Too Much SEO? Google’s Working On An “Over-Optimization” Penalty

[Andrew Baker]

This might shake things up a little, or is it more hot air?

Too Much SEO? Google’s Working On An “Over-Optimization” Penalty For That

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Makes the importance of semantic content step up a gear.

 

[fisicx]

And the reason for this?

It's all those 'SEO' experts skewing the results through link building and other promotional activities. If people weren't using these services then Google wouldn't have to make these sorts of changes.

It's not going to stop the SEO factories but it will hopefully junk a lot of the sites who rely on link for their ranking rather than building useful sites.

 

[Andrew Baker]

Makes the importance of semantic content step up a gear.

Google are pushing "semantic" search in a big way in the next few weeks...

Google Gives Search a Refresh

 

[maxh]

I'm happy about this update

I've "always" focussed on quality content and links so this will play into my hands and will kill my spammy competitors overnight

 

[fisicx]

I've "always" focussed on quality content and links so this will play into my hands and will kill my spammy competitors overnight

Yup, be interesting to see what all the members here who tell us links are the solution for everything will say.

 

[Andrew Baker]

I already believe I've seen evidence of these shifts, a new site I helped launch less than 6 months ago on a brand new domain became a PR3 site within 3 months of launch (I know this is an old metric but it highlights my point)...

... the key thing - I did ZERO back linking, not one, I may have acquired a few natural links, great.

I did do a lot of other things though and I'm looking to implement these on future roll outs to see if I get similar results.

It could just be a PR bug or I may have hit the sweet spot... only time will tell but I think it's more than just coincidence.

 

[UKSBD]

In my opinion using semantics could go either way.

It can benefit because you use semantics more for anchor text links.

It can be negative if you have similar pages as semantics could tip the balance to make them look duplicate

I believe it is another of Googles attempts to stop websites having 100's of pages which could effectively have the content on 10 pages.

Is mixed semantics anchor text backlinks the answer?

 

[terryuk]

It should be titled 'Too much Too Soon SEO'

It sounds like old news with a new face ?

 

[nitro23456]

It should be titled 'Too much Too Soon SEO'

It sounds like old news with a new face ?

Spot on, I doubt we will see much change that is significant.

 

[TagS]

I think it won't make much difference to the seo guys it do the job correctly. If I helps stops the cheats and the people who give seo a bad name then it will be a good thing.

 

[Ecler]

Latent semantic indexing (LSE) has been on the cards for a long time and should definitely reward good content and well optimised websites. However this announcement could also be a PR stunt by Google who is currently involved in a few legal battles with negative stories being published daily....
Time will tell, but if this turns out to be true, then it will be a great victory for all ethical / white hat SEOs out there

 

[fisicx]

This isn't Latent Semantic Indexing. This is Semantic Indexing, they are two completely different things. LSI isn't about content, it's about context.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I thought Google already downgraded sites that were over-optimised.

So, when I saw this, I didn't see anything new.

As for semantic search, it's the first thing google has brought in that's made me start thinking about using Bing instead.

(Which is a pretty big step, considering the contempt I have for Microsoft.)

 

[woodss]

Shouldn't you be optimising for both (and more) anyway? The web is not Google...

 

[Chunkford]

And the reason for this?

It's all those 'SEO' experts skewing the results through link building and other promotional activities. If people weren't using these services then Google wouldn't have to make these sorts of changes.

It's not going to stop the SEO factories but it will hopefully junk a lot of the sites who rely on link for their ranking rather than building useful sites.

And what are these services you're referring too?
He only mentions the exchanging of links (I'll link to you if you link to me) which is really the only types of links they can cast an absolute view over.

 

[Capricorps]

It should be titled 'Too much Too Soon SEO'

It sounds like old news with a new face ?

+1
I've seen it somewhere already...
There are many search engine techniques combined anyway or am i mistaken?
May be Google invented a true artificial intel?

 

I think it won't make much difference to the seo guys it do the job correctly. If I helps stops the cheats

Whats an SEO cheat?:|

Earl

 

[vincent80]

I've got a site sitting in the 1st position on Google (and have been for around 18 months) for a very competitive keyword that has over 22,000 exact searches each month here in the UK. The site has round 8,000 backlinks with 97% of them being for the said keyword. On-page the site itself is also 'over-optimised' as it’s called now.

If what Matt Cutt's says is true then let's see what happens to it over the coming weeks/months.

 

[StokedSEO]

Whats an SEO cheat?:|

Earl

somebody who gets results

 

[Indivijewelistic]

So - for me and the rest of the blonde people on the site - what kind of penalty could they place on an over optimised site and (having looked at info on that link and wiki) am I correct in assuming that Google are trying to ensure that those options on the first page are a close match to what you actually searched for rather than items far away from what you were search for but with the words you used for the search hidden in their tags?

i.e., if someone searches for 'bead shops in London' it will try to ensure you don't get finished jewellery sites with 'bead shops in London' embedded into it.

