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

[Indivijewelistic]

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!

Yes, that is why I am confused because isn't what they are saying they don't want to see on websites - what they are trying to sell me?

 

[Indivijewelistic]

this thread's on drugs!

I think I need some of the drugs! It's difficult enough to understand what Google want you to do each time they change the way they are working without having to work out what they are really doing with a crystal ball

 

[diclatron69]

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.

Interesting point Old Welsh Guy. Only recently I have stopped using Google for my my searches altogether as their results suddenly appear to be coming from an alien on drugs. Looks like the more they try, the less they succeed in their missions!

 

[terryuk]

Interesting point Old Welsh Guy. Only recently I have stopped using Google for my my searches altogether as their results suddenly appear to be coming from an alien on drugs. Looks like the more they try, the less they succeed in their missions!

Rather than deleting the junk, it's stored. SO when the algo updates, some junk disappears and then the old junk comes back... and a circle of junk

 

[Jenny.seo]

I am not really wary of this because it will proof that those of us with ample strength in content quality and relevancy with natural sounding SEO usage will do better than does doing otherwise.

 

[garyk]

Maybe I'm missing something here but surely some penalty for over-optimisation *could* lead to sabotage couldnt it?

Say my competitor is #1 and I'm #2 all I have to do is hire (quite cheaply) someone with xrumer or senuke or scrapebox to pile a load of junk links into my competitor and boom he/she will slip will they not?

Its kind of like why they removed voting on reality shows to nominate who should go, too easily sabotaged so it was replaced with voting for who you want to stay.

Am I missing something????

Gary

 

[Jenny.seo]

The optimisation process as a whole will not trigger a penalty, but certain overzealous SEO activities done inadvertently can trigger a penalty.

 

[darren atkinson]

Maybe I'm missing something here but surely some penalty for over-optimisation *could* lead to sabotage couldnt it?

Say my competitor is #1 and I'm #2 all I have to do is hire (quite cheaply) someone with xrumer or senuke or scrapebox to pile a load of junk links into my competitor and boom he/she will slip will they not?

Its kind of like why they removed voting on reality shows to nominate who should go, too easily sabotaged so it was replaced with voting for who you want to stay.

Am I missing something????

Gary

You make a valid point and this is something that Google will struggle with in my opinion.

I just can't see how they will ever get to a stage whereby they will eliminate manipulation of the search engine results because everything can be manipulated.

If they take into account more social factors then what's to stop a company constantly running competitions getting people to like or follow them, or comment on their facebook page? It's essentially just another way of paying for rankings if these signals become a big ranking factor.

Likewise, if they choose to simply discount links from certain types of websites then what are we going to be left with? Only a handful of sites will then be able to pass on link value so these will get abused as well, it will be a never ending cycle.

That is why I don't particularly believe anything will change in the short to medium term.

 

[millerg78]

I believe in ethical SEO but strongly despise the automated link-building process. SEO companies or provide such services do that since there is such demand from the client.

 

[Kevin H]

Slightly off topic, sort of, but not really; and sort of in answer to some of the questions posted in this thread.

With regards to what Google would want is easy - completely unoptimised pages, honestly written, that are only what people want to read.
Google wants to sell more through it's Adwords, the best way to that is to have more market share of the searches made.
If the results get 'worse' and people dont like them then they will use other search engines, less searches for Google, less revenue for Google.

However, in and of itself, Google wouldn't care less who is number 1 or number 10 or number 1000 in the SERPs, so long as good, relevant, results will keep people searching through Google and not the opposition.

Of course, expecting SEO to suddenly disappear is ridiculous and Google knows this. They know that given a reasonable amount of time that people will 'game' the system.

So, what do they do, they regularly tweak the system a little, try and remove some of the currently 'gamed' results from their current algorithm.
Then periodically, they significantly change the way something works - net result, major changes in the SERPs - make those people 'gaming' the system have to more or less start over again.

Great for some sites; horrible for others; excellent for the SEO industry.

The bottom line for me and what I take to all the work I do is this; don't try to game the system per se (of course you make use of your knowledge of what will work and what wont). Don't rely on any one thing to get your site performing well.

