Google Farmer Update: Quest for Quality

Johannes Beus
During this week, Google announced a significant algorithm-update which aims to increase quality in Google�s search results. Domains containing low-quality content are supposed to be found less often, high-quality pages are to achieve better rankings. At the moment this update is active in the US-Index, more countries are about to follow.

Quickly named an �Anti-Demand-Media�-Update, I couldn�t find any real data proving this claim. I�d like to change this with this posting: Based on a dataset of one million keywords, which were checked before the update and yesterday I can determine the biggest loser of this algorithm-change. The SISTRIX VisibilityIndex is an index value calculated from traffic on keywords, ranking and click-through rate on specific positions. Let�s start with a list of the 25 biggest losers:

#DomainChangeSISTRIX (before)SISTRIX (after)# KWs (before)# KWs (after)
1wisegeek.com-77%121,5828,2274.02421.940
2ezinearticles.com-90%65,086,65184.50854.277
3suite101.com-94%54,043,28178.37336.904
4hubpages.com-87%55,167,40152.99850.178
5buzzle.com-85%43,256,5586.47224.423
6associatedcontent.com-93%38,292,57216.42953.512
7freedownloadscenter.com-90%30,263,0142.4867.992
8essortment.com-91%25,732,3227.5017.459
9fixya.com-80%28,785,8362.03436.167
10americantowns.com-91%24,882,1826.0009.799
11lovetoknow.com-83%25,754,2849.54417.833
12articlesbase.com-94%19,961,1682.27431.365
13howtodothings.com-84%21,203,3933.2227.601
14mahalo.com-84%20,493,2333.8759.740
15business.com-93%17,241,1321.5564.813
16doityourself.com-77%20,894,9023.2566.870
17merchantcircle.com-85%18,432,6793.34734.681
18thefind.com-83%18,953,2774.50645.495
19findarticles.com-90%16,981,7464.81020.189
20faqs.org-91%16,521,4633.64811.142
21tradekey.com-89%16,831,7937.36416.268
22answerbag.com-91%12,931,1167.31426.054
23trails.com-87%12,051,6238.3468.511
24examiner.com-79%10,542,1970.78131.272
25allbusiness.com-88%8,861,0816.4576.034

The table shows the domain, percentage loss, SISTRIX before and after the update as well as the number of keywords found from the one million dataset for this domain before and after the algorithm-change. It is sorted by the biggest absolut loss in SISTRIX VisibilityIndex. Comparing these results with the announcement from Google, they seem to have reached their goal: a whole lot of low-quality domains lost significant visibility in the US Google-SERPs.

Let�s see in detail what Google did to the affected domains. The first conclusion is quite straightforward: the number of keywords these domains are ranking for dropped dramatically. Looking at mahalo.com as an example, it went from 33,875 keywords before the update to just 9,740 keywords after the update went public � a decrease of more than 70%. These were keywords like �zealand air� (3), �digg� (8) or �tax check� (4) where the domain fell out of the top 100 results. The second outcome deals with the remaining keywords. Here is a chart on which Google result page the keywords of mahalo.com were to be found before and after the algorithm-update:


It�s eye-catching that mahalo.com did not only lose more than 70% of their keywords � the remaining keywords are also ranking much worse than before. More than two third of all keywords for this domain could be found on result page 8, 9 and 10. That�s the reason the SISTRIX value fell even more than the raw count of found keywords.

And how about Demand Media? Well, there is no sign that Google tried to downrank ehow.com. Ehow.com even gained SISTRIX value (from 270 to 310) and Keywords (from 317,320 to 324,021) during the algorithm-change. Looking at the SERP-Distribution chart from above for ehow.com, you�ll notice the difference. Quite a statement from Google regarding the quality of Demand Medias� content, isn�t it? If you are interested in a full list of 100 Domains suffering from this update, please drop me a short notice.

Johannes Beus

Johannes Beus, Founder and CEO of SISTRIX, has been interested in the optimisation of websites for searchengines since 2001. In 2003 he started to regularly publish summaries of his evaluations and share his thoughts on the SEO-sector on one of the oldest German SEO-blogs.
Johannes Beus - on Sat (02/26/2011) at 12:07 PM

Comments & Trackbacks


Kevin Jamison
1
Kevin Jamison
02/26/2011 at 20:53
Demand Media content is not on that list because Demand Media is not a content farm. I am glad Google understands the value of professionally-researched and well-written content. The DM critics are uninformed gossipers, many of whom haven't actually seen any DM material.

James Brauer
2
02/26/2011 at 21:11
This post is the first I have seen that actually includes information citing the impact on "content farms" after the algorithm changes.

Honestly, I'm glad there was a major change by Google. I get tired of seeing the same "content farms" with overally-high rankings, which serve only one REAL purpose--keep internet marketers and affiliate marketers employed.

Kudos to the changes. But like many Google changes in the past, marketers will soon "discover" the new algorithm and employ immediate changes to "beat" Google at their own game. Google will change the rules again. And the entire cycle repeats itself. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

Kyle Claypool / Optima Worldwide
3
02/26/2011 at 21:56
Good riddance! I was glad to see that release from Google announcing the smackdown on content farms this week. I hope they'll continue to aggressively target these low-quality sites and clean up the rankings. And I say this as someone who works in the SEO industry!

Iria
4
Iria
02/26/2011 at 22:16
Hey, Kevin, Trails.com is on the list. That's Demand Media, isn't it?

Ryan Critchett
5
02/26/2011 at 22:27
Great post. Danny just posted a similar post about some of these websites on SEland.

This is great. Your title says it all, "quest for quality." A lot of us seen this coming?

Great post.

Michelle
6
02/26/2011 at 22:35
Great Info. Excited to see the changes, I want the web to be more relevant for me and for the folks searching, too. Looking forward to the top 100 list from you. THANKS!

Gary Anderson
7
02/26/2011 at 23:17
My daughter tried Demand Media. While it is not a content farm, it is a sweatshop and requires that people write in an unnatural manner. I suggest that Demand Media has no soul.

And neither does Google if Demand can so impact them.

Oh, and read my content and you will see this is wrong!

jon
8
jon
02/26/2011 at 23:23
Wait a second - the change punished all of these sites but not eHow? That's arguably the worst offender of all!

Josh Evans
9
Josh Evans
02/26/2011 at 23:29
I'm glad to see Examiner.com on the list.Their site is horrible and spam infested.There are a lot of fake articles being published and a lot of articles with just keywords to make more hits. They claim 40,000 writers on their staff no wonder this is the top content farm on the internet. I'm surprised they are even indexed by Google. Sites like Examiner.com have give the SEO industry two black eyes.

Larry
10
Larry
02/26/2011 at 23:32
I wonder if the numbers listed here are an accurate characterization of the drop.

Are they comparing a low traffic day (after the Google change) to a high traffic day (before the Google change)?

If that's the case, the actual drop may be closer to 50% than 80%. That's still very significant but not as high as currently listed.

