Google is changing its algorithm December1st

Just to let everyone know that does not know already Google has decided to add to a few more signals to its descision making on rankings. This comes from Online business owners actually creating negative press and forcing bad complaints from some of their customers to help increase there rankings in the Search.

As we already know a sparking popular online discussions, negative or not in the past about your website will still help your rankings. Creating negative press about your business can be a form of linkbait. This will all stop now and there are talks about one of the new changes being that positive reviews on a website will be actually taken in to consideration when helping Google decide where you should rank.

Expect Reviews and Good Press to be a big factor in having your site listed high up in the search in 2011.

I think its nice that people like to help others out, but I also think crediting a reliable source is needed when saying google is changing blah blah blah (which I am sure your already aware of with your post on DP )

So for anyone wanting to read more here you go

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/te...02ranking.html

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/...s-bad-for.html

and another good article

http://searchengineland.com/google-n...g-signal-57445

Cheers mate thought most people knew so didnt bother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaus

I think its nice that people like to help others out, but I also think crediting a reliable source is needed when saying google is changing blah blah blah (which I am sure your already aware of with your post on DP )

So for anyone wanting to read more here you go

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/te...02ranking.html

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/...s-bad-for.html

---

I read about this this morning, and am not sure I really get what that guy was doing. Sure he may be able to rank better for glasses or whatever he was going for, but if anyone googled his company name after they would see all the complaints.

So the real question is what do you guys think are good ways to get good press for online gambling based sites?

The answer is simple some people believe the amount of traffic they recieve is more important than actually satisfying a customer and converting well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graham

I read about this this morning, and am not sure I really get what that guy was doing. Sure he may be able to rank better for glasses or whatever he was going for, but if anyone googled his company name after they would see all the complaints.

So the real question is what do you guys think are good ways to get good press for online gambling based sites?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnthonyMSEO

The answer is simple some people believe the amount of traffic they recieve is more important than actually satisfying a customer and converting well!

---

I think you answered a different question. I was thinking more what do you think would be some good ways to apply this to the gambling industry. Sure, you can try and do really good things to get people to write about you on forums, but when a lot of the stuff you do is search based its harder to have that connection with your customer. If you had a strictly SEO based site (ie. ranking for casino bonus codes or something like that) what would you do to try and get good reviews if your bonus is essentially the same as everything else out there?

You mentioned that when people search for the website they will see bad press and listings. - Thats the answer to that part.

The second question the answer is review websites becoming very popular... hint hint. I think creating non promotional positive reviews on-site and on review sites about a website with a standard non affiliate link in it will be key. Anchor driven. Plus forums will play a big part. As they allow multiple views to be expressed. e.g rate my website sections of webmaster forums maybe.

i also think mentions of the site name in a positive written paragraph will help. e.g. I though jackpotcity.com was great played on there for days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graham

I think you answered a different question. I was thinking more what do you think would be some good ways to apply this to the gambling industry. Sure, you can try and do really good things to get people to write about you on forums, but when a lot of the stuff you do is search based its harder to have that connection with your customer. If you had a strictly SEO based site (ie. ranking for casino bonus codes or something like that) what would you do to try and get good reviews if your bonus is essentially the same as everything else out there?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnthonyMSEO

You mentioned that when people search for the website they will see bad press and listings. - Thats the answer to that part.

The second question the answer is review websites becoming very popular... hint hint. I think creating non promotional positive reviews on-site and on review sites about a website with a standard non affiliate link in it will be key. Anchor driven. Plus forums will play a big part. As they allow multiple views to be expressed. e.g rate my website sections of webmaster forums maybe.

i also think mentions of the site name in a positive written paragraph will help. e.g. I though jackpotcity.com was great played on there for days

---

Ya, I always thought it would be great to do a site like that but the hardest part would be monetizing and promoting it. Also there would be a lot of affiliates that would write bad reviews of their competitors so this could potentially do more harm than good (I know of examples of this happening right now). Maybe one day I'll try and do a proper one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnthonyMSEO

Cheers mate thought most people knew so didnt bother.

---

Its only a two days old Anthony - how would everyone know?

I agree with kaus - quote your sources if you are going to lead in with a subject line like that - its expected if you are republishing information, fresh or old.

Especially if the post seems as if you are taking credit yourself for the find when there are reliable sources (such as the sources kaus has pointed out) from the NY Times, SELand and directly from Google on their own blog.

Sry - I hit Post rather than view - not quite finished - check back in a few :)

In addition to Anthony's quick eye, here are a few more reliable posts from reliable SEO forums on the subject;
Webproworld
Sphinn
The Register
And on and on and on.

(they are residually purged to inner pages so don't expect the link to go directly to the relevant post)

But all this aside, Google constantly looks for 'Buzz'.

If this were never published in the NY Times to begin with this story would just be another sad story that got buried.

