Google's Site Ranking Secrets 309
vivin writes "Ever wonder how Google's site ranking works? Wonder no more. Google recently filed United States Patent Application 20050071741 on March 31, 2005. This patent reveals a great deal of information about Google's site ranking algorithm and makes very good reading. For example, one of the criteria that they use is the number of years that your site has been registered. If your site has been registered for less than a year, then it counts against you. A site registered for a longer period of time means that the owner is probably serious about the site, and the site is probably legitimate. Google's Site Ranking algorithms reveal how hard they are making it for spam sites to get listed (on Google). This information will also make it easier for you to make sure that you get listed well in Google."
Note (Score:5, Insightful)
or (Score:3, Insightful)
Speed of gaining links? (Score:4, Insightful)
Its a patent... and a laundry list... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of these techniques are just plain old bizzare and might be way too difficult to approach algorithmically.
Oh well
SEOs make me barf (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spammers killing Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Speeling? (Score:2, Insightful)
About the autor (Score:5, Insightful)
So that explains a lot. What a crappy article, I wonder if the submitter is the same as the Author?
Re:Spammers killing Google (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sorry, that was my old Booble search query. I'm also sorry for all variations on that theme I'm responsible for.
Re:Already ./'ed ? (Score:1, Insightful)
2) What does ASP have to do with sites going down?
Re:Speed of gaining links? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if you have gotten 1000 links at once, and for the next months noone else is linking to you - then you have probably bought the initial links, but nobody real considers the content worthy of attention.
Re:Spammers killing Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its a patent... and a laundry list... (Score:1, Insightful)
The same can be said of Microsoft and their patents.
Oh wait, this is Slashdot.
Spammers (Score:3, Insightful)
Won't this information now make it easier for spam sites to get listed?
Re:Yay For Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
At the moment, the system is horribly abused, but the basic principle is a good one. I would be completely in favour of software patents if:
Not that simple (Score:5, Insightful)
No, its not that simple. Lets say I have a small business, I sell garden tools, lawnmowers,etc, in a certain region. And yet I do a search on google for garden tools + region, I am nowhere to be found. What do I do? I optimise the hell out of my site, caking it with region name + garden tools information, and I set up a links exchange program, getting in links left right and centre from related sites. This is SEO, and it will only affect people that enter a search for "garden" "tools" "my region". In other words, those that actually want to find my site.
Theres a distinction between SEO and spamming; if I was to optimise for a garden tools site and set up a poker site there, that would be spamming.
I find this quote funny: (Score:3, Insightful)
If any of you have worked in a small online shops you know what a fucking holy war this is between marketing and pretty much everyone else. I specifically remember saying at one point, "Do we have to make ALL of the money RIGHT NOW?"
Good for Google for coming forward and telling peole they won't be a part of that slimy shit.
Bad for Google for saying all of this to drive up prices on their AdWord sales.
Re:Not that simple (Score:4, Insightful)
The way I see it, SEO is a tool - nothing more, nothing less. It isn't inherently evil or inherently good - it's how you use it and what you use it for that matters.
If you've got a good site on... i dunno... aardvark polishing for fun and profit, then you should rank highly on Google. If you don't rank well on Google, it's probably because your site is lacking one of fame, content or clean code. All of these are necessary for (or inevitable side-products of) a good site that does what people want.
Conversely, a good site will probably have many inbound links, clean semantic markup, well-focused pages full of good content and so on. This is simply good site design (or, like the links, a side-effect of it), but it's also the very ethical end of the SEO spectrum.
Now, you also get evil scumbag fuckwits-for-hire who specialise in link-farming, keyword stuffing, cloaking and other black-hat techniques, and sell their services to shitty pr0n or spam sites. This is spam - no doubt about it - but it only represents the black-hat side of SEO.
The black-hat SEOers, it must be admitted, are the one which gets all the attention. They're the ones advertising like mad, making overblown claims, spamming search engines with crap listings and generally getting in people's faces. However, just because these people use SEO doesn't make SEO bad. Before SEO they were likely sending e-mail spams until that got too hard, but you don't unilaterally brand professionally-looking e-mails or people who sell mailing-list managers as evil, do you?
