I'd love to come for a drink. Where is the nearest defibrillator? - Mike Magee
|
|
|
Google's Panda update could bring down paywalls
ONLINE ADVERTISING BROKER Google has installed updates to its page rank algorithm that should highlight quality web content over search engine optimised (SEO) garble and promote quality journalism without paywalls.
Google's Panda update was rolled out on the firm's English language search engine on 11 April, with the firm claiming that it will produce search results that favour high quality websites, not ones that rely heavily on SEO. Now results from web analytics firm Searchmetrics show that some of the UK's most popular websites have suffered significant declines in Google visibility.
Visibility on a search engine is a metric used to gauge how close to the top a particular website appears when particular keywords are entered. Searchmetrics CEO Horst Joepen told The INQUIRER that websites that have low search engine visibility appear farther down in search rankings and are seen by fewer web users, adding that it would be "very bad" for website traffic.
Joepen said that Searchmetric's tests showed that some price comparison websites fared particularly badly in its visibility tests with Google's Panda algorithm. His firm reported visibility drops of up to 98 per cent, with Joepen saying that the declines were so great that the firm had to manually double check the validity of its algorithm.
When Google announced its Panda update the search giant claimed that less weight would be placed on websites that implement SEO, or in simple terms, binge on keywords. Google now says that quality, not quantity of keywords, is what it looks for, a claim that is backed up by Searchmetric's tests.
Searchmetric has found that the time users spend on a particular website now plays a significant role in where it is ranked. Jeopen said that "the pressure on the [publishing] industry is to avoid SEO keywords" but added that Google might need to re-evaulate its algorithm as it has caused "collateral damage" to some websites.
Jeopen also said that Google's changes could mean a return to quality content being ranked near the top of Google's results. More than that, Jeopen's comments suggest that paywalls might not be the way to fund high quality journalism, despite what Times' owner Rupert Murdoch keeps banging on about.
If Google's new algorithm places greater weight on quality content then advertising revenue should be able to fund good journalism. Jeopen mentioned one Searchmetrics client that had erected a paywall only to find that it blocked Google's web spider, causing the website to slide down in Google's rankings.
Google's Panda update has now resulted in significant differences in the web search results offered up by Google and Bing. Jeopen said that Searchmetrics had seen this but did not carry out the same level of research because "Bing has so little market share" in Europe.
So it seems the SEO journalism market that Google created is the very same one it is trying to unravel. Good writers will breathe a sigh of relief when they realise they don't have to carve up stories and apply irrelevant SEO tricks to get them seen by readers using Google. µ
Tags: Software
Share this:
Share
Anything that prevents the masses reading Rupert Murdoch's propaganda is a GOOD THING.
If anyone wished for me to send them an image of our analytics then please contact me. Our traffic levels have not changed.
I am pleased to say that our staff and customers are no longer worried. After Search Metrics published some false data I have had to calm fears. Maybe their data is not what they are stating. Check your facts guys.
Regards
Doug Scott
MD
www.discountvouchers.co.uk
No one really cares if you disagree with Google's metrics (least of all Google). Most people with an ounce of sense are using HostsFileUpdater to both block ads and block malicious Web sites (and there's a lot of overlap there), so site that through up a lot of ads that require a viewer to click through will get far less time per viewer, rather than more.
What Google has done is make it impossible (well, at least a lot more difficult) for the SEO specialists to game the system. I'd like to see them all go back to flipping burgers, myself, so I think this is a good thing.
I think this is a step in the right direction. So many websites are jsut SEO friendly with no real meaning so hopefully google will keep building on this!
There are always going to be some problems as Google relies on an algorithm. An algorithm can never categorically say whether content is of good quality or not. So SEO is still important. Good quality is important but, although they change, there will still be techniques which are used to show the search engines that this content is of good quality.
I agree with your point, but I also agree with knocking down sites that have an overabundance of keywords.
Maybe there is a way of detecting intrusive ads and knocking down the quality rank of a site as a consequence ?
The tripe and crap put our by 'journalists' today has no quality, except maybe for biased political fiction...
Give me the old days when some 'reporters' actually did their job and reported the news, instead of talking points.
So longer stay = quality. Therefore good journalism = Longer article. Also, if your site throws up distracting adds that keep a person clicking to get around them then a person will have to stay there longer, improving your sites quality. From what I've read I really disagree with this metric.