Our goal is simple: to give people the most relevant answers to their queries as quickly as possible. This requires constant tuning of our algorithms, as new content—both good and bad—comes online all the time.
Many of the changes we make are so subtle that very few people notice them. But in the last day or so we launched a pretty big algorithmic improvement to our ranking—a change that noticeably impacts 11.8% of our queries—and we wanted to let people know what’s going on. This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality sites—sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful. At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites—sites with original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on.
Google sucks. I have not seen any change in traffic so far. But, one of my sites which used to get 700 visitors or more per day from Google 3 years ago now only gets about 25. So, I don’t have much to lose on that site.
Some of the articles I’ve read indicate that Google is clamping down on sites like ehow.com and Huffington Post which don’t produce much original content. One article I read said that ehow.com’s articles were mostly fluff. I agree, but even fluff can have some value. As for Huff Post, most of their stuff is just rehashed news originating from other sites and opinion. Google had a nasty habit of ranking opinion blogs very high especially when searching for anything political. If I’m looking for information about an bill working its way through Congress, the last thing I want is to read an opinion blog.
I hate Google. I don’t even use Google for my searches because it sucks and Yahoo provides better results. eHow.com had an article about how “to find” something that I have listed on my site. I got a link from the eHow.com article, which was nice, because very few webmasters are willing to give away links anymore. However, in CRAPPY Google, when searching for that term, the eHow site outranked mine. Even though they got their information from MY site, STUPID Google ranked eHow higher.
My site lost 70% of it’s search traffic and was ranked #40 on the list of sites most damaged by this update.
We are not even remotely a content farm in any way shape, or form. Apparently Google has just decided to destroy us for some reason. I don’t get it. There seems to be no recourse.
A search engine’s only marketing tool is its efficiency. If we can cheat our ways into it it becomes useless. I have even came across instances where someone made a blank page to have a rank one just for the heck of it.
But those were days of past and this is why SE’s are spending huge sums to be one step ahead of us.
At the end of day, only thing that matters is the people who are surfing. Are we giving them the right information, service or products(whatever we are offering). And a search engine’s job it to take a person to their desired page. Many of us have learnt a lesson that we need to be efficient, diligent and creative. And we need to evolve. And some of us have learnt at a very great expenses.
Its no use back-biting google or matter of fact any other SE. They are doing their jobs and we are not.
My site is nothing but fresh, completely original, content. That is all we do. That and nothing else. We are not a content farm… or even close to anything even slightly resembling a content farm. We are the exact opposite of a content farm and we are their mortal enemies.
We have never used black hat SEO tactic, we have never done anything in nearly 10 years on the web except create fresh, original content. That’s it. Nothing else.
I know people working at Google are tech genius but I am not really sure if they can exactly tell the value of EACH site on the web today. For example, I have a site which contains quality, fresh, helpful stuff that can’t be found in 10 SERP’s but the other one I got with most of its content spinned ranked number 2 now. So I am kind of confused actually.
To all those muppets, scammers, low-life article spinners and directory submitters - here is your just deserts. To the 100s of stupid 1-line, 5-post contributors to the SEO forum here on SitePoint that kept selling the idea that spinning articles worked for SEO - I hope all your rankings were flushed away like they deserved to be.
To those who were negatively impacted and who feel “wronged” legitimately - then I sympathize - but this change was algorithmic, so you REALLY need to take a look at your online profile - your back-link and internal linking efforts.
Well, what type of content did your site have? Did you have a lot of quality links? Was your content good - as in, in-depth good for those users that searched those keywords?
I welcome it too… if that’s really what happened. I mean this is really needed. I just don’t understand why I was caught up in it when my site stands for everything opposed to what content farms are all about.
This update is a great one and Google users will feel very easy to find out their appropriate results. This update saves time for users, ranks the sites with quality content. This update will be helpful for both users and webmasters.
Well, I heard that a lot of content websites like Hubpages, Ezinearticles and a few others were hit hard by this - do you think it was wrong for them to get hit as well?
While I sympathize with those in a position like that described by jhtyler, I actually welcome a change like this if said algorithm update produces the intended results. Google’s number one priority should be to eliminate all of the unoriginal black hat crap that is degrading the web as a whole, which they seem to be getting. But, stories like the one told above by jhtyler make me wonder how accurate the targeting of this algorithm change will be.
