Showing posts with label Google's Algorithm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google's Algorithm. Show all posts

Friday, September 13, 2019

Nearly 15 years ago, the nofollow attribute was introduced as a means to help fight comment spam. It also quickly became one of Google’s recommended methods for flagging advertising-related or sponsored links. The web has evolved since nofollow was introduced in 2005 and it’s time for nofollow to evolve as well.
Today, we’re announcing two new link attributes that provide webmasters with additional ways to identify to Google Search the nature of particular links. These, along with nofollow, are summarized below:

rel="sponsored": Use the sponsored attribute to identify links on your site that were created as part of advertisements, sponsorships or other compensation agreements.

rel="ugc": UGC stands for User Generated Content, and the ugc attribute value is recommended for links within user generated content, such as comments and forum posts.

rel="nofollow": Use this attribute for cases where you want to link to a page but don’t want to imply any type of endorsement, including passing along ranking credit to another page.

When nofollow was introduced, Google would not count any link marked this way as a signal to use within our search algorithms. This has now changed. All the link attributes -- sponsored, UGC and nofollow -- are treated as hints about which links to consider or exclude within Search. We’ll use these hints -- along with other signals -- as a way to better understand how to appropriately analyze and use links within our systems.
Why not completely ignore such links, as had been the case with nofollow? Links contain valuable information that can help us improve search, such as how the words within links describe content they point at. Looking at all the links we encounter can also help us better understand unnatural linking patterns. By shifting to a hint model, we no longer lose this important information, while still allowing site owners to indicate that some links shouldn’t be given the weight of a first-party endorsement.
We know these new attributes will generate questions, so here’s a FAQ that we hope covers most of those.

Do I need to change my existing nofollows?
No. If you use nofollow now as a way to block sponsored links, or to signify that you don’t vouch for a page you link to, that will continue to be supported. There’s absolutely no need to change any nofollow links that you already have.

Can I use more than one rel value on a link?
Yes, you can use more than one rel value on a link. For example, rel="ugc sponsored" is a perfectly valid attribute which hints that the link came from user-generated content and is sponsored. It’s also valid to use nofollow with the new attributes -- such as rel="nofollow ugc" -- if you wish to be backwards-compatible with services that don’t support the new attributes.

If I use nofollow for ads or sponsored links, do I need to change those?
No. You can keep using nofollow as a method for flagging such links to avoid possible link scheme penalties. You don't need to change any existing markup. If you have systems that append this to new links, they can continue to do so. However, we recommend switching over to rel=”sponsored” if or when it is convenient.

Do I still need to flag ad or sponsored links?
Yes. If you want to avoid a possible link scheme action, use rel=“sponsored” or rel=“nofollow” to flag these links. We prefer the use of “sponsored,” but either is fine and will be treated the same, for this purpose.

What happens if I use the wrong attribute on a link?
There’s no wrong attribute except in the case of sponsored links. If you flag a UGC link or a non-ad link as “sponsored,” we’ll see that hint but the impact -- if any at all -- would be at most that we might not count the link as a credit for another page. In this regard, it’s no different than the status quo of many UGC and non-ad links already marked as nofollow.
It is an issue going the opposite way. Any link that is clearly an ad or sponsored should use “sponsored” or “nofollow,” as described above. Using “sponsored” is preferred, but “nofollow” is acceptable.

Why should I bother using any of these new attributes?
Using the new attributes allows us to better process links for analysis of the web. That can include your own content, if people who link to you make use of these attributes.

Won’t changing to a “hint” approach encourage link spam in comments and UGC content?
Many sites that allow third-parties to contribute to content already deter link spam in a variety of ways, including moderation tools that can be integrated into many blogging platforms and human review. The link attributes of “ugc” and “nofollow” will continue to be a further deterrent. In most cases, the move to a hint model won’t change the nature of how we treat such links. We’ll generally treat them as we did with nofollow before and not consider them for ranking purposes. We will still continue to carefully assess how to use links within Search, just as we always have and as we’ve had to do for situations where no attributions were provided.

