SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37
  1. #1
    Community Advisor ULTiMATE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,160
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Google plans to penalize 'overly optimized' sites

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-573...timized-sites/

    Given the state of SEO I can imagine this being quite effective, and if marketed correctly by Google's spam team could weed out a LOT of the typical SEO industry types, especially the cheap outsource options within India and Eastern Europe.

    So, the work that some of you may be doing right now could be what ruins your site? What do you make of this news? Are you going to give up the SEO game and just work on building a good site? Are you going to rejig the way you do SEO to not get caught?

  2. #2
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy
    Mikl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    1,571
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I see your point. However, I think the most significant point in this story is not about weeding out "over-optimized sites", but the shift towards Google answering questions directly, rather than finding websites that provide the information the searcher needs. This is all part of the same focus on "semantic search" that Google is moving towards.

    So, for example, if someone searches for "how far is it from Bristol to Edinburgh?", Google will simply display the distance, rather than show the sites that contain that information. So the sites in question will inevitably suffer a drop in traffic.

    Clearly, this is going to have an effect on a lot of sites. It's something to keep an eye on.

    Mike

  3. #3
    Community Advisor ULTiMATE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,160
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by alastairclark8 View Post
    Thanks for sharing a good news about Google plans to penalize but according to me its effects on those who are doing black hat seo to getting a good rank on Google.
    It never mentioned any form of cheating the system, just those who over-optimise their sites. This probably means that much of what people call "white hat" is also at risk, merely because it is often done without the users' best interests in mind.

    Google's ultimate aim is to show the best results, and SEO by its very definition goes against this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikl View Post
    I see your point. However, I think the most significant point in this story is not about weeding out "over-optimized sites", but the shift towards Google answering questions directly, rather than finding websites that provide the information the searcher needs. This is all part of the same focus on "semantic search" that Google is moving towards.

    So, for example, if someone searches for "how far is it from Bristol to Edinburgh?", Google will simply display the distance, rather than show the sites that contain that information. So the sites in question will inevitably suffer a drop in traffic.

    Clearly, this is going to have an effect on a lot of sites. It's something to keep an eye on.

    Mike
    It's a worrying time for Google fans. The company under Page is becoming less about its hacker roots and more about being a large advertising corporation that cares about its bottom line. Recent moves like hiring Kevin Rose (if the stories are true) and the failure of Google+ are additional moves that have raised eyebrows regarding Google's ability to do anything outside of its core business.

    As a result, I can see Page wanting people to stay on Google if at all possible and to potentially start weeding out some of the top search results as well as the smaller spam-filled searches. I'd expect Google to follow the likes of DuckDuckGo and to start serving Wikipedia articles in-page and to parse questions to form valid answers from results.

    Logically, it's a good idea, but outside of Gmail Google really hasn't produced anything world-beating. Their recent attempts at social have been terrible and users are increasingly frustrated at the quality of search results. If they do go down this route it could be make or break for Google, and as a result worrying for SEO guys.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy
    Mikl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    1,571
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's a worrying time for Google fans. The company under Page is becoming less about its hacker roots and more about being a large advertising corporation that cares about its bottom line. Recent moves like hiring Kevin Rose (if the stories are true) and the failure of Google+ are additional moves that have raised eyebrows regarding Google's ability to do anything outside of its core business.
    Well, I could argue that any company that wants to survive has to worry about its bottom line. I don't see anything wrong with that.

    But you might be right about "Google's ability to do anything outside of its core business". I think part of the problem is that they are too successful. They have so much money to spend, and have put a lot of effort into finding new things to spend it on. Some of those new things pay off (like GMail and Google Maps). But most of them come and go, and fail to make an impression (Google Wave comes to mind).

    Personally, I am finding Google Search less and less relevant. Increasingly, in my own work, when I search on Google, the first page no longer shows results that answer my query. I often try the same query on Bing, with much better results. (I'm not saying that Google Search as a whole no longer works. Obviously that's not the case. But it does fail to deliver useful results in the particular searches that I do most often.)

    Mike

  5. #5
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy
    Mikl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    1,571
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Another point ....

