go from my own experience of visiting sites. When I need information and only get 500 words that say the same thing as every other site on page 1 of Google, I hit the back button. Immediately!
            The articles I bookmark (and re-read) do tend to be very long and involved. After hearing for so long about short attention spans, and how anything over 500 words was too much, I thought I was some kind of weird exception. Yet I notice it’s those long, meaty articles that get tons of FaceBook likes, Tweets and comments.

            I’ve read some good, short articles. But those tend to contain valuable information that I’d never heard before, or familiar information that's presented in an interesting new way. Or the writing itself is really entertaining.

            I think long articles just have more time to pull a reader in and give them a good reading experience. Short articles often end before they can really engage you.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159891].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Birdi
              good content is where your giving some form of value to the visitors be it in the form of written information or video information. It's where the visitor/customer is getting the right kind of information that they are searching for. It has some relevance to what they are searching for.

              thats my interpretation the main thing is giving value to the customer/visitor.

              birdi
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159946].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by trnz View Post

    What is 'Good Content'?
    If I might add a small suggestion of my own to John's excellent summary above (post #5), I think that "good content" can - approximately - be judged by whether or not others with decent quality and relevant publications/websites choose voluntarily to link to it simply because it's content they want to share with their own readers/visitors/subscribers. Not 100% reliable, certainly, but quite a good indication, overall.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158509].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Sparhawke
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      If I might add a small suggestion of my own to John's excellent summary above (post #5), I think that "good content" can - approximately - be judged by whether or not others with decent quality and relevant publications/websites choose voluntarily to link to it simply because it's content they want to share with their own readers/visitors/subscribers. Not 100% reliable, certainly, but quite a good indication, overall.
      I do not disagree on your thoughts on people spontaneously sharing something but lets face it, good useful information is always buried and ignored while videos of cats wondering wtf is going on and farting dogs get shared.

      The whole link/pagerank model simply does not apply or work when based on what people think themselves is useful and relevant.

      You ask one hundred people what they want and you will get one hundred answers; the wisdom of crowds ideology that Google is trying to shove down peoples throats does not work because as the sample pool goes up, the IQ comes down.
      Signature
      “Thinking is easy, Acting is difficult
      And to put one's thoughts into action is the most difficult thing in the world ~ Goethe”
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161550].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ttdub
    Good content is what the reader thinks is good.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158643].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author phpg
      Originally Posted by ttdub View Post

      Good content is what the reader thinks is good.
      ... and we all know the name of this reader?

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158772].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ginder
    Anything that adds value. Re-writing a PLR article doesnt really add much value but on the other hand an engaging post/article for your visitors is also a great bait for search engines
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158782].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Shadowflux
      "Good content" is simply well written, 100% original and entertaining or informative. The "bad content" people are referring to is spun, written by a program, jumbled mess of words "articles" that people were posting.

      You don't want to only post "good content", you want to post Great Content. Sure, it should be as well written as possible but it should also have a flow and a tone which speaks directly to your readers. It should not only be informative but should be something your readers will actually WANT to read.

      Great content can continue to be an asset to your blog for months and years.
      Signature
      Native Advertising Specialist
      Dangerously Effective
      Always Discreet
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6158910].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JOSourcing
    Banned
    Originally Posted by trnz View Post

    But what are the rules for 'good content according to google'?
    As defined by Amit Singhal: Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: More guidance on building high-quality sites
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159075].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author janet beal
    Both John McCabe and CashpOwer seem to have hit the target. Good content isn't just what you have to say--it's what you have to say to somebody else.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159170].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author VHSEOMike
      Depends on your objective - to please G, to build readership or both - the last one is tricky as a Panda or a Penguin can still throw you out of the park
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159313].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MattJackson
    I think google will have a bunch of metrics it uses to decide what good content is, how long people stay on the page for, how many people share it, bounce rate - that kind of thing.


    I still think the problem is these are just as easy to game as backlinks and keyword density.
    Some content people won't shared, an amazing article on how to deal with genital warts isn't going be plastered all over facebook and surely a page that solves your problem within a minute of reading is better than one that takes 7.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159225].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author datingworld
    a unique content written for readers cant be called good content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159443].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mauii
    Bottom line, good content provides value to your reader.