Also, I wonder if the fact that ehow isn't listed indicates that there are simple ways to work around the change, that perhaps ehow got wind of before the change. If that's the case, isn't possible the numbers will readjust over the next few months?

I would believe that this was less of a possibility if I saw ehow.com and answers.com on the list.

-Larry

Aaron Walton
11
Aaron Walton
02/26/2011 at 23:38
What a relief all these garbage sites are finally getting what they deserve. That americantowns piece of junk was a blatant content farm that competed directly with websites I put a lot of hard work into. I am surprised to see Trails.com on that list though.

Leslie
12
Leslie
02/26/2011 at 23:54
Demand Media content is most certainly on that list. Trails.com and answerbag.com are both loaded with DM content.

But that isn't enough. Ehow needs to be taken down. I can't tell you how sick I am of that site being at the top whenever I search and the authoritative sites I am actually searching for get pushed down because of them.

Until Google does something about eHow.com and about.com their search engine will continue to spew garbage results as far as I am concerned. Those are the two worst offenders of them all. The dreck on those sites is disgusting.

Carole Wozny
13
02/27/2011 at 00:08
I'm so glad to see these content farms getting the rankings they deserve. It's a horrible feeling to have spent hours of research time to write a quality article only to have a "writer" on examiner.com steal it word for word.

Gary Anderson
14
02/27/2011 at 00:15
I like About. I have learned things there. Ehow is owned by Demand Media. But my understanding is the old Ehow is different than the new Ehow that is centered on long tail and a very unnatural writing style.

Arnie
15
02/27/2011 at 00:19
Excellent information. I am a bit surprised to see MerchantCircle and Business.com in the top 25, but I can see the logic. However, I have never been to eHow and actually learned anything. Can't fathom how they came through this unscathed. Now if Google can just wipe out the scraper sites, that would be awesome.

Phil
16
Phil
02/27/2011 at 00:56
I am totally confused as to what a content farm is. It would be great if Google can clarify what they are looking but I don't think they can answer that.

Much of the stuff I have encountered on about.com is really useful and is top quality. As for ehow, there has been thing I have come across their site that was of use. But this situation is not in the majority. The content on ehow does not always fully provide the answers to the questions and is a little very thin.

As for Ezine Article, they fully deserve what they got. Really should have pulled their finger out and done something a couple of years back. On their site, there appears to be a lot of short articles which are effectively about sales promotion and not of help to the reader. And I won't even go into their ad placements where the site is heavily loaded with ads. Perhaps they knew what was coming and did everything to drink up the Google Adsense juice.

Sherry
17
Sherry
02/27/2011 at 01:17
Now if Google news alerts would just filter out the tabloid reports it sends me so I can get credible reports from credible newspapers, such as LAT, NYT, WSJ and so on. That would make me happy.

Sherry
18
Sherry
02/27/2011 at 01:23
Phil, I didn't see about.com on the list of 25...but then it's owned by the New York Times. Interesting.

Mark Knowles
19
02/27/2011 at 02:42
Johannes,

Great article, thanks. Did you see patterns in the winners? (i.e. domains that filled the void)

Kyle
20
02/27/2011 at 02:52
How come squidoo is not in the list??? They should include squidoo in there too, many spammers and scraper sites dump their content in there.

raymund
21
02/27/2011 at 03:08
Content with quality is king!

Internet Marketing
22
02/27/2011 at 03:25
So where is the list of winners?

The whole internet and every bum marketer and their mama is whining about how much was lost. But a list of the winners would be more constructive, IMHO.

What about all the other so called "web 2.0" properties which are not really "article sites". I would be very interested in those stats. SEO is all about adaption, by the way. So stop crying and change your strategies. This is a good change IMO. Kudos to Google, did something right for a change.

tony
23
tony
02/27/2011 at 03:30
These mateur comments like go google go! are funny. What sites took the spots of eza, squidoo etc? Spammy web1. And your statements like squidoo is a dump, etc sounds like: all black people are dumb. you cant put a lable like that cuz there are a lot of legitimate lenses on squidoo and a lot of great articles on eza. fools.

don
24
02/27/2011 at 04:06
Great analysis, will be interesting to see where things stand one month from now, at first glance it appear the cleansing is pretty solid, but my experience with algo changes is there is a lot of fluctuation in the first week or so, so lets see if these results hold true at the end of march

Kenneth J.
25
Kenneth J.
02/27/2011 at 04:15
Google is targeting sites like Associated Content because Associated Content is owned by Yahoo and Google wants to shut Yahoo down. Associated Content has also recently taken most of its Google AdSense ads of its site and that's why Google is going after it.

Google is a monopoly that's censoring what you see on the internet. With this new 'algorithm' Google is now favoring sites like Demand Media (eHow) because Demand only shows Google AdSense ads and Google would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars if they targeted Demand Media. What Google is doing should be against the law like all monopolies are.

Many people I know are boycotting Google because of this and only using Yahoo or Bing instead.

Don't forget too all these so-called 'content mills' hire writers who, otherwise, in today's terrible economy may not be able to pay their bills, and most of these writers create interesting articles with valid information that's read by hundreds of millions of people a year.

Google just went after the 'little guy' with their targeting Yahoo's Associated Content and is now wiping out the income of lots and lots of independent writers.

If you think Google is doing this to stop bad quality information on the internet you need your head examining. Google benefits Google and nobody else. It couldn't give a sh*t about bad quality on the internet, not if its making money from Google AdSense from them.

Brett Relander
26
02/27/2011 at 04:36
Great post! Thanks for sharing all the data. It's going to be very interesting to see how this all shakes out. If the PR of these sites becomes low enough it will no longer be advantageous to post articles as it could negatively affect the creators SEO. Looking forward to seeing how the sites respond.

@BrettRelander

Jerry Utterback
27
Jerry Utterback
02/27/2011 at 05:21
I couldn't help but notice that Allvoices.com didn't make the list, but it is such a global content farm and copy/paste outfit that it may have been so far in the gutter that it didn't show up on the radar.

The concept is a "global voice", where anyone can sign up and start publishing crap-content right away. There is no application process and editorial oversight, so it is very common to see copyright violations.

Paul
28
02/27/2011 at 05:21
The only thing I'd add is that Google has a vested interest in providing high-quality search results. Not for some altruistic reason, but rather because Google is a for-profit entity. If Google doesn't provide the quality of content that its users expect it loses share of search which means less money.

Obviously I don't have any insight into the algorithm to suggest whether or not they took specific aim at Yahoo! or other sites; won't even comment on that for that reason.

I will applaud Google, though, for what they did - I'm a Google user and I appreciate the attention to improving the quality of the results I get.

frankfreddy
29
02/27/2011 at 07:32
let's see what will happen next. i don't think it will effect too much to a famous site.

Dan
30
Dan
02/27/2011 at 08:02
What about that sewer Quora? It should have gone down 300%.

