Home – New Forums Tech talk Penguin 2.0 – coming soon

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #983170
    NickMorris
    Participant
    • Total posts: 283
    Up
    0
    ::

    Matt Cutts talks about the coming Penguin 2.0 update.

    http://youtu.be/xQmQeKU25zg

    #1140928
    markn
    Member
    • Total posts: 103
    Up
    0
    ::
    NickMorris, post: 160992 wrote:
    Matt Cutts talks about the coming Penguin 2.0 update.

    http://youtu.be/xQmQeKU25zg

    I believe Penguin is aimed at de-ranking websites who aim to manipulate the Google rankings by participating in link schemes, content cloaking and keyword stuffing, and other so called “black-hat” techniques. Is this correct? Is there anything you can suggest that the average webmaster should look out for in their own website to minimise the chances they get hit by this update?

    #1140929
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591
    Up
    0
    ::

    Put simply, all these updates are getting quite repetitive and basically reveal nothing new under the sun. Quality content! What is new about that strategy?

    Lets look at the facts since Google became what it is today:

    1 Google became so popular as it has always delivered the most relevant search results and had a very memorable name. By the way, I never heard the general public complaining about Spammy results on Google. I wonder who came up with that accusation! Mmmm…

    2 Then they introduced their Page Rank indicator which was the main culprit for sending the Internet world into a frenzy to accumulate as many back links as possible to rank on page one. I wonder who caused the back-link debacle! Mmmm…

    3 After creating all this “so-called mess” throughout the Internet World, the only solution was to penalise everyone, even though the general public were still receiving relevant search results to their full satisfaction.

    Makes you wonder :D

    In saying that, they are very clever indeed and find the Google machine very fascinating.

    #1140930
    JohnW
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,642
    Up
    0
    ::

    I believe in 2003 Google implemented its first crack down on link building schemes.

    It called that one, “Cassandra”. G has caned some link building scheme about every 2 years ever since. There is nothing really new about Penguin. It is just the latest in a long line of similarly intended algo upgrades.

    The only ones complaining and hurt badly are the people who have chosen to ignore Google’s admonition “don’t try to manipulate links”.
    Regs,
    JohnW

    #1140931
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591
    Up
    0
    ::
    JohnW, post: 161102 wrote:
    The only ones complaining and hurt badly are the people who have chosen to ignore Google’s admonition “don’t try to manipulate links”.

    John,

    I’m thinking, my prediction of Google eventually ignoring all type of links, whether good or bad, is finally coming to fruition. The fact they are placing heavy emphasis on authority and expertise in a particular field, and I’m not talking about your link profile, leads me to believe, that social interaction will be the number one determining factor in ranking.

    Makes perfect sense!

    Perfect example, the Flying Solo site with numerous members and heavy social interaction. I wouldn’t be surprised if their primary factor in ranking sites will be how many members/followers and social interaction a particular site has on a daily basis, and totally over-looking their link profile.

    Which is a very good thing and will benefit everyone online!

    #1140932
    JohnW
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,642
    Up
    0
    ::

    Hi Cesar,
    IMHO, Google is a long way from this.

    Google has to live within its severely constrained technical limitations.

    In terms of reading and ranking files, Google is very far behind the technical times. It has limited ability to read JavaScript and Flash. When reading PDFs, Excel, Word, txt docs and PDF files it has very limited ranking capabilities and it can’t read old HTML functions like image maps and frames. Throw in all the videos and images on the web and Google has huge areas of search incompetence.

    When we get to social media, these and other limitations mean it can’t read many elements of social media pages.

    I expect what is giving Google (and others) grief is trying to work out what, if any relevance social media may bring to information retrieval searches.

    What people want from information is:

    • Relevancy
    • Accuracy
    • Currency
    • Accessibility
    • Format usabilty

    Social media makes no contribution to any of these parameters.