    Offering value should be the #1 goal in internet marketing. If your content is valuable, the profit side of the equation will take care of itself.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159470].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author martimoney
    To me "good content" is content that you would want to read yourself about topic you are writing about. Not using duplicate content is still important I believe. I have stopped trying to give google what they want. Just post good original content and build your own backlinks. I still use PLR as all my original sources of blog post, but rewrite them manually. Just my thoughts.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159493].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ldimilo
    Good content is content that affects people. It is content that answers what question they have or moves them one step closer to whatever they are hoping to accomplish.

    Not everyone is going to think your content is "good". But those who support your world view will think so.

    It's really that simple.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159534].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bigslamgyrl
    My understanding is also that the more your content is shared socially (ie Facebook, twitter, stumble, etc.) the more "reader friendly" Google views it based on the fact that if people are sharing it socially then it is obviously something that people want to read.

    That is just something I read in a blog, I didn't get it from Google themselves or anything - but it does make sense
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159650].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JimDucharme
    Good content is when you worry less about what your product can do and more about sharing with others what people are doing with it.

    One very good way to generate good content is to find out what questions your clients or people in general are asking and answer them.

    Regards,
    jim
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159798].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Randall Magwood
    "Good content" in the eyes of Google is simply content that doesn't sound like it was written for the search engines. Typically it ranges from around 500 words or more, and it should be clearly written to educate the reader on the information that they are looking for.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159879].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SamDermot
    Banned
    Good content means quality and uniqueness, if it is only unique then you can fool search engines but you can't fool visitors, if visitors are just visiting your site and leaving your site spending just one or two seconds then your site automatically be tracked low quality site as there is no visit length so you are caught by search engines here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6159987].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JeanneLynn
    I always thought good content was an article that was interesting, well-researched and informative. I spent a lot of time writing my articles, making sure they were accurate. However, now when I look at the sites on the first page for my niche, I think I should probably save myself time in the future and just buy some spinning software.

    There is one site in my niche that I watch regularly. This site survived panda and penguin and has page 1 rankings for dozens of lucrative keywords. The owner adds content several times a week. The content is horrendous. It looks like it's spun or written by someone who doesn't understand English grammar. Basically, an "article" consists of the keywords repeated 4-5x and a bunch of fluff. It's a health site and no proper research has been done on these articles. Some of them offer advice that may be dangerous. This site doesn't even have a privacy policy page, yet runs Adsense. I can't figure out why this site ranks so well.

    I guess I just don't understand what Google considers good content. I honestly don't think that Google has the capabilities yet to determine good content from bad content. I think any content is okay with Google if it's semi-readable and not duplicated. These are just my own observations from watching the Penguin aftermath (in my niche, at least).

    The ironic thing is that Google said that they were going to do something about spun content. Instead, there are more sites with spun content ranking.

    You should probably spend a few days reading over the content from the top 50 websites in your niche. This will give you some clarity of what pleases Google post-Penguin.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160402].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Nick Pearson
      Originally Posted by JeanneLynn View Post

      I always thought good content was an article that was interesting, well-researched and informative. I spent a lot of time writing my articles, making sure they were accurate. However, now when I look at the sites on the first page for my niche, I think I should probably save myself time in the future and just buy some spinning software.

      There is one site in my niche that I watch regularly. This site survived panda and penguin and has page 1 rankings for dozens of lucrative keywords. The owner adds content several times a week. The content is horrendous. It looks like it's spun or written by someone who doesn't understand English grammar. Basically, an "article" consists of the keywords repeated 4-5x and a bunch of fluff. It's a health site and no proper research has been done on these articles. Some of them offer advice that may be dangerous. This site doesn't even have a privacy policy page, yet runs Adsense. I can't figure out why this site ranks so well.

      I guess I just don't understand what Google considers good content. I honestly don't think that Google has the capabilities yet to determine good content from bad content. I think any content is okay with Google if it's semi-readable and not duplicated. These are just my own observations from watching the Penguin aftermath (in my niche, at least).

      The ironic thing is that Google said that they were going to do something about spun content. Instead, there are more sites with spun content ranking.

      You should probably spend a few days reading over the content from the top 50 websites in your niche. This will give you some clarity of what pleases Google post-Penguin.
      I agree with you, I don't think Google's Algorithm has the ability to identify Good Content yet, but I am sure some day they will get pretty close. So in the long run good quality content is the safest way to go for when Google does have that ability.

      You talk about an competitor in your niche that has page one rankings and horrible content, but just because your getting page one rankings and traffic, doesn't mean that you are getting conversions. I am sure your getting more conversions then him even with less traffic. People usually click off sites that can't read, I know I do.

