Google's Second Attempt At Panda Relief Advice

May 9, 2011 • 8:47 am | comments (3) by twitter Google+ | Filed Under Google Search Engine Optimization
 

Google Panda AdviceGoogle's head of search, Amit Singhal, on Friday afternoon posted the second batch of advice for those webmasters harmed by the Google Panda/Farmer update. The first advice from Google was about two months ago and Google now, after a month since the international roll out and almost three months after Panda was unleashed, Google submitted their second batch of advice.

Most webmasters are not happy with the set of advice, but first let me quote it and then let me share some webmaster thought.

Google's Advice:

  • Would you trust the information presented in this article?
  • Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
  • Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
  • Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
  • Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
  • Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
  • Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
  • Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
  • How much quality control is done on content?
  • Does the article describe both sides of a story?
  • Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
  • Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
  • Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
  • For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
  • Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
  • Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
  • Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
  • Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
  • Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
  • Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
  • Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
  • Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
  • Would users complain when they see pages from this site?

Google MArioWebmaster Feedback:

There are two primary threads, that I have found, covering the Google advice. One at WebmasterWorld and the other at Google Webmaster Help. I will pick out some quotes from the WebmasterWorld thread on these topics:

Reading between the lines, Google is dividing it's emphasis up between informational or publishing sites, and transactional/business sites.

The guidelines provided sway strongly towards the informational / publishing . There is a "gray" overlap with business & transactional, and Google has it's sites firmly set on advertising and subscription revenues that conflict with it's existing business model.

Authorative niche articles , branded = longer life
E-commerce , comparison , business listings = shorter life

The net effect is a massive downgrade in the power of the existing links to sites.

Just a theory - but it is as if there is now a QR (quality rank) scoring that is hidden from us but now is added to the pagerank algo.

What we've seen so far in the algorithm is just a beginning. For me, that was the main take-away from the article. And even that isn't really new - Matt Cutts already commented that algorithmic assessment of website quality is going to be a year-long focus at Google.

There are lots of interesting points in the thread, so I suggest you check it out.

Our ongoing coverage and stories on the Content Farmer/Panda update:

Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld and Google Webmaster Help.

Previous story: Google Tests New Search Results Design
 

Comments:

Alistair Lattimore

05/09/2011 11:34 pm

Richard Baxter of SEO Gadget put out another great article about high quality websites being the new Google ranking factor with heaps of additional resources, well worth the read.

Samuel

05/18/2011 06:33 pm

I really think that Google has bitten off my then they can chew with this last Panda update. Lets take one of my sites http://www.thephonenetwork.co.uk ... I spend a fortune getting all the content rewritten for what is a strong site in the mobile phone sector here in the UK for over 3 years now. Despite the unique content , improved page speed etc the site still dropped 60% - 70% in the last panda update. Rankings are all over the show in different countries when its a UK specific site. Anyone on here or a Google really going to let us know whats going on? I think there quality guidelines are good in practice but it doesn't seem like they really make much different after the last update. It seems to me the big G is buying time! Any ideas or comments anyone?

mark agar

05/30/2011 10:35 am

 We also got a slap from google during the panda update and we have loads of unique content (mobile phone reviews and spec).  Ive always done everything by the book, not sure what to do now. http://www.mobilefonereviews.co.uk

blog comments powered by Disqus