Google Panda Update Version #24; 1.2% Of Search Queries Impacted

[Heath]

http://searchengineland.com/google-p...mpacted-146149

Google has announced a new Panda refresh, making this version number 24.

This refresh has a noticeable impact 1.2% of English based queries according to Google.

The previous confirmed update was #23 and it impacted 1.3% of English queries on December 21, 2012. Prior to that was a refresh on November 21st that impacted 0.8% of queries. It seems like Google is now rolling out these updates every 4 weeks or so.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogsp...h-quality.html

More guidance on building high-quality sites

In recent months we?ve been especially focused on helping people find high-quality sites in Google?s search results. The ?Panda? algorithm change has improved rankings for a large number of high-quality websites, so most of you reading have nothing to be concerned about. However, for the sites that may have been affected by Panda we wanted to provide additional guidance on how Google searches for high-quality sites.

Our advice for publishers continues to be to focus on delivering the best possible user experience on your websites and not to focus too much on what they think are Google?s current ranking algorithms or signals. Some publishers have fixated on our prior Panda algorithm change, but Panda was just one of roughly 500 search improvements we expect to roll out to search this year. In fact, since we launched Panda, we've rolled out over a dozen additional tweaks to our ranking algorithms, and some sites have incorrectly assumed that changes in their rankings were related to Panda. Search is a complicated and evolving art and science, so rather than focusing on specific algorithmic tweaks, we encourage you to focus on delivering the best possible experience for users.

What counts as a high-quality site?
Our site quality algorithms are aimed at helping people find "high-quality" sites by reducing the rankings of low-quality content. The recent "Panda" change tackles the difficult task of algorithmically assessing website quality. Taking a step back, we wanted to explain some of the ideas and research that drive the development of our algorithms.

Below are some questions that one could use to assess the "quality" of a page or an article. These are the kinds of questions we ask ourselves as we write algorithms that attempt to assess site quality. Think of it as our take at encoding what we think our users want.

Of course, we aren't disclosing the actual ranking signals used in our algorithms because we don't want folks to game our search results; but if you want to step into Google's mindset, the questions below provide some guidance on how we've been looking at the issue:

• 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?

Writing an algorithm to assess page or site quality is a much harder task, but we hope the questions above give some insight into how we try to write algorithms that distinguish higher-quality sites from lower-quality sites.

What you can do

We've been hearing from many of you that you want more guidance on what you can do to improve your rankings on Google, particularly if you think you've been impacted by the Panda update. We encourage you to keep questions like the ones above in mind as you focus on developing high-quality content rather than trying to optimize for any particular Google algorithm.

One other specific piece of guidance we've offered is that low-quality content on some parts of a website can impact the whole site?s rankings, and thus removing low quality pages, merging or improving the content of individual shallow pages into more useful pages, or moving low quality pages to a different domain could eventually help the rankings of your higher-quality content.

We're continuing to work on additional algorithmic iterations to help webmasters operating high-quality sites get more traffic from search. As you continue to improve your sites, rather than focusing on one particular algorithmic tweak, we encourage you to ask yourself the same sorts of questions we ask when looking at the big picture. This way your site will be more likely to rank well for the long-term. In the meantime, if you have feedback, please tell us through our Webmaster Forum. We continue to monitor threads on the forum and pass site info on to the search quality team as we work on future iterations of our ranking algorithms.

[CyberHustler]

[Presnus]

Cool hoping to recover a few sites!

[lucas131]

fucking idiots ... i see so many totally unrelated results and pages filled with just one site ... wake up you granny gay fuckers!

[seeandsee]

panda eating little sites

[pornguy]

So tubes are " high-quality sites in Google’s search results " ?

[digitalfantasies]

Say what??? fuck you google, your are an unreliable dickhead, you threw my review site out of the top 10... that's ok.. BUT you replaced me with PURE SPAM results....how's that for high quality.... fuck you

[Roald]

Originally Posted by pornguy

So tubes are " high-quality sites in Google?s search results " ?

uhm of course they are

[ahoy]

Originally Posted by pornguy

So tubes are " high-quality sites in Google?s search results " ?

No.. TGPs and the like were much more user friendly..

[lucas131]

Originally Posted by digitalfantasies

Say what??? fuck you google, your are an unreliable dickhead, you threw my review site out of the top 10... that's ok.. BUT you replaced me with PURE SPAM results....how's that for high quality.... fuck you

exactly, total fucked up shit, total unrelated results from mainstream sites with five years old news, total shit, google can eat my dick and hope all the programmers there will get fucked to the ass ...

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by lucas131

exactly, total fucked up shit, total unrelated results from mainstream sites with five years old news, total shit, google can eat my dick and hope all the programmers there will get fucked to the ass ...

Sell fast TeenCat

[Emil]

I always get some kind of anxiety when reading about these updates...

[BIGTYMER]

Google takes pride in fucking us in the ass.

[bns666]

serps look like complete shit now for many terms

[bns666]

also i want to poop when i hear that: make sites for humans, not for search engines.

then why are my sites indexed and ranked by search engines instead of humans?

[nickutis]

Funny how they say 1.2% and then 90% of webmasters suffer

[adultmobile]

I think this sums it all:

"Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors? "

[bns666]

oh how convinient - few of my 101% white hat, all handwritten blogs on aged domains disappeared from serps, while few of my cam white labels on 3 month old domains (bought for $1-3 on godaddy) with 1000s of black hat links jumped quite high for some nicely converting keywords

[Black All Through]

Whatever goes up must come down. Bing will take advantage of this situation.

[lucas131]

Originally Posted by bns666

oh how convinient - few of my 101% white hat, all handwritten blogs on aged domains disappeared from serps, while few of my cam white labels on 3 month old domains (bought for $1-3 on godaddy) with 1000s of black hat links jumped quite high for some nicely converting keywords

yeah quality on the first place!

[Antonio]

Originally Posted by bns666

oh how convinient - few of my 101% white hat, all handwritten blogs on aged domains disappeared from serps, while few of my cam white labels on 3 month old domains (bought for $1-3 on godaddy) with 1000s of black hat links jumped quite high for some nicely converting keywords

I am seeing quite a few sites ranking really well with nothing but old school spammy links - I have quite a few semi-dad sites, I am going to blast them with everything that I can and see what happens

[Klen]

Originally Posted by bns666

oh how convinient - few of my 101% white hat, all handwritten blogs on aged domains disappeared from serps, while few of my cam white labels on 3 month old domains (bought for $1-3 on godaddy) with 1000s of black hat links jumped quite high for some nicely converting keywords

Lol i hear that everytime on panda/penguin update

[Roald]

Originally Posted by bns666

also i want to poop when i hear that: make sites for humans, not for search engines.

then why are my sites indexed and ranked by search engines instead of humans?

ranked by search engines with algorithms based on human input (bounce rate, holding time, etc) ;)

fuck panda!

[Klen]

Originally Posted by Roald

ranked by search engines with algorithms based on human input (bounce rate, holding time, etc) ;)

fuck panda!

Just noticed keywords "pornstars" is also mainstreamized,not a single porn site on top 20,and i remember freeones was first there before .

[Roald]

Originally Posted by KlenTelaris

Just noticed keywords "pornstars" is also mainstreamized,not a single porn site on top 20,and i remember freeones was first there before .

I know, like I said, fuck Panda ;)