      Keep writing good quality content! I feel your frustration, but if you hang in there you will receive your reward.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160737].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author deejones
      Originally Posted by JeanneLynn View Post

      I guess I just don't understand what Google considers good content.
      Doesn't building sites based on what Google considers "good content" keep you dependent on Google?

      There's nothing wrong with wanting to rank high in Google, but relying on Google for most (if not all) of your traffic puts you at the mercy of their next algorithm change. As we just saw with Penguin.

      I think those who are building traffic using article syndication, guest blogging, social media marketing and so on have the right idea. And those methods seem to work best when you use good content.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160835].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jarza Cale
    As a newbie I've been thinking about this content question as well... As I gather, good content is something that gives the visitor valuable info on the subject, info that makes the decision making process easier. And I think the content should be as unique as possible as well : )
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160506].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ryan David
    Everyone thinks they write "good content", but very few people do.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160529].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JeanneLynn
      Originally Posted by Ryan David View Post

      Everyone thinks they write "good content", but very few people do.
      I agree with you. I think most people believe their websites have good content.

      I've been watching the Google webmaster forum the past few weeks. People are posting for help because their websites lost rankings. Nearly all of the websites posted have been horrendous. Yet the owners of these sites think that their content is top-notch.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160569].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author billpullman
    from the horses mouth



    Make a site with a clear hierarchy and text links. Every page should be reachable from at least one static text link.

    Offer a site map to your users with links that point to the important parts of your site. If the site map has an extremely large number of links, you may want to break the site map into multiple pages.

    Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number.

    Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages that clearly and accurately describe your content.

    Think about the words users would type to find your pages, and make sure that your site actually includes those words within it.

    Try to use text instead of images to display important names, content, or links. The Google crawler doesn't recognize text contained in images. If you must use images for textual content, consider using the "ALT" attribute to include a few words of descriptive text.

    Make sure that your <title> elements and ALT attributes are descriptive and accurate.

    Check for broken links and correct HTML.

    If you decide to use dynamic pages (i.e., the URL contains a "?" character), be aware that not every search engine spider crawls dynamic pages as well as static pages. It helps to keep the parameters short and the number of them few.

    Review our recommended best practices for images and video.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160822].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author wadboram
    It is preferred to have most of the traffic come from other sources in addition to SE. I have seen a lot of sites having a ratio of 15% SE and 85% other sources.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6160913].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author moneywar
    It’s been said, but good content is written for the reader. So if your niche is- say military,
    then you need to write in a way that keeps them reading. This will be a different writing
    style if your niche is games. A point that was made to me is one thing G looks for is how
    long someone stays at a site. If you feel you must write for G then do it with that in mind.
    Better yet always be writing for your reader.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161105].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author neowords
      Google does that to me also. God, i have 2000 pages super high quality content. It just does not index it. Google is not really cool these days.

      Good content is original content. But google says i'm a super computer. But i can't even fight to CISPA. Get a life googie
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161150].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
        Banned
        Originally Posted by neowords View Post

        Good content is original content.
        Nope. There is plenty of original content that is absolute crap. Just because it hasn't been published in Google's SERPs does not mean it suddenly has "quality".
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161203].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author neowords
          Okey let's say good content is original-interesting content.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161257].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
            Banned
            Originally Posted by neowords View Post

            Okey let's say good content is original-interesting content.
            Closer. I'd add in well written, too .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161265].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Miss Bee
              Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

              Closer. I'd add in well written, too .
              But this is also subjective. It probably depends on the purpose of that content and on your target market too.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161300].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

              Closer. I'd add in well written, too .
              This assumes content has to be written. There's plenty of videos, pictures, as well as scripts that provide "good content".

              For an example of a script providing "good content", let's take the search query "mortgage rate calculator". What is the person looking for? Is a detailed essay the "best content" or will a simple page with a mortgage rate calculator script on the back-end be considered better "content"?

              Also, the number one reason people use the Net is to be entertained...A Youtube video with a frat party fart contest may very well be more popular than a "well written" Shakespeare play.

              Then there's "relevancy"...Which has only been lightly discussed on this thread. You can have a very "well written" article on "dog training", but if the person is searching for "how to make a cheesecake", that dog training article isn't "good content".