The fact is that woman found this merchant on Google’s version of the gold-medal podium, where the most relevant and popular sites are displayed.

Further to that, according to the NY Post,"...Online chatter about DecorMyEyes, even furious online chatter, pushed the site higher in Google search results..."

Even more concerning is when a Google spokesperson recommends contacting Danny Sullivan - owner of SELand, and added that, "...the best he (the spokesperson) could do was decline to call Mr. Borker a liar for saying that they did (sic) - [sic = anything wrong].....so he "declined to call him a liar"? ...could you please translate that split toungeness for us mere mortals?

Danny said this to him,"Ultimately, the spokesman side-stepped the question of whether utterly noxious retail could yield profits" and Mr. Sullivan concludes, “that this is a failure on Google’s part.”

Thanks Danny - what a guy for standing up to the big G and stating his honest opinion, despite the fact that they actually recommended contacting him!!!

For those that don't know Danny Sullivan as well as any professional-to-novice SEO does - he is one of the most respected SEO's in the world - obviously so if Google sends their search result complaints to him. After all they aren't short of staff. Maybe that 20% of their days would be better spent hand-sorting these issues? This is a well made decision on Google's part - I'm sure you've heard the saying, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"?

Matt Cutts my friend - where are you????

You Danny are now my newest hero - :cowboy:

So I did a bit of research, and although this Google Adsense account spend I found shows Google was/is willing to take their money;

https://www.gpwa.org/forum/images/im...2eb7f0_m-1.jpg

And despite their heart-felt public sympathy ploy they took the time to publish on their blog...They still publicize list their site:

https://www.gpwa.org/forum/images/im...0ddb43_m-1.jpg

Well I for one don't believe it for a second. Yet another 'token'.

So let's get this clear Google - As SEO's and Affiliates marketing decent companies according to your best practices that 'cross the G-line' risk a total ban you won't even preach your own prayer?? (note: that may be a bad example but I'm sure there are plenty of them to be found - but its after midnight and I'm off asap)

Obviously I could (and should) go off on many relevant tangents, but lets keep to the point - Google reacts when it needs to, when it is convenient for them to, and although they react they are never really held accountable in the long term. When the NY Post posts (:eyebrow:), you must react. Let the 'Buzz' die out, or If I were Brin or Paige I'd just buy them.

For that matter I'd call Rupert Murdoc with an offer he can't refuse...."Uh, yea, Mr. Murdoc, this can go nice-like or the other way...."

If that didn't work I'd hire Tony Seprano as my personal messenger.

Quote:

---

"Eh Joo, You wanna sella to me or you needa I get da boyz involved - eh?"

---

So is this a case of 'No publicity is bad publicity'?

Point and case; Google's apparent update to eliminate affiliate sites back in May 2007 that was and still is a massive failure - but the 'Buzz' was huge.

I can vouch for this (privately of course!) or ask any Affiliate, or do a search for Viagra.

Now before anyone goes off on another tangent about how these results show legit sites, okay - YES - wiki, the drug maker and a .gov site show up in the top 3 (right - just below Adsense paid ads), but look at the rest of the top 10...see all the affiliates?

Not me - I only see Google Adsense infecting just about every stinking page of most of these top 10 results.

I see sites displaying Adsense amongst their 'non-commercial' and 'non-spam' (huh) valuable content.

Hmmmmm - so let me get this straight - do as we say - not as we do.

I'm a bit pissed off right now because I have dealt with this hypocrisy for over 10 years now and to be frank - I am sick of it.

They feel its okay to target decent people operating within their guidelines and continue to gain revenue whilst they split hairs, bury negative publicity (but of course they can't bury the NY Times) and react only when absolutely necessary.

I'm getting really tired and grouchy and I think I may run this nice tool Google dev'd for us before they create a garythescubaguy-algorithmic-screw-filter and put me out of business as well.

Thank goodness for EC2, TOR and Vidalia - I guess I just need to watch what I see - oops, I meant to say what I say - but I didn't really mean say to that. (sorry Google) - :pray: :nervious: Dammit....I need to run that test now.


GaryTheScubaGuy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnthonyMSEO

This will all stop now and there are talks about one of the new changes being that positive reviews on a website will be actually taken in to consideration when helping Google decide where you should rank.

Expect Reviews and Good Press to be a big factor in having your site listed high up in the search in 2011.

---

Gimme a break Anthony - how about you test this assumption and get back to us with something concrete. Or as you see it Google will hire millions to moderate billions of posts and determine the validity and 'honesty' of each and every reviewer's opinion?

So should they look at your posts here and do the same? Or should they take the feedback you have gotten into account, and the reputation of you and everyone that has commented and posted subsequent comments and/or their own opinions?

So where will that end?

Nonsense

Google takes over 200 variables into consideration when deciding where to put your portal purveyor of poop web site page into the rankings. One variable change will not mean a lot unless perhaps your a black hat.

Keep in mind that "Google" is a machine that takes orders from programmers. It does not "consider" anything. If X is Yes then Y happens, If X is Z then A happens and so forth.

There is entirely too much erroneous emphasis put on "Google's Page rankings" in this forum. (and the BS that goes with it) Tune up your site with the proper Titles, H1 Headings, meta, description and content and pull the trigger.

zoom zoom

"Gary" and "Klaus" there was a really good interview in GPWA from "Anthony Martino" the owner of pokernations.com give it a read when you get chance. Read his reply to

"One of the trickest apsects to running a forum is moderation............"

Thought maybe people might take the bull by the horns a bit and quickly do some research into how legitimate the claims were. This is an ideal time for a seasoned SEO to capitalise on something new and in its early stages. I know i am.

Seen as there must have been about 30,000 pages posted over the last 3 days about it. On google "news" its the tab at the top of the google homepage.

Or even set up Google alerts keyword "algorithmn"

Or set up the keyword on Google Reader.

Just be proactive abit ya know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jctroy440

Google takes over 200 variables into consideration when deciding where to put your portal purveyor of poop web site page into the rankings. One variable change will not mean a lot unless perhaps your a black hat.

Keep in mind that "Google" is a machine that takes orders from programmers. It does not "consider" anything. If X is Yes then Y happens, If X is Z then A happens and so forth.

---

You are correct - they do use over 200 variable as quoted here, but they also state here that

Quote:

---

At any moment, dozens of these changes are going through a well-oiled testing process. Google employs hundreds of people around the world to sit at their home computer and judge results for various queries, marking whether the tweaks return better or worse results than before.

---

So the integration of hand selection and actual results are always there, and always will be, and when they state that they are physically looking at these issues I think its pretty obvious that they do not rely on their automated process exclusively.

Quote:

---

There is entirely too much erroneous emphasis put on "Google's Page rankings" in this forum.

zoom zoom

---

Yes there probably is, but not mentioned in this one, or the original article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnthonyMSEO

"Gary" and "Klaus" there was a really good interview in GPWA from "Anthony Martino" the owner of pokernations.com give it a read when you get chance. Read his reply to

"One of the trickest apsects to running a forum is moderation............"

Thought maybe people might take the bull by the horns a bit and quickly do some research into how legitimate the claims were. This is an ideal time for a seasoned SEO to capitalise on something new and in its early stages. I know i am.

Seen as there must have been about 30,000 pages posted over the last 3 days about it. On google "news" its the tab at the top of the google homepage.

Or even set up Google alerts keyword "algorithmn"

Or set up the keyword on Google Reader.

Just be proactive abit ya know

---

Anthony I prefer to get my information from sources other than a poker affiliate selling t-shirts. Not that their information isn't reliable, but my Google Alerts and Reader are set up for NY Times, Reuters, Webmasterworld, SEland, and many other that are a bit less biased.

BTW - Its kaus - not Klaus, and its algorithm not algorithmn - the devil is in the details

People are willing to take the bulls by the horns as you suggest, but if you are trying to gain a rep in this forum post your sources and links to them because as you know, new Affiliates and up-and-coming SEO's prefer things streamlined.

personally I don't think spelling errors are much of a concern.

But I find this is the sort of reaction that puts me off posting any new tips or news on these forums, when somebody is trying to give the GPWA the heads up there is no reason to attack them, fact kaus posted some links to back up what was being said so it's not rubbish.... and between the two of them they made a very useful post for people who aren't quite so clued up to Google's changes.

It's helpful to some people there's no reason to jump down somebodies throat about it and nitpick, after all I thought part of the point of the GPWA was to help other webmasters.

Thanks mate. Here here!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catchingsmoke

personally I don't think spelling errors are much of a concern.

But I find this is the sort of reaction that puts me off posting any new tips or news on these forums, when somebody is trying to give the GPWA the heads up there is no reason to attack them, fact kaus posted some links to back up what was being said so it's not rubbish.... and between the two of them they made a very useful post for people who aren't quite so clued up to Google's changes.

It's helpful to some people there's no reason to jump down somebodies throat about it and nitpick, after all I thought part of the point of the GPWA was to help other webmasters.

---

What concerns me in this Google Blog article is the following quote:

Quote:

---

We can say with reasonable confidence that being bad to customers is bad for business on Google

---

Does this mean that competitors can cause "bad business" for your website. It seems to me that Google should discount these negative comments as a positive signal, but in this article is reads "bad for business", and not "neutral for business".

Will this potentially develop into webmasters hiring forum posters to trash your competitors? I hope not.

Yes, I agree. Google recently updated it's PR system cause I am seeing some sites' PR has been changed.