Steve
31
02/27/2011 at 08:48
Kenneth J may be onto something!

The next question...is the linkjuice previously given to backlinks from these sites been devalued in anyway? If a website owner used ezine articles and buzzle to distribute content and build backlinks how has their juice been affected?

Andy Walpole
32
02/27/2011 at 11:06
God I hope experts-exchange.com has been hit hard. How I loathe that search dead end.

Andy Walpole
33
02/27/2011 at 11:08
I would also be interesting to know whether Google will be deindexing pages from these sites.

James Peterson
34
James Peterson
02/27/2011 at 11:18
"Demand Media content is not on that list because Demand Media is not a content farm."...isn't answerbag.com a DM destination?

James Peterson
35
James Peterson
02/27/2011 at 11:20
...same for trails.com???

So, Kevin Jamison's quote is not correct

Fahmi Raazali
36
02/27/2011 at 11:25
I new to SEO, the change does not concert me much :-)

Michael Freitag
37
02/27/2011 at 11:58
Amazing Analyse :-)

Alex
38
Alex
02/27/2011 at 12:00
I'm surprised Wisegeek was so badly hit for two reasons:

1. I happen to know the quality control is VERY strict, and most of the articles (which are based around questions) provide what the searcher is looking for.
2. They make all their money from adsense, so the argument google is letting DM get off scot free because of the revenue it generates can't be true.

On the other hand, WG lives almost entirely off the authority of the domain. Most pages get very little in the way of deep links - probably because of how ugly and ad filled the site is, even though the actual content isn't bad.

And to echo what others have said, if there was one site I'd like to have seen hit it's Ehow. I've no idea how it managed to get away with this one...

Ralf Schwoebel
39
02/27/2011 at 12:51
The problem is, that eCommerce offers like ours also took a hit. Not as big as the aggregators/rewriters you list, but still - even a 15% drop in revenue is not funny.

Markus Bauer
40
02/27/2011 at 13:58
@Kevin Jamison: Google is definetly not able to "understand the value of professionally-researched and well-written content" in an algorithmical way, but they are able to read the signs (respectively interpret the signals) indicating the opposite. Let's wait and see, how happy users really are with the search results filling the gap left by "content farms" (= the winners of the change) and Google's reaction on the new usage data. The process of updating the algorithm is an ongoing one.

Michel
41
Michel
02/27/2011 at 16:01
@Andy and others to come. Regardless how much you might hate Experts Exchange - it is not a content farm. If you once bothered to read some of their free articles or just scroll down to see an answer, you would see that the paywall, annoying as it is, is just another way to earn a buck. If you are a participating expert (free signup) or a paying member, you will see ad-free content. I am NOT employed by EE, but have been an expert there since 1998.

Andrew
42
Andrew
02/27/2011 at 16:36
Frankly, I don't really understand why sites like AssociatedContent, which actually provide useful content sometimes, lost so much, while total junk like eHow or Yahoo answers didn't?

Randolf Jorberg
43
02/27/2011 at 16:48
eHow.com not hit by Google update? True
Demand media not hit? Not true:
answerbag.com, trails.com and livestrong.com were badly hit by the current update and I'm 100% sure that ehow.com was only saved from (google rank) elimination to avoid the 'evil google destroys businesses and manipulates companies that just went public' discussion. But there will be a slow death to ehow.com just as well...

Peter Masters (MCIM)
44
02/27/2011 at 17:14
I find this both a little bizarre and very unfortunate the day after I joined ezinearticles! Ha! Great articles though! I recently has a number of 'spam' blogs syndicating my Construction marketing posts and I wasn't too sure if they were all spam or not. My links went down and then stayed the same for about a week? I've removed them all now, do you think my links will start to improve again? Would be great if someone could advise me. Thank you!

Jackson
45
Jackson
02/27/2011 at 17:47
@Peter Masters

Are you lost? This article is about Google's algo change. There must be a help board somewhere for you.

Freaking hijackers.

Humagaia
46
02/27/2011 at 19:04
I write at Hubpages. Thier interface is very easy to use. Their monetization with adsense and Amazon are not too oppressive. This leaves me to undertake the research to construct useful content (in my view). There are many others at Hubpages that do the same. Now, you might think that I would bleat that this change is bad because it negatively impacts me and my earnings. You would be wrong. Although my stats show a decrease in views this has only been to the position they were before a sudden increase a week ago.
My serps have been impacted but I believe that to be due to the influence that HP had on giving them a boost due to GoogleLove for HP. I believe in a level playing field for all in being able to present quality content that answers the questions that searchers have.
Two things here:
1. I take exception to rubbish being presented as the most appropriate answer to a question
2. It is not the fault of the writer if Google determines that their content is the best for the question being asked.
Google is the culprit in presenting irrelevant websites / articles for any particular search. Stop blaming the so-called 'farms' and focus on what the real problem is. If you are not receiving the most appropriate returns for your query find a search engine that gives more appropriate results.
This Google also change is smoke and mirrors - they know they are losing the battles to give searchers what they want and they are placing the blame on others rather than themselves.

Ellen B.
47
02/27/2011 at 19:18
Kyle: It may be because Squidoo has a standing policy of removing copied content. The automatic filters don't always catch it, but members take a proactive stance in looking for and reporting it to HQ. When found, it's taken down. (If you discover any yourself, please use the "Report Abuse" button at the bottom of the offending page.) Squidoo also has a ranking system that pays and encourages pages based on conversion (i.e. reader participation). Unfortunately, anything can show up in search results if a monkey knows how to SEO, sometimes pushing aside genuinely good content written by people who don't know or won't use SEO. Hopefully this Google update will help those pages show up more often.

So far, I haven't seen a dip in traffic on my Squidoo articles, since I write original content and use SEO with gritted teeth. In fact, traffic has gone up, although two days does not a sample size make. I've seen concern but only one report of drop-off among other members. Alexa's not really showing much change, although I notice one interesting data point: significantly lower bounce rate on Squidoo than on the other sites mentioned. As it should be, but I wonder if that is a factor Google is using. I'd love to see one of the stat gurus do a comparison of bounce rate and traffic changes that appear to stem from the Farmer update.

Tony: a tip. Proofreading and good English matter, especially when you're trying to persuade a skeptic that you know how to write quality content. ;)

Gail Gardner
48
02/27/2011 at 19:46
There are two other obvious types of sites that are in the lists of the top 100 affected: competitors to Google Maps such as Merchant Circle, InsiderPages and Manta and competitors to Google Shopping such as TheFind, ShopWiki, BizRate, Shopping.com, Bazzillions and others.

When Google pushes these types of sites - which feature many times more small businesses than Google does - off the first page, they greatly reduce our choices.

I wrote a post with screen captures with an example of how this is done and what the outcome is. That post is linked to this comment.

