10 replies to this topic

[Nueromancer]

those of you in the UK May have seen the gruniads latest picle of sloppy coverage of SEO and Google

http://www.guardian....s-internet-firm

Quiet how some of the technology Journos get thier jobs amazes me.

[Michael Martinez]

I don't see any major problems with the article. What do you feel is wrong with it?

[Fashionman]

This article has filled in some gaps in my limited knowledge of SEO and google. Could you explain what part of it you are referring to, when you slate the journo?

[Randy]

I suspect what Nueromancer was referring to is the connection made in the article between Adwords Quality Score and Organic SERP rankings. That's where I stopped reading.

Google have said at least a thousand times over the years that one has exactly zero effect on the other. Nor have I ever seen any evidence that suggests Adwords placement has any effect on organic rankings. The same applies in the opposite direction.

Once I see something like that put forth as a cold, hard fact I immediately distrust any other supposed facts in any article.

[Michael Martinez]

The article doesn't say there is a connection between the organic results and AdWords. It says that the search team notified the AdWords team of a problem with the Web site and the AdWords team took direct action. There is nothing algorithmic in what the article describes.

While I cannot confirm or contest what the article alleges, it does say the company got confirmation from Google that indeed the communication between the two teams took place.

I would regard that as highly unusual (based on what I've seen attested by Googlers through the years) but it's a credible statement in my eyes. It certainly has nothing to do with the SEO myth about connections between organic rankings and advertising position.

It's a spooky story about how Google's internal communications may impact site reputations in far-reaching ways. We have no way of knowing how accurate the depiction of the events is.

[OldWelshGuy]

I thought it was a nithing article, as the fact of the matter is that if a site doesn't really hold much water, then why should it rank?

Google search contacting adwords to say a site is poor, makes sense really. In fact it completely flies iin the face of those who state that Google drop sites to get themselves adwords revenue.

[RegDCP]

bring out the bloody Waaaaaambulance for foundem.co.uk.
Can't get listed? Try doing some proper SEO.

Try reducing your keyword stuffing ("Prices" repeated 31 times) and that is only the visible.
If you look on product pages each product model number has a title.

CODE

title="Compare Prices for the Samsung LE40C530"

Stop using the title for marketing. It is a TITLE - Use it as such.
The same goes for the H1 tags
If we go to their mainpage their h1 is is

CODE

UK Vertical Search & Price Comparison Categories

"Vertical Search" is unnecessary in the h1. It is a synonym for "Price Comparison"
H1 should be "UK Product Price Comparisons"
H2 should be the "Popular Search Categories" changed to "Compare" in a somewhat larger/bolder font than their present h2.

The site is a prime example of what NOT to do. Talk about "gaming the system"

I stopped listening to what the author had to say at about "To become more well known and achieve a higher position on Google, as more people link to you, of course, takes advertising," because, as we all know, getting higher positions is due to SEO.

best,
Reg

[chrishirst]

Simple!


It's just a pair of whinging idiots who think that somebody else, Google in this case, is responsible for their lack of business sense, and their failure to look beyond the here and now and plan for contingencies.


Maybe they should have read http://www.highranki...showtopic=18325 first

[chrishirst]

"Vertical Search" is unnecessary in the h1. It is a synonym for "Price Comparison"

Might be where you are but that isn't the case here!

[rolf]

I agree that this article purports to shed light on SEO but is not so much about SEO as much as a company complaining at their lack of penetration into G

Reading between the lines, it seems to me that this is just a case of G changing the algo to deliver what their users want - foundem used to benefit from good rankings, G decided price comparison sites weren't what their users wanted, now foundem no longer benefit as much - which all seems fair, albeit not entirely obvious from the article if you don't already know a little about SEO. (Personally, I get fed up with finding price comparison sites in the organic listings so that seems not only fair to me but preferable - if I want a price comparison site I will search for 'product x price comparison', but I digress...)

That said, (and back on topic) I usually like the Guardian and find them to be fairer and somewhat more informed than a lot of other British news papers.

[Jill]

Please note it's an old article from 2009 and someone revived this old thread...