              The reason you write for Google (in addition to "people") is more for relevancy than anything else. A good content provider will help Google determine relevancy as much as possible.

              ...And let's not forget that about 30% of all Google searches are commercial in nature. In the the case of someone searching for "cheap ______", good content may be as simple as the site that offers the lowest price.

              There are way too many factors that dictate what "good content" is to give a blanket statement, although it is interesting to read the replies from writers that leave out all sorts of other options that may well be considered "good content".
              Signature
              Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
              Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170920].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                This assumes content has to be written.

                *Snip*
                Fair points, I stand corrected. I see content and go straight to the written word in my thought process .
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170937].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ProAffiliate01
          Originally Posted by Joe Robinson View Post

          Nope. There is plenty of original content that is absolute crap. Just because it hasn't been published in Google's SERPs does not mean it suddenly has "quality".
          I agree. I also have another point in addition to the other comment I posted on this thread. I think of good content as that which has a purpose to either educate or entertain, and that it is well-formatted. In direct reference to Internet, it should be as concise as possible. It should outline only the main points of a topic that answers a question for site visitors.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6168185].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Nick Pearson
      Originally Posted by moneywar View Post

      It's been said, but good content is written for the reader. So if your niche is- say military,
      then you need to write in a way that keeps them reading. This will be a different writing
      style if your niche is games. A point that was made to me is one thing G looks for is how
      long someone stays at a site. If you feel you must write for G then do it with that in mind.
      Better yet always be writing for your reader.
      How long someone stays on your site is definitely something Google looks at. Writing for your reader is the best way, A subscriber or a regular reader will stay with you no matter how many updates to Google.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6162201].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
        Banned
        Originally Posted by eMarketing Mistakes View Post

        How long someone stays on your site is definitely something Google looks at. Writing for your reader is the best way, A subscriber or a regular reader will stay with you no matter how many updates to Google.
        A subscriber/reader doesn't even need Google to get to you once they have opted in. Do things right and they don't even need Google to find you in the first place .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6162231].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LegitIncomes
    The answer seems pretty simple to me.
    Good content is content that you want to read, content that you search
    out for yourself!

    Example: I was recently looking to purchase a new 3D TV..so where did I go for reviews?
    CNET.com. Occasionally I play video games, and where do I go for reviews? IGN.com.

    Why do I search out these sites? Because they provide what I want...good quality reviews that break down the products.
    Signature
    100% Unique Sales Page Website +100% Unique Internet Marketing Product
    + Support! All of this, just $397! (PM Me For Details!)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161399].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author deejones
      Originally Posted by horst View Post

      i think you have to always ask the question: what is value?

      it can be something different for everyone. often it is something that fullfills some kind of needs. for example if you have acne and you are searching for the solution you dont want to read some fancy complicated words. you just want to have the solution to your problem...as quick as possible because you are suffering and feeling pain. if you read something most people would think of what is good content with fancy words that noone understands exept doctors oder medicals, they will leave your site in about 2 seconds.

      then google sees that your readers see no value in your site and dont stay for long time. so google thinks: what a crappy content!!

      i think good content is not always something that you yourself want to read or what other experts or authoritative people would might think as valueable.. the reader should want to read it. thats the point. not you, not a doctor, not a professor at harvard - just your reader. so first you want to find out who is your reader and what is his language. then give him the solution to his problem
      Good content isn't about using big, fancy words no one can understand. It's about writing in a way that's interesting, engaging and informative. And being able to take something really complicated and write about it in a way anyone can understand is a pretty valuable writing skill.

      Also, even people looking for "fast solutions" will respond better if those solutions come in well-written packages. There are plenty of readers who will stop reading a poorly written article no matter how desperate their problem is. Why read a crappy article when they can find a better one?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161610].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Robin Hood
    I believe good content is four fold:
    1. Original content - unique content
    2. Targeted content- must pertain to your niche
    3. Contains some LSI - long tail kw's related to your main KW
    4. Must make sense to the reader - quality vs kw density%

    But what exactly Google means by it, that I am not sure. For example I did some research a few months ago on acne and a site about "Jeans" was on the first page?
    I am not sure if it's still there since the panda update, but how could a site about jeans rank on page one above other sites containing content targeted to acne?
    I am still confused by how google acts.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6161683].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author karoubalou
    You have good content when you write something useful, original and constructive for your visitors. And off course, you don't need to copy other content and as others mention above you don't need to write for search engines but for humans.
    Signature

    Web Marketing Greece - Προώθηση Ιστοσελίδων: All you need to know about Greek SEO

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6164713].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GeraldNitram
    Okay, now that's a better perspective of things. If you know what's bad, then you'll be able to whip up something good by avoiding those patterns that you see in those bad stuff that you see on the Internet. Thanks guys!