    Many social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are not about providing information, they are about providing entertainment. The parameters you mention are not going to contribute to the relevance of the information. I can’t see how, in their current format any of them provide useful ranking predictions.
    Regs,
    JohnW

    #1140933
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591
    Up
    0
    ::
    JohnW, post: 161123 wrote:
    Many social media sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are not about providing information, they are about providing entertainment. The parameters you mention are not going to contribute to the relevance of the information. I can’t see how, in their current format any of them provide useful ranking predictions.

    John,

    I wasn’t referring to Twitter or FB, but more so to sites such as FS where threads and posts are getting indexed by the SE’s. It’s this type of interaction on a daily basis that I’m confident Google will use to determine social interaction and authority. There aren’t many links left for websites to rank with, that is a fact, except for the ones you are supposed to wait for watching the grass grow.

    #1140934
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,463
    Up
    0
    ::

    Focus in quality content, job done.

    #1140935
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591
    Up
    0
    ::
    Zava Design, post: 161141 wrote:
    Focus in quality content, job done.

    Zava,

    There were numerous sites with excellent unique content and who played by the rules all along, yet got penalised. So, it’s not as easy as that, but it will be interesting to see what’s up ahead.

    The reality is, the less emphasis is placed on links and more so on social interaction as with this site, the quality of search will only get better. By the way, I’m all for quality content, not back-linking.

    I’m looking forward, for the day when Google devalues all types of link building strategies. A sure way to clean up the Internet.

    #1140936
    NickMorris
    Participant
    • Total posts: 283
    Up
    0
    ::
    Cesar, post: 161131 wrote:
    I wasn’t referring to Twitter or FB, but more so to sites such as FS where threads and posts are getting indexed by the SE’s. It’s this type of interaction on a daily basis that I’m confident Google will use to determine social interaction and authority.

    Sites like FS only make up a very small percentage of all websites so other sites will have to be judged on different criteria.

    It will be interesting to see how social signals end up being incorporated into the search engine algorithms, especially now that Google has their own social network to draw data from.

    It seems the direction that Google is heading at the moment is looking at the authority of individual authors using a combination of link and social signals. Also personalised search using social information.

    I don’t think we’re going to see Google abandon 15 years of development in link based algorithms and jump ship to purely social signals anytime soon. As far as I can tell, social signals suffer from many of the same problems that link signals do without many benefits beyond the fact that there is more data.

    #1140937
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591
    Up
    0
    ::
    NickMorris, post: 161261 wrote:
    Sites like FS only make up a very small percentage of all websites so other sites will have to be judged on different criteria.

    It will be interesting to see how social signals end up being incorporated into the search engine algorithms, especially now that Google has their own social network to draw data from.

    It seems the direction that Google is heading at the moment is looking at the authority of individual authors using a combination of link and social signals. Also personalised search using social information.

    I don’t think we’re going to see Google abandon 15 years of development in link based algorithms and jump ship to purely social signals anytime soon. As far as I can tell, social signals suffer from many of the same problems that link signals do without many benefits beyond the fact that there is more data.

    Totally agree with you there Nick, but Google has the manipulative power to change the direction of how webmasters interact online. So, if Google starts ranking sites on member/social interaction, they will follow. The fact that Google is diminishing emphasis on links, and let’s be realistic here, all links can be manipulated, shows they have a broader agenda in social interaction signals.

    It would not surprise if Penguin2.0 is heading in this direction by seeking how followers/members of a site, and I’m not talking about FB or Twitter followers, interact with that site on a daily basis.

    #1140938
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,463
    Up
    0
    ::
    Cesar, post: 161258 wrote:
    Zava,

    There were numerous sites with excellent unique content and who played by the rules all along, yet got penalised. So, it’s not as easy as that, but it will be interesting to see what’s up ahead.
    I’d like to see examples. I’ve had little issues with my sites that had good quality content and didn’t rely on backlinking so much (did a lot of experiments over the past couple of years with keyword research, content, backlinks, adsense advertising …etc). Not saying you’re wrong, just seems that more and more “content is king”.