As Google et al. get their acts in gear and revamp their algorithms, "SEO" is increasingly overlapping with "good site design" - this was always the intention, and even now "white-hat SEO" and "good site design" are pretty much synonymous.
SEO isn't the problem - the problem is a combination of shithead black-hat SEOers, Search Engines inadequately assessing a page's worth and ill-educated types who shortsightedly blame the gun or bullet instead of the guy who fired it at them.
Re:SEOs make me barf (Score:2, Insightful)
That is the opinion of an SEO douche bag. In the real world, users of Google want Google to figure out which one has the edge, not some half assed marketing dink with knowledge of HTML.
I can look at a website and in 5 seconds detirmine if it has employed SEO techniques
So can we. When result #1 is less useful than result #5, we know an SEO asshat has been employed.
That is ridiculous, SEO's and SEM's provide a service with results that are undeniable
You're right. It is undeniable that many of the top results in Google, are no longer the most relevant results. In fact, I never use the #1 result in Google anymore, as it is almost always an optimized page, that is less relevant than the number 5 result. Keep up the "valuable" work you do, ensuring that the top 4 hits are garbage results.
WE (I'm an SEO guy) do this to keep your site insulated from the fluctuating Google algorithm
You do realize that the only reason that the algorithm fluctuates as much as it does, is to keep you scumbag SEO fucks from polluting the rankings, right? I think if you take a look at the changes that have been made to the algorithm over the past few years, the majority of them have been used to defeat SEO tweeks. Seems to me the people writting the algorithms don't think very highly of you either.
Keep telling yourself how much value you provide to your clients, and the web at large, if it helps you sleep at night. In the real world, the people who need good search results wish you would close up shop and get a job serving burgers and fries. At least there your clients are expecting to be buying shit.
I do search for a living, and I deal with "SEO" people every day. I have never met a single one whose actual advice to their clients was "Content is king, provide the best available information, and you will succeed". What really happens is they poke and prod, looking for the "shortcut" to good ranking results. In the end, the same result. The number #1 result, is almost NEVER the best one.
So, from the searchers of the world, I would like to invite you to kindly FOAD.
PS If you don't know what the acronym stands for, google it. So far the first result actually explains it. I guess you SEO guys haven't targeted that term yet. Maybe you can find a way to pollute that search term too?
How do you know? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Note (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhhh...to prevent others from benefiting from it? That's what patents are for. They say it there to promote innovation. It protects the owners exclusive control in the hope that he might reveal his idea to the world. More often than not, what really happens is that the owner will put the invention on the shelf because a)it competes with other inventions the owner may have on the market, or b)like a land or commodities speculator, he's holding out for an exorbitant price. Note that also more often than not, the owner of the IP privileges is not the creator. Patents are bought and sold like poker chips. While the actual device rots. Only the paper pushers benefit.
what are they trying to protect then?
Their advantage over everybody else.
Re:SEOs make me barf (Score:1, Insightful)
That is an opinion of an elitist prick. Who the hell are you to say that google should have the right to dictate to the public which of two competing businesses is better without the businesses having a say. I refuse to believe that any business should hand over their financial future to some other business and pray for the best.
You do realize that the only reason that the algorithm fluctuates as much as it does, is to keep you scumbag SEO fucks from polluting the rankings, right? I think if you take a look at the changes that have been made to the algorithm over the past few years, the majority of them have been used to defeat SEO tweeksThe changes in the algorith were made to make the results more relevant, not because of SEO tweeks - even thogh those tweeks are what uncovered the weaknesses in your algo. If your damn algorith was so accurate, I couldn't have manipulated it now could I? Just cause your algo was susceptible to some fool putting his keywords on a page 1000 times doesn't mean it's some SEO guys fault.
I do search for a living, and I deal with "SEO" people every day. I have never met a single one whose actual advice to their clients was "Content is king, provide the best available information, and you will succeed"You deal with Spammers. I tell my clients not to waste time on get to the top quick routes cause it is short lived. I give you search guys enough credit to eventually come up with a solid algo, and when that happens no website I have consulted on will be dropped. Because content IS king. Also, SEO goes alot deeper than site building. There is a human element to it also. Understanding what and how your customers look for things, and catering to them is harder that "Hey put your key words on your webpages every 15 words and make sure they're in bold."
