Have you heard the recent news about online content?
The way the key search engines are working to analyse sites is changing.
For years, Google and others have been trying to find ways of enhancing their search returns when people look things up online, in a bid to improve the data presented to customers when they pop in a search request.
In the past, search engines have relied almost exclusively on methods such as backlinks and open keyword data to judge how relevant a particular site may be in relation to the types of search queries users enter to get their information.
This led to a huge number of spam operators purchasing huge numbers of backlinks and flooding the web with as many indexed pages as possible in an effort to gain a higher ranking and more traffic.
Working out what content was useful, and what was simply spam
The problem for all search engines was a simple one – how do they assess the quality of content, online?
Without having millions of operators sitting and trawling the web in person to read, analyse and rate every page (which would probably be impossible, never mind time consuming and exceedingly expensive!), there has never been a truly effective way of judging the quality of content.
Despite the technological genius deployed to retrieve relevant results from sites, there has never been a solution found that could match the simple judgment of a Human Being when it comes to ranking the usefulness and interest of a website.
So, Google and others have decided to make some simple changes to improve the way a site’s usefulness is analysed, in an effort to reduce spam, eradicate bulk-purchase indexing, and make their search returns more effective.
Letting people decide what they want to see, online
It seems that they have finally realised that it is people, rather than technology, that decide on a site’s worth and relevance.
And, the only thing that can make a site useful and interesting is the content it holds.
Because of this, Google et al have made a shift towards content.
This means that pages that are packed with interesting facts, information and great data will finally get the recognition they deserve, while the mass-produced poor-quality sites that have previously gained high rankings through devious spam techniques will have their rankings reduced.
The change is going to happen predominantly through social indicators such as FaceBook mentions, tweets. G+ and shares.
This means that when the mass audience decides to re-post an article, Google appreciates that it is relevant and interesting.
This shift in approach means that content will finally be given the recognition it deserves.
How does this affect our approach to blogging?
From images to videos to blog articles, your site is now going to be ranked according to how popular it is, and how useful, shareable and interesting it proves to be among your customers.
If you are already a great blogger that writes informative and engaging articles, it means you’ll get the recognition you deserve.
However, for those people out there who have previously relied on link purchases and bulk publishing to generate results, it’s time to change their approach.
This is one of the most positive steps in search engine history.
Blogs now have the opportunity to be judged against real indicators of their usefulness, and the more dedicated, motivated and well-informed site owners will soon find that their efforts are rewarded.
For us, it means we need to be more targeted, determined and consistent than ever before in terms of producing great online content.
Keep your articles relevant to your industry, make them interesting and useful…and Google and others will soon be recognising your effort and making sure it pays off!
Has your site been affected by the recent Google changes?
Please share your results in the commetns below.
Andrew
I only started blogging this year, so hopefully not fallen into any ‘spammy’ traps’.
So far, I have posted a new blog post each week and my rankings are going up.
Steve
Steve
That is the best approach to take.
Andrew
Google is finally coming to its senses. The idea of using backlinks to determine where a page ranks on the serps is not fair at all. In my opinion, Google should give more preference to the quality of the content and how useful it is to the target reader.
I am agree with you, Jos. Google should be change because we blog for our readers not their update. Why search engine really effort our blog.
Jos,
Agreed – will just take time for Google to get the algorithm right.
Andrew
Hi
Very interesting. I know googles plans for trying to promote the best site the highest but they will always have to gauge but what is linked to that site one way or another. If they go the social way surely the seo guys will just play that game like they have the others when google wanted it done a different way. Or am I just being pessimistic?????
Great insight thanks lee
Lee
I think you have a very valid point.
We will have to see!
Andrew
hello,
I can not comment anymore, what else deal with google, I’ve also deleted the account because at the time there are people who want to buy my website. I am very sorry. a good blog is not necessarily good in the eyes of our eyes google.
It is actually a great and helpful piece of information. I am happy that you just shared this useful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for sharing 🙂
Very interesting breakdown, indeed. It’s nice to have such information available in one location and some ideas for new and different directions to take to help one stand out.
Things have changed a lot with SEO – will be interesting to see what the future holds. It\’s a bit chaotic at the moment!
Hi Anthony
You are right – we live in very interesting times, at least from the SEO point of view. I like to write long and informative articles, so I am happy with all these changes. Although some of them have not yet reached Poland, where I live.
But just in case I started to post on my blogs videos from YouTube right now – of course I mean the films that I have created.
Best regards.
Well I think this is REALLY good news for the most part. What I do feel bad about though, is that a lot of WELL intentioned websites have had to actually resort to the crumby tactics of the predator sites, just to keep afloat! And now they will be punished too. There must be some way to backpedal and for those sites to then just rely on their “healthier,” normal seo practice of the past?
