14 replies to this topic

[robertclough]

Been Gazumped by Google? Trying to make Sense of the "Florida" Update

http://www.searcheng...3/1125_bl1.html

With the huge number of postings on all the various forums, concerning this update, most people don't know where to start looking for information about the recent Google update. The following is an attempt to put down rationally (I hope) most of the information that is known and the (unproven) theories behind the update algo.

[Scottie]

Excellent article Barry!

Thanks for posting it here, Robert!

[mcanerin]

This is why I've learned not to argue with Barry

Great Work!

Ian

[The_Fishy_King]

Dear Mr Makemetop:

I've reading attentively every message you've published the last days, both here and in other forums, since it's evident that they offered the best explanation to the current Florida mess. I'd like to thank you on behalf of those who have had a hard time understanding the that has fallen upon us.

[Peter]

Barry,

Very good article. I appreciate that you seperate opinion from fact. And even though I don't share your opinion on the reasons behind this update, I think your article gives an excelent resume of the whole Update and all opinions about it.

Thanks,

Peter

[Denyse]

Thank you Barry for such an incisive report

[Denyse]

Does the links to the applied semantics white paper work for anyone? I can't seem to make it go anywhere (even with appliedsemantics.com)

[Jill]

Nice job as usual Barry! I referred a reporter to it who just so happened to call me about the Google update right after I read your article. I think he was with eWeek.

Jill

[Wow!]

Barry,

I read your article in great detail and I think you are probably correct. There are still some results that seem to defy even your reasoned theorizing. One thinks of algos or filters as applying a set of mathematical type rules and if this is so one looks for consistency. And the consistency one would expect seems to be woefully missing.

However that is not really what I want to discuss. You say in conclusion that SEO as we know it will never be the same. I think I have to agree, but then the question is what do we do about it?

Using the -junkword search method we can determine what words Google is filtering for. The problem is that these are normally the high volume search terms -- that's how they got optimized for and how they got on Google's list -- so what do we optimized for now?

We use to pick a high volume search term using WT and go for it. Remember all the gurus who advised using one keyword phrase per page? But now it would seem that SEO will involve picking less popular search terms. To get any traffic it will require optimizing for half a dozen lesser terms to generate as much traffic as was available for a page optimized for one high volume search term.

I hope you can understand what I am attempting suggest. Your thoughts on this would be welcome.

[projectphp]

Actually, I think you'll find that being linked into to the hub of the net works really well. takea search for Mortgage, The same site that was number one, still is number one for that term.

So, nothing much has changed for that site, and that is a pretty competitive term. However, all the fly-by-nighters, such as "www.mortage-is-our-game.com" have suffered a filter of some sort.

So the trick seems to be to become an authority site, not just fake that you are an authority site. What the criteria for being classified as such is is anyone's guess, but I would say that links from DMOZ and other "safe" sources are as vital as ever.

Even better, try "refinance". With the filter, there are very few www.refinance-{XYZ}-{XYZ}.com sites. Without the filter, the SERPs are littered with them, including number one which seems to really load up on the keywords in the domain theory.

So, in short, I think the keys today appear to be:
1) keyword domains are probably a waste of time.
2) Links from key authority sites are really valuable
3) Make a great site. To me, that seems to be the key. Google are looking to reward great sites. Even on really competitive searches, such as "refinance", there are still some really optimised sites. They are just really good sites in general.
4) Don't "over optimise". What that means is anyone's guess, but I am personally going to start to err on the side of caution.

I know that isn't helpful if you are a small operator, but in such cases, maybe the key isn't going to be search traffic, but traffic from teh pages that currently have the rankings, i.e. AdSense from highly ranked pages, rather than high rankings yourself.

[Wow!]

So the trick seems to be to become an authority site, not just fake that you are an authority site. What the criteria for being classified as such is is anyone's guess, but I would say that links from DMOZ and other "safe" sources are as vital as ever.

Did you read the Hilltop Algo paper that Barry referenced in his article. I think they probably coined the phrase "authority site". If as Barry suggested Google has incorporated some or all of the Hilltop Algo then it is pretty clear what needs to be done to have links qualified as votes for an authority site.

[peter_d]

Google has incorporated some or all of the Hilltop Algo

I think they have had that incorporated for some time.

What we are seeing is probably the result of a number of changes, not just one isolated change. i.e The change now is the authorities have more weight. And the non-authorities have less weight. And there is some filtering going on, although not across the entire dataset.

[Dragon]

Thanx Barry - the Google thread seems to be going in circles.

Eventhough I don't agree wholeheartedly with your theory (as the site that has "replaced me" is definately not an 'authority site' - just full of outbound links.

I appreciate your clear vision as it has helped me to resolved myself into testing this theory and adjusting my pages....I have itchy fingers and feel like I can wait no longer - especially if this is it...?!

Thank you.

[MakeMeTop]

Thanks, everyone. It was because all the forum threads were going in circles that I tried to write a reasonably objective "what happened" article in as non-technical terms as I could. It is intended for people to be able to draw their own conclusions from what has happened to them, what they see in the results and to their competitors. I am not putting myself up as an expert on what has happened, I am not. I am hoping that people with more analytical minds than mine can make something out of the points I gave and we all benefit from that.

Dragon - I have noticed that Google really likes pages with lots of outward links! I have site maps and internal index pages now ranking higher than the pages to which the links point. Remember, that right now, the pages Google lists are what it believes to be the authority pages - just like the algo believed pages sites that dropped were the authority on that subject before the update. It is only a computer program and still not that intelligent - yet

But please don't turn this into yet another update thread

Anyway, my thanks to Robert for publishing the article and peter_d who also has published a version. They are the people who saw it first and decided it was worthy of putting out there.

[mcanerin]

lots of outward links

I noticed that too! In another thread I posted a link to a page on my site that is basically just a bunch of SEO links. This page has always been PR0 and that's been fine since it's a page I made for when I'm on the road and need a "favorites" list rather than something for clients benifit.

In short, there is no content to speak of, other than outbound links.

While posting the link, I noticed for the first time that the page jumped to PR5. Wierd. Many others of my internal pages are still PR0, and it's the same menu system, so it's not like I did anything. Maybe it's fallen under the good graces of a "directory detector". Dunno.

Usless info by itself but perhaps if applied elsewhere it might be benificial.

OK, Anything else I'll post in the update thread

Ian