In the real world, the people who need good search results wish you would close up shop and get a job serving burgers and fries. At least there your clients are expecting to be buying shit.
People buy shit on the web moron. And I work for them. If you want to go yell at some guy who's interfering with people doing research on Cancer, then be my guest. But people who come to my websites purchase things, alot of things to be exact. What, did I magically SEO them into handing over their money? I don't think so. Your condescending attitude show you know nothing of Ecommerce or the changing business world. Just your little acre of it.
FOAD - Typical coming from an AC loser. I have shamed myself by even responding to you.Re:Spammers killing Google (Score:3, Insightful)
It's bad web design, plain and simple.
Re:Speed of gaining links? (Score:3, Insightful)
We've had a couple of slashdotted articles, and the logs have shown visitors coming in from thousands of new links. Although for whatever reason, Google picked up on almost none of them...
Other, better approaches to search engine spam (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, let's search Google for "london hotels", a common search phrase. The first return is LondonNights.com [londonnights.com]. "Whois" returns "Worldview Ltd, 16 Marine Road West, Morecambe, LA3 1BS, Lancs, GREAT BRITAIN (UK)."
That's a UK company, so we look it up at Companies House. [companieshouse.gov.uk], where we find "WORLDVIEW LIMITED, 16 MARINE ROAD WEST, MORECAMBE, LANCASHIRE LA3 1BS, Company No. 04588973". So we have a match on a registered company.
We check further with Dun and Bradstreet [dnb.com], which has a worldwide database of companies. We find "WORLDVIEW LTD 16 MARINE RD WEST MORECAMBE , UK Type of Location: single"
So they pass company validation, and we can get financial information about them.
Now let's try a domain that just appeared in a spam: "fleagroups.com". "Whois" gives us "Flea Market Groups. 126 73rd Ave N., Coral Springs, Florida 34992. US" So we go to Sunbiz, the Florida State Division of Corporations [sunbiz.org], and search. No "Flea Market Groups" under fictitions names. No match on address under anything beginning with "Flea". No "Flea Market Groups" under corporations, and no "Flea Market *" address matches.
Looking in Dun and Bradstreet, there are "Flea Market *" hits, but no exact match and no address match.
So they fail company validation. Add to probable spammer list, drop search engine ranking.
This is a reasonable test for any site that appears to be selling something.
Patents for Potential (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of reminds me of a science fiction story I read as a kid... this engineer is walking down the road when he sees a guy peddling toy saucers based on anti-gravity devices. After watching the demonstration, he buys one and is taught the trick, a piece of black thread inobtrusively linked to a pully, that the switch just powers some lights and sounds on the saucer. The engineer smiles and says it will make for a fun trick for the kids. The narrative then follows the vendor home where he says tells a man at a workbench that he sold 15 units that day and why the hell were they selling these saucers for $5 each when they cost $100 to make? The man at the workbench smiles and explains that somewhere out there, some bright individual is going to notice that operating the saucer without flipping the switch results in a broken thread. The inventor has never been able to get his device to output more than a small fraction of anti-gravity, but one day, someone will figure out how to improve the process whereupon he can leverage the patent he's got filed... ^_^ It was an amusing twist in the story to me.
Re:New Startups (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:SEOs make me barf (Score:2, Insightful)
Google doesn't have the right to dictate which business is better. Google has a right to determine through their algorithm which site THEY think is better. As a searcher, by selecting Google as MY search tool, I am saying "I think Google's suggestions are the best". No one forces anyone to use Google, people choose to use it, because it works. It would work even better if you jackoff SEO's would take a job at McDonalds.
I refuse to believe that any business should hand over their financial future to some other business and pray for the best.
Is this not EXACTLY what YOUR clients do? This model, is THE ONLY reason your business exists. Shut mouth, open mind, think. Try it.
The changes in the algorith were made to make the results more relevant, not because of SEO tweeks - even thogh those tweeks are what uncovered the weaknesses in your algo. If your damn algorith was so accurate, I couldn't have manipulated it now could I?
