Live data from Hacker News

Well-intentioned websites get caught in Google’s algorithmic penalty box

seerinteractive.com

11–20 of 31 posts

Re: Well-intentioned websites get caught in Google’s algorithmic penalty box

#11
post #9

I think the problem is that the "Panda" algorithm seems to essentially have the same criteria for all sites. Depending on the topic of the site (i.e., ecommerce site selling products or a ticket site selling tickets), lots of pages tend to have the same content. Some product pages have the same product in a different color, or the ticket site is selling the same tickets some other site on the web is selling. I get th…

I would agree - however, it seems like Google is in a position where their algorithm doesn't necessarily have to be good, just good enough. And good enough basically means they don't torch any high-profile sites that would begin to make the public question whether or not Google is still the best search engine. Unfortunately, this means that many smaller businesses might get thrown out with the bathwater :(

Re: Well-intentioned websites get caught in Google’s algorithmic penalty box

#12
post #9

I think the problem is that the "Panda" algorithm seems to essentially have the same criteria for all sites. Depending on the topic of the site (i.e., ecommerce site selling products or a ticket site selling tickets), lots of pages tend to have the same content. Some product pages have the same product in a different color, or the ticket site is selling the same tickets some other site on the web is selling. I get th…

For sure - I've seen eCommerce sites intentionally bloat category pages with tons of written content for the sake of not appearing thin. That's definitely not the experience that users want. I will say though that I've tended to see a little bit more of objectivity specifically on eComm sites with the algorithm being more forgiving on sheer volume of content (though not in this case).

It's definitely hard and algorithms will get better with time as Google understands more and more of the web, but in the meantime, give us a heads up so we can fix it :)

Re: Well-intentioned websites get caught in Google’s algorithmic penalty box

#13
post #3

Of course. Computer algorithms are not perfect.

No doubt....I think the main argument though is how can Google encourage and help out well-meaning site owners when the algorithm gets it wrong?

Even just re-running it regularly (and letting site owners know that it's been re-run) would be helpful - as the issues pointed out in your article were largely fixed many months ago, the lack of any sort of movement is unfair and disheartening.

Re: Well-intentioned websites get caught in Google’s algorithmic penalty box

#14
post #9

I think the problem is that the "Panda" algorithm seems to essentially have the same criteria for all sites. Depending on the topic of the site (i.e., ecommerce site selling products or a ticket site selling tickets), lots of pages tend to have the same content. Some product pages have the same product in a different color, or the ticket site is selling the same tickets some other site on the web is selling. I get th…

For sure - I've seen eCommerce sites intentionally bloat category pages with tons of written content for the sake of not appearing thin. That's definitely not the experience that users want. I will say though that I've tended to see a little bit more of objectivity specifically on eComm sites with the algorithm being more forgiving on sheer volume of content (though not in this case). It's definitely hard and algorit…

Intentionally bloating category pages with tons of written content, unfortunately, is the result of Panda. Sure it's not good for users, but that's what happened, simply because those ecommerce sites had to adapt if they were going to compete or have a leg up over their competition.

And I'm not sure if Google took that into consideration when they launched Panda. If they had, we wouldn't be seeing the intentional bloat.

Re: Well-intentioned websites get caught in Google’s algorithmic penalty box

#15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure - I've seen eCommerce sites intentionally bloat category pages with tons of written content for the sake of not appearing thin. That's definitely not the experience that users want. I will say though that I've tended to see a little bit more of objectivity specifically on eComm sites with the algorithm being more forgiving on sheer volume of content (though not in this case). It's definitely hard and algorit…

Intentionally bloating category pages with tons of written content, unfortunately, is the result of Panda. Sure it's not good for users, but that's what happened, simply because those ecommerce sites had to adapt if they were going to compete or have a leg up over their competition. And I'm not sure if Google took that into consideration when they launched Panda. If they had, we wouldn't be seeing the intentional blo…

The same exact thing happened when Google launched Penguin. I bet Google didn't realize that they would start a whole new industry, the shady industry of making site owners pay money to get low quality links removed. But I digress...

Re: Well-intentioned websites get caught in Google’s algorithmic penalty box

#16
The client site, http://www.autoaccessoriesgarage.com, is engaging in cloaking.

Go to http://www.autoaccessoriesgarage.com/Seat-Covers/

Use the picker to pick a particular make and model: http://www.autoaccessoriesgarage.com/Seat-Covers/_Acura-RDX?...

So far so good, no problem. Your browser now has a cookie that says you're interested in just this make and model. Now for the problem: use the nav links to go to "Cargo trunk liners", and where do you land?

http://www.autoaccessoriesgarage.com/Cargo-Trunk-Liners

That's cloaking -- it's not showing you all of the liners, just the ones relevant to the make and model you picked earlier. Instead, the site should add _Acura-RDX?year=2008 to the url, just like before.

