Google Panelizes to much SEO
-
I just read this interesting article about a new Google Penalty that will be up in the next upcoming weeks/months about Google making changes to the algorithm.
The penalty will be targeted towards websites that are over optimized or over seo'ed. What do you think about this? Is this a good thing or is this not a good thing for us as SEO marketeers?
here's the link: SEL.com/to-much-seo
I'm really curious as to your point of views.
regards
Jarno
-
I'm not saying that a keyword matched domain should receive a penalty, I'm saying that it should be a more neutral ground when it comes to ranking factors.
If your site happens to have a keyword matched domain but has great content and value for a visitor then it should rightly rank higher for relevant queries - and if they changed the weighting on the matched domains then it should(in theory) weed out the thinner value sites.
Matt Cutts did mention in that interview the phrase 'level playing field' - not that I personally believe this could ever be achieved with an algorithm
-
Daniel,
though i can imagine your thinking in this i do not agree with you. One of our main websites is focused on camping at the farmer (in dutch it's like: kamperen bij de boer) and we have a domain name that is similar to that. So our website:
www.kamperen-bij-de-boer.com is build for user but it does use the exact keyword people are looking. If Google changes the algorithm to penalize websites that use keyword "stuffed" domains then my website, build for users, would be demoted. That's not fair is it?
I do agree with you however in some cases. There are a lot off websites that keyword stuff the domain or use - to separate domain names from competitors. So in some cases i totally agree with you but there are still some websites that have a domain name that is the main keyword. What would happen to them?
-
Speaking from a users perspective, thats the one I would like to see changed the most myself.
So meny times there is some exact match keyword domain with poor content ranking high on the first page on seemingly the weight of that factor alone.
If the changes are along those lines it will make SEO 'easyer' unless you were using such technicques yourself.
My other guess is that they're going to improve their 'best guesses' for those pages without semanticaly correct html e.t.c. That would 'even the playing feild' but still would favour optimised content.
-
Agreed.
-
I'd like to see a lot less weight being put into keyword matched domains for a start..
-
Aran,
for example it could mean the number of times the keyword is displayed in a page. I might think i use it naturally but Google might decide otherwise..
on the article of searchengineland some of the feedbacks enroll external linking to your site. By buying links to your competitors your might invoke them as harmful websites. I don't think Google is stupid but it could be influential.
Off course it goes without saying that the only way we are going to find out what it entails it buy waiting for it and then testing. I agree with your white-hat theory. Keep using white-hat and you should always be fine.
-
Hi Jarno,
You Say "there are some factors that SEO's use that can be an issue", what do you image these could be?
Cheers
Aran
-
Aran,
i totally agree with you on the points you made but since Google is letting out more and more information about wanting to level the SEO market I was very curious as to what other SEO's think about this.
I can image that Google is going to make a point out of a lot of things but there are some factors that SEO's use that can be an issue. That is what i can imagine about it anyway.
thanks for the reply
-
Don't quote me on this but Google has been heading this way for quite some time, has it not?
Remember keyword stuffing, content farms, dodgy link practices?
As long as we build websites that
- Function correctly
- Have good unique content
- Are easy to use
We are on the right track and have little to worry about.
I'll carry on with my current strategy of putting the effort into content and doing my damnest to get people to notice it and perhaps give me a link, +1, tweet, like or bookmark.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Inbound links with malicious anchor text. Negative seo attack
Hi, What to do with more than 300 links with a malicious anchor text that has nothing to do with my content. I am disavowing those links for the last 5 years. Some of them are directed to URLs that have been changed more than 8 years ago. How can I block this malicious behavior? Thanks in advance
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Arlinaite470 -
Script must not be placed outside HTML tag? If not, how Google treats the page?
Hi, We have recently received the "deceptive content" warning from Google about some of our website pages. We couldn't able to find the exact reason behind this. However, we placed some script outside the HTML tag in some pages (Not in the same pages with the above warning). We wonder whether this caused an issue to Google to flag our pages. Please help. Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | vtmoz0 -
More or Less pages helps in SEO?
