Any thoughts on the Google changes?

[HighProfits]

Hi

Not noticed any posts on the recent changes from Google...any thoughts on them?

Check out an example of that change here;

google.co.uk/search?q=make%20money%20online&hl=en&sa=X&tbo=1 (I can't post full links yet...)

Interesting huh?

Basically I think this means;

* ‘Review’ domains are now super-charged.
* Forums are now more useful for ranking and showing updated content
* Videos are still hugely important
* Alt text – super important (even more than before!)
* Daily – even hourly – content is becoming the new standard for top ranking sites

This is Google finally really starting to respond to threats from emerging search engines...I guess they are starting to feel threatened

Dave

 

[djbaxter]

Check out an example of that change here;

google.co.uk/search?q=make%20money%20online&hl=en&sa=X&tbo=1 (I can't post full links yet...)

Interesting huh?

What are we supposed to be seeing there?

 

[HighProfits]

Look at the options down the left hand side....

All results
Videos
Forums
Reviews
? Any time
Recent results
Past 24 hours
Past week
Past year
? Standard results
Images from the page
More text
? Standard view
Related searches
Wonder Wheel
Timeline


Cheers
Dave

 

[v9designbuild]

Answer to absolutely everything gets closer?

There have been quite a few posts on the forums of late arguing that Google has changed its algorithm regarding anchor text also. If so, it is a relief for the corporates not to have to call themselves "Rather Large Search Engine" rather than "Google" when creating a backlink.

I can understand why regular content is being pushed, but the use of alt tags? Surely, you can call them whatever you like.

Forums I get and videos, although difficult to quantify. Blog commenting seems to be on its way out with most set to nofollow anyway. And if the first paragraph is true, a lot more posts that are regarded as spam by the moderators will get through, maybe?

And as for Google feeling threatened, see "Answer to absolutely everything gets closer" (so many results I don't quite know the originator).

 

[v9designbuild]

Ko Chang Island: interesting it is not

I was curious, so substituted your Google url for one I know far more about: ko chang island - Google Search.

On a normal search the site at #1 gives information about the island and how to get there, with maps, what to go, the restaurants and bars, etc, carefully chosen videos, discounted hotel bookings, a blog, the weather and breaking news on Thailand.

On the "interesting page" above I get random videos (assuming they're sorted by popularity), a forum on transportation to the island, reviews from booking portals, and updates from the same companies.

Not exactly inspiring.

 

[djbaxter]

There have been quite a few posts on the forums of late arguing that Google has changed its algorithm regarding anchor text also. If so, it is a relief for the corporates not to have to call themselves "Rather Large Search Engine" rather than "Google" when creating a backlink.

What discussions? Can you provide some examples? Are you suggesting that Google is now downplaying anchor text? If so, that's news to me...

I can understand why regular content is being pushed, but the use of alt tags? Surely, you can call them whatever you like.

I don't understand your reference here...

And as for Google feeling threatened, see "Answer to absolutely everything gets closer" (so many results I don't quite know the originator).

The originator would appear to be Conrad Walters at the Sydney Morning Herald, May 18, 2009.

You're referring to Wolfram Alpha, the alleged newest Google killer. We'll see. There have been many of these before (remember Cuil most recently?) and they've gone pretty much nowhere. I doubt that Google has even broken a single bead of perspiration over this.

 

[v9designbuild]

What discussions? Can you provide some examples? Are you suggesting that Google is now downplaying anchor text? If so, that's news to me...

I've seen it mentioned on a few blog sites but this is just one I can recall: Google Changes Algorithm - Anchor Text Less Important

I don't understand your reference here...

The reference is to alt tags. Why would Google be giving a higher value to alt tags after all these years? Sounds strange to me.

You're referring to Wolfram Alpha, the alleged newest Google killer. We'll see. There have been many of these before (remember Cuil most recently?) and they've gone pretty much nowhere. I doubt that Google has even broken a single bead of perspiration over this

.
I agree. It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to "Google finally really starting to respond to threats from emerging search engines...I guess they are starting to feel threatened".

The url that was provided in stating the "changes", if you can call them such, is simply not inspiring at all as I mentioned in a later post. The results for anyone searching for information in this way is almost totally irrelevant compared to organic search.

 

[djbaxter]

I don't think any of that means Google has devalued anchor text. I think it's just a tweaking of their protections against Google bombing. It's not that anchor text no longer matters. It's that Google kicks in a filter when too many of your incoming links have exactly the same anchor text.

 

[v9designbuild]

Anchor text and placement

I believe you're probably right there, but it the differences he has seen over the past few months: "The common characteristic all the sites have is that their rankings were based very heavily on anchor text rather than on-site optimisation. The changes don?t seem to have affected major commercial queries yet but they are visible when you search for particular peoples names...Last December I did a study to see how a few SEO bloggers ranked for their own name which gives a good barometer to see how the algorithm has changed since then. Some blogs have moved up and some have moved down but in general the trend is downwards depending on whether you use google.co.uk or .com..."