Mike,
I agree – many ‘safe’ sites have been penalized. Google are the MASTERS! Not much we can do about it!
Andrew
Andrew, I’m not that sure this is such a positive change because people searches through keywords and always will do but being social has little to do with relevancy and reliability.
This way whatever we’ll look for will always give as results something related to Justin Bieber, Kim Kardashian and Lady Gaga.
And without taking into account the reliability of Google as regards relevancy without being influenced by money, and for Facebook is the same.
Backlinks were not reliable but an amazing piece of content not social this way will never be found. Which will turn good because sooner or later another search engine will appear and will send Google the way of Yahoo which will make a great good for the web. Imho. 🙂
Happy Easter!
Andrea
It is a space we have to watch.
Overall, I do think it will become good in the end…for great content blogs.
Andrew
I agree with you Andrew, the real problem is how Google decides what is great content. 🙂
Andrea
I wish I knew (and I wouldn’t tell anyone!). Lol.
Andrew
It’s really tough to get well ranking in search engines. As the algo of any search engine is not so clear, so it’s really big deal to get most out of the search engines.
Hi Andrew,
That means our readers would set our fate, if they don’t click on +1 or any other social button. We won’t get a better ranking in SERPS. But there are a lot of methods to increase them, that means many blogs would get a better ranking automating the sharing process. Which should not be done. What are your views on this?
Anurag
I understand what you are saying and yes, our visitors will have a big impact. The feeling is if the content is good, please will share.
Andrew
Personally I feel that this change to Google will just promote even more spam, the problem is that creating a false social network would be so, so much easier than the spammy backlinking techniques found today.
The effort you have to put into things like blog networks etc Is enourmous compared to creating 100 fake facebook, stumbleupon, twitter accounts etc…
Only time will tell but I believe they will never rank sites solely on social signals but instead a variety of metrics in which social signals will be a part of.
Lee,
You are right – Google use over 200 ‘functions’ that determine the raking of a site – not just the social side.
Andrew
I run a coupon site and it was affected by panda hit back in November 2012 and then on further analysis of my content, I realised. I am just posting coupons and their validities, but I am not getting my readers hooked to it, I am not giving them option to re-share, tweet or G+ those coupons.
Once we started doing it, we realised its important and the importance of being social. Now finally we are seeing an upward graph, not because of us or not because of search engine. Its because of the people who read us, and spread the word. Sharable content is going to be the king now and not just keyword rich content.
Thanks for your great insights Andrew
Vikash
Thanks for sharing your insights as well. Looks like the social side is working for you.
Andrew
Yes Google is definitely looking for social signals in the future. You find that the blog posts that rank high are the ones that are shared around most often.
I am currently trying to build m authorship because I believe that leads to rankings.
I’ve heard that posting comments helps one’s search engine rankings, though I have serious doubts about that when compared to the heart of SEO, content, titles, and quality links. Lord knows, I could be wrong…You really make some important points here, thanks.
Vkool
Commenting can certainly help – not as much as titles etc but to rank higher you have to do both.
Andrew
Hi Andrew,
you made some good points in the article. I’m happy to see that it is quality content what matters, because people reading blogs are searching for something interesting and useful. Who’s interested in a recycled content lacking originality and being of no value to anyone except its author? People should finally realize that they don’t get something for nothing.
PS: I really like the “Awesome Comments” thing 😉
Lorne
We all have to be more creative in our content…to make it stand out and be noticed.
Easy to say…harder to do!
Andrew
Hey Andrew,
Nice post and Thanks for sharing this post with us. Yes, content is the most important part of the successful blog and we have to make sure that our content should be interesting and original.
Sudipto
How do you ensure you content is interesting and original?
Andrew
Hey Andrew
I am totally appreciate with you that many spammers purchasing huge numbers of backlinks and taking the benefit of search engine ranking. But you should remember that all the bloggers are not spammers. Even many bloggers tries very fine and help full ways for generating backlinks like guest blogging, blog commenting etc etc. I think instead of changing the priorities of backlinks for search ranking by google, Google should change the methods of generating backlinks. I mean to say that Google shouldn’t count that backlinks which was generated through purchasing. Even google should set their own methods of generating backlinks so that all the backlinks are purely generated. What do you think about this Andrew???
Chetan
I’m sure Google do a lot of work around backlinks that we simply are unaware of.
Andrew
Yeah andrew you are right… Google do a lot of work. thanks for your reply and suggestion.
Chetan Gupta
Google these days are very strict against Link spammers or spam bloggers as they don’t want any spammy result top the rankings but still many spammers changed their way to doing spam and still ranking on top without any hesitation.