On the 6th May Google posted the latest information on their recent Panda algorithm changes that have caused so many problems and so much confusion out there in SEO land. The piece, entitled ‘Providing More Guidance on Building High-Quality Sites’ was posted on the Google Webmaster Central blog and is a useful source of information for getting to grips with the latest changes and how they have affected rankings in the last few months since February 24th.
Ever since they updated their system with the new algorithm Google has attempted to answer some of the (occasionally angry) questions about the new site requirements and has come up with questions such as ‘would you accept medical advice for this site?’ or ‘would you feel comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?’ However, unsurprisingly, such Zen like answers were not enough for many site owners who feel they have unfairly slipped down the rankings and consequently Google have expanded their list of questions that a site should ask itself about its content, to the following:
Does the information in the article in front of you seem trustworthy?
Has the article been written by an expert in the subject matter or at the very least an enthusiast who knows what they are talking about, or is the information a little light on the ground?
Is the site itself made up of 100% original content or does it contain redundant, overlapping and duplicate content?
Would you be happy giving the site your credit card details?
Are there factual, stylistic or spelling errors?
Does the site’s content seem to be inspired and written by genuine readers of the site or does the site appear to generate content that is driven by search engine rankings?
Does the page in front of you offer substantial value and interest when placed in comparison with other pages that come up in the search results?
How much time have they spent on quality control?
Does the article present both sides of the argument?
Is the site an authority on the subject matter it deals with?
Has the content been outsourced or mass-produced so that it appears not much care and attention has gone into the selection of the articles?
Would you trust the site for a health related question?
Would you classify the site as an authoritative source when you hear its name mentioned?
Is the site or the article you are reading the sort of thing you would consider bookmarking and / or sharing with a friend or recommending through social networking?
Does the site or article have too much advertising that distracts you from the content?
Would the article be good enough to fit into a magazine, a book or an encyclopedia?
Are the articles too short, insubstantial or generally lacking in useful and specific information?
Do the pages of the site seem to be produced with more care and attention or less care and attention than you would expect?
Would users be likely to complain about the articles and content that is offered up by this site?
As usual, the single most important lesson to learn from this latest post is that when it comes to search engine optimisation and advancing your site, quality wins out every time.
Alex is a journalist and copywriter. He likes to blog about cricket and jazz but these days seems to be mostly writing about search engine optimisation.
If these questions, when answered, come up with positive answers, then the changes seem reasonable. All site owners should strive to put out good useful information that has real depth and real expert knowledge. If it doesn’t have this, then the site shouldn’t be upset if they were Google Slapped.
Readers want real reputable material to read. If Google results turned up too much trash, I wouldn’t use it any more. Seems reasonable.
Of course, what I consider as useful and what others consider can be very different.
Hi,
Our site answers a resounding YES to each and everyone of these questions.
And yet we were smashed by google panda.
So quality alone is not the issue. Not by a long shot.
editor of ehealthMD.com
The issues I have most often run across for people with unique content, that did get hit by Panda, are two things:
1: The presence of too many affiliate ads. I know most people will say to nofollow them and they will be fine, but I don’t believe this matters. I believe what matters is that the affiliate ads are relevant to your niche, and not packed in so tightly that it is hard to distinguish ads from content. The ads should be for products that you truly recommend. How many people that you know would recommend more than one or two lawnmowers to buy? Yet one site that was hit was recommending a dozen or so, on the front page. Advertisement like this is a sure way to get you Panda’ed.
2: Purchasing SEO plans that include mass backlinking. I have seen this time and again. People will argue that if this is so, then all you need do is purchasing such backlinking packages for your competition. I’m not recommending this but I say this would work, to an extent. But no one ever tries it in fear of helping the competition. In fact, I had a high ranking site that we tested these packages with. And always, in any of these “Get 5,000 Backlink” package tests, we noticed a decline in SERPs. Not just sometimes, but always. Times have changed. Those 5,000 dofollow forum profile links and mass bombardment of blog comment tactics are over. And frankly, I am glad for it. My suggestions are to keep your advertisement and your backlinking strategies relevant. Go for quality and not quantity. And when you do link out to a website in your content, leave it a dofollow link if it is relevant to your niche. Who you link to and give credit to does matter in the New SEO world.
I keep hearing people say that only low quality content sites were impacted. Not true. Sites with high quality content, low number of ads, high number/quality of links lost large amounts of traffic or existing traffic was replaced by traffic they wheren’t optimizing for. It was ostensibly because the sites linking to them were devalued by Panda.
Yes, there have been some innocent casualties. I’ve seen a couple of log files that show a personal visit from Google (a real person) just before being hit. Sites that you would think would be fine, as you mentioned. Why the real life visit and then the hit? I know Google said it was all algorithmic, but what they say and what they do seem to often be two different things. The one item in common was that these sites where in large markets (such as health), markets that some pay Google fairly well via Adwords. I’m not suggesting anything, but Google is a for profit business… I wonder what Matt C would have to say if presented the log files and then the immediate hit?
“Why the real life visit and then the hit?”
Maybe the personal visit means they aren’t so confident about what Panda was taking down. There have been what, four releases since the first?