When do these attributes and changes go into effect?
All the link attributes, sponsored, ugc and nofollow, now work today as hints for us to incorporate for ranking purposes. For crawling and indexing purposes, nofollow will become a hint as of March 1, 2020. Those depending on nofollow solely to block a page from being indexed (which was never recommended) should use one of the much more robust mechanisms listed on our Learn how to block URLs from Google help page.

Posted by Danny Sullivan and Gary

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Sign up for our daily recaps of the ever-changing search marketing landscape.
Note: By submitting this form, you agree to Third Door Media's terms. We respect your privacy.
Google updated its Search Quality Rater Guidelines on September 5; the update was first brought to the attention of the SEO community via a tweet from SEM consultant Marie Haynes. This latest version places more emphasis on vetting news sources as well as YMYL content and its creators and expands the basis for which a rater might apply the lowest ratings to content that may potentially spread hate. The previous update occurred on May 16.
Below is an analysis of the changes. The May 16 version of the guidelines appears on the left-hand side of the screenshots, with the corresponding section of the latest version on the right-hand side.
2.3: Your Money or Your Life (YMYL) Pages
Addition of the word "topics," broadening the content that this section may pertain to beyond web pages.
The previous "News articles or public/official Information pages Important for having an Informed citizenry" and the "Legal Information pages" sections have been reorganized and replaced with "News and current events" and "Civics, government, and law," which now appear at the top of the list.
"News and current events" features examples of news that may not necessarily be considered YMYL. The term "voting" is explicitly mentioned in the new "Civics, government, and law" section.
"Shopping" and "Finance" are now two separate categories. "Shopping" YMYL content now includes "information about or services related to research or purchase of goods/services," such as reviews.
"Groups of people" is also a new section; the description could be interpreted as pertaining to hate groups, solidarity groups or anything in between.
The "Other" section now also provides more examples of content that could be considered YMYL.
2.5.2 Finding Who is Responsible for the Website and Who Created the Content on the Page
This subsection of 2.5 (Understanding the Website) adds "Websites want users to be able to distinguish between content created by themselves versus content that was added by other users." For users, being able discern between in-house and third-party content may affect the publisher's reputation. For example, lyrics website Genius accused Google of stealing its content; only then did Google disclose that it licenses lyrics from third parties.
The final sentence of the subsection increases the responsibility borne by websites that syndicate content from just having to possess the appropriate licenses to now also potentially being held accountable for the quality of that licensed content.
2.6.1 Research on the Reputation of the Website or Creator of the Main Content
This subsection of 2.6 (Reputation of the Website or Creator of the Main Content) puts more emphasis on print media by replacing "newspaper website" with "newspaper (with an associated website)." It also allows search quality raters to take a track record of high-quality, original reporting into account — not just awards won by a publication.
4.6 Examples of High Quality Pages

The Page Quality (PQ) Rating and Explanation sections of three examples have been expanded. In line with the additions from 2.6.1 above, the news explanations now include having a positive reputation for objective reporting and investigative journalism.
Overall, the guidelines seem to be moving away from Pulitzers as the be all, end all of awards and are instructing raters to acknowledge other accolades as well.
5.0 Highest Quality Pages
Section 5.1 (Very High Quality Main Content) now expands YMYL topics outside the bounds of news articles and information pages. There are now criteria for news, artistic and informational content.
Section 5.2 (Very Positive Reputation) removes the reference to E-A-T and reminds raters to carefully check the reputation of YMYL content creators.
Section 5.3 (Very High Level of E-A-T) raises the overall bar for YMYL content, but acknowledges that standards for E-A-T will vary. It also adds video as a content source.
5.4 (Examples of Highest Quality Pages) now features two examples of high-quality news, with explanations that emphasize awards, high-quality main content, uniqueness, originality, depth and investigative journalism.
The "Highest: Entertainment" example is not present on the latest iteration of the guidelines.
The explanations for three high-quality video examples have been expanded to include uniqueness and originality.
6.7 Examples of Low Quality Pages
Four examples from this section now carry the YMYL label.
7.3 Pages That Potentially Spread Hate
"Criteria" has been removed and replaced with broader bases for applying the lowest page rating. There is also a stronger emphasis on groups.
11.0 Page Quality Rating FAQs
Google has made it more explicit to its raters that pages existing for the sake of artistic expression, humor, entertainment and the like are "all valid and valued page purposes," and thus may not necessarily deserve a low quality rating because they do not serve more practical purposes.
12.9 Rating on Your Phone Issues
Google is no longer telling raters to assume, by default, that queries with device-specific results were issued on an Android device.
13.2.1 Examples of Fully Meets (FullyM) Result Blocks
The note once-attached to this explanation has been removed. This is in line with abandoning the assumption that device-specific results are coming from Android devices (mentioned above in 12.9).
13.5.1 Examples of Slightly Meets (SM) Result Blocks
The "ellen degeneres" example has been removed.
13.6 Fails to Meet (FailsM)
The "zoo atlanta" example has been removed.
14.6.1 Using the Upsetting-Offensive Flag

