37 replies to this topic

[cre8pc]

Good read for SEO's - 

 

Google Transition Rank: We’re All Spammers Now

 

Google was granted a patent in August of 2012 that may have a significant effect on a critical component of SEO research and tracking. It is officially called the “Ranking documents” patent (read a great summary of the Ranking document patent by my friend Bill Slawski). Some in the SEO community have been referring to it as “Transition Rank” and also the “Rank Modifying Spammers Patent.” Many think they have seen evidence of it already at work. After on-site or off-site changes are made for a site, this system toys around with someone’s ranking to see if there is reaction by attempting to make corrective changes. If so, the site may be designated as spam. In an illustrative scenario in the patent, they suggest such a document could lose ranking for 20 days before beginning a 70-day climb to the NEW-Rank. So one could make a good change that should result in increased ranking, but this system would demote that ranking first before gradually putting a page in its rightful, new, better ranking position.

 

Google lied about the "Do No Evil" motto, or it simply was never intended as a business slogan.  

[bobbb]

"Do No Evil" Never believed it.

[earlpearl]

I've been seeing some surprising and/or strange results, IMHO.   

 

Google is big.  we are small.   

[bobbb]

There is a solution to this Google thing. It would be a gutsy thing and will never happen.

It's simple. Tomorrow we all get rid of Adsense and stop using G as a search engine. A real shocker in Googleland when Larry and Sergei wake up with no queries and no ads to post. The message will be loud and clear. We the people have spoken. We would not be so small then. Boy what a shocker in Redmond too!

Takers??

[DCrx]

SEO is nothing but testing and monkeying with SE rank. White hat. Black hat.

 

That's all it is. There's no other way to see it.

 

Nobody rewrites an article for clarity or more information value anymore. That's exactly what the article linked makes plain.

 

Hardly anybody even writes an article from any point of view of a reader, except Googlebot.

 

Google understands SEO as a mortal threat for that reason. This patent reflects that position. You can put to rest that speculation of this being propoganda. It's Google or Spammers. For SEO to work well enough to support an industry, Google must die as a useful search engine.

 

It's not a few midguided clients. It's not misunderstanding what SEO really is. SEO acts like a black hole for everything else, until all that is left is SEO. Really. Half of accessibly is accessibility just for Googlebot.

 

Ever actually hear an accessiblity discussion resulting in a sale which doesn't play up the SEO? Ever try and strip out the SEO implications of accessibility with clients for, say, three months and see?

 

It did not have to be that way. But that's how the SEO industry -- and by and large the whole of the industry -- designed it.

Edited by DCrx, 16 February 2013 - 07:31 AM.

[bobbb]

For SEO to work well enough to support an industry, Google must die as a useful search engine.

And be replaced by what? by whom. And once it does get replaced (don't believe) are you really going to use a search engine where tops spots are determined by budgets.

 

I think the writer of the article spells it out. G wants more PPC for people who depend on it to sell their stuff.

 

Then for the rest I ask: Will they give preference to sites with Adsense above those without. "Do No Evil"

 

Once that can be proven, it may be time for some bright lawyers to sharpen up on SEO.

Edited by bobbb, 16 February 2013 - 10:49 AM.

[DCrx]

"Do No Evil"

 

Interesting barb considering the SEO industry's unofficial motto : "Evil is Our Business ...and Business Is Booming"

 

Glass house, meet flying rock.
 

And once it does get replaced (don't believe) are you really going to
use a search engine where tops spots are determined by budgets.

SEO as the liberator of the downtrodden masses of people with something interesting to say and valuable information? A Robin Hood of SERP rank, stealing from the rich and giving to only the deserving poor? (don't believe) Well, the robbing hood thing I believe.

 

We all want the SEO's kids to go to college. Just not enough to put them through. There's an SEO arms race and it's driving budgets higher. For everyone. That's the SEO game plan -- make it all but impossible to DIY for cheap.

 

The SEObsessive compulsive's argument nothing anybody ever does to manipulate rank could ever debase Google's credibility with their users enough for sizable defections is a little hard to fathom. Most assuredly inside Google.

 

 

My point being that I have NO FEAR what-so-ever that this kind of
activity is what would cause a site/page to trip said algorithm, if
indeed it is in use. This page still ranks for a variety of terms. I
highly doubt that making changes to it alone, will cause any grief.
This site has not previously tripped a spam algorithm. It still has trust.

 

Ever heard of Wikipedia? 'Nuff said.

