SEO tips DIRECTLY from Google.

18 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Because it's in everyone's interests to adopt best SEO practice at all times, Google, have given everyone as much help as possible to help them feature on the SERPs page for their keyword searches. They want their service to be the best it can be and to make sure that everyone who uses their page gets the results they're looking for.
Google is now a verb in the dictionary and that doesn't happen by not giving people what they want!

So, a while ago they released the SEO starter guide which I must say helped me enormously in my early days. The problem is, if you're in a rush it can be quite a lot to get your head around.

I know just how important it is that businesses get a handle on the whole SEO thing so I've highlighted a couple of important points that they make.

This is from Google itself so its important stuff to include:

Title pages:
Make sure your title page is a good description of the content and is brief. Dont add a title that you THINK people want to read, and then not deliver on the content; it's misleading and you'll be penalised.

Meta tags:
These are there for a reason, use them! The purpose of a meta description is to give someone enough information from their Google search about your product. They should give a summary of the content of your site and contain a call to action to get someone to click. The more people do this, the higher your site will rank for the next site, so make them as accurate as you can, for your own benefit!

Content:
The higher the quality of your content, the better! According to Google, high quality content is considered unique, useful, credible, error-free and engaging. They rate this by how long someone spends on your site after they click through from Google. Give people lots of good stuff to read once they get to your site to improve your ranking.

Images:
Optimising images is something that it's pretty easy to overlook but it's really important as far as Google is concerned. It's another place you can add your keywords with describing the filenames. Always be concise for maximum results.

Promote your website:
There's so much you can do to promote your website nowadays and with everyone fighting for the top spot you have to be seen to be playing the game. Promote links through social media channels, sharing your blog of content optimisation sites and be joining forces with others in your niche. Caring is sharing and if your website's not out there on a number of other linked pages, Google will wonder why.

Dont over-promote your website!
On the flip side of that, if you pay to have you links appear on irrelevant sites, you're in danger of being labelled as a spammer, and that can have the opposite effect.

There's so much information online regarding SEO, I hope you find these tips direct from Google as useful as I did!
#directly #google #seo #tips
  • Profile picture of the author adamcurran
    No problem Chris.
    I really struggled with learning SEO and I know this forum is filled with people like me so I like to give back as much as I can as I've had an enormous amount of help from people in here.
    Glad you enjoyed!
    Cheers Ads
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10921853].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author selfassured
    How old is that guide is? have it changed from that time?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10921929].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    So a few weeks ago you were asking where to start with SEO, and now you are junking up the forum with SEO articles (shitty ones at that).

    http://www.warriorforum.com/search-e...l#post10921643

    http://www.warriorforum.com/search-e...hot-brick.html

    I guess you learned it all in just a month. Good for you.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10922602].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dburk
    The bigger they are the harder they fall. Sad really...

    There used to be some real discussions about substantive topics, now mainly just low quality fluff articles, no real value, boring as hell to read, and a bunch of comments on how lame the copy-and-paste junk articles was or wasn't. So sad.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10922716].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author paulgl
    Google does not know quality content from a hole in the ground. They give what people have shown they want. Sometimes people don't want or need quality. I'm sick of this quality BS.

    And the rest of the post is just laughable...

    Paul
    Signature

    If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10922735].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author hipeopo02
      Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

      Google does not know quality content from a hole in the ground. They give what people have shown they want. Sometimes people don't want or need quality. I'm sick of this quality BS.

      And the rest of the post is just laughable...

      Paul

      Tell me about it...


      Google wants relevancy which is easy to gauge.


      How the hell do you gauge "quality???"


      This reminds of the days of "good" content "bad" content like Google is supposed to be star wars or something XD


      here's a hint you dumbshits....


      If Google allows the page in their index then it's "good" content to somebody!
      Signature
      A crappy product or service by people that disappear from the forum for a long period of time to make it look like they were working on something so when they come back you will want to click on their crappy product or service link

      CLICK HERE! LOL
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10928614].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dburk
        Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

        Google does not know quality content from a hole in the ground. They give what people have shown they want. Sometimes people don't want or need quality. I'm sick of this quality BS.