Why do search engines care about this stuff? Now imagine you type in [auto accessories cargo trunk liners] into your favorite search engine, and the result is http://www.autoaccessoriesgarage.com/Cargo-Trunk-Liners ... what does the search engine think you'll see? It has no idea, really.

Re: Well-intentioned websites get caught in Google’s algorithmic penalty box

#17

The client site, http://www.autoaccessoriesgarage.com , is engaging in cloaking. Go to http://www.autoaccessoriesgarage.com/Seat-Covers/ Use the picker to pick a particular make and model: http://www.autoaccessoriesgarage.com/Seat-Covers/_Acura-RDX?... So far so good, no problem. Your browser now has a cookie that says you're interested in just this make and model. Now for the problem: use the nav links to go to "Car…

Excellent point Greg, the article does address this though: check the "U/X vs. Googlebot/X" section

Re: Well-intentioned websites get caught in Google’s algorithmic penalty box

#18

The client site, http://www.autoaccessoriesgarage.com , is engaging in cloaking. Go to http://www.autoaccessoriesgarage.com/Seat-Covers/ Use the picker to pick a particular make and model: http://www.autoaccessoriesgarage.com/Seat-Covers/_Acura-RDX?... So far so good, no problem. Your browser now has a cookie that says you're interested in just this make and model. Now for the problem: use the nav links to go to "Car…

Excellent point Greg, the article does address this though: check the "U/X vs. Googlebot/X" section

Right, I've added in the right word (cloaking) and a much better fix. Adjusting cookie policy for crawlers is a bad idea.

Re: Well-intentioned websites get caught in Google’s algorithmic penalty box

#19
Google has, in the sense that quantitative finance people use the term, "burned" their data. That is, they're using statistical methods to extract signal from noise, and they've done this so much that they're nearing the noise threshold. When a data set is over-analyzed in this way, the impact of irrelevant data items becomes excessive. That's what's happening here.

Search spam detection has improved over the years, but it's fundamentally aimed at detecting sites that "look like spam". In response, search engine optimization has become more about making clickbait sites look less like spam, even to humans. It's now hard to tell a clickbait journalism site, one filled by low-paid article rewriters, from one that has actual reporters. (Business Insider is owned by the founder of DoubleClick.) Looking at the superficial properties of a site is no longer a reliable spam indicator.

The big search indicator used to be links. That's what "PageRank" was about. Links stopped working because most links to business sites now come from social media and blogs, and those are really easy to spam. Anyone who runs a blog now can watch the phony signups and posts come in. There's a whole industry selling phony Google and Facebook accounts for SEO purposes. Google has responded by disallowing many sources of links, with the result that the remaining link data is sparse for many sites.

Google isn't looking at the business behind the web site. Here, Auto Accessories Garage sells auto parts. Find the business behind their web site, and you can verify that they are in the auto parts business. Their site is full of auto parts. Therefore, not spam. Google doesn't do that. That's why they failed Auto Accessories Group.

At SiteTruth, we look at the business behind the web site. Here's what we're able to find out for Auto Accessories Garage.[1] This is the internal details page; users rarely look at this. We give them a good rating. We didn't, unfortunately, get a proper match to corporate records because their corporate name is Overstock Garage, Inc. (We don't have a full D/B/A business name database for dealing with such problems yet.) SiteTruth picked up the Better Business Bureau seal of approval on the site, cross-checked it with the BBB for validity, and noted the "A+" rating there. Not a spam site.

The process is completely transparent. The link below lets you see all the data SiteTruth looked at for Auto Accessories Garage. Because it's checking against hard data from external sources the site can't control, there's no need to be mysterious about how it works. There's a vast amount of data available on businesses. If you tap into Dun and Bradstreet (we can do this, but can't turn it on for public viewing by free users) you get in-depth financial data on companies. That allows real supplier evaluation, far beyond what Google can do.

The SiteTruth approach does a good job on real businesses that sell real stuff. There are objective measures for such businesses - revenue, years in business, BBB ratings, even credit data. Google doesn't use those, and Google fails real-world businesses because they don't.

If you want to try looking at SiteTruth ratings, try our browser add-on from "sitetruth.com". We put those ratings on search results from Google, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc. Now on Firefox for Android, too. End self-promotion.

[1] http://www.sitetruth.com/fcgi/ratingdetails.fcgi?url=www.aut...

Re: Well-intentioned websites get caught in Google’s algorithmic penalty box

#20
post #19

Google has, in the sense that quantitative finance people use the term, "burned" their data. That is, they're using statistical methods to extract signal from noise, and they've done this so much that they're nearing the noise threshold. When a data set is over-analyzed in this way, the impact of irrelevant data items becomes excessive. That's what's happening here. Search spam detection has improved over the years,…

How come your site thinks this company is the same thing as AutoZone? The original blog post above identifies it as an independent family owned retailer.
Post reply on HN