Google Changes Ranking Recommendations

[enlytend]

Google has changed the "Ranking" article in their webmaster tools help pages

Gone: "webmasters can improve the rank of their sites by increasing the number of high-quality sites that link to their pages."

Replaced by: "In general, webmasters can improve the rank of their sites by creating high-quality sites that users will want to use and share."

(bold text is mine)

Link to the (short) article: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=34432

 

[iowadawg]

If that is true?
Link exchanges are history.
Link sales are history.

Think of the deadness in many forums when it comes to any kind of links.

 

[enlytend]

I think it's very significant that they would change the wording like that. I don't think link building is dead, but reading between the lines this tells me they're going to be giving social signals, trust factors and anything that indicates visitor engagement more weight than in the past. Citations, co-citations, co-occurrance may be in the mix also (value of those is controversial and mostly speculative at the moment)

They have been coming down pretty hard on "unnatural" links lately - Penguin, some big link networks penalized (including Text Link Ads), the "unnatural link warnings"some people have gotten through Webmaster tools, penalizing big name sites for use of advertorials...

 

[mhdoc]

I bought some links a few years ago for one of my sites and all was well until last fall when I found myself de-indexed from G. I was eventually able to tell them which links I thought were "real" and promise not to do it again and get reinstated. Obviously, I will probably never buy another link.

As I understand the new game, it requires a level of interaction, new content and constant updating that means I can't possibly maintain more than a few (5 Max ?) sites. So I have been letting almost all my keyword domains expire.

I understand I might be able to manage more if I outsourced the work, but that isn't a direction I have any interest in.

 

[enlytend]

New content and constant updating - depends on the subject. Good "evergreen" content still seems to be doing well.

Main thing with links - if they aren't "natural" they'd better look like they are. A link profile that's all dofollow links with "money keyword" anchor text doesn't exactly scream "natural." Natural links have a lot more variety.

I certainly wouldn't buy links from a known seller or link network these days!

Interaction, trust factors ...

 

[Registernuke]

Google has changed the "Ranking" article in their webmaster tools help pages

Gone: "webmasters can improve the rank of their sites by increasing the number of high-quality sites that link to their pages."

Replaced by: "In general, webmasters can improve the rank of their sites by creating high-quality sites that users will want to use and share."

(bold text is mine)

Link to the (short) article: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=34432

In regards to the opening thread, I believe all of us knew that this is where Google was going and was an eventuality. Although it's definitely a big update, as stated Google uses a variety of "signal's" that affect ranking. I am surprised that this news has not caught on fire at other forums as of yet.

 

[enlytend]

I believe all of us knew that this is where Google was going and was an eventuality.

Yes and no. Google made their own mess (including the whole "page rank economy") by valuing links the way they did in the first place. Prior to Penguin, who would have guessed? But yeah, in the last year they've been cracking down on "unnatural" links of all kinds.

The worst part of this is they're making a bigger mess trying to "fix" it and there's been collateral damage left and right through all the recent (and numerous) updates. They like to use the words "high quality sites", but too often that seems to mean "big brands", with name recognition and an established following. Want info? They'll give you wikipedia. Want to shop? Amazon or Walmart. Want medical info? You must want webmd.

Spam still exists and crap links still work (if you're into the "churn and burn" thing.) Prime example: The "Payday Loans from Mr. Cutts" site that hit the top of the UK serps right after Google's "spammy queries" update. - http://www.seroundtable.com/google-payday-loan-cutts-16940.html

(PS - just did a "payday loans" search here - 2 spam sites (one listed twice -both look like hacked Joomla sites), wikipedia, a NY Times article, a FB page ... yep, that last algo update was a big success - lol!)

 

[styx817]

Google is just saying this to potential cut down on all the spamy links.

Top results will always be the ones with the best on-page architecture and highest quality of backlinks.

 

[nada_book14]

Now, after panda 4.0 update Google only wants to Give PR to those websites which have high quality content. and all the content is useful for users.

 

[NameOmnia]

Google is going more and more towards rewarding sites which are user friendly and actually made for users, not for webmasters, companies or to be monetize. And that's how it should be.

Seo is getting easier and easier

 

[enlytend]

I made that original post about a year ago and my point was that they've changed the language in their guidelines from telling people to get links to hinting at usage metrics. Which would be fine - it's their search engine - they could fill the first page with videos of Matt Cutts' cat if they want. But they're retroactively punishing sites for links they built in the past (going back to at least 2002, their guidelines were telling people to build links)

Google is going more and more towards rewarding sites which are user friendly and actually made for users, not for webmasters, companies or to be monetize

Google is a profit-driven business which is increasingly featuring their own properties in prime positions of search results - ads, knowledge graph (i.e. the biggest scraper on the web ) youtube (when's the last time you saw a vimeo video ranking page 1?) Then its big brands - often same big brands (companies) for every query.

Examples: Hotel in miami (nearly all sponsored links above the fold)
diamond engagement ring sponsored links, then the big guys - blue nile, tiffany, kay, jared (those 2 are branches of the same company), overstock, tacori, zales...

SEO is same-old, same-old. And links still matter.

That said, I wouldn't recommend throwing a bunch of profile, social bookmark, crappy directory or forum sig links at a site you care about! BTW, all links from Namepros are nofollowed and sigs aren't even SEEN by search engines, so they won't get you penalized ...(and anyone posting here to spam sig links is wasting their time .).)

 

[Erin Nagata]

Yes, google is after those websites that create quality content. They should work both hand in hand to get your website on top.

 

[TobEdward]

Google confirmed a major Panda update that likely included both an algorithm update and a data refresh. Officially, about 7.5% of English-language queries were affected. While Matt Cutts said it began rolling out on 5/20, our data strongly suggests it started earlier.