        And the rest of the post is just laughable...

        Paul
        Originally Posted by hipeopo02 View Post

        Tell me about it...


        Google wants relevancy which is easy to gauge.


        How the hell do you gauge "quality???"


        This reminds of the days of "good" content "bad" content like Google is supposed to be star wars or something XD


        here's a hint you dumbshits....


        If Google allows the page in their index then it's "good" content to somebody!
        I will disagree with you guys about Google's view on quality content, to an extent.

        First, let me be clear that I am talking about what Google judges to be "quality", not what you guys are necessarily referring to as quality. You guys seems to be referencing a subjective version of quality while Google uses a very precise process of evaluating standards that are completely measurable and determined by an objective process.

        When Google refers to "quality" they are speaking about some very specific standards that your content either meets, or does not. It's easy to measure and not at all subjectively measured. It is a just a pass or fail rating on a series of standards that can be easily measured by an algorithm. For the most part it is simply detecting errors. Errors in spelling, errors in grammar, bad writing styles like over use of passive voice, etc.

        Google doesn't boost your SERP ranking for passing those quality standard tests, but they sure do lower your ranking score if you fail more than a few. When Google refers to content "quality" they are simply referring to your contents score on a series of standards, no opinions are involved, nothing subjective, just pass/fail evaluations.

        Beside the obvious Relevancy score, and the standards based quality score, Google also rates and scores your content for utility value. Again Utility Scores are not based on a subjective opinion, they are simply pass/fail tests.They look for certain well known constructs and if they are found your Utility score is increased, and if they are not found nothing is added to your Utility Score.

        While that might seem like magic to people that aren't aware of how the ranking algorithm works, it's not all that difficult to achieve when you do it the way Google does. What is difficult is to optimize the process so that it all occurs in milliseconds the way Google has learned to master. That was the biggest challenge, to scale it to the size that Google has done requires super-efficient algorithms.

        It's hard to believe that this day and age an SEO guy wouldn't know that Google is already on the 3rd generation of Quality Score algorithms that do in fact rate your content's quality. I understand that you guys are not actually referring to the same thing that Google calls "quality". You guys are referring to a loosely termed definition of quality, one that is based on subjective opinion, and not a more precise version of the term which refers to a measurement of content against established standards, as is used by Google.

        I felt compelled to speak out because all to often I see posts where people assert that Google cannot, or does not, rate your contents quality when clearly they do. They are not measuring subjective opinions that are simply applying a quality assurance program like any good business does. It's a simple pass/fail test, nothing more, nothing less.

        Naturally this reply does not discuss all the aspects of Google's algorithm, but is intended to debunk the assertions that I think are somewhat misleading to other readers of this forum. I understand what you meant, you were talking strictly about subjective opinions, and I agree with you Google doesn't look at subjective opinions as a method of determining quality. However, Google does in fact measure and score your content for quality so lets be clear about that.

        Good day to you all.

        Don Burk
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10928881].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author DABK
          Understood, Google is on 3rd Quality Score... That said, Google can't tell quality. Because what Google calls quality writing and what I call quality writing are not the same. Maybe the 4th one?

          Originally Posted by dburk View Post

          I will disagree with you guys about Google's view on quality content, to an extent.

          First, let me be clear that I am talking about what Google judges to be "quality", not what you guys are necessarily referring to as quality. You guys seems to be referencing a subjective version of quality while Google uses a very precise process of evaluating standards that are completely measurable and determined by an objective process.

          When Google refers to "quality" they are speaking about some very specific standards that your content either meets, or does not. It's easy to measure and not at all subjectively measured. It is a just a pass or fail rating on a series of standards that can be easily measured by an algorithm. For the most part it is simply detecting errors. Errors in spelling, errors in grammar, bad writing styles like over use of passive voice, etc.