How he judges the relative strength of on-site optimisation to anchor text I wouldn't have a clue. And why peoples names in particular? But also, at what level does the filter kick in? For my own site, I have often used the company name as often as the main keywords. The question is: why the change is placement?

 

[djbaxter]

I do know that part of how Google tries to block Google bombing is by looking at the relationship between the anchor text and on-page content. Recall that the first notorious case of google bombing was the "miserable failure" anchor text campaign directed at the Whithouse and George Bush. Matching that anchor text to the text on the Whitehouse home page obviously would not have shown a good match.

If you use your company name as anchor text (i.e., only your company name), that might not be a problem if the page it points to also contains one or preferably more instances of that same phrase.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why you'd use your company name as anchor text. Presumably, the only people searching for your company name would be people who already know you and your company. That's not likely to get you any new clients or customers. A better way of doing it would be to use search terms that describe your products or services as the anchor text, perhaps with the company name tacked on to the end if you feel it's necessary, not the beginning of the anchor text phrase.

 

[v9designbuild]

Anchor text and all that

In this particular context, nothing is known by the author of that article on why people's names appear to be racing down the listings in that neither we, nor probably he, is aware of any other factors that may have affected this. So his "anchor text diminution" argument is unverifiable, even though he thinks it has been given less importance over a few months' timespan. It's like an open variable that's being chased to define his argument. For me, I would hold my hand up and say I really don't know why without further information.

Second, the reason my site has the company name in the anchor text is because when it was set up six years ago there was a huge gap in my knowledge about it. I now know better. All I am saying is that there are a fair few number of links that use it. This forum, for examples, uses v9designbuild, rather than webdesignbangkok, but that, I'm sure you'll agree, doesn't matter that much.

If what you're saying about Google bombing means that if the "relationship between the anchor text and on-page content" is true then there shouldn't be a problem, but the issue here is one of has Google diminished anchor text in its algorithm as stated by the author of the article?

I see no hard evidence of this but, as I mentioned before, I have found a couple of sites that are suspicious of its introduction. Who knows? I would err on the side that it probably hasn't, but for some maybe it has.

 

[djbaxter]

If what you're saying about Google bombing means that if the "relationship between the anchor text and on-page content" is true then there shouldn't be a problem, but the issue here is one of has Google diminished anchor text in its algorithm as stated by the author of the article?

I see no hard evidence of this but, as I mentioned before, I have found a couple of sites that are suspicious of its introduction. Who knows? I would err on the side that it probably hasn't, but for some maybe it has.

I have a research background so I follow the existant evidence.

I draw my conclusions from things various Google employees have stated publicly on official Google blogs, etc., regarding measures taken against Google bombing. Thus, we have some evidence to support what I am saying here.

I have seen no evidence to support the more general claim in the cited article of devaluation of anchor text. To the contrary, this goes against Google's own webmaster guidelines. Thus, we gave no evidence to support the claim and some evidence to refute it.

Based on all that, I don't believe the author's conclusion.

 

[v9designbuild]

Devaluation of anchor text

After this brief foray into what other websites have stated, I am inclined to believe what you say and if there is no evidence, there is no evidence. It may well be that the authors have assumed their positions because they see no other logical reason for the drop.

One thing I would add on anchor text, though. If your website is xyz.com but your main keywords are web marketing, it is all too often likely that moderators will see the anchor text as spammy if one uses web marketing and thus refuse the entry. For those such sites, and hopefully they don't remember the external url, the only way to include the link is by using xyz.

This is a problem for corporates. All too often I see domain keyworded sites taking all the cream they rarely deserve.

 

[djbaxter]

One thing I would add on anchor text, though. If your website is xyz.com but your main keywords are web marketing, it is all too often likely that moderators will see the anchor text as spammy if one uses web marketing and thus refuse the entry. For those such sites, and hopefully they don't remember the external url, the only way to include the link is by using xyz.

I don't know why you would think that anchor text would be a problem.

Large international coporations like Microsoft, Google, Adobe, etc., may well market via the corporate name, but the majority of internet and even brick-and-mortar businesses will advertise by keywords representing the products and services they offer.

If your company sells home furnishings and carpeting and has a website with the domain bobsfurniture.com, there's nothing wrong with using variations of anchor text that represent the products sold - in this case, they might include "discount furniture", "area rugs", "wholesale carpeting", and the like. In fact, NOT to do that would be poor marketing.

 

[v9designbuild]

I wish...

Many, many times a post has been rejected on the basis that "web design bangkok" is seen as spam. Not all, of course, but it is a common rejection.

 

[djbaxter]

But what is being rejected is not "web marketing" but "Bangkok". Sadly, geopolitical filtering has become a requirement for many webmasters today because of the sheer volume of spam.

 

[v9designbuild]

That is very useful information. Thank you. I will bear that in mind and give it a go. Cheers.