Ken
49
02/27/2011 at 20:35
Google is going after the content farms but in the end it is the low-quality aspect of the content farms. Someone said that it is only a matter of time before the marketers figure out another way to play the system. That is correct, but the ones that are going to see true and continual success are those that are using original quality content across the board including backlinking content. Do that, and the Google changes have little effect. Do that and you are offering more than just keywords to the reader.

So Google makes changes, they do it all the time. Freelance web content writers simply need to step up their personal quality bar regardless if they are writing for content farms, their own sites or articles for marketers.

webguy
50
webguy
02/27/2011 at 22:11
Ehow has some of the worst content ive ever seen. Along with that each page is so thin on information and they got no hit. This is sickening!

rob woods
51
02/27/2011 at 22:23
I have to agree with webguy. Whatever eHow did to avoid this update was brilliant because their content is by and large utter crap. I can see many of the changes in the algo as on only the US algo was updated and not the one used for the rest of the world. Searching from Canada I can still see tons of crap Suite101, Mahalo, Hubpages, etc. content. I tried the sample query "How to catch a fish" and the eHow result that didn't get slapped is just as bad as the rest. eg. find a place to fish, bait your hook, when something bites reel it in and hot it on the head. If Google can tweak the algo to catch the eHow crap as well this update will be a lot better. One caveat in all this though is the update seems to have allowed a bunch more crappy MFA sites to move up to inhabit the spaces vacated by the farms. I can hear affiliate marketers licking their chops now...

Gail Gardner
52
02/28/2011 at 00:36
How do we know eHow did anything? Maybe Google just likes them? If you're correct and it moved MFA sites up, Google would be making even more money.

Rod
53
Rod
02/28/2011 at 01:38
This algo update is not living up to its headline.
Content farms down, and quality sites up, MY FOOT! I see more of the exact opposite, where original, quality content took a big hit, while more spammy sites remained, or floated to the top.
Makes sense though -- a searcher finding the answer in a quality site leaves. After wasting time on a spammy site, the searcher is more likely to click on an Adsense ad if nothing but for frustration. Google doesn't grow from quality search, but paid clicks.

50over50k
54
50over50k
02/28/2011 at 01:43
Yeah, people are over on the Associated Content forums talking about their lower pageviews.

Let me see what the Examiner forums are saying...yes, there's a little bit of the Google "content farm" chatter, too.

Ah well, thank God I'm learning new ways of making money online -- and that there is still quality content out there on the web that I'm making money from.

Not all of our keywords fell that far.

CD rates
55
CD rates
02/28/2011 at 02:37
It seems there is a big story to be written about all the very small web sites that were effected in this update. When you look at Aaron Wall's list of winners, you see several sites that post product detail content. This product detail content is "scraped" by many small auto-content type sites. All those $200 auto-generated, instant setup type web sites seem to have been moved down in a big way.

Karim
56
02/28/2011 at 10:08
Fahmi Raazali - Homepage - 27.02.2011 11:25
I new to SEO, the change does not concert me much :-)

Michael Freitag - Homepage - 27.02.2011 11:58
Amazing Analyse :-)


Me: Analysis worthy of ehow no doubt

Lloyd Maines
57
02/28/2011 at 10:41
Great analysis - looking forward to seeing what effects we'll see in the UK. I just hope that Google has chosen the right signals and that this isn't another attack on the smaller brands out there.

Jane Copland
58
02/28/2011 at 12:07
Thanks for putting this data together, Johannes. Frustratingly, I'm still getting howtodothings.com ranking for a couple of queries where they really shouldn't, which I'm sure is essentially coincidental.

Via Aaron's post this morning, I came across http://thecontentfarm.tumblr.com/. Some light amusement for a Monday morning :)

Amb
59
Amb
02/28/2011 at 13:09
Thanks for the thorough analysis.
How do you think it will affect price comparison websites? What about blogs or forums? Do you think it will be implemented in a similar way in Europe and other regions?

Morris Rosenthal
60
02/28/2011 at 15:37
Interesting analysis. It looks to me like downgrading article farms was the main improvement. eHow with its "unique" content, thin rewrites of other peoples content broken into steps, benefits from not being copied all over the web, since it's not worth anything:-)

My own site, which is all original content but which is copied all over the web, took a big hit in the algo upgrade. I've only got a few hundred pages which took some ten years to produce since it's chapters from my books or potential book projects, and I'm down about 50% on Google search. That's despite have all sorts of quality, strictly organic links. Apparently, they can't tell the originators from theives with duplicate content.

I also noticed this morning that piracy sites which Google used to keep out of the top 10 on book title searches have been promoted. A search on my most popular title (with pirates), The Laptop Repair Workbook, now brings up a Filestube listing with 25 pirate sites for download. Before the update, that wouldn't have made the first page.

Morris

Rohit
61
02/28/2011 at 15:47
The mainly effected sites are how-to sites which have too many posts in their domain. There are some genuine sites too in that list which produce original content.

Hans Braumueller
62
02/28/2011 at 17:15
Hi Johannes,

thank you very much for your information. The general public opinion thinks that it is a Google shift to more "quality content". I am not really sure, if the search brings more quality because some spam disappears at the top level. Google nowadays is a marketing engine, so the big business will get always on top. I do not think that the good image of Google will be for ever. The question may be: What results do not appear?

Dona
63
02/28/2011 at 18:14
Awesome action by google, I suppose to work harder now to get my site ranked.

And same opinion like others before, I thought mr. G should treat ehow more strictly, because there are a lot of very common content there, there is just some that really2 unique content.

wwaoc
64
02/28/2011 at 18:26
Thank you information good

JimF
65
02/28/2011 at 19:17
My website has lost tons of traffic in this algorithm change. Yet it is nonprofit, I am considered an expert in my niche, all the content is entirely original and written by me, and it gets 100K unique visitors a month. I'm at a loss to explain how my SERPs (and traffic) have dropped in this algo change.

Jessica Nunemaker
66
02/28/2011 at 19:33
This is great news!

I'm excited to see an actual chart--it's interesting to see what sites made the top 25. I, for one, won't miss seeing any of those on Page 1!

LF
67
LF
02/28/2011 at 19:46
Still not working for other sites. Try "minimalist interior decorating". Most results are content farms and useless... Google should give us a "report content farm" button!

Outsider
68
Outsider
02/28/2011 at 22:17
I just searched several keywords in Google. I observed the following trend.

1. eHow article
2. Answers.com questions
3. Wikipedia articles
4. Sites with scrapped content
5. Sites with just a title and an h1 tags (very little content, some times no content)

I really don't care about the first three, but last two are really bad. This is not an improvement.

Hopefully they will write a book called "Bad to Worse" soon.

Tony Payne
69
02/28/2011 at 23:11
I haven't been able to get a clear picture yet as to how much traffic I have lost on Associated Content and Squidoo, but obviously a lot of people are hurting right now.

Let's hope that the changes sort themselves out in the end.