As with section 7.3, the word "criteria" has been removed, allowing for a wider bases with which to justify applying the Upsetting-Offensive flag. There is also additional emphasis on groups of people.
About The Author George Nguyen is an Associate Editor at Third Door Media. His background is in content marketing, journalism, and storytelling.
Sign up for our daily recaps of the ever-changing search marketing landscape.
Note: By submitting this form, you agree to Third Door Media's terms. We respect your privacy.

Friday, July 6, 2012

As we all know, Googles Panda and Penguin algorithm updates have thrown webmasters and search engine consultants for a loop, making the tried and tested methods they use to bump sites up the rankings ineffective, if not downright obsolete.
Of course, these updates are just the latest volley in the constant battle between Google " which tries to provide users with relevant results to searches " and those who seek to get their sites to the top by any means necessary.
So in the spirit of mischief, let's check out the most notorious ways in which people have exploited Googles algorithm.

10. George Bush Is A Miserable Failure

10. George Bush is a Miserable Failure
Depending on your politics, you may or may not agree with the sentiment, but a Google search for the term miserable failure would have returned George Bushs Whiteouse.gov page as the first result for a significant portion of the early 2000s.
The prank was accomplished by Google bombing " a mass action by various webmasters who in this case linked to the Whitehouse.gov page via the phrase miserable failure on their sites. When the prank was started in 2003 by the Old Fashioned Patriot blog, Google made a statement that they had no problem with the practice; however, come 2007 they decided to tweak their algorithm to minimize the effect of Google bombs. Why? Because people thought that these results were Googles opinion!

9. Quixtar Pushes Positivity

9. Quixtar Pushes Positivity

Google bombs are not just used for pranks and political commentary.
In 2004, reports emerged from a Quixtar talk alleging that a senior Quixtar (now Amway Global) representative had discussed the use of hired geekoids to post positive stories about them, so that negative websites would fall off the rankings.
The multi-level marketing company released a statement in which they maintained that they never knowingly violated search engine rules. However, online observers noticed that, soon after, Quixtars official site dropped to the third page of Google results.
As of May 2012, a search for Quixtar offers " in the top six " a result about how Quixtar sucks and a link to an NBC Dateline investigation into the company, so it seems that their efforts didn't completely pay off.

8. GoDaddy Gets Punished

8. GoDaddy Gets Punished
Back in December 2011, vast numbers of Internet users were up in arms about the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, so GoDaddys support for the bill was not looked upon with pleasure.
Happily sitting at number one for the Google query domain registration, GoDaddy were hit with a Google bomb whereby their ranking was targeted for replacement by an anti-SOPA domain registrar, NameCheap.
Like the miserable failure bomb, this was again caused by webmasters linking " in this case to NameCheap through the phrase domain registration.
Disseminated via social media and Hacker News, the initiative (along with a threatened boycott) caused GoDaddy to go back on its support for the initiative.
As of early May 2012, GoDaddy is ranked at number two for the search, right behind NameCheap " which just goes to show it doesn't pay to have unpopular opinions where the web's concerned.