10 years ago, you could rank purely by keyword stuffing - GONE.
5 years ago, you could rank purely by buying 1000s of backlinks - GONE.
For 3 years till 2011 you could rank by purely having loads of links from Twitter - GONE

Facebook, Pininterest, quality backlinks, you name it; all will have their day and then be gone as a major signal.

So what do you do? Go broad.

- Make sure you site is well written and relevant using the keywords you want to tagget but using similies etc too (Semantics sounds like the next big thing).
- Make sure your internal linking and site architecture is well organised and optimised (good link text, title tags etc)
- Make sure your image alts and titles are relevant
- Only bother with backlinks that are likely to bring business in some way and are not just for being a backlink. (This is where getting creative can help and where SEOs will make most of their money - it's time consuming and needs practise/experience most of the time)
- Utilise the other social media platforms as relevant and useful
- Where relevant to your site and business model: Don't forget offline marketing/PR; this can get the best backlinks of all as well as bring you other business.
...

I could go on, but wont - so I will sign off this missive with my main point.
"GO BROAD in your SEO"

 

[terryuk]

Slightly off topic, sort of, but not really; and sort of in answer to some of the questions posted in this thread.

With regards to what Google would want is easy - completely unoptimised pages, honestly written, that are only what people want to read.
Google wants to sell more through it's Adwords, the best way to that is to have more market share of the searches made.
If the results get 'worse' and people dont like them then they will use other search engines, less searches for Google, less revenue for Google.

However, in and of itself, Google wouldn't care less who is number 1 or number 10 or number 1000 in the SERPs, so long as good, relevant, results will keep people searching through Google and not the opposition.

Of course, expecting SEO to suddenly disappear is ridiculous and Google knows this. They know that given a reasonable amount of time that people will 'game' the system.

So, what do they do, they regularly tweak the system a little, try and remove some of the currently 'gamed' results from their current algorithm.
Then periodically, they significantly change the way something works - net result, major changes in the SERPs - make those people 'gaming' the system have to more or less start over again.

Great for some sites; horrible for others; excellent for the SEO industry.

The bottom line for me and what I take to all the work I do is this; don't try to game the system per se (of course you make use of your knowledge of what will work and what wont). Don't rely on any one thing to get your site performing well.

10 years ago, you could rank purely by keyword stuffing - GONE.
5 years ago, you could rank purely by buying 1000s of backlinks - GONE.
For 3 years till 2011 you could rank by purely having loads of links from Twitter - GONE

Facebook, Pininterest, quality backlinks, you name it; all will have their day and then be gone as a major signal.

So what do you do? Go broad.

- Make sure you site is well written and relevant using the keywords you want to tagget but using similies etc too (Semantics sounds like the next big thing).
- Make sure your internal linking and site architecture is well organised and optimised (good link text, title tags etc)
- Make sure your image alts and titles are relevant
- Only bother with backlinks that are likely to bring business in some way and are not just for being a backlink. (This is where getting creative can help and where SEOs will make most of their money - it's time consuming and needs practise/experience most of the time)
- Utilise the other social media platforms as relevant and useful
- Where relevant to your site and business model: Don't forget offline marketing/PR; this can get the best backlinks of all as well as bring you other business.
...

I could go on, but wont - so I will sign off this missive with my main point.
"GO BROAD in your SEO"

GO BROAD?? You mean go abroad or aboard?

 

[Kevin H]

That'll teach me to try for a catch phrase lol.

I was merely trying to say don't just focus on the current 'big' thing in SEO to get you up the rankings; do a broad (or wide) range of things well and honestly that will likely carry some value through any change in the algorithms.

Of course, having said that, I'm sure people will be able to post their example of spammers/black hatters/etc who are number 1 for this that or the other; but I believe that my view is the best and will work over the long term for many if not most businesses.

 

[terryuk]

That'll teach me to try for a catch phrase lol.

I was merely trying to say don't just focus on the current 'big' thing in SEO to get you up the rankings; do a broad (or wide) range of things well and honestly that will likely carry some value through any change in the algorithms.

