Bad day for content farms?

[qwidjib0]

Didn't see a thread about Google's big algorithm updates yesterday, so i thought I'd post one. Danny Sullivan wrote a blog that gave some good context:

http://searchengineland.com/google-forecloses-on-content-farms-with-farmer-algorithm-update-66071

Most of my sites were unaffected, but one, really pretty white-hat site with millions of pages was basically ejected from all reasonable ranking. Curious what some of the blackhatters here saw.

 

[rossbytes]

Well Google didn't confirm that this was targeting content farms....

 

[wannabie]

Well Google didn't confirm that this was targeting content farms....

Your joking right?

 

[rossbytes]

Your joking right?

Ok.. maybe I miss read it a little. This line lead me to believe it.

How can I say the Farmer Update targets content farms when Google specifically declined to confirm that? I?m reading between the lines.

 

[Jakerxxx]

Well Google didn't confirm that this was targeting content farms....

"Google (GOOG) engineers Matt Cutts and Amit Singhal reported that the company has made significant changes to its search algorithm which would change almost 12% of its results.

Many of the changes we make are so subtle that very few people notice them. But in the last day or so we launched a pretty big algorithmic improvement to our ranking?a change that noticeably impacts 11.8% of our queries?and we wanted to let people know what's going on. This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality sites?sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful. At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites?sites with original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on."


-CNNMoney-FortuneTech

​

 

[dannyhw]

Very bad day. Check out some of the results of my data mining:

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...3197-winners-losers-new-algorithm-change.html

 

[rossbytes]

"Google (GOOG) engineers Matt Cutts and Amit Singhal reported that the company has made significant changes to its search algorithm which would change almost 12% of its results.

Many of the changes we make are so subtle that very few people notice them. But in the last day or so we launched a pretty big algorithmic improvement to our ranking?a change that noticeably impacts 11.8% of our queries?and we wanted to let people know what's going on. This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality sites?sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful. At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites?sites with original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on."


-CNNMoney-FortuneTech

​

Ok, I may be an idiot. Sorry about that.

 

[sirgold]

I just wrote this on another post but thought I'd throw my 2c on this thread hoping it ends up being beneficial for somebody else.

I have LOTS of websites in a number of fairly different niches and didn't find any difference at all in terms of "ranking". They're medium to BIG autoblogs with NO original content whatsoever and plenty of auto-translated mirrors and I'll (shamefully) admit that a few of the latter are barely readable.. Evidently the G algorithms are not smart enough to catch them. Not that it would be as trivial as Matt Cutts tries to sell it, to be honest...

With that being said I elaborated several theories to determine what might raise a red flag that would require a long analysis that I'm not to eager to fully disclose in the wild To keep this extra short I just wanted to stress that even duplicate post titles are still unaffected in my experience.

What I do is simply to make sure a CURRENT date (that matches the post my blog scraped..) shows up somewhere besides the title (between H1's) AND in the xml before pinging the blog after each entry is posted. As I said I'm TOTALLY unaffected by these changes so far. HTH.