    You mentioned the "failure of Google+". Do you mean that literally? I wasn't aware that Google+ was considered a failure - at least, not yet. (But it wouldn't surprise me if it was.)

    Mike

  6. #6
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not to hijack the discussion, but last week, James Whittaker, the former head of the engineering team for Google+, basically called it a failure in a blog post last week.

    I don't believe we can post links, but his blog is up on MSDN (where he now interestingly works) and shouldn't be that hard to find. Direct from the horse's mouth:

    "I worked on Google+ as a development director and shipped a bunch of code. But the world never changed; sharing never changed. It’s arguable that we made Facebook better, but all I had to show for it was higher review scores.

    As it turned out, sharing was not broken. Sharing was working fine and dandy, Google just wasn’t part of it. People were sharing all around us and seemed quite happy. A user exodus from Facebook never materialized. I couldn’t even get my own teenage daughter to look at Google+ twice..."

    It's a very interesting read...and also a strong indication of why Google is making significant changes to its search engine as it now wants to be more like Bing. They're not innovating anymore, they're just reacting.
    Tommy Weber
    Web Services at The Small Business Authority (formerly CrystalTech)
    Quality Hosting Since 1997 with Affordable Shared, Dedicated, and Cloud Plans
    Backed by Highly Knowledgeable and Friendly 24/7/365 Support!

  7. #7
    Wired Life GeraldNitram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    274
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just the title of the news worries me because this is going to affect the white hats as well. About the term "over optimization," I wonder when they're going to tell what's the ideal optimization that one could do for a site, just so that people would have some sort of a reference as to how much optimization can be done.

  8. #8
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,213
    Mentioned
    457 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TWeber_TheSBA View Post
    I don't believe we can post links, but his blog is up on MSDN
    You certainly can post relevant links.

    I think this is what you are referring to: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jw_on_tech/a...ft-google.aspx

  9. #9
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy
    Mikl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    1,571
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for that, Tommy. It's fair to point out that James Whittaker is not exactly a disinterested observer. But it makes interesting reading nevertheless.

    MIke

  10. #10
    Community Advisor ULTiMATE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,160
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraldNitram View Post
    Just the title of the news worries me because this is going to affect the white hats as well. About the term "over optimization," I wonder when they're going to tell what's the ideal optimization that one could do for a site, just so that people would have some sort of a reference as to how much optimization can be done.
    The entire point is that white hat SEO doesn't exist. If you are optimising your site for search engines at the potential expense of your content or your users Google wants you to fail. As rightly said above Google is reacting to the market, rather than leading it as it once did. This means that we could see some possibly dangerous changes from Google in the future, and not just directed towards the social market or the design of their core products.

    In short, Google knows it has a quality problem and that it's struggling to produce results, so the next target could possibly be SEO.

  11. #11
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,888
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    The entire point is that white hat SEO doesn't exist. If you are optimising your site for search engines at the potential expense of your content or your users Google wants you to fail.
    Not quite sure I would agree with that. "White hat SEO" could be said to count as ensuring optimal use of <title>, <link> and <meta> tags, and appropriate semantic markup (although the latter should be done as a matter of course!). Those are still perfectly appropriate and desirable things for you to do to optimise your website for search engines – arguably they are the only activities that could legitimately count as "optimising" your site.

  12. #12
    Community Advisor ULTiMATE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,160
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie D View Post
    Not quite sure I would agree with that. "White hat SEO" could be said to count as ensuring optimal use of <title>, <link> and <meta> tags, and appropriate semantic markup (although the latter should be done as a matter of course!). Those are still perfectly appropriate and desirable things for you to do to optimise your website for search engines – arguably they are the only activities that could legitimately count as "optimising" your site.
    Well, this side of optimisation is just good practice. I doubt Google could ever punish someone who writes their code correctly or makes conscious decisions in relation to the architecture of their site, but then again I would never call those decisions SEO.

  13. #13
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I guess that the forthcoming update would cause much laugh around the net. I'd really see which major sites are goin' down after that.

  14. #14
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy
    Mikl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    1,571
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Anton Zaleski View Post
    I'd really see which major sites are goin' down after that.
    I doubt we'll notice any difference. This particular change will come in gradually, and could take several months to work its way through. Given all the other variables that affect a site's ranking, you'd have to monitor it very closely to notice an effect.