 

-- SEO in a post Transition Rank world

 

 

Next patent suggestion: Chicken little discussions in any SEO forum on ANY SEO topic whatsoever, results in a rank hit. Sig links. Ads. Article links. Every link. Any link. (Including mine) Just putting the letters "s" and "e" and "o" together should be a flag, methinks of late.

 

Me? I'd start with every link to that patent and that article. Obvious really. Why write sophisticated algos for spammers when people willingly step forward, jump up and down, and wave their membership cards.

 

I'll settle for hanging up a needlepoint which reads "Stop Playing With That All The Time Or You'll Go Blind." To which all who see it will retort that they'll stop when they need glasses to find it.
 

Edited by DCrx, 17 February 2013 - 06:54 AM.

[iamlost]

My first thought was, once again, that software should not be patentable, copyright yes, patent no. But that is a longstanding debate for another thread. My second thought was that whatever the SEO types were saying - so well after the fact - would illustrate the reason for the process logic. And off I went to read...

Yup, I was right as the very first quote included said ...even if you change what you were doing to follow the line of Google’s acceptable SEO practices, it is still viewed as an attempt to modify Google’s index and thus it is the work of a spammer.
I had to take a full minute laugh in disbelief break. If a site changes it's behaviour from breaking Google's ToS to complying it might identify it's prior misdeeds... and this is 'messed up'. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
 
And really, Kim. Stop with the tabloid-esque headlines, this is Cre8, the dull respectable forum. We are all spammers now... what a load of unmitigated over the top self-righteous hysterical linkbait excrement. The patent speaks to a rather specific subset of page 'changes' that it is interested in, i.e. keyword stuffing, invisible text, tiny text... all the most blatant - though apparently, given this patent, still effective - of manipulative practices.

Before continuing I'd like to remind readers that Google works primarily via software and thresholds. It is neither reasonable nor practical to apply this patent behaviour to every page change on every site in every niche. There will be thresholds, probably varying by vertical/industry/niche. Way back when Bill Slawski first wrote his (linked) article on the patent I especially noted:

The rank transition function might impact one specific document, or it might have a broader impact over “the server on which the document is hosted, or a set of documents that share a similar trait (e.g., the same author (e.g., a signature in the document), design elements (e.g., layout, images, etc.), etc.)”

---

In other words, once one gets on Google's bad list... or are associated in any way with such a person/site...

The way I read this is: where there are substantive (threshold met) changes, especially including links, to a page the before and after versions may be compared, layout and design may be compared with known prior offenders (site fingerprinting), and so on ... and depending on the results the process described in the patent may be applied. The point of the various process behaviours is obviously to make it blend with normal ranking fluctuation, lose the signal in the noise.

But the biggest take away is that this is a method of confirming suspected ToS misbehaviour not of using server time running every page for every change just in case. Google doesn't waste server time that extravagantly. We are not all spammers now. Even if we are.

[bobbb]

Ever heard of Wikipedia? 'Nuff said.

Yes, next to Google itself it is the biggest scrapper although they never really go out and get it and lately I've seen that G does not fill up a page with just them on top. So there must have been complaints and G listened.

 

I'm with the above opinion that it is just a program with thresholds and flags. I think they really are trying to rid the top ranks of the gamers. They are p***ed off that they can be had and then rage off and penalise everyone even the one that play by the rules.  Agreed that is not "Do no evil". It's a big spoilt kid in a tantrum.

Edited by bobbb, 17 February 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[glyn]

Okay so what exactly is the "old rank" of a site that has never been published before today and what is it's transition rank when it is first published with all the optimization in place?

[iamlost]

And on glyn's behalf I gaze into my Google crystal search ball...

 

I don't see transition rank being applied to new sites until they 'transition'.

 

The usual algorithm with possible B&W fauna inputs remains, business as usual. And, this next bit is critical, just because there is a patent process on record and just because some webdevs are claiming to see it in the wild does not necessarily mean that it exists outside of the patent office. I may have missed it but haven't read Google being on record about implementing this.

 

On second thought I can see this process being proactive - if something on a watch list triggered it, i.e. glyn's sterling record, glyn's file site unique fingerprint...

[jonbey]

OK, so if traffic drops, you should just hold on and hope? Hmmmm. 

[iamlost]

If traffic drops you should investigate why and adjust if necessary. That said:

* a great many of the main algo changes that shift things about eventually sort one back where one was without change. This has been true for years. And simply waiting has been common advice for a very long time.

* non-main algo changes, i.e. Penguin, that are input algos run intermittantly are a different critter. They do more specific more identifiable targeting and if caught by such it is better to not only take a hard look but consider what changes are likely required. Given that most such update infrequently there is usually time to make informed adjustments. Unfortunately, whether the changes are actually beneficial will not be apparent until the next data update/input. This can be quite a long wait.

