jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (13 posts)

Google Panda Secrets Reveleaed by Mr Ed - From the Horse's Mouth

  1. janderson99 profile image46
    janderson99posted 2 years ago

    Google has not revealed details about the Panda penalty algorithm, that began in 2011, with the last update 4.2 implemented in mid July 2015. But various snippets have leaked out via interviews, hangouts, patent applications, etc. This is a useful compilation of these revelations.

    I wonder how much weight is put on the first time the Google bot crawls a new page and the decision whether it should be indexed and cached. Google does not index all pages. Various tests are applied to make this decision. I wonder whether this is important for Panda's view about the quality of the site.

    1. Stacie L profile image86
      Stacie Lposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I skimmed the article and made a mental note of such items such as spammy,spun and duplicated articles. Many of us have reported these time and time again...lately google seems to be ignoring some complaints.
      it makes sense that some sites are not indexed on the first pages or de- indexed altogether as many have suspected...
      This is juicy info and everyone should take the time to disseminate it.

    2. brakel2 profile image81
      brakel2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Citing your sources seems to take on importance, in addition to narrowing down the title to avoid a broad generic term. Nothing on this list surprises me and does give us more guidance than in the past. Thanks for posting this article.

    3. Barbara Kay profile image90
      Barbara Kayposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the information.

    4. Suzanne Day profile image97
      Suzanne Dayposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      This should help our HP clone site problems:

      "Clone sites are a strong panda factor (JM, Mar 10, 2014) — Don't forget Google's canonicalization algo will auto-301 sufficiently identical sites to a single site whether you want them to or not, SER, Feb 25, 2014."

  2. janshares profile image97
    jansharesposted 2 years ago

    Thanks for the info, janderson. Interesting and a lot to think about in terms of how this may be applied to our site. I did look at the lists and wish specific examples were given on the "not to do" list. For example, what does it mean to not use "generic" words in a url. Do they mean articles on specific apples should specifically use "gala" etc in the url and not apples?

    1. relache profile image88
      relacheposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It means all the people begging admin to change the text on the opening page need to read that article and redo all their word suggestions because they are potently generic.

      1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image100
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I don't get what you are saying here.  Please give a concrete example.  Thanks.

    2. brakel2 profile image81
      brakel2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I think it means to narrow down your titles. An example in the article explains it, but I forgot what the example is. An example might be not " Best Vitamins". but "What are the Best Vitamins for Healthy Bones as Approved by Consumer Lab,"  and it also says need credentials for health articles. This is just my opinion.

      1. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
        DzyMsLizzyposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        You can 'narrow down your titles' to make them more specific, but that takes more words, and excess words are truncated in the search results..so..it's a matter of  "you can't have it both ways!"
        So make up your damned mind, Google!

        1. brakel2 profile image81
          brakel2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You are right, so maybe you have to narrow it down and figure out how to use the least amount of words. For example not " Auto Insurance Information" but "How to Lower Auto Insurance Bill."

  3. Marisa Wright profile image99
    Marisa Wrightposted 2 years ago

    I particularly like this part:

    "The proportion of various types of content on the page expressed as a ratio and compared to other known high quality pages. -- The specific example of this technique given is 'a web page providing 99% hyperlinks and 1% plain text is more likely to be a low-quality web page than a web page providing 50% hyperlinks and 50% plain text' but there are likely a number of different content types that could be examined in this manner"

    I'm assuming this is why HubPages limits the number of outgoing links, but based on the example above, they're being far more conservative than they need to be!

    Also this:

    "ANY Affiliate or “monetized links” or “sneaky redirects” to affiliate sites (that are not nofollowed  or cloaked)

    So, affiliate links are OK if they are nofollowed.

  4. Debby K profile image43
    Debby Kposted 2 years ago

    thanks for the valuable info smile