Amy
70
Amy
03/01/2011 at 00:21
I feel really bad for all the people who were making their livings with sites like HubPages and Suite101. Some of them actually made very high quality content. Others, not so much. It's a shame the whole domains got penalized for the actions of some. I've been extremely pleased with some hubs on HubPages. In general, most hubs are better than the crap at eHow.

Michael Miracle
71
03/01/2011 at 01:02
Google said the change targeted 'low-quality' content, which sounds to me like a pseudonym for 'duplicate-content'.

This makes sense, considering Google has been battling duplicate content for so long.

Geoff
72
03/01/2011 at 01:15
I've dumped crap content on sites like ezine articles to get some "noise" in backlink profiles but let's be honest, when I am actively searching for my own at need searches I never click on any of the sites listed above... good job Google has dumped them... saves me going through to page 2 :)

Iglow
73
03/01/2011 at 01:55
around 2-3 weeks ago there was also algo update that did a bit of changes but this one totally killed alot of whitehat sites when the 'wizard' choosen wrong who was the first who had the content not stole it fro msomebody else.

Livius
74
03/01/2011 at 02:23
I was actually glad when I heard that google made this change, I for one don't like the websites on this list very much. I also know first hand how poor content-farm websites really are, I'm guilty of making one in the past which was not successful at all and honestly I prefer the quality websites that I make now.

Great Job Google
75
Great Job Google
03/01/2011 at 04:48
I have to say GREAT JOB GOOGLE please keep up the good work, its about time that all these content farms are knocked down. We as consumers get tired searching for a news article just to see a knock off from a content farm keyword stuffed SO bad it gives you a migraine to read. We want real reporting from real journalists not some stay at home mom just copying an article that she saw on TV.

Again THANK YOU!!!!

GJG

Satrap
76
03/01/2011 at 06:47
I think it was time for it. It really is unfortunate to see those content farms rank high for all those keywords, but then when you click on their link, the content doesn't offer any real value or answer to the question or search phrase you were searching for.
But, as other have said, people will find a way around these new rules and the cycle will begin again. But for now, hats off to Google.

Solenn Heussaff
77
03/01/2011 at 10:18
I think several authors in hubpages will be affected in this update.

Thomas Torpey
78
Thomas Torpey
03/01/2011 at 13:50
"When the great bulls fight only the grass is hurt" Lao Zhu
"Don't be Evil" well, its not, and should not be up to google what is or is not "low quality content," but the individual. There is a professor on Associated Content that writes on subjects that he knows and enjoys sharing with his audience, he will be crushed by this move and his little piece of the web lost. Yes there is crap content, there has been since the beginning of the web. How is it that google gets praise for this move and any 13 year old can view hard core porn on their image site freely and no effort is made. Yes, you can self filter image results and that is fair. So why is this ok? This is censorship. Could this have more to do with Adsense revenue being paid out and its effect on google's bottom line?

Sarah Russell
79
03/01/2011 at 15:45
Seems seriously hit or miss...

Hubpages goes down, but not Squidoo? eHow stays, but AssociatedContent gets dropped?

The only thing I can guess is that this is just the first stage in a series of more serious overhauls we'll see in the future.

Anonymous
80
Anonymous
03/01/2011 at 17:11
Backlinks from these sites have definitely been devalued! My Scandinavian sites, with most article marketing as link building, are way down and hurting right now.

Diane Corriette
81
03/01/2011 at 21:34
Very helpful and insight information - thank you. I am waiting for the whirlwind to hit the UK to see how it impacts us here. It is definitely a little hit and miss as some people are saying. Maybe it's time to all run over to knol and use Google's content farm that survived the impact I am sure.

FarmerJohn
82
FarmerJohn
03/02/2011 at 00:21
Sistrix please provide us a list of the websites that are going up in traffic based on your data. I think that will provide very valuable insight into what the heck is going on here.

BrotherD
83
BrotherD
03/02/2011 at 02:33
I'm happy Google is at least trying something.

FreePatentsOnline isn't clogging up my searches anymore. If I'm looking for an answer I want a special interest forum thread with back and forth banter trying to solve a problem. There isn't necessarily one best answer and a canned answer is no answer at all.

It would be nice if Google could find a way to demote links to sites that require registration like the NYTimes online. Having to register and remember a password just makes me go somewhere else for the content I'm looking for. No Associated Press content either, since it's only "free" for 2 weeks.

komputer bekas
84
03/02/2011 at 04:28
from the graph that you provide all experienced a decline, then what kind of web that increase? This can be explained more detailed content such as what is desired by google.

Emma Rigby
85
Emma Rigby
03/02/2011 at 04:51
can I asked for the list of domains? I will appreciate if I can get.

Dorsi
86
03/02/2011 at 09:22
Unfortunately one of the things that Google miscalculated at HubPages are the QUALITY of the majority of writers there. In hubs (articles) you will not only get information on your topic but you may get a lively discussion under the comments area where even more great info is given and received. In addition to comments, hubbers CARE about their readers and go out of there way to respond to them.
In this day and age, human connection is more than just reading something that sounds like it was taken right out of an encyclopedia. It's actually nice to put a face to the topic - and even talk to the author!!
It's called conversational style, and many hubbers are chock full of this. There are so many truly gifted and creative writers at HubPages - some of the best on the net from what I've read. HubPages is also a very cutting edge company. I chose writing there after writing for several other writers platforms which I found boring and stifling. I would rather write at a platform like HubPages where I have to earn my reads through my hard work and research. I don't get paid up front,I can remove my work at anytime and it's up to me to get my work out there - with the help of HubPages support.I am sad to see HubPages take a hit, I don't think we deserve it. We are a group of very professional,learning and caring writers who really care about their readers.
I have no doubt though that the cream of HubPages will rise up to the top again because good writers will always win out in the end (and as long as they know some decent SEO)
Just my 2 cents (or 2 dollars worth!)

Swag Codes
87
03/02/2011 at 13:17
Thanks for the updates. Would love to see all 100 penalized sites.

DocVll
88
DocVll
03/02/2011 at 16:48
Following that infamous Feb. 24/2011 algo update, it's obvious that Google doesn't have a clue how to distinguish between original, and scraped content.
Apparently, it took a full year of brainstorming by Google's brightest to dream up this embarrassing blunder, where a great many high quality, clean, and original-content sites took a hit.
Google may think that it has become too big to fall, but if all the BETTER web sites were to block googlebots from indexing their sites, eventually even non-savy and non-technical web users would notice that Google has blown a gasket, and that they'll have to get relevant and quality search results elsewhere.

Marie Arouet du Voltron
89
Marie Arouet du Voltron
03/02/2011 at 18:32
Let them wiki cake.