Of course, having said that, I'm sure people will be able to post their example of spammers/black hatters/etc who are number 1 for this that or the other; but I believe that my view is the best and will work over the long term for many if not most businesses.

Excuse the sarcasm I agree 100%

 

That'll teach me to try for a catch phrase lol.

I was merely trying to say don't just focus on the current 'big' thing in SEO to get you up the rankings; do a broad (or wide) range of things well and honestly that will likely carry some value through any change in the algorithms.

Of course, having said that, I'm sure people will be able to post their example of spammers/black hatters/etc who are number 1 for this that or the other; but I believe that my view is the best and will work over the long term for many if not most businesses.

honestly.?

Whats that got to do with the price of tea in China.

Earl

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Google wants to sell more through it's Adwords, the best way to that is to have more market share of the searches made.

I'd say the best way to do that is to have better and better targeted ads - in particular, on the display network. (Through better personalisation and re-marketing.)

The second best way to do that is to have people use more and more google systems - which means more page impressions = more ad revenue.

The 3rd best way to do it is to direct clicks from the organic to the paid by rearranging the search results pages.

Trying to squeeze out more market share when they already have such a large market share would be very expensive indeed.

Steve

 

[darren atkinson]

Just one example of Google's practices and why you shouldn't believe everything they might say and do: http://www.affhelper.com/googles-hypocrisy-exposed/

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Just one example of Google's practices and why you shouldn't believe everything they might say and do: http://www.affhelper.com/googles-hypocrisy-exposed/

That backs up the post I made on Page 3 Darren, I completely agree with the guy..

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.

Too many people in the know have worked out what Google are up to, and this could seriously hurt them in the long time, especially now that Eric Schmidt has been seen to have lied to a congressional hearing or the like.

 

[darren atkinson]

My anti Google machine is in full swing tonight: http://directmatchmedia.com/googles-trust-us-penalty.php

You have all been warned! Do as they say at your peril!

 

[Chunkford]

Just one example of Google's practices and why you shouldn't believe everything they might say and do: http://www.affhelper.com/googles-hypocrisy-exposed/

That video from foundem is hilarious on that page. Watching Eric squirm under pressure says it all realy, his body language certainly speaks volumes.

 

[TODonnell]

Google is a private company, with shareholders. It exists to make money. It makes money from Adwords and not much else. It's not a public service body, though it has that aura. It's USP is relevant results to search queries. You try to game that, by pushing your mediocre pages, it tries to remove you from the index. Nothing personal.

It's greedy for eyeballs. It's even started cataloguing the real world, via Google maps.

Google owes you nothing.
Google owes you nothing.
What does Google owe you? Nothing.

Yet millions of webmasters and businesses spend millions of hours and millions of pounds chasing their algorithm. Chasing the whims of a private company.

This creates tension.

Take two steps back, I say. Work out what you can sell at a profit which people badly want and find alternative customer sources to Google. SERPs should be a nice add-on to your traffic, not a major part.

[rant mode off]

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Sorry but I disagree, in the links posted within this thread, it is clear that the new way google is using the IP of others is in fact illegal. Google 'appears' to be taking images form one site, product descriptions from another, and customer reviews from a thrird 9none of which it has permission for) and then linking NOT to the providers of that content, but to their OWN affiliate scheme.

Sorry but this is VERY close to an unlawfull use of the intellectual property of others. So in this case i would suggest that Google DOES owe the owners of that content something.

it is one thing to show a snippet off a website alongside a link, with the trade off being that you get the potential for traffic. it is completely another thing for google to use that same content, but not cite you as the source, and WORSE divert traffic AWAY from your site after attracting it and incentivising the click through from the content YOU created.

Massive screw up here by Google, possibly also in breach of the UK advertising laws

 

[TODonnell]

I'm not a Google fan. I was just ranting about how much time and money people are spending trying to game a private business, which can evict you from its shopfront with a flick of a switch.

If Google is doing what you say then it's just another scraper-cum-mashup site; a class of website it frowns upon itself.

It produces no content. It pimps off others. It's quite greedy for data.

