Sphinn - Evaluating Google Search Quality

12
Sphinn It!

Evaluating Google Search Quality

Posted By: brucecat 474 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.brucecat.com)
Category: Google SEO

A leaked copy of Google “Spam Recognition Guide for Quality Raters” has recently surfaced on the Net, these are the guidelines in which Google gives to human reviewers on how to judge a page and rate it.

1 Comment

Who Desphunn This (0)

Comments

from searchcommander 474 days ago #

Votes: 0 | Vote:

+ -

Even if this were not legit, (but I believe it is) it's quite a good bit of info, and should be read by everyone.

It's well worth grabbing a copy of the .pdf file and reading it at your leisure, but the key theme throughout the entire original document (blog article links to it) and throughout the summary on the blog post seems to be "added value".

No matter what sort of site you have, if you're not adding something useful, shut up and face it - you're a spammer.

Throughout the document, definitions of added value kept popping up, like this -

Examples of content that provides added value include:
• Price comparison functionality: Even though the user has to go to another site via the affiliate link to place an order, there is value to have price comparisons right there on the page.
• Product reviews: Pages that provide original reviews offer added value. Items that are commonly reviewed are books, electronics, and hotels.
• Recipes: Pages that provide recipes offer added value.
• Lyrics and quotes: Pages that display lyrics or quotes offer added value.
• Contact information: Pages that provide contact information, especially physical addresses and phone numbers, offer added value.
• Coupon, discount, and promotion codes: Affiliate pages that provide coupon, promotion, or discount codes for the consumer offer added value

Notice anything missing? Like perhaps subject relevant original content?

Ahh, further down, content is mentioned, but it's not a perceived added value unless it's a review?

Well excuse me, but as an owner of some sites labeled here as "thin affiliates", I work very hard to get original quality content on these sites, and this statement ticks me off -

Unfortunately, some content is written specifically for Spam pages and you will not find it on another source. Although you may be convinced that the intent is to deceive, if the content makes sense and appears original, you will not be able to label such pages Spam.

So by adding original subject relevant content, the intent is to decieve? At least the author grudgingly says that they CAN'T label those as spam, but their bias shows through. What does he have against ghost writers?

Um, yeah - the intent is to "deceive" people into believing the site is an authority on the subject of widgets, and at the same time provide links to buy those widgets.

Apparently this "deception" can be accomplished by adding dozens or hundreds of original articles about the very industry for which you're a "thin affiliate". How deceptive.

I'll say again, the document is well worth grabbing and saving for reference.