I am confused because I thought that was exactly what Google was offering with Google Ad Words?

Sorry if I am being stupid - I am trying to understand, but struggling.

 

[RevaxMedia]

This might shake things up a little, or is it more hot air?

Too Much SEO? Google’s Working On An “Over-Optimization” Penalty For That

Google won't give out penalties for anything that will improve a website as their business is search and if anyone wants to improve their SERPS they are more than welcome to however if you optimise a website to increase your visibility and not the value of the website then I can see this working.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

So - for me and the rest of the blonde people on the site - what kind of penalty could they place on an over optimised site

Think of it this way: someone does a search and Google wants to return the best 10 results for that search. (And based on things like the searcher's location and search history.)

Google may have hundreds of thousands of pages in their index that are related to that search, so they have to choose which are the best 10. (And put them in order.)

Google uses an algorithm to do this.

Owners of websites are doing things which make their sites come up higher in the algorithm than they would naturally.

Google don't like that because, instead of the top 10 being there on merit, they're there according to who is doing the best manipulation.

So, if Google sees sites that appear to be over-manipulated (however they decide to define that), they'll push those sites back down the rankings.

Does this help?

Steve

 

[Indivijewelistic]

Yes, perfect, totally understand it now, thank you.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

What google are planning on doing in fact is taking the information they have taken from websites, and displaying that, rather than links to the sites in general. they will also then be poroviding links to MORE google searches to help you find what you want, and ALL because they are not happy that people are spending so little time on Google. They need to show more advertising so are trying to keep people on their site for longer.

 

[Chunkford]

When did Cutts say it was a penalty?

All I heard was they're looking to level the playing field which in my eyes is a turning down, up, adding or removing signals they use to rank websites.

 

[fisicx]

All I heard was they're looking to level the playing field which in my eyes is a turning down, up, adding or removing signals they use to rank websites.

Exaxtly. The same thing they have been doing for years to counter the manipulation carried out by the SEO industry.

If you look back over the years there have been all sorts of tweaks and updates to the algo because of SEO activities. All they are doing here is giving advance warning.

 

[darren atkinson]

I think the following Search Engine Land article countering the WSJ 'news' is very interesting reading: http://searchengineland.com/wsj-says-big-google-search-changes-coming-reality-check-time-115227

I can't see much changing soon...

 

[Chunkford]

All they are doing here is giving advance warning.

And trying to spread their propaganda across the web

 

[TagS]

If you keep to the rules and most of them have been the same for years, then you will never get any penalty from Google. I think lots of people like to use buzz words but it has little or no effect on the basics of seo.

 

Google don't like that because, instead of the top 10 being there on merit, they're there according to who is doing the best manipulation.

Merit being a 12 year old site with a zillion links.:|

Earl

 

[webgeek]

Just means what we've known for awhile - build links with a 'natural looking footprint', put remarkable and engaging content and don't bother trying to drive irrelevant keyword traffic (which is obvious with the horrible time on site and bounce rates). If it's a good user experience #1 and a good seo experience #2, you'll be fine

 

[Deleted member 137585]

This doesn't sound too bad. It can never be emphasized enough, premium should be placed on content. I would love to see people competing for rankings based on the quality of their contents, the site design plus some good old ethical SEO work.

 

[TagS]

What people have to remember is you cannot get to No 1 in Google for every keyword you want. There are so many on and off site factors to take into account. The only thing you can do is optimise to it's full potential and work hard to improve on that.

 

[fisicx]

What people have to remember is you cannot get to No 1 in Google for every keyword you want.

Yes you can.

And if not every keyword certainly a high number. How do I know? Because I've don't it.

 

[awebapart.com]

I wonder how Google will define over-optimisation, what their vague public word will be on this, and what they really mean behind closed doors.

Here's one possible definition of over-optimisation that Google might be considering, behind closed doors...

A website is deemed over-optimised if we can identify signals that the website owner is paying for SEO, rather than paying that money to us for adwords!

Let's face it, with some SEO companies, there can be obvious signals that the web owner is paying for SEO in one form or another!

 

[nitro23456]

How do I know? Because I've don't it.

....so have you or havent you?

 

[fisicx]

....so have you or havent you?

Dnis keybousrd nisnt wurkng agin.

have not haven't.

In fact you should be able to rank for any keywords your like. In Mad Max they said: 'how fast can you afford to go'. Nitro says: 'how high can you afford to go'

 

[cmcp]

this thread's on drugs!

 

[Indivijewelistic]

What google are planning on doing in fact is taking the information they have taken from websites, and displaying that, rather than links to the sites in general. they will also then be poroviding links to MORE google searches to help you find what you want, and ALL because they are not happy that people are spending so little time on Google. They need to show more advertising so are trying to keep people on their site for longer.

So showing the product rather than the website address?