          Google doesn't boost your SERP ranking for passing those quality standard tests, but they sure do lower your ranking score if you fail more than a few. When Google refers to content "quality" they are simply referring to your contents score on a series of standards, no opinions are involved, nothing subjective, just pass/fail evaluations.

          Beside the obvious Relevancy score, and the standards based quality score, Google also rates and scores your content for utility value. Again Utility Scores are not based on a subjective opinion, they are simply pass/fail tests.They look for certain well known constructs and if they are found your Utility score is increased, and if they are not found nothing is added to your Utility Score.

          While that might seem like magic to people that aren't aware of how the ranking algorithm works, it's not all that difficult to achieve when you do it the way Google does. What is difficult is to optimize the process so that it all occurs in milliseconds the way Google has learned to master. That was the biggest challenge, to scale it to the size that Google has done requires super-efficient algorithms.

          It's hard to believe that this day and age an SEO guy wouldn't know that Google is already on the 3rd generation of Quality Score algorithms that do in fact rate your content's quality. I understand that you guys are not actually referring to the same thing that Google calls "quality". You guys are referring to a loosely termed definition of quality, one that is based on subjective opinion, and not a more precise version of the term which refers to a measurement of content against established standards, as is used by Google.

          I felt compelled to speak out because all to often I see posts where people assert that Google cannot, or does not, rate your contents quality when clearly they do. They are not measuring subjective opinions that are simply applying a quality assurance program like any good business does. It's a simple pass/fail test, nothing more, nothing less.

          Naturally this reply does not discuss all the aspects of Google's algorithm, but is intended to debunk the assertions that I think are somewhat misleading to other readers of this forum. I understand what you meant, you were talking strictly about subjective opinions, and I agree with you Google doesn't look at subjective opinions as a method of determining quality. However, Google does in fact measure and score your content for quality so lets be clear about that.

          Good day to you all.

          Don Burk
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10928924].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author dburk
            Originally Posted by DABK View Post

            Understood, Google is on 3rd Quality Score... That said, Google can't tell quality. Because what Google calls quality writing and what I call quality writing are not the same. Maybe the 4th one?
            Hi DABK,

            Exactly my point... the term "quality" is very generic, and depending on the context it can mean different things to different people.When we refer to "quality" content in reference to Google's search algorithm doesn't it make the most sense to use the same context that Google does?

            Why should we bother considering what Wendy In Wyoming subjectively thinks about quality, which is different from what Nancy in Nevada thinks of as quality? Nancy in Nevada might think any content that doesn't include at least one poetic line is crude and low quality while Wendy in Wyoming thinks that content that doesn't mention horses is complete garbage. What do their opinions have to do with Google's content quality scores? Absolutely nothing.

            Your opinion of subjectively selected qualities are irrelevant to a discussion of Google's established content quality standards. Google isn't trying to judge Wendy in Wyoming's subjective opinions, nor your personal and subjectively selected opinion about things that are not part of their established standards. Google is simply measuring qualities like spelling, grammar, style, and layout selections against a standard they have established.

            Is it that hard to accept that Google has standards for certain measurable qualities?

            Nobody has tried to make a case that Google is reaching into the conscientiousness of each individual to discover and rate the qualities that each person selectively holds dear. So why persist in denying that Google has content quality standards. Clearly they do. Clearly their standards are based on a common set of measurable qualities. The fact that people tend to have personal preferences about other qualities, not related to Google's standards, is completely irrelevant.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10929816].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author DABK
              They should call it something else: because ever since they started saying they're looking for quality, you have a bunch of yo-yo's going around forums screaming about writing quality articles but meaning only that they are not spun, that they pass copyscape. Then, they wonder why they are not making money and putting down sites that have little content that's not formed into sentences (but is good, quality in relation to what the site is about).

              Originally Posted by dburk View Post

              Hi DABK,

              Exactly my point... the term "quality" is very generic, and depending on the context it can mean different things to different people.When we refer to "quality" content in reference to Google's search algorithm doesn't it make the most sense to use the same context that Google does?

