Google Changes Ranking Advice, Says Build Quality Sites Not Links

Another great article I found on searchengineland's site.

Source: http://searchengineland.com/google-changes-ranking-advice-says-build-quality-sites-not-links-163931

 

Precisely. The more outbound links a site has in relation to inbound links the worse its pagerank will be. Period. No exceptions.

 

I love how people act like 'quality' is such an easily defined thing. Or that 'quality' always directly ties in to whatever happens to be popular/well ranked. After all, there are many better sites like W3Schools, but said site still ranks somewhat stupidly high for things (not a good thing in the cases where it offers bad/incorrect advice).

 

One point which was missed entirely is that quality unique content is the ultimate goal.
Quality content which simply regurgitates a point made by other far more popular sites is useless.
For example, no matter how well I write an article about how incredible LeBron James is, the Sports Illustrated article and the ESPN article are going to overshadow mine.

 

I've been seeing some increase in some of my rankings, but I've also got some new links on some top games so that could help. My niche is pretty competive because of the games involved and how they're able to build links via their referral system and all that, so I'm quite happy with the results I've been seeing. Anyone else seeing an increase in their rankings or anything?

 

Maybe we should do a test, build a new site with no insure SEO, no back links and no off page SEO and add lots of nice fresh unique content onto it and see how well it does by itself...
In my opinion I don't think it will go anywhere. I tried this myself already last year and go no traffic so I dunno what Googke expects us to do.

 

New and exciting content is a good way to get Google traffic I suppose, however you need to have high ranking things that people want to see. If something is the same old content and nothing new they will ignore it rather then look at it and be interested in the content on your website, new links will bring the views you are wanting and then that would be good over all for your site, I think people should try and work on their websites every day to try and make it better.

 

It works for me because I don't write about anything competing sites write about.
If I were trying to write original content about something like gaming though I would just quit before I started. It's simply a wasted effort.

 

As someone who is completely new to the whole concept of webmaster, SEO etc a lot of what he says it really daunting to me.

For example; I've checked around and made a few small changes to my site to supposedly make it more SEO friendly, I've created a lot of back-links and also paid for a few as well (not a great idea, but I learned for it), I've got plenty of content, and I have a few pages ranking within the first page of searches. I'm pleased with how my site is doing, but I constantly wonder "Is it enough?", "Am I doing this right?" etc. I can't for the life of me work out how exactly I'm supposed to get new members/more traffic from Google (so far I've had a few clicks and about 15,000 impressions, but that's it). Of course, my forum's less than three months ago so I'm being impatient; I just don't honestly know what I can do to improve things.

That said, information like this comes in handy. I'll still build back-links, but forum content has always been my number one priority.

 

I agree with Google on that one, plus great content is bound to last forever all you have to do is publish it once and maybe tweak it a little bit from time to time. Also if you can't write great content yourself, you can always buy it.

 

I agree, if you leak more than you fill, you will end up empty in the long run, in other words the worst your pagerank is going to be.

 

I think you are doing quite OK, since 15,000 impressions for a site that is just starting out isn't that bad at all. At times in order to be successful you have to be patient and let time do it's thing. Organic traffic takes a while to pick and once it does, it will rarely decrease. So hang in there.

 

That's true, matter of fact, I read somewhere that Google rewards sites that are the first to tackle a certain keyword, all other factors remaining constant.

 

I think Google is concerned with the large number of sites that are particularly optimized for off site SEO, so they get traffic alright, but they have a huge bounce rate. So many people tend to get to the page but they don't find what they are looking for.

 

Oh please. Matt Cutts and his Google sanctioned misinformation sessions make me tired. Who do they think they're fooling? No backlinks = No rankings. Period. End of story. I'd love to hear their latest explanations for how Google bowling still manages to exist, and why negative SEO is stronger than ever . (It all boils down to backlinks.)

 

You think Matt Cutts and the spam team are trying to trick webmasters?

 

I don't just think it. I KNOW it. You should go back and revisit some of Matt's so-called "revelations" over the years. Most of them -- you will now realize --were bogus. How long did Google stand behind their outright blatant lie that "negative seo is NOT possible" -- while those of us who knew better were blasting the crap out of our competition for laughs and giggles?

Their sites went straight down the tubes while they held tight to Matt's claim that "outside influences do not exist". **If I had a dollar for every Matt Cutts butt-kisser who told me that "google will never penalize you for the actions of others", I'd be filthy rich. I mean, they were literally repeating word-for-word everything that fool said.

We all know how THAT turned out. Webmasters were pissed and raising hell in the google support forums for months. It was nice to see the zombies finally wake up. LOL.

You really have to take what Matt Cutts says with a grain of salt -- that is, if you bother to listen at all. Right now, I'm having the biggest laugh watching people scramble to actually use the Disavow Link Tool. How stupid is that?? Use it and you have not only told on yourself, but you've done google's job of identifying possible "bad neighborhoods".