7. DecorMyEyes Makes Lemonade Out Of Lemons

7. DecorMyEyes Makes Lemonade out of Lemons
Most business owners go out of their way to be nice to customers in order to avoid negative reviews. However, Vitaly Borker, the owner of eyewear store DecorMyEyes, noticed something interesting: the more reviews he got, the higher his search rankings, regardless of whether the reviews slammed his business or not.
In fact, he began to deliberately court bad publicity and upset customers in order to get even more negative reviews! It sounds crazy, as surely seeing these negative reviews will cause a searcher to move on, right? The thing is, though, searching for individual products that his site sold would still bring his site up prominently " as it had a high PageRank from all the angry link-filled reviews " but without the reviews themselves!
After a New York Times expos on the site, Google acted swiftly to institute an algorithm that tackled bad merchants. Borker pleaded guilty to threatening customers and fraud and in May 2012 was still awaiting his sentence.

6. Dan Thies Gets Google Bowled

6. Dan Thies Gets Google Bowled
Google bowling is one of the blackest tricks in the unethical, or black hat, search engine optimization toolkit.
Its a pretty simple idea. Google punishes websites that try to increase their ranking by breaking Googles rules; for example, by using splogs " fake blogs intended only to link to the target website " or the use of automatic commenting on blogs that push links.
It stands to reason, then, that setting up these tools for a competitors site can cause them to get a punishment they dont deserve, and make them fall down the rankings.
Dan Thies, SEO,  tweeted his pleasure that Google was tackling splogs, he became the subject of an experiment to prove that those being punished were not necessarily to blame. Just 10 days after he posted his tweet, his website had been flagged by Google for violations.

5. The Chocomize Story

5. The Chocomize Story
In July 2010, the word chocomize began to trend on Google " meaning, of course, that the number of people searching for it suddenly increased.
Chocomize itself is an inoffensive website where you can make your own customized chocolate bars. However, its trending status was a little stranger.
A CNN article was published about the company, leading to an initial spike in searches. Bloggers and website owners then discovered it was trending and took advantage of the opportunity for ad revenue by writing useless articles that would draw in traffic and give them sweet Adwords money.
All this activity led to a higher spike, causing the actual site and the original article on the company to slide down the rankings " in turn leading to useless results for searchers.

4. J.C. Penney Pays For Links

4. J.C. Penney Pays for Links
When you think of unethical web practices, you probably think of sleazy hackers or small companies trying to save a buck, not corporate giants like J.C. Penney.
However, in 2011 the department store was found to have been paying for links to its website, and Google gave it 90 days to sit in the corner and think about what it had done.
J.C. Penney denies knowledge of the scheme, blaming it on the SEO company they had hired, but the scandal brought the illegitimate technique into the limelight, and shows that nobody is above Googles wrath.

3. Forbes Sells Links

3. Forbes Sells Links
Of course, for sites to buy links, somebody has to be selling them, and it turns out that little blogs and websites aren't the only culprits.
Along with J.C. Penney, Google called out Forbes.com for selling text links that let other sites raise their Page Rankings. Even more shocking, 2011 wasnt the first time Forbes had been in trouble with Google. It was penalized back in 2007 for the same offense. And, it looks like they didnt learn their lesson, even going cap in hand to the Google webmaster help forum asking for clarification on which links were a problem.

2. Malware Targets High Rankings

2. Malware Targets High Rankings
For many people, Google is seen as the last bastion of objective, truthful information. Yet this trusting approach makes Google search results a tempting target for malware promoters.
A study of top search terms has shown that almost half of the top 20 search terms are constantly being targeted by malicious websites that try to get visitors to download malware such as fake antiviruses.
While Google strives to remove these sites as soon as possible, the numbers are staggering. Over just six days in March, for example, almost 300 top Google searches were targeted by around 6,500 malicious websites, and it's a continuing battle to take these sites down as soon as they pop up.

1. BuildMyRank

1. BuildMyRank
BuildMyRank and other link-building websites were a popular tool for webmasters and search engine consultants. However, from March 19, 2012, BuildMyRank is no more, with Google de-indexing almost the entire site.
Why? Because the links that the network provided, while great for website owners looking to rise up the ranks, gave no actual information about how relevant or useful the site was.
Links can be helpful for search results when they are genuine and when they are used because another site is considered relevant. However, these networks existed purely to abuse the system. BuildMyRank and similar sites were notorious as a cheap and easy way to rise up the rankings " its even in the name! Perhaps the only surprising issue is that it took Google so long to crack down on them.

Source: www.searchenginepeople.com