Finn Skovgaard
90
03/02/2011 at 20:31
I reported Ezinearticles to Google Legal Support, DMCA Complaints, on February 15, for copyright infringement. Someone had copied an article from one of my sites, edited it a bit, published it on Ezinearticles, and then called himself author. As a result, I found my content on about a dozen sites. I reported them all to Google while pointing out that they would have been in good faith, simply asking content removal. I don't think just one such report would result in such drastic action, but if others have used the Ezinearticles for similar infringements or junk content, it could explain it. Of course, Ezinearticles themselves did not infringe copyright, but do they police their site enough? I also reported the infringement directly to them. They did remove the article, but they left the offending 'author's other articles in place, as they earn Adsense revenue even on junk content.

Alpha Project Studios
91
03/02/2011 at 21:11
Nice analysis. Good to know that Google is finally cracking down on these low-quality content sites. Not sure why eHow.com did not get penalized.

John Rowlinson
92
John Rowlinson
03/03/2011 at 01:02
The sites In question have been penalized and not killed. Maybe google decided that they got too much traffic and readjusted. But a content farm that had say 40,000 pages and 40m page views a month can surely survive on say 28m views. They need to treat this as a warning and re-invent. It will be interesting to see how that happens.

Jack
93
Jack
03/03/2011 at 02:06
I have to say that google didn't do the things right, all the articles on my site are unique and well-written, I usually spend 3 days for an article, doing enough research and then start writing. But in these few days, most of my keywords used to be in the first page are dropping to 7-10 page that no one can see my site.

I am not happy with this result.

forex
94
03/03/2011 at 14:05
This new algorithm is closely concerned us that certain extreme reductions to be applied as soon as possible all over the world this place is a real

Ella
95
03/03/2011 at 16:14
It was only a matter of time before this happened. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it has taken this long. Fwiw, almost all of my sites have increased in rankings (so far). I guess we'll see what happens over the upcoming weeks though...

Rick Crombie
96
03/03/2011 at 21:55
Frankly, I'm glad to see Google level the field for people offering quality content and the opportunity to see that content rank better instead someone's thin content who is just trying to game Google and adding no real value to the web except for themselves.

Wayne
97
03/03/2011 at 22:01
Thank you for posting this article,very helpful and insight information.

Sean Supplee
98
03/03/2011 at 23:12
I am glad to see these changes. Google was starting to put out some pure crap content from these article directories. Most of my searches resulted in an article and after reading it it was just to sell me something instead of providing me with anything of value I could actually use.

steph le plombier
99
03/03/2011 at 23:49
Hi,
It may be interesting to see the inverse effect...
site that their keywork was increase by 100% ?
let's be positive... lol

Carl Heaton
100
03/04/2011 at 05:37
I love how again and again we can hold our head up high to say we do White Hat here at Web Courses Bangkok and our site is a page rank 4 with sub pages of PR 2 and 3, not amazing I know but it we are such a small site. Still we get 20,000+ hits this month so we must be doing something right.

As a result our rank didn`t change and possibly went up!

MagentoC
101
03/04/2011 at 06:01
This is unpredictable...

big changes. actually it is surprising for everyone,

good to see this post. otherwise i would never know that this thing can happen anywhere...

Justin Wheeler
102
03/04/2011 at 07:17
Great stuff and some nice analysis. You should do a biggest winners version as well! Although I suppose it might be harder. I know one of my sites went from #18 to #2 so shows that they are definitely doing something right. Gotta love the big G.... but they need to get their social media strategy into high gear... otherwise they will just become irrelevant.

Ryan Parenti
103
03/04/2011 at 07:45
Quality content is what makes the web go round. It always comes down to giving people what they want. If you want to get visitors you simply give away your best content.

This is why real sites will always beat spam techniques in the long run.

Aaron
104
03/04/2011 at 12:39
Good work! I'd like to know how Google sees and differentiates content farms from press release hubs. If they're not being effected then are Google manually going through a list of approved sites or is the algorithm that clever?

Online Business
105
03/04/2011 at 15:06
Your analysis is quite good, but which is mentioned above is an example of all the web has decreased. Can you show me a website that has increased from the latest google algorithm? thanks

Globinch
106
03/05/2011 at 05:32
Good analysis. I agree to the point that the new algorithm spared some top sites with low quality content.

Stocks
107
03/05/2011 at 18:10
Sorry for the double post - please delete the previous one :-(
Excellent analysis - many thanks and the comments are interesting too. It seems to me however that for people trying to make money from their sites there is only one thing to do,- when all the dust has settled, take a good look at the sites that Google shows on page 1 and copy what they are doing (i.e. copy their format/style/backlinking strategy/SEO etc... not copy their content- just in case anyone wasn't clear what I meant).

Goomass
108
03/05/2011 at 20:13
let's see what will happen next. i don't think it will effect too much to a famous site.

Rodger
109
03/06/2011 at 03:29
This uptdate is a good thing for Google and his reputation. Many pepople asking questions about link farms, low quality content of some website and google reactions about that. high quality in Search engine results page is what we were wating for. Good job Google.

Sudeep Sakalle
110
03/06/2011 at 12:45
I am sure it won't be totally illogical but penalising the sites can cause the trouble. It gives you an option to cut down the competitor? Lis

3D Filmler
111
03/06/2011 at 23:35
content farms �ok değişik

Sven Woods
112
03/07/2011 at 20:34
This is good. Google eliminated link farms first. SEO industry switched to content farms. It was time to eliminate those farms, too. Good job.

karen
113
karen
03/07/2011 at 22:02
As a freelance article writer, I strive to provide the best quality writing for my clients and one told me he was going to to spin my articles umpteen times I am outraged and insulted.

I actually predicted this shakeup would happen, in an article I wrote last August.

Go Google! Perhaps I can get some good quality, ethical clients now.

Website Designer Perth WA
114
03/08/2011 at 05:32
Can you do a list of article directories that have increased the number of keywords or an increased traffic result.

Neo
115
03/08/2011 at 07:08
Good analysis on Google algo change.

I would have loved to see eHow and Answers.com getting penalized as well. Most of them are crap with the exception of few good pages.

bullmastiff
116
03/08/2011 at 07:24
I was under the impression that this was more of a duplicate content issue than a site authority issue. For example, if you have an article you�ve written that has syndication across 20 websites. Google doesn�t know which is the most authoritative version until it factors in �page authority�. Generally you�re blog or website will be the actual �home� of that article and will, most of the time, have the most �page authority�. Therefore any article site page that holds that content will be considered duplicate content and take a hit in the SERPs.

Is there more to it than that? Has Google actually manually pulled a certain amount of �page authority� from article sites as a whole in order to push down their content?

Independence Party of IL
117
03/08/2011 at 07:28
It's a multi-prong positioning and power grab by Google and their new major media partners who just happen to be owners, subsidiaries or channel partners of the largest advertisers in the world.

Together they can clean up the internet, stamp out independent news outlets and funnel most traffic and ad revenue to themselves and their corporate partners.

I'm a writer at Examiner.com and while the company is scamming their writers and letting a great deal of garbage go through, they do actually pay a small amount of money and provide many well-written authors with an outlet for their work.