So what are you saying? First you say the algo changes are to make it better, then you admit to abusing the loopholes, forcing changes in the algo. I guess my original post was correct, most algo changes are made to negate manipulation by SEO's. Thanks for confirming your douche bag status in the SEO world (not that there was any doubt in the first place).
People buy shit on the web moron. And I work for them. If you want to go yell at some guy who's interfering with people doing research on Cancer, then be my guest.
Here is the problem with SEO. You want to chase dollars for your clients. To chase said dollars, your job is to ensure that as much traffic as possible is directed to your clients sites, with NO regard for "relevance". In fact, you become more successful, when you misdirect traffic to your client sites, right? So, if I was, say researching a cure for Cancer, you would be quite happy to be able to route my clicks, to your clients, right? Even if your clients are selling, oh say tobacco products. Or like on your site maybe, nice tags. Throw the "Love" one in last, cause your site is full of love. Oh, no, I guess it is really about a kid being a cynic. Funny you take such offence to a cynical post.
But people who come to my websites purchase things, alot of things to be exact. What, did I magically SEO them into handing over their money? I don't think so. Your condescending attitude show you know nothing of Ecommerce or the changing business world.
The thing that makes SEO's douche bags, is not that their clients may have commercial success. If your clients are selling tons of stuff, great. Buyer meet seller, exchange goods, done. Happy, happy, happy. What makes SEO's douche bags, as mentioned above, is your only function is to exploit popular tools, to ensure that your pages rank higher, REGARDLESS of content, thereby degrading the usefullness of popular tools. Think email signal -> noise ratio. Thanks for your contribution to the noise half of the equation. Oh, as for my lack of understanding of EComm, or the changing business world, not related. I just call them as I see them, and I see the vast majority of SEO's a douche bags. I would have suggested that maybe you were one of the ten White hats in the biz, but your comments above seems to lump you in with the mass of scumbags. Not surprising really.
Also, SEO goes alot deeper than site building. There is a human element to it also. Understanding what and how your customers look for things, and catering to them is harder that "Hey put your key words on your webpages every 15 words and make sure they're in bold."
Agreed, except that NOTHING you typed in the bolded section has jack shit to do with SEO work. That is all HCI, Design, and usability work. All valid, and useful. The funny thing is, the part of your com
Dude. You're just not getting it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SEOs make me barf (Score:2, Insightful)
Except there are legitimate reasons to want to optimize a site for a search engine. If I make a product that's good, let's say a cool customizable flyswatter and I want people to find my product, I want to make it rank well in the search engines.
In order to make that happen, I sit down and think real hard about what my customer or potential customer might be looking for. Obviously "custom flyswatter" is a priority. I don't have to work hard to optimize my site to demonstrate it's an authoritative site for that search term, since that's what I sell (theoretically--I don't actually sell flyswatters).
But also maybe there's a customer out there who can't think of the word "customizable" or they want a "personalized" flyswatter. Well, I can probably speak with some authority on the subject of why it might be worthwhile to personalize your flyswatter and why you would want to buy this theoretical personalized flyswatter from my business. So I add content that reflects this to my site. Is this evil? Is this snake oil? No, it's search engine optimization and it's legitimate.
Why would it be my fault if a) google's algorithm is artificially stupid and doesn't see the similarity between "customizable" and "personalized", for example; or if b) an end user wants to be able to find something in their way that gets them to a satisfactory product; or c) everyone is too lazy to look anywhere but the top 10 (and really just top 4) listings on google?
I think link farms are shite, but they're not the only work done by SEOs. Optimizing your content to make it easier to find isn't snake oil hucksterism, it's good business-- it shows you've given consideration to what the customer is looking for and can provide a product or service that fits their needs.
cat got my tongue (Score:3, Insightful)
Google's Site Ranking algorithms reveal how hard they are making it for spam sites to get listed (on Google).
And provides a list of techniques for spam sites to use that guarantee them positions on every search engine but Google (in fact, if you use these techniques it's illegal for other search engines to penalize you for them.
This could be an especially evil technique for spammers.