but the latest panda update indicates that minimal copy may be the way to go .. oh and no ads on your site either please!
http://www.affhelper.com/google-panda-3 … important/
Consider the source of that article.
It's a blog post by an affiliate marketer who's trying to teach us "how to make money online" using affiliate links, with a blog that's peppered with more affiliate links than useful content. He's even got affiliate links for a dating site, and he claims that clicking the Google +1 button on his blog will win you some secret "Killer Affiliate Tactic". Riiight.
He complains Google's algorithm isn't rewarding good content, then complains that Google is giving CNN.com high rankings. Whatever else one might say about CNN, I think it's fair to conclude that CNN produces content read by a heck of a lot of people because of its content.
He states right at the beginning of the article that he doesn't understand the Google algorithm or recent changes.
He throws out two guesses about what Panda 3.4 might be about -- keyword stuffing and advertising -- but they're just guesses. He doesn't go to Google to find out what Google said Panda 3.4 was about. He doesn't do any research to discover what those changes actually did (Hint: BuildMyRank.com is one of several sites that have gotten clobbered by Panda 3.4).
He does cite one example of a search anomaly, but he has no evidence that recent algorithm changes are why it's ranking as well it does. Rather, a quick check with Open Site Explorer suggests that Google's algorithm failed to spot that particular blog's 9000+ backlinks as unnatural. Just because one particular backlink spammer has escaped recent changes that have nuked rankings for a LOT of backlink spammers doesn't mean that Google is now rewarding that kind of spam.
That's like saying, "Here's someone who played Russian Roulette but didn't shoot himself in the head" as evidence that playing Russian Roulette contributes to a long life.
Here's a detailed case study How Garbage ranks in the SERPs... except, of course, that site only ranked for about six months before Google caught it and penalized it. Based on that study, I will make the bold prediction that the anomaly AFFhelper just pointed out will disappear from page 1 of Google within 6 months.
However, I salute AFFhelper for his headline-writing skills, which induced you (and probably many other people) to link to his blog. He's doing the best he can to get traffic through minimal copy. I betcha I can get more traffic with better content, though.
Wow...great review there, Greekgeek! Saves me the time of clicking in on that link! Love the way you broke it all down in your review. Job well done! You have quite the eye for such things and I am envious!
Doh .. I really got suckered in there didn't I !!! :-)
I clicked the link, too! I should have read Greekgeeks post first. In my opinion content is still kind and always will be!
by Paul Edmondson2 years ago
I was reviewing Google's guidelines yesterday and thought I'd share a bit on affiliate links.- http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot. … value.html- https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/76465I think the...
by IzzyM5 years ago
Anyone read the latest blog post? http://blog.hubpages.com/2011/04/upcomi … y-changes/
by Ellen5 years ago
1. Relevance to search query2. Quality of content3. User experience4. Relevance to search query5. Authority of author (I hope Hubpages gets rel="me" working.)6. Relevance to search query7. Who's linking to...
by DinoMommy21 months ago
Hello,I just started here at HP recently, and so far I'm less than impressed with it overall. I have two other blogs, (one url I own, the other is a wordpress blog) and I wanted to use HP for content that doesn't really...
by Simone Haruko Smith5 years ago
Hello everyone! The Forums sure have been interesting lately! Many Hubbers have noticed our new publishing standards and site policies, many of which have been introduced as a response to a search algorithm change...
by Stacie L4 years ago
I'm wondering with all the new google rules and speculation about what works and what doesn't.Some hubbers stated that they deleted hubs and made changes which increased their views. Other prolific hubbers keep...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.