Google's trying to be like Walmart and control every aspect of the system. As someone mentioned in a previous post, it's nothing more than same age-old Monopoly that used to be against the law in our country, or what used to be our country.

jackblow
118
03/08/2011 at 11:24
If Demand Media is not a content farm, then what the hell is?

ash
119
03/08/2011 at 11:55
EZA are being quite vocal about the impact of the update on their website but they deserve it for the amount of junk that gets approved everyday. They are always rambling on about their quality checks, but they keep posting barely readable articles and don't even bother checking if they've already been published somewhere else.

Christopher Arnfield
120
Christopher Arnfield
03/08/2011 at 14:35
I am amazed at the bigotry and hypocrisy displayed in some of the comments posted on here.
Nothing annoys me more than high handed article snobs whining on about so-called poor content.
Simple answer is dont read it.
I come across hundreds of sites a day that are filled with arrant condescending claptrap written by those yearning to be the content police.
The bottom line is that the internet is free for all, but not a `free-for-all` as some want to suggest. There are those who seem to want the internet to be some kind of closed shop private club for the intellectual.
A sort of club-intelligentsia so to speak.
What I really enjoy is writing software that will defeat Google and their algortithms all day long and keep the www open for everybody.
The internet does not belong to Google or anybody else come to that, it is one of the last frontiers that has not fallen prey to the control freaks and mind police who want to be able to supress anything they do not like.
Websites I advise on continue to stay on the first page of Google and all the others and will continue to do so regardless of any attempted intervention by Big Brother.

Alessandro Zamboni
121
03/08/2011 at 18:49
It's sad for them, but not for me. I was tired to see all our beautiful and high quality articles copied and used to fill fluffy autoblogs and bad sites.

Thanks for keeping us informed about their rankings!
See you soon,
Alessandro

Author Publisher
122
Author Publisher
03/08/2011 at 19:55
Very good job at informing us about what happened. But what's left? From these postings, it looks like eHow.com is the winner. I'd love to see an article about which sites are the winners still good for authors. Any takers?

William MATAR
123
03/09/2011 at 07:31
Good Job Google. Love you from Lebanon.
Hope it can cuts more of other stupid sites...

Alicia
124
03/09/2011 at 14:43
Any buzz on when this will appear in international searches? I know google.com is the big player, but my optimization efforts are focused outside of the US.

John
125
03/09/2011 at 16:20
I just keep adding new content and working with my site, it is hard for a small business to fully understand what Google expects.

Very hard to provide interesting fresh content when you are looking to sell a not very sexy product.

istanbul lounge 2
126
03/09/2011 at 16:26
thanks for the great article. I like your post I'll surely be peeping into it again soon!

George Busegeano
127
George Busegeano
03/09/2011 at 17:23
Good Job Google. Love you from Las Vegas.
I Hope it can cut more of those sites...

George Busegeano
128
03/09/2011 at 17:23
Good Job Google. Love you from Las Vegas.
I Hope it can cut more of those sites...

Joko Susilo
129
03/09/2011 at 18:03
Great post! It explains well the changes occured with google algorithm.
Keep working.

On The Beach
130
On The Beach
03/09/2011 at 20:06
@ Christopher Arnfield

Your post is the ONLY one on here that makes any sense. All this tit-for-tat and back and forth is pure drivel.

FACT: Google does NOT own the internet and neither does anyone else.
FACT: Google is an internet dictator that manipulates search results.
FACT: People are slowly but surely kicking the Google habit and switching to other search engines.
FACT: Google is pure JUNK, but you can't get the addicts who drink G's drug-cocktailed kool aid multiple times to see it.

It is sickening to see how people bow down to G's every whim and fancy, fighting for a spot for their heads under G's desk (if you catch my drift) and I ain't talking about shining shoes.

BTW: Hey Google! How about removing pages that show idiots how to make bombs, cook crack and mix undetectable poisons to kill people? Do that and you just might regain my respect!

PJ
131
03/09/2011 at 21:57
The unfortunate reality is that the ability of machines (read: Google's indexing bots) to "comprehend" and analyze content is directly proportional to the technicality and *lack* of nuance and context. Working in the software field, Google almost always has the best results for my technical questions or problems. The SERPs are usually ordered in a way that I wouldn't modify even if I could. Rarely do I even reach the bottom of the first page.

But more generic queries are a totally different issue. If I'm searching for e.g. a mattress, there's no way for a machine to create a perfect SERP. There is simply too much subjective information and opinion involved; when I add a bunch of additional words to my query, a machine has a chance. But until then it's simply a crap shoot -- Google's machines can't read my mind to determine what factors are important to me. So, Google is left with two options: be a super-creepy big corporation that indeed attempts to read my mind, or (much easier and less controversial) just decide on a few key factors (especially aggregate behavior) and use those. The same goes with instruction, direction and commentary articles. For some people, a content-farm article might actually be helpful. For most people, though, it's going to be annoying. Google's best option is to track aggregate data and go with crowd behavior. If 85% of people click on a result and then come back in 10 seconds, it's probably not very high quality.

In the end, Google has to look to the human user: either help them use better queries (better suggestions for query variations), or track their aggregate behavior. The results will still be more satisfactory for some users than others; but they will be the best that a machine can deliver.

Houlihan Macaco
132
Houlihan Macaco
03/09/2011 at 23:21
I occasionally write for EHow through Demand Media, although there is rarely a valid title to write about. There is a lot of crap on EHow, though some of it's pretty good and well researched if $15 is worth it for a writer to spend the time on quality. The writers are encouraged to stay within their sphere of expertise, although the available titles to choose from are almost always unrelated. As for About.com, I love that site. They have expert guides who only write within their sphere of expertise. I've found lots of useful information. I looked up Olympic diving history the other day, and the About.com guide was a professional diver who has done some historical homework over the years. EHow should be cleaned up on a page by page basis rather than being punished entirely, at least for some of the more popular search queries.

William Debauchez
133
03/09/2011 at 23:44
Very interesing. I wasn't fully aware this hadn't yet been released outside the US.
I can't wait to see the results on the rankings for my main keywords :-)

William

Mike M
134
03/10/2011 at 00:09
I think many people are taking this the wrong way. While Google will always shield itself with a sense of secrecy and never be transparent with what they want, two questions need to be answered:

1) What constitutes a content farm?

2) How do you determine the quality of the content?

All the sites that were hit like EzineArticles, Buzzle, ArticleBase and etc. contain information that ranges from non-sense to very valuable. They have been misused by many for 'SEO purposes' by uploading para-phrased and poorly researched articles.

eHow is no different from the others, only that the pool of authors is smaller and the presentation of the information allows less room for spammers. You can only write 'How to Bake a Cake' so many times before it gets redundant.