Hi all, I have gone through some articles where less pages are suggested and they claim that they will be favoured by Google. I'm not sure as with limited pages, we can only target limited keywords. There might be threat from Google in-terms of doorway pages for more pages. But one of our competitor has many pages like dedicated page for every keyword. And their website ranks high and good for all keywords. I can see three pages created with differnet phrases for same on keyword. If less pages are good, how come this works for our competitor? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | vtmoz0 -
Google Answer Box Optimization?
Anyone have any luck in optimizing your site to show up in the Google Answer Boxes that popup for informational queries? (for example: "what is seo?") I've read many of the articles that have been written on the subject, and have been able to show up for many queries by a) ranking high organically, b) placing the question at the top of the page, and then answering it succinctly. However, for one term a competitor continues to show up in the answer box instead of us, despite their site ranking lower organically in the search results. Anyone have any experience/advice for replacing a competitor in the Answer Box? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TakeshiYoung2 -
Separating the syndicated content because of Google News
Dear MozPeople, I am just working on rebuilding a structure of the "news" website. For some reasons, we need to keep syndicated content on the site. But at the same time, we would like to apply for google news again (we have been accepted in the past but got kicked out because of the duplicate content). So I am facing the challenge of separating the Original content from Syndicated as requested by google. But I am not sure which one is better: *A) Put all syndicated content into "/syndicated/" and then Disallow /syndicated/ in robots.txt and set NOINDEX meta on every page. **But in this case, I am not sure, what will happen if we will link to these articles from the other parts of the website. We will waste our link juice, right? Also, google will not crawl these pages, so he will not know about no indexing. Is this OK for google and google news? **B) NOINDEX meta on every page. **Google will crawl these pages, but will not show them in the results. We will still loose our link juice from links pointing to these pages, right? So ... is there any difference? And we should try to put "nofollow" attribute to all the links pointing to the syndicated pages, right? Is there anything else important? This is the first time I am making this kind of "hack" so I am exactly sure what to do and how to proceed. Thank you!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Lukas_TheCurious1 -
Google +1s Quality Factors?
It is apparent that Google +1s are becoming an increasingly large factor in results pages and I had a few questions about some of the dynamics. Do +1s take into account factors such as c-blocks, location diversity based on IP, and similar elements? To what degree? Do +1s from well-diversified and historically more active/authoritative G+ accounts carry more weight than someone who simply has a G+ account because they use Gmail and were prompted? What is the spectrum here? How much weight would a +1 from Rand Fishkin hold in contrast to an account created one year ago with little activity? I know Google has a great deal of user data from Gmail, YouTube, Calendar, Docs, search history and many more so would imagine this plays a role. Do +1s from newly created accounts that only target one business or niche cause damage? I am assuming that +1s should accumulate naturally just as backlinks so if what would be considered an unnatural amount of +1s in what time period? Any insights here are greatly appreciated!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SEOGroup1230 -
Google rankings dropped like a stone
I've heard of this happening many times, but never to me. My client was Page 1 or 2 for 20 phrases, and they ALL dropped like a rock overnight. The site hasn't been banned by Google, as it's still indexed and the company name is returning results.There were no major changes done to tags or the code, and nothing black hat has been done. The only phrases that didn't drop contain the company name, and the results in Bing and Yahoo either stayed the same or moved up slightly since last week for all the terms. There's also no threat of spam, and it's very search engine friendly. The URL is http://www.universalaccounting.com. Help!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JamesBSEO0 -
Google Places
My client offers training from many locations within the UK. These locations/venues are not owned by them, however I see no problem in setting up a different listing for each location in Google Places. At the end of the day if a user searched for “Training London” they are looking for somewhere that they can book a course that would be in their local area. As my client has a “venue” there I think there is a good argument to say that your listing would be valid. What are your thoughts.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | cottamg0