Angry Penguin

Angry Penguin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ve been hearing over and over again, Smack Smog. Where have you been? Are you still going? Are you still intact? The answer is yes! Smack Smog is still here and going stronger then ever. We’ve just finished a major project that took about 6 months and we are now in the mainteance and support phase. I’ll tell you more about that in a different post but for now I just want to tell everyone that it’s al very, very good.

I think it’s important to weigh in on the whole Google Penguin Algorithm that everyone is buzzing about. For those of you who aren’t aware Google changed their Algorithm that everyone seems to be in a tizzy over. I’ll share some of it but I wanted to show you this video before I do. It’s all in German but the subtitles are in English and the subtitles are pretty Not Safe For Work (NSFW). Although it’s kinda rude and crude I think you will get a better understanding of what everyone is talking about and the severity that goes with it.

So if you actually watched this then you can see that the Penguin Release really get people upset. If your not in the business it’s easy to blow it off but as you saw lots of people, organizations and businesses have really invested in hard core SEO. Lot’s of time and money were spent trying to figure out how to get on to Google’s Front page of search.

It’s not a bad thing to want to be on the first page. It’s not a bad thing to make it easier for Google to find your website and to serve it to the public. However like many things in life there are good things and bad things, Good methods and bad methods. Google consistently attempts to reward those who use the good methods (aka White Hat) and not reward the bad (aka Black Hat).

Some White Hat attributes from Google are:

Quality guidelines – basic principles

    • Make pages primarily for users, not for search engines. Don’t deceive your users or present different content to search engines than you display to users, which is commonly referred to as “cloaking.”
    • Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you’d feel comfortable explaining what you’ve done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, “Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn’t exist?”
    • Don’t participate in link schemes designed to increase your site’s ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or “bad neighborhoods” on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.
  • Don’t use unauthorized computer programs to submit pages, check rankings, etc. Such programs consume computing resources and violate our Terms of Service. Google does not recommend the use of products such as WebPosition Gold™ that send automatic or programmatic queries to Google.
Image representing Google as depicted in Crunc...

Image via CrunchBase

Then on this other Google Web Master Blog Post they give you some food for thought.

  • Would you trust the information presented in this article?
  • Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
  • Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
  • Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
  • Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
  • Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
  • Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
  • Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
  • How much quality control is done on content?
  • Does the article describe both sides of a story?
  • Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
  • Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
  • Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
  • For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
  • Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
  • Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
  • Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
  • Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
  • Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
  • Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
  • Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
  • Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
  • Would users complain when they see pages from this site?
Enhanced by Zemanta