    Mike

  15. #15
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,888
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Anton Zaleski View Post
    I guess that the forthcoming update would cause much laugh around the net. I'd really see which major sites are goin' down after that.
    I doubt any major sites will, because major sites aren't generally the ones responsible for link spam or keyword stuffing, which are the main things Google is trying to get round. It's smaller and less reputable sites that cause this pox on our houses.

  16. #16
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Orange County, Ca
    Posts
    288
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This article goes into further detail about Matt's comments, and if you are unfamiliar with the author Vanessa Fox, she used to work for Google so I personally listen to her insight closely. She posts more of the transcript which helps to put it in better perspective.

    http://www.ninebyblue.com/google-optimized/

    [And later after talking about the positives of SEO] “Absolutely there are some people who take it too far. What we’re mindful of is when someone says, “We’re White Hat. We continue to do the right thing, and we see the Black Hats who are over optimizing or going too far, and they seem to be doing too well.” So we’ve been working on changes to try to make sure that if you are a White Hat or if you’ve been doing very little SEO that you are going to not be affected by this change. But if you’ve been going way far beyond the pale, then that’s the sort of thing where your site might not rank as highly as it did before.”

    “The way that I often think about SEO is that it’s like a coach. It’s someone who helps you figure out how to present yourself better. In an ideal world, though, you wouldn’t have to think about presenting yourself and whether search engines can crawl your website. Because they’d just be so good that they can figure out how to call through the Flash, how to crawl through the forums, how to crawl through the JavaScript, how to crawl through whatever it is…



    A lot of people seem to think that Google hates SEO. That’s definitely not the case…



    We even made a video about this. If you do a search for webmaster videos, we’ve made something like 400 videos. And we made one specifically to say Google does not hate SEO, because SEO can often be very helpful. It can make a site more crawlable. It can make a site more accessible. It can think about the words that users are going to type whenever they come to a search engine and make sure that those words are on the page, which just makes the site more user-friendly.



    So the same sorts of things you do to optimize your return on investment and how well something spreads virally or socially is the exact same sort of stuff that often works well from a search engine perspective. So there is a ton of stuff that is fantastic to do as an SEO, it just makes your content more crawlable and more accessible.
    Wordpress Auto Installer
    www.webproco.com

  17. #17
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    306
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Can anyone specify what over-optimized is.

    You seem to be damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    If you want to optimize something, surely you should optimize the the Nth degree, now your are getting punished for it. I'm not talking black hat, I am talking proper white hat on-page optimization

  18. #18
    Community Advisor ULTiMATE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,160
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That link was quite interesting, but in my experiences on this forum people tend to be differing opinions on what "white hat" actually is. I'd hardly be surprised if half of the people on here going on about white hat SEO will actually be doing their sites harm in the long run, especially if Google starts to come down hard on spammers.

    In an ideal world, Google will eventually condense SEO down to a bunch of set principles and nothing more, moving SEO as a small subset into online marketing.

    Quote Originally Posted by dariussutherland View Post
    Can anyone specify what over-optimized is.

    You seem to be damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    If you want to optimize something, surely you should optimize the the Nth degree, now your are getting punished for it. I'm not talking black hat, I am talking proper white hat on-page optimization
    Why should you optimise beyond what you need? As Donald Knuth states when talking about software "premature optimization is the root of all evil". I believe the same is true for SEO.

    In my mind, if you're optimising for search engines at the expense of the user experience then you're over-optimising. Anything else that adds to the site is fair game.

  19. #19
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Orange County, Ca
    Posts
    288
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    if you're optimising for search engines at the expense of the user experience then you're over-optimising.
    Well put, and I think that summarizes the discussion very well. User experience is becoming the most important thing and should be at the forefront for anyone designing or marketing a website.
    Wordpress Auto Installer
    www.webproco.com

  20. #20
    Wired Life GeraldNitram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    274
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ULTiMATE View Post
    Why should you optimise beyond what you need? As Donald Knuth states when talking about software "premature optimization is the root of all evil". I believe the same is true for SEO.

