Google's Penguin Update: Good or Bad!

A quantity of sites and articles is constantly on the spit forth from disappointed SEO professionals over Google’s newest formula changes, and most of the rage is instructed at the so-called “over-optimization” charge with which the Penguin upgrade has taken down many formerly powerful positions.

Spotting the Over-Optimized

 
It’s often difficult to parse the purposely unexplained terminology that the 800-pound look for gorilla in the room uses to discuss its formula, and the term “over-optimized” is perhaps the perfect example of vagueness. Google recognizes over-optimized sites as those interesting in “much more than white-hat SEO” upon further examination, even if they do not appear spam on the top area. Which techniques the company is now flagging as “more than bright hat” is still up for controversy.


It may be that too much attempt in certain bright hat techniques may now be increasing to the level of trash for Google’s flavor. This could be a changing of trash completely, or at least improving the procedure of identifying webpages as spam with new red banner ads. And in an attempt to determine those red banner ads, Google is probably assessing all that user-behavior information it’s been gathering over the past season through Firefox and its plug-ins.

Identifying Spam through Utilization Statistics

Since Google started gathering usage information from Firefox customers and those signed in for Google Search Plus — and because they may have learned a lot of information from individual reviews on email trash — it’s not irrational to believe that those research are being used to banner sites where individual involvement is low or on which customers clearly are not finding what they were searching for. If a lot of customers are simply clicking the Returning option after hitting a number-2-ranked weblink on SERPs for choose conditions, maybe it does not are supposed to be there.

The individual of individual time frame in this way makes a issue for which Google may be getting a lot of flak. More well-established sites may see their positions experience because usage information on them is more solid. And since Google obviously has more information on some sites than others, we can anticipate listings to be pretty unpredictable, at least until its already awesome chest of usage statistics becomes more extensive. So, if Google usage information reveals considerably higher jump rates on your sites, you can definitely anticipate your positions to experience.

This concentrate on individual actions is obviously connected to the site structure formula released by Google a few months ago, which is focusing on sites that have little or not material available above the times of the site. So, huge ad banner ads and weblink trash along the sidebars (which drives your material further down the page) have definitely been determined as a marking of sites that are aggressive to customers.

It Really Is the Content, Honest!

And that brings us returning to material, Google’s ultimate goal of look for. Search term filling has always been a bad idea for material, and it’s probably the low-hanging fruit for Google’s webspam group. What we’re seeing with the new terminology for Penguin is a changing of why filling is bad, and quality natural SEO services are going to have to change considerably when it comes to material development in order to evolve.

Keyword filling is a indication of “over-optimization” by professional SEO strategists and is really a natural result when trying to make material around hyperlinks rather than those hyperlinks happening normally within a piece of material. Shoehorning hyperlinks and search phrases into material instead of allowing them to occur normally really is a welcome form of anti-webspam from Google for anyone creating awesome material but get overshadowed by spammers.

I think this is a pitfall that SEOs all too often drop into by healing material as just another thing that can be produced, an easy attitude to drop into for anyone freelancing article writing. Give your copy writer some URLs and maybe a name and you are done, right? Except, that is not how the real innovative procedure works; building material from intensely enhanced anchor-text external is a formula for poorly information, and you cannot always depend on innovative authors to take a magic out of their hat and make appropriate material from those factors.

This over-optimized material issue is increased as the material topic becomes more clever. An British major has no prayer of generating any appropriate material about hosting server structure that is not merely a re-hashing of market vocabulary they pick up online (usually from other content published by in the same way spam writers). If they do generate something, the material level might not be adequate to make a “keyword community,” where the hyperlinks you want will normally live.

Writing such material is what makes the bad communities that you particularly should be trying to avoid connecting from. A site that allows such material might be able to restore some bad material by quality of its own power, but it will not stay trustworthy for long posting such material.

It’s time to confess that this kind of material really does not hold as hefty a place in seo technique as it should, and Google is lastly getting around to using individual actions in a way that causes that to become the concentrate. Even if the formula is not perfect at fulfilling that kind of material development yet, you can bet the webspam group is assured that their growing hill of individual time frame (from all of Google’s qualities, which now have a single comfort and information selection policy) is going to provide better processing going forward.

Image courtesy www.seo-hacker.comPlease add me on Google+