Either way, what we need is a solution; a definitive outline that separates good information from the rest, where the playing field is not simply dominated by corporations and institutions. Google has given way to a lot of spammers but also to a lot of small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Cheers.

film izle
135
03/10/2011 at 03:05
Either way, what we need is a solution; a definitive outline that separates good information from the rest, where the playing field is not simply dominated by corporations and institutions. Google has given way to a lot of spammers but also to a lot of small businesses and entrepreneurs.

sokaklar
136
03/10/2011 at 03:06
Either way, what we need is a solution; a definitive outline that separates good information from the rest, where the playing field is not simply dominated by corporations and institutions. Google has given way to a lot of spammers but also to a lot of small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Aditiya
137
03/10/2011 at 08:23
Huh... This is too hard for me...

Even i just got little traffic from google,now i got nothing...

JD
138
03/10/2011 at 14:34
what a shocker for ezine articles , their traffic has been hammered .

Rose
139
Rose
03/10/2011 at 16:49
The unfortunate thing is that it did not only affect the big guys, but more so the little ones. I have spent nearly two years writing REAL, unique content articles. I used Ezine Articles and Hub Pages to post them. They got hit and now my site went from PR3 to PR 0....NEARLY TWO YEARS, AND HOURS AND HOURS OF WORK DOWN THE DRAIN!

Google sucks!

Brad
140
03/11/2011 at 02:37
I am a marketer and glad to see this cleaning happen. Yes the algorhythym changes will soon be discovered but many of us have been cleaning our own houses for a while now.

Dave
141
03/11/2011 at 22:08
Very good data on the Farmer update - I'm planning to link back to this from a post later today or this week.

EzineArticles will recover, and so will HubPages. The problem is that they have been too lenient with letting people post junk content on their sites. That is already changing.

hagar
142
hagar
03/13/2011 at 08:06
you know, everyone is always bashing ehow, but they didn't get hit hardly at all by the google smash... and every time I've gone there, I found out what I wanted to know, and it worked. SO why all the bashing? everything I've seen here seems to be "they beat me in the search engines" and "they belong to demand media"... I'm still waiting for a reason to hate them

The Wizard
143
The Wizard
03/14/2011 at 05:30
PJ has it right. This is a good move by google. To those who suggested Bing or Yahoo.. Get real. Google might not own the Internet but they are the only major traffic warden. The Internet is open, consumers choose google because it is different, because it makes decisions just like this one. Yahoo is off it's head. Hubpages is a good community in part and I feel for some but the management is too weak willed. Like all of the sites listed, there are writers still ranking. All these figures prove is what we all knew anyway. The are the few who write quality content but these domains are spoilt by the majority, the owners encourage poor quality, the marketing for new writers is misleading and for those who actually can write, you are in the wrong part of town. Guilty by association. No pun intended on yahoo there but it certainly works.

Devoe Daily
144
Devoe Daily
03/14/2011 at 10:55
@Garage Door Repairs - Yeah, Google says unique content is king, but since when does that mean you're going to get a larger share of the traffic for your unique content? The new algorithm has shown it favours sites that are of greater benefit to Google.

People who create squidoo and hub pages go to a lot of effort to research a product and give you all the information you need in one place. These are single parents, people who have lost their jobs due to the recession. Since the change, google shopping is taking all the rankings for themselves. What if the product is absolute crap, do you think Google Shopping is going to tell you that?

So what does this mean for blackhat marketers? Instead of spamming backlinks and articles to their websites, why not just do it with yours? Kill the competitor by spinning your content and send it to hundreds of article sites with a back-link back to your site.

Ana Llorenz
145
Ana Llorenz
03/14/2011 at 11:53
@Devoe I was thinking the exact same thing. When I first started out, I learnt blackhat, but it just didn't sit well with me. The fact remains, it's a lot easier to kill the competitor than build links to your sites.

Based on the new change, you'll no longer have to take care in regards to footprints, because it's your competitors site your gunning down. No drip feeding or taking it slowly. I could create 45,000 backlinks to a site within half a day if I wanted to.

So this makes me wonder, have Google already considered this? Like you, I believe the only sites who will really win are the ones who are generating revenue for Google, the rest can fight for the scraps Google leaves them.

So will killing your competitor work? Maybe. If blackhat marketers feel like they're being pushed into a corner, feeling this strategy is their only option, it will cause a shit storm as thousands of legitimate websites lose their search rankings. Subsequently, panda will fail.

Or

It doesn't matter what you do to a competitor because Google have already determined who goes where in terms of search rankings.

engineerguy
146
engineerguy
03/17/2011 at 23:56
I'd be curious how a site like wellsphere does. They specialize in SEO trickery, filling their site with nonsense, but having loads of short tail and long tail items on each page. There are loads of junk sites that make a living off of this sort of stuff. They make no effort to create content. They are not content farms like EHOW.

jossef salman
147
03/20/2011 at 11:25
Amazing!!! but what is the solution?

I think it will be to start writing original content to your website and original content to distribute on other sites that links to you.

Raymond Denis
148
03/21/2011 at 21:57
Does the algo applies to sites in Canada ?

Bid on Services
149
03/22/2011 at 17:36
Google is updating its algorithms quite frequently and a person specially in search engine optimization field only can remain ahead if he / she knows what has been updated and carve his / her campaign accordingly.

Schulze
150
03/23/2011 at 13:15
Great post and nice algo changes! We just saw little moves - 4 to 6 down in our case!

Dorian
151
03/23/2011 at 16:01
Well, this change can be a good thing to new businesses :)

Go Google :D

seolabs
152
03/25/2011 at 01:22
For a long time people talk about it online and it happens

Many sites may have lost their position in search results but the important thing is the user, so a welcome update

BullShitWebsites
153
03/25/2011 at 06:34
Regardless, most or all 99.99% of the websites are totally BS.

Content are copied and redundant

Pro Flight Simulator
154
03/31/2011 at 14:09
Great post and nice algo changes! We just saw little moves - 4 to 6 down in our case!

Brian Atwood
155
04/18/2011 at 08:22
Great blog article about this topic, I have been lately in your blog once or twice now. I just wanted to say hi and show my thanks for the information provided.

Mike Behnken, MS, CSCS
156
04/18/2011 at 12:28
Ehow is complete crap, probably has 1% of useful articles out of hundreds of thousands. There really needs to be a credibility check for who ever writes content.

ConcernedSEO
157
ConcernedSEO
04/22/2011 at 20:46
First off, great post. A good read and informative, especially with your list there.

Wow I have to say I am pretty upset about this update. As an SEO I have always rolled with the punches and adapted... thats what makes SEO fun.

HOWEVER... (its time to rant)

All my hard work, going full whitehat, taking great care to resist temptation and build things the slow and correct route just got trashed. I can say with a clear content, I never ezined, spammed or farmed for my sites. I did that for others, but not for my stuff.

My sites got hit hard. I have spammers outranking me with nofollow comments, scraped content being ranked ahead of the original content that they scraped off me.

Not Happy.


Add Comment

More
This posting is older than 30 days and therefore closed for new comments.