1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

[Discuss] If you were writing the Google algorithm...

Discussion in 'BlackHat Lounge' started by DrEvil123, Apr 17, 2012.

  1. DrEvil123

    DrEvil123 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    141
    Let's say that you were in charge of the Google algorithm that ranked sites, what would it look for?

    Maybe I am strange and just like to think about these things and how it may affect the way that I plan my sites for a semi-sustainable future. The current SEO way of writing X pages of keyword optimized content which are all Y number of words and have Z number of back links from high PR sources can't be the best way of doing things. There must be new and exciting metrics that will eventually rule out much of SEO, but I am by no means preaching that SEO is dead.

    Note: I don't work for Google or any other search engine provider. Hi Google :)

    In General, Users Want:
    1 - High quality content (writing or multimedia)
    2 - Correct content
    3 - The information must be up to date
    4 - Ease of use

    So let's look at some talking points for how you may go about judging each of these :)

    1) High Quality Content
    - Word count, however you don't need to necessarily use 500 words to give the best answer in the world to a subject. Could you look at what the expected word count for a specific search string is? For example, if I search for "what is 1 + 1" then the best answer would be a page with a word count of below 50. However, if I search for "What is every word in the Declaration of Independence?" then the word count would be expected to be significantly higher.
    - Multimedia. Pictures, video and sound is good, however not in all circumstances. We need to identify which search strings should have multimedia and which should not. If I need an answer to a basic mathematical question then I don't need an image or video to go along with it.
    - Automated spelling/grammar checks. If these aren't in place already, then they should be. Sure, we may miss out on the best written paper ever because the person had loads of typos, but I can live with that.
    - Language/Location - To rule out the need for everyone to speak English as a first language, any language should be judged equally, however once again this will be dependent on the particular subject that is being searched for. If I want to find out the history of a small town in Japan, then it is likely that someone who writes in Japanese will have higher quality information than someone who has written in English.
    - Industry specific terminology (however you also need to cater for the general public who are new to the subject, so can't only rate content with jargon).

    2) Correct Content
    - You can be the best writer in the world, however if you are sending out the wrong answers then your information is useless.
    - At present a high PR in theory should tell us if a site can be trusted. PR10 sites at present we know to be reputable large companies (save the discussion on whether or not the US Govt are reputable please :) ), but we have all seen numerous PR5,6,7 sites which are built purely for link building and contain crap that end users don't want to read.
    - Do we need a heavier reliance on something like the DMOZ or manual reviews by subject matter experts? However this would eventually be abused.
    - Domain age.

    3) The Information Must Be Up To Date
    - However you have time critical subjects and evergreens. An article on physics written 50 years ago still may have standing.
    - Could an algorithm identify evergreen subjects and ignore the date?

    4) Ease Of Use
    - Site speed, however you can't penalize those with quality content.
    - Easy to browse, however you want to have enough levels for big sites so that specific information can be found.
    - Time spent on site, however if the information is well written then the answer may only take 5 seconds to find. How do you distinguish between end users who find the information quickly (because they know how the site is laid out) and those who come to a site and leave quickly because it is rubbish.
    - You could look at return visitors, but you need to think about how easily this could be replicated artificially.
    What are your ideas for how we can see the Internet populated with more relevant information?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  2. Nigel Farage

    Nigel Farage BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    I've thought about this, and I'm surprised Google doesn't seem to do it, but I think it's just a matter of time.
    I bought some backlinks here for my US-based, English language web-site, and a bunch of those backlinks are in countries that do not speak English.

    If I were Google, this would be a big red flag. How likely is it that some anonymous site in a non-english language is going to have backlinks to an english site? When MOST of the backlinks are like that, you'd think Google would know and then punish for it.

    Also forum profiles. When a PR0 forum has 100,000 members well that's pretty obviously SPAM, duh noshit?

    I think Google's problem is that if it were effective in making it's Search Results a true "meritocracy", there are a lot of sites we are supposed to believe are "good", that will fail when placed in a fair, head-to-head competition against lesser-known sites that are actually, measurably, and objectively better.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. DrEvil123

    DrEvil123 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    141
    Good call and agree that this would send a flag up for me too.

    However, what if you had a new article that gets mentioned on say a French news website and then gets loads of valid traffic from France?
     
  4. azizsalim

    azizsalim BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2011
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    17
    which kind of content Google like always ?
     
  5. monk13

    monk13 Power Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    547
    Likes Received:
    268
    personally, i refuse to touch forum profiles
    i've also never had a client sandboxed
    i doubt these two are coincidence
    not saying forum profiles will get you sandboxed
    but if i were google, and i saw over 100 forum profiles claiming a site was owned by over 100 different named people
    that'd raise some flags
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. Nigel Farage

    Nigel Farage BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    I've been mulling this over.

    What happens when, from Google's perspective, the choice is between a web-site that has some spammy backlinks and a site that has absolutely nothing at all? At least the spammy backlinks show that the person that created the site cares enough to spam it. Should a site that just sits there with no effort at all get rewarded for it's "nothing", while another site gets punished for it's "something".

    My site is nice. Straightforward and clean, and it's competing against 3-6 larger competitors (depending on how one chooses to define "large") and these competitors have some heavy-duty SEO. Should I take Google's moral high-ground and let my client's site stagnate for another year, on the chance that there is some spontaneous upsurge in organic link creation, and leave all the traffic to those businesses that cared enough to create effective backlinking strategies?

    Maybe after my client has gone out-of-business, Google will wake up one morning and realize it's algorithm is fucked-up and change it so that the results are "fairer". Lol, we might be out of business, but at least we went out-of-business morally pure, and playing by the rules. ROFLMAO

    Fuck the rules. Fuck Google. Fuck the competitors too. We're on the top half of page 1 and I'm still trying to figure this SEO thing out. I don't know jack shit, and I'm kicking their ass already.

    I guess one thing this endeavor into SEO has taught me is that ALL rules (laws, etc...) are inherently flawed, and obeying them only maintains the status of those that already have the power & the money. In short, it's a racket, and one that I have stopped volunteering to participate in.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  7. DrEvil123

    DrEvil123 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    141
    Maybe the point of this thread has been missed.

    It is not a suggestion to give up on any SEO efforts, we have to build and work with the rules we are given.

    However, I am talking the perfect world where everything is judged purely by content and Google is able to determine quality and accuracy without a reliance on backlinks.
     
  8. NikosX

    NikosX Power Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    267
    Occupation:
    come on! really?
    Location:
    In a VPS far far away...
    this is simply impossible, that would lead to other options that are way worse.
    in this perspective then everyone would have his own quality as a writer and
    then google would be a fasist/elitist network with promoted content writers
    and quality websites (not that this doesn't exists in their today's algo...but!)
     
  9. Getwhatchuwant

    Getwhatchuwant Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,922
    Likes Received:
    1,302
    Occupation:
    Peeping Tom
    Location:
    Florida
    Also Good content is a matter of opinion...what is the best diet? So when I search weight loss or best diet I am going to leave it up to Google and it's cronies to decide for me?

    I think the voting method of backlinks is fair enough, the problem is the way the links are valued and of course the never ending fight against spam. Lets face it alot of black hatters are lazy, I see it all the time. I do some fiverr gigs and quite a few sites pretty much suck as far as content goes, yet many would say they have good content.

    But like I said content is a matter of opinion and what I think is pretty bad someone else may enjoy.