    In my mind, if you're optimising for search engines at the expense of the user experience then you're over-optimising. Anything else that adds to the site is fair game.
    I like the sound of this. When you're doing optimization for anything, it's not like some TV shopping offer where in you give people the "but wait, there's more" bit besides all that content that you already have for your space -- in the case of SEO, that space would be your website. When you fill up a glass of water, you don't fill it up 'til it's completely full. You only fill it up to a point where the water won't spill when you carry it around.

  21. #21
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Google might be trying to be more relevant in search by removing spammier sites, but so long as they offer silly things like what someone said on Google+ or what some Google service has to say about the query instead of what the user is looking for, it'll fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by ultimate
    I'd expect Google to follow the likes of DuckDuckGo and to start serving Wikipedia articles in-page and to parse questions to form valid answers from results.
    Google seems to be moving in the opposite direction: instead of answers from sites, Google wants to offer answers from itself.

    Teaming up with Wolfram Alpha was one of the best things DDG did. I've been using it all day today to make calculations. I could do that on WA directly, but since I can type a query into my addressbar and get it on DDG, that's what I do.

    And DDG doesn't try to offer me "Duck" results, or what some social twit said on Duck+, or answers it thinks are personally relevant to me because of who I am online. This is why DDG, despite still not having all the search results it needs to overcome someone as big as Google, has a leg up on search and is growing.

    Re overoptimised sites: I know exactly what this is when I see it. My bosses at my old job did it all the time.

    Hint: when the main word of your site's topic is in every sentence on the site in question, where reading the site content out loud sounds strange, as if the person writing it were a robot or a foreigner learning your language, you've over-optimised.

  22. #22
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy
    Mikl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    1,571
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Google seems to be moving in the opposite direction: instead of answers from sites, Google wants to offer answers from itself.
    You might be right on that point, but it's the opposite of what some people in the industry seem to be saying.

    The point about semantic analysis (which is what Google is moving closer towards) is that Google will try to understand the meaning of the words on the sites that it indexes, and deliver results based on that meaning.

    According to an example quoted in an article in the Wall Street Journal, if somone searches for "Lake Tahoe", instead of seeing a list of sites that contains those two words, the search engine will know that Tahoe is a large lake in California, and will show key facts about it, gleaned from the sites in question. It might also directly answer such questions as "What are the 10 largest lakes in California?" This will be done, according the article, by "examining a Web page and identifying information about specific entities referenced on it, rather than only look for keywords".

    So the information will still come from web pages, but the owners of those pages will now get less benefit from the search engine; they'll simply provide the information for Google to use (whether they want to or not).

    I'm not saying that the above scenario is necessarily correct. But it would be very much in line with other moves in the industry, for example, the use of semantic analysis for machine translation rather than the traditional approach of looking up words in a dictionary.

    Mike

  23. #23
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the proposed changes really boils down to "overly optimized" sites. It's strange though, how will Google determine what really is overly-optimized? I don't think I agree at all with Cutts when he says, sites that "exchange way too many links or go well beyond what you normally expect". What who would normally expect? And how many links are way too many? No sir, I don't think this is going to be good for anyone.

  24. #24
    SitePoint Zealot coloradojaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Southwestern Mountains
    Posts
    151
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    SEO and applying it to your site for the likes of Google will always keep you walking the line and trying to create a balance that will benefit your site and please the requirements of Google. SEO will not become an industry where you do A and it results and B which adds up to a consistent answer each time. You simply have to keep up with the changes and make them as they come up so that your site will reap the best benefits from those changes.
    Hosted solutions provider since 1998 - UK, Atlanta, L.A.,
    JaguarPC.com - Managed Hybrid Servers |
    Managed VPS Hosting | Dedicated Servers

  25. #25
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Mikl: that sounds awesome except when you get stuff like phrases with multiple meanings.

    Anyway I never had a google login, I never had G+ so the few times I extend my searches to Google I don't get the nasty kinds of results my husband gets (who does have Google, GMail, YouTube and G+ account(s), and so gets results with "somebody you have some weird convoluted relation to said something inane about this search term!", poor guy).


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •