Search Engine Watch reports Googles algorithm is shifting
OM-friggen-G I am just stunned. Top resources in the SEO world simply SHOULD NOT be making bare-faced statements. They should not be publishing material that take suspicions and suppositions and state them as fact. Furthermore they should be careful what advice they give as a respected source.
For starters, there are MANY algorithms
stating the algorithm' is a DUH
and they are always being tweaked, but whatever, bigger fish to fry here
Now, I am the last guy that would be going off about peeps recognizing and discussing the evolution of search. Certainly not when mention of behavioural factors are involved as it is a common theme around here. But to write things such as those which were published today over at Search Engine Watch it is simply bad form. At very least put a disclaimer or temper the language to one less assertive and assumptive. Or
Show me your data (and I'll show U mine)
I am curious about the data behind these suppositions? I know we do testing around here and that testing merely leads to more testing. Isolating parameters is nearly impossible; its more about the nuggets than the mountain.
Lets look at what they claim;
Performance - knowing Google this is unlikely to be much of a signal, if one at all. The main concern I would imagine is bloated pages that suck bot resources or time out altogether. That is not to say this is a ranking signal. To be a ranking signal would mean Google values speed over relevance and thats generally not the direction taken them in most ranking methods.
Even if it WERE a ranking signal, (I wouldnt know
no data remember) it would be such a weak signal that discussing it over other considerations (try page segmentation for example) in modern SEO is nonsensical and screams for a WTF!!
I personally do not believe in this fairy tail that site performance is any type of serious ranking signal. Now AdSense... that's another story.
Bounce Rate as we all know I am big on behavioural data and have no problem with peeps talking about this; in theory. There are no definitive studies of Google showing this is a strong signal; nothing more than patent applications. We have no statements from Google (outside of query revision analysis) that confirms the use of behavioural signals. We in fact
have very little.
Matt Cutts has said they would make for noisy signals and thats about it. Yes I understand there is a logical feel to search engines using this data, but without knowing the thresholds/weights we no jack really.
I do feel behavioural data may be in play; but not given a ton of weight. They are simply too easy to spam and are best left to personalization. Meaning, if you have a Google account, factors such bounce can certainly come into play. But they really should explain this and the fact there are many performance metric ranking mechanisms beyond mere bounce rates.
Links - Ok, not sure how they feel Googles algorithm has shifted in regards to links, but once more no data here. But they did publish some interesting advice on places to get links including;
- Blogs < you know, comment spamming >
- Social bookmarking sites, < you know, social spamming>
- Social chat engines, such as Twitter < social spamming>
- Facebook -- eventually things will be crawlable! <WTF?>
And thats about it for the advice on links and the secretive Google algorithm change I mean this is really not very good advice at all to me
I am astounded at the fine folks over there. How about letting me write guys? I am up for the challenge.
RSS for Rankings - The next sentence I had t read a few times to even make sense of;
Other forms of measure that Google is looking at and is extremely important to target: RSS. This platform can have amazing implications in terms of how your articles rank.
Whaaaaaaa? Dontcha think because you have deep RSS penetration that maybe, just maybe it creating the odd primary link (editorial) and some secondary (from distribution)? To say that Google changed the algo to show more love to RSS factors is reckless. There are perfectly benign explanations to account for the perception.
When stating things such as, The magic number seems to be at least 25 for most things I want to see some testing. You cant simply use some gawd-damned link bait hype title and then dupe poor believing readers into suppositions and theories.
Content I though, fer sure, now were getting somewhere
but ooooo noooo. You see content doesnt matter or as they had it; It may be said that content is no longer king,. Apparently editorial links are the cats ass.
But wait, didnt he just tell me that bounce rates were part of the algorithm change? Wouldnt I need quality content to ensure lower bounce rates? Im confused here
Tsk Tsk Tsk
I have really come to enjoy the contributors over at Search Engine Watch and always held them in high regard, (see, I can be nice ;0). This is just an unfortunate post that does little more but create greater confusion among business owners and webmasters.
The last thing I need is peeps coming to me saying these are serious factors for consideration or that they dont know who to believe. It is irresponsible to write attention grabbing headlines with little substance behind them. To me this post is far below the bar for such an esteemed and followed publication.
that ones a FAIL
..And if you want my sorry ass to write for your publication - get in touch today!