              Why should we bother considering what Wendy In Wyoming subjectively thinks about quality, which is different from what Nancy in Nevada thinks of as quality? Nancy in Nevada might think any content that doesn't include at least one poetic line is crude and low quality while Wendy in Wyoming thinks that content that doesn't mention horses is complete garbage. What do their opinions have to do with Google's content quality scores? Absolutely nothing.

              Your opinion of subjectively selected qualities are irrelevant to a discussion of Google's established content quality standards. Google isn't trying to judge Wendy in Wyoming's subjective opinions, nor your personal and subjectively selected opinion about things that are not part of their established standards. Google is simply measuring qualities like spelling, grammar, style, and layout selections against a standard they have established.

              Is it that hard to accept that Google has standards for certain measurable qualities?

              Nobody has tried to make a case that Google is reaching into the conscientiousness of each individual to discover and rate the qualities that each person selectively holds dear. So why persist in denying that Google has content quality standards. Clearly they do. Clearly their standards are based on a common set of measurable qualities. The fact that people tend to have personal preferences about other qualities, not related to Google's standards, is completely irrelevant.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10929840].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author dburk
                Originally Posted by DABK View Post

                They should call it something else: because ever since they started saying they're looking for quality, you have a bunch of yo-yo's going around forums screaming about writing quality articles but meaning only that they are not spun, that they pass copyscape. Then, they wonder why they are not making money and putting down sites that have little content that's not formed into sentences (but is good, quality in relation to what the site is about).
                From Google's dictionary definition:
                quality
                ˈkwlədē/
                noun
                1. the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.


                Should Google ignore the dictionary definition and use a less precise term? Or, should people just accept that Google has used the proper terminology and recognize that some people will just refuse to accept that context matters?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10929911].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author DABK
                  Problem is this: why does Google decide what the standard is?

                  Have you considered that unique used to mean one of a kind but it now means different?


                  Originally Posted by dburk View Post

                  From Google's dictionary definition:


                  Should Google ignore the dictionary definition and use a less precise term? Or, should people just accept that Google has used the proper terminology and recognize that some people will just refuse to accept that context matters?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10929944].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            A quality webpage doesn't need to include an article so that's irrelevant as far as SEO. IMers are the only folks on the web hell-bent on articles.

            No silly articles...
            • Youtube
            • Amazon
            • Ebay
            • Pornhub
            • Imgur
            • Pinterest
            • Craigslist
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10929948].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Originally Posted by dburk View Post

    The bigger they are the harder they fall. Sad really...

    There used to be some real discussions about substantive topics, now mainly just low quality fluff articles, no real value, boring as hell to read, and a bunch of comments on how lame the copy-and-paste junk articles was or wasn't. So sad.
    Oh come on. Look at this awesome discussion starter...

    Originally Posted by FlyingSuccess View Post

    Thanks for the info!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10923197].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Oh come on. Look at this awesome discussion starter...
      Yep, I can remember when this forum was moderated by people who cared. They would have trashed that "comment" and advised the "commentor" to use the Thanks button instead of "comment spamming" the forum.

      Comments aren't discussion, and in this case that comment was pure comment spam. This used to be a forum, now it looks a lot more like an un-moderated blog attracting comment spammers from around the globe to contribute absolutely nothing in exchange for comment spam being placed on copy-n-paste fluff articles meant to be nothing more than web spam itself.

      Oh... I forgot to ask, is it still okay to tell the truth on here?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10923271].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by dburk View Post

        now it looks a lot more like an un-moderated blog attracting comment spammers from around the globe to contribute absolutely nothing in exchange for comment spam being placed on copy-n-paste fluff articles meant to be nothing more than web spam itself.

        That is a great analogy. Seriously. That wraps it up in a nutshell.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10923385].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nina789
    SEO tips from google?? and here I thought Google hates SEO.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10926514].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KylieSweet
    Google is to busy for updating its algorithm and obviously SE has no time for this kind of tips for SEO.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10926598].message }}

Trending Topics