    Whenever I tell some people to write good content, what's in the front of my mind is the quality. When I got to this thread and read some of the replies, I asked myself, how does Google really weed out the good stuff from the bad. Then comes JohnMcCabe's reply. I have to say, man. Good stuff.
    Signature
    Be your own boss by becoming an SEO Reseller!
    A white label SEO firm can help you out so that you can start TODAY!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6164717].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Martyn Wilson
    In my humble opinion, I would say good content is actual useful information rather than just a sales pitch.
    Signature
    'I Wanna Be A Millionaire!'
    The best millionaire magazine money CAN'T buy.
    FREE! NO OPT-IN REQUIRED!!!

    www.millionaire-mag.com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6164741].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by Martyn Wilson View Post

      In my humble opinion, I would say good content is actual useful information rather than just a sales pitch.
      What if I'm searching for a product and want to find an assortment of sales pitches so I can compare the various product offers? Would those pitches not then be considered "actual useful information?"

      I think that 'good content' has to be judged in part on the intent of the searcher, which is part of what makes defining good content difficult to do with software.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6166262].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author morkel
    Content is the King if your have relavent and high quality content then your site will be good rank on the search engines.

    Some factors of good content.
    1. Content should be relevant, informative descriptive.
    2. Not copy content and content should be fresh
    3. Keyword density should be 2 to 4 %
    4. Content should be friendly. Without grammatical error.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6164820].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Caprica
    Look at it from the view of the searcher and ask yourself "Is this a good article which give me information what I am looking for?"
    Make sure you will use lots different words.
    Signature
    SEOUniverse.org
    Best Free Blueprint for Internet Marketers!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6166280].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author stews
    Anything worthwhile and informative to the reader. Designed to draw the reader to your site for more good info.
    Signature

    Get LIFETIME HOSTING for one LOW PRICE.. For more info follow this path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6166405].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Caprica
    Must be informative, original and catchy.
    Signature
    SEOUniverse.org
    Best Free Blueprint for Internet Marketers!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6166492].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author neowords
    So if i have 1.000.000 pages content (even original and cool) on my website it does not mean i will get 100.000 daily traffic. because of google..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6167748].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Hthomas
    A content which gives readers really beneficial information and increase their knowledge. And Indirectly it will also help to attract the Google
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6168158].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
    Many people listed unique as one of the necessary qualities. But some of the most well written content that is eagerly read thousands of times every day is not original. Think Associated Press.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6168959].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author IndomitableD
    It seems the Google quality raters handbook was leaked several months ago. If you read through that you will find that "relevant" is probably the most critical factor when a reviewer assesses a page. It doesn't matter whether the content is fresh, unique or interesting if it isn't relevant to what the searcher is trying to find out when he or she entered a term into Google's search.

    When someone enters "train my Chihuahua," for example, an article or video about general dog training is not going to be 'good content' no matter how original it is or how great it looks on the page. Relevant (good) content will be specifically about how the reader can train his/her Chihuahua.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6169040].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    Good content is what you put on your site. Everyone else's content sucks.
    Say what?

    *Looks at avatar*

    I should be ready for that by now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6169544].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nickvs13901974
    I use to write articles for PR Web and the content was keyword appropriate. I ranked well on niche keywords.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170213].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lennyk1313
    Forget about Google for a moment. I am sure you already know what you want out of your site and the products/services that you want to provide. Based on that write something (original) that you yourself would want to read and find valuable. You always have to put yourself on the buyers end and ask yourself a question"If I was to read this would I like it and find it useful?". To me that's a good valuable content. Good Luck!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170792].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Glenda from OZ
    Giving people something useful is so important, and when I'm googling something theres nothing more of a turn off than spun stuff where it doesn't even make sense to read. I'm outta there. Whats the point of hanging around somewhere when the site owner can't put out anything of value. I know they arent interested in me. Only and only my money. Its so important to give a damn about who's landed on your page and bothered to look at what you have to offer/say.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6170947].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author justin44
    Good content is something useful, unique, coherent and no hard selling.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6171065].message }}

Trending Topics