    The reality is, the less emphasis is placed on links and more so on social interaction as with this site, the quality of search will only get better. By the way, I’m all for quality content, not back-linking.

    Funny, I championed the idea of social media interaction with regards to helping SEO not too long ago, and was blasted from all sides by many SEO “experts” on this forum…

    #1140939
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591
    Up
    0
    ::
    Zava Design, post: 161270 wrote:
    I’d like to see examples. I’ve had little issues with my sites that had good quality content and didn’t rely on backlinking so much (did a lot of experiments over the past couple of years with keyword research, content, backlinks, adsense advertising …etc). Not saying you’re wrong, just seems that more and more “content is king”.

    Content has always been king Zava, problem was, too many Internet Marketing individuals got lost thinking only about link-building and not about the content.

    Zava Design, post: 161270 wrote:
    Funny, I championed the idea of social media interaction with regards to helping SEO not too long ago, and was blasted from all sides by many SEO “experts” on this forum…

    In various threads of mine, I have been saying all along that Google is diminishing the value of links. They know too well that all links can be manipulated. I’ve noticed lately everyone is into Info-Graphics, Wonder Why!

    #1140940
    JohnW
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,642
    Up
    0
    ::
    Cesar, post: 161131 wrote:
    I wasn’t referring to Twitter or FB, but more so to sites such as FS where threads and posts are getting indexed by the SE’s. It’s this type of interaction on a daily basis that I’m confident Google will use to determine social interaction and authority.
    Hi Cesar,
    Google says it is already using social media to assess when it should elevate the “freshness” component of its ranking algorithm.

    Open forums are repositories of public opinion. They are therefore among the worst places to look for accurate information.

    Eg:

    Cesar, post: 161131 wrote:
    There aren’t many links left for websites to rank with, that is a fact…
    With respect, your statement is opinion, not fact. My opinion is that the vast majority of the trillions of links on the web are natural and that G is still using most of them when applying a link value component in its ranking algorithm.

    Have you watched the video referenced by Nick?

    Cutts talks a lot about hypertext links changes and how G may value them and detect/eliminate low quality ones in the near future. Nowhere in it do I get a sense that link importance is being reduced in the algorithm. I suggest the opposite is more likely. G is so concerned with protecting its link ranking algorithm that it is making even greater efforts to protect it from link manipulation.

    Cesar, post: 161131 wrote:
    I’m thinking, my prediction of Google eventually ignoring all type of links, whether good or bad, is finally coming to fruition.
    People have been making this same prediction for over 10 years now…

    May 2003: PageRank is Dead

    “PageRank is old. In Internet time, PageRank may have been well into middle age.

    Its death hasn’t been announced yet, but the time is near. The signs have been around for quite a while.”

    Do you think the announcement of the death of G’s link ranking algorithm might be a little premature?

    PS: How might this link from FS to a 2003 web page make the linked page more “valuable”, “accurate” or “authoritarian” to searchers?:)
    Best regs,
    JohnW

    #1140941
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591
    Up
    0
    ::
    JohnW, post: 161123 wrote:
    Hi Cesar,
    IMHO, Google is a long way from this.

    Google has to live within its severely constrained technical limitations.

    In terms of reading and ranking files, Google is very far behind the technical times. It has limited ability to read JavaScript and Flash. When reading PDFs, Excel, Word, txt docs and PDF files it has very limited ranking capabilities and it can’t read old HTML functions like image maps and frames. Throw in all the videos and images on the web and Google has huge areas of search incompetence.

    John, it seems on various statements you contradict your stance. One minute you are saying Google is incompetent and links are useless, next minute you are saying Google is the best and you can’t do without links.

    Please verify which side of the fence you are on please. ;

    I’ll repeat again:

    Excerpt from Top Rank Blog:

    “It’s a scenario that’s far too typical in the SEO world. An awesome new tactic is discovered, word gets out, and it gets done to death, resulting in it not working anymore (sorry, but it’s true).”

    Google is doing a great job indeed.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.