Published: Jul 15, 2008 - 08:02 pm
Story Found By: DazzlinDonna 1306 Days ago
Category: SEO
8 Comments
8 Comments
Search Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.
Join us at an upcoming SMX event:
Learn more about search marketing with our free online webcasts and webinars from our sister site, Search Marketing Now. Upcoming online events include:
Comments
For such a good article I dont understand why this isnt getting more sphinns.
"It’s unlikely to hurt you if you don’t bother to include a Keywords META Tag, but as long as you don’t go over the top and only include words that are actually relevant, it won’t hurt to put it in either."Actually Ive seen a Googler or two point to overloaded META keywords as a negative quality signal."will increase your site’s “TrustRank”"Its questionable Google uses TrustRank at all, though I believe "trust" is still important. However, that has nada to do with domain age or its behavior in the past - it has everything to do with the character of a webmaster and his past "criminal" record.That said, a well-written, engaging post.
@Halfdeck - "Actually Ive seen a Googler or two point to overloaded META keywords as a negative quality signal."Thats exactly the point I wanted to get across. Going over the top with your META Keywords can "sink" you with Google, but the tag has been so devalued as a result of all the spammy abuses in the past that even a properly written keywords tag isnt going to help you "float" much higher.That said, perhaps I could have made that point clearer in the original post. "Its questionable Google uses TrustRank at all, though I believe "trust" is still important."I think we can both agree that (whether or not "TrustRank TM" exists within Google as a documented part of the overall ranking algorithm in the same way as PageRank does) Google does make use of certain signals regarding a sites "trustworthiness."Ann Smarty did a great post today about the value of domain age/website age (sphinn link here http://sphinn.com/story/59098 ) which shows that the age of a website (and the age of its associated link profile) can be a stronger influencer that the actual domain age. IMO these kind of signals almost certainly form a subset of the signals used to calculate PageRank.Its a shame I didnt see her post until after I published mine or Id have included a link to it.Im not sure I follow your logic as far as this having to do with the webmaster and his/her record. Webmasters may come and go from a site and although a previous webmasters indiscretions may have caused the negative effects to a sites rankings, it is still the site that suffers such penalties and its up to the new webmaster to clean up any issues and file for reinclusion.
"Ann Smarty did a great post today about the value of domain age"Thats an interesting post. Google has hundreds of quality signals at its disposal, so its hard to overlook anything. Trust, however, has to do more with webmaster behavior than signals of quality. An authoritative aged domain may make its content more valuable in the SERPs but Google will not necessarily trust some or all of its outlinks (e.g. SER) if it has a history of link selling. Do you trust a guy just because hes 70 years old and has a solid reputation? We got plenty of people that fit that profile in the government getting away with murder."Webmasters may come and go from a site"Thats certainly true. Nevertheless, who owns a domain often comes into play when judging intentions. One example is Matt Cutts often examining a site owners entire collection of domains before jumping into a site review, even when (as John Andrews highlighted in one of his posts) the domains dont cross link at all. Why does he do it? To get a feeling for what kind of webmaster hes dealing with.When David Airey got penalized one of the main issues that Matt Cutts and Danny Sullivan brought up is Davids knowledge of SEO - which solidified Matts suspicion that Davids contest was intent on gaming Google.Another example is the recent widget-penalty discussed on SEOmoz where Google not only penalized the original site but warned the site owner against running the same "scam" on their second site.How much of this is hard wired into Googles algorithms? Who knows. But we all know "intention" is a big word for Google - and the bottom line is it isnt always easy to judge intent without sizing up the man holding the gun (he could be a cop trying to take down a bank robber or he could be out to rob a grocery store; just the fact hes holding a gun tells you nothing).
I preferred it when Google wasnt a democracy.Just a straightforward search engine..
A good comprehensive guide. I scanned it though, maybe its just late (early)
The article is well written - but cant the voters of Sphinn promote something other than your basic,regurgitated SEO information?
@homelessSEO it is only basic if you know how to do it. Subsequently its often the basics that get the best results