Personally, I think it looks like the work of a high-functioning autistic who doesn't 'get' that the people around him are cheesed-off with his behaviour.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

GREAT post Adam, pretty much hit my nail on the head

 

Google is a private company, with shareholders. It exists to make money. It makes money from Adwords and not much else. It's not a public service body, though it has that aura. It's USP is relevant results to search queries. You try to game that, by pushing your mediocre pages, it tries to remove you from the index. Nothing personal.

It's greedy for eyeballs. It's even started cataloguing the real world, via Google maps.

Google owes you nothing.
Google owes you nothing.
What does Google owe you? Nothing.

Yet millions of webmasters and businesses spend millions of hours and millions of pounds chasing their algorithm. Chasing the whims of a private company.

This creates tension.

Take two steps back, I say. Work out what you can sell at a profit which people badly want and find alternative customer sources to Google. SERPs should be a nice add-on to your traffic, not a major part.

[rant mode off]

Quite agree with your appraisal of google.

But at the moment there is rather a poor choice for web based business.

Earl

 

[TODonnell]

Thank you, OWG and SirEarl.

Google is a de-facto monopoly. It should be broken up. That's why anti-trust legislation exists. I have this odd sense it's viewed in the benevolent way we view libraries: a public service body. So it doesn't get touched.

We can only hope some young chappies who've worked out a way to catalogue the entire web using 6 daisy-chained PS2s come along and do to them what they've done to Altavista and Yahoo.

I read somethng on webmasterworld.com years ago. A webmaster met a Google rep at a convention and thanked him profusely for sending him all that traffic and making him so much money.

The rep looked at him and said: "You should diversify".

 

[ukbf0001]

Interesting to see that Google is going along with the more semantic response as BING already does. Choosing between Google and BING is like asking what do you want death by stabbing or death by a bullet. Both these huge companies operate like all other large companies - they try and starve the competition of money - that's just the way it is.

Google+ was going to be the replacement both for FB and also used as away of judging how popular you are (and probably as such a replacement for Links).
Like all things in life - if you have great content and are selling things are great prices or offer a great service. Then word always gets around and people will come back to you.

 

[AnonymMoose]

So basically Google says "To get rid of your competition, spam them with 10000 backlinks from asian guy selling 10$ packages".

 

[Jack Clark]

I think the important thing to remember here is that when you rely on a single channel as a traffic/lead/sales source, you always run the risk of losing out if for some reason that channel closes or stops sending you those sales/leads/traffic.

A good SEO realises that a lot of outcomes that are good for a business are also good for SEO, for example guest posting on a popular site in your industry is a great way to gain exposure for your business, which has the potential to drive lots of sales for the business, and as a secondary benefit of this, you get a high quality link that helps you rank in the search engines.

This holds true for social media too. If a company creates something that is useful/funny/cool etc. then it will get shared on the social networks, which is a huge way of gaining exposure. The secondary benefit is that a lot of people who read/use what the company created because they saw it on the social media platform might also then link to the company on their blogs/websites etc.

Please understand that what I am not saying here is that you don't need an SEO, because you do. The SEO should be the driver of this. Perhaps a better name for SEOs is inbound marketer.

Jack

 

[OldWelshGuy]

SEO is the worse name ever, but we are stuck with it. the reality is a good SEO is a good Internet Marketer

 

[Jack Clark]

Too true. It's always frustrating seeing people undervalue/misunderstand the value of good seo.

 

[diclatron69]

SEO is the worse name ever, but we are stuck with it. the reality is a good SEO is a good Internet Marketer

When the label SEO was created was everyone aware that the major search engines/social platforms were intending to operate illegally and in such devious ways?

Create a new name for yourselves guys and start to use it.

 

[Jack Clark]

Lots of SEOs are calling themselves inbound marketers now. To be fair it probably gives a better description of what they do.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

SEO is the worse name ever, but we are stuck with it. the reality is a good SEO is a good Internet Marketer

It is possible to rank a site but be a poor marketer - it's mostly technical skill. And it's possible to be a great marketer and not able to rank a site - that's more human psychology skill. But I guess there's still truth in that statement because if you want to make money in IM, then you really need both skills...