 

Of course the more diversified your traffic sources the less critiacl any one drying up. Caveat emptor.

[jonbey]

Yep. Been trying to diversify for ages. I think I have more non-Google traffic now, but Google increases more too. Not a bad thing, but makes my efforts to diversify a bit poor!

[DCrx]

>OK, so if traffic drops, you should just hold on and hope? Hmmmm.

 

This sort of thinking is the problem.

 

Precluding adding fresh content. Eliminating things like guest blogging. Sidestepping the entire concept of writing.

 

Just zero, unless you are trying to rig rank. Nothing else exists.

[iamlost]

>OK, so if traffic drops, you should just hold on and hope? Hmmmm.

 

This sort of thinking is the problem.

 

Precluding adding fresh content. Eliminating things like guest blogging. Sidestepping the entire concept of writing.

 

Just zero, unless you are trying to rig rank. Nothing else exists.

---

 

Don't go over the cliff...

 

While there are Googol Shades of Grey let's restrict ourselves to two:

1. you have reasonably followed Google's webdev guidelines.

In this instance one should:

---consider whether it is algo, manual, or something new.

---wait to see what Google has to say.

---act on that information to check where it might apply to site.

---in the interim:

------YES, simply wait on changes to existing pages and linkages.

------YES, keep doing what you have been doing, i.e. new and updated content, guest blogging, etc.

 

 

2. you have been jumping on any passing SEO bandwagon.

In this instance you should:

---consider whether it is algo, manual, or something new.

---primarily wait to see what Google has to say about their aims and targets.

---act on that information to check where it might apply to site.

---in the interim:

------YES, put a hold on all the iffy stuff.

------YES, keep doing what you have been doing, i.e. new and updated content, guest blogging, etc.

BUT: do so strictly by the rules until know more.

 

Note: in both the above it is rarely WHAT you do that is a problem but HOW; and the extent.

 

There is a lot that exists above zero.

And many/most/all webdevs ARE trying to rig rank: optimise for specific SE traffic in as much volume as practicable.

When that traffic drops NOT operating on reflex is best practice.

Ask:

* where has it dropped?

---across the board, or only for some terms?

---totally, mostly, somewhat?

* are others reporting similar?

---especially in your niche?

* is the drop tied to a reported Google action?

* what non-pristine (in G's eyes) behaviours have you been practicing?

---is there a correlation?

* etc.

[DCrx]

Notice we're still not talking about anything but Google. Nothing but.

 

Less than zero I'm afraid.

 

This isn't about what Google is doing. It's about SEObsessive compulsivness on the part of everyone else.

Edited by DCrx, 18 February 2013 - 04:54 PM.

[iamlost]

DCrx: of course we are only talking of Google in this thread - it is afterall a thread about a Google patent.

In this instance, yes, it is all about what Google is - maybe - doing. Certainly about what they - were - and possibly still are thinking or implementing.

 

In another less specific thread I'd be quite ready to speak to SEObsessive compulsiveness. And am quite willing to see this patent discussion (here and elsewhere) as proof that SEOs nitpick everything whether there is reason to or not. After all if they were to only speak to what they actually know that can be tested and replicated the SEO blogosphere and fora would be rather quiet places.

[DCrx]

In this instance, yes, it is all about what Google is - maybe - doing.

 

 

Nope.

 

What Google is doing is forcing you to write good fresh content. Content driven SEO.

 

And that's not a topic for discussion here. Every bit of SEO has been to evade this very obvious way around "what Google is doing." And it won't be a topic of discussion under any circumstance. It's just a way around Transition Rank.

 

That being my point. Panda. Penguin. Content was never an option. Writing was never an option. Won't be theorized. Won't be tried. Won't be tested. Because it's not a scheme. In fact it sounds like a lot of hard work.

 

But that's the answer. It's simply an answer too terrible to contemplate. Why's that? It takes almost all blame off Google. And, in fact, paints Google as the good guy in this. What's left is a web throughout which the horrendous writing gets remarkably better. The ideas get better. The reader, not Google, gets the focus. Better research into the subject matter trumps research on the latest goat entrails of Google SERP. The mindless scrapes of scraps of hackneyed ideas best left unexpressed ends. 

 

Earning rank through thougful, inventive, imaginative writing. Displaying expertise when the subject is not Google but your own business and career. Awful. Isn't it.

Edited by DCrx, 18 February 2013 - 08:05 PM.

[jonbey]

What Google is doing is building a machine that can answer any question anybody asks. Maybe one day websites will no longer be needed at all.