One other specific piece of guidance is that low-quality content on some parts of a website can impact the whole site’s rankings, and thus removing low quality pages, merging or improving the content of individual shallow pages into more useful pages, or moving low quality pages to a different domain could eventually help the rankings of your higher-quality content.
Here are the questions (with some skeptical answers from Will):
* Would you trust the information presented in this article?
Definitely not. This is a public relations piece which ventures far from the truth. It is patently dishonest.
* Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
Amit may be an expert, but this post is the very definition of shallow. It presents no useful information. It's worse than an eHow page.
* Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
Definitely. This post is yet another regurgitation of Google's standard content-free public relations platitudes.
* Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
It's Google -- we don't really have a choice any more. Google has handed the top SERPs to bland brand sites which lack relevant content -- forcing everyone else into AdWords. Coincidence? Cui bono?
* Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
This article purposefully contains serious factual errors. It is written to obfuscate the truth, which is that the Panda update is a dismal failure which has penalized quality web destinations like MerckManuals and AskTheBuilders.
* Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
Based upon Amit's unwilling to provide honest answers, it is pretty clear that he isn't "driven by genuine interests of readers of the site." This is a bait-and-switch page. The readers came looking for information and were delivered only prevarication.
* Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
Nothing in this post is original. This is simply a mashup of half-truths and misdirection which Google's PR droids have already posted elsewhere. This page should be removed from the search engine results by the duplicate content filter.
* Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
This page provides no value at all. It purports to discuss the Panda updates and instead lists a number of attributes which Google would like web pages to possess. The vast majority of these attributes, however, are not algorithmically measurable. This means that they cannot be part of the Panda algorithm, or any algorithm. This is purely duplicitous behavior on the part of Google.
* How much quality control is done on content?
Quality control on this article was performed only by the legal and propaganda departments. This article has no technical quality to measure. Simply put, the quality is vapid.
* Does the article describe both sides of a story?
Absolutely not. The article equivocates regarding Google's side of the story and completely fails to address the concerns of web publishers.
* Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
Blogger, as a free web hosting platform, cannot be considered an authority on anything.
* Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
Blogger content is mass-produced by a huge number of creators, many of which do not give their individual pages significant attention or care.
* Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
The article looks like a cheap cut and paste job from Google's webmaster forums.
* For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
I would definitely not trust health information from any should who could not clearly and objectively explain their diagnosis. This article clearly fails to meet that standard.
* Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
Definitely not. Blogger is a spam pit.
* Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
Definitely not. This article is virtually content-free. It provides absolutely no useful information.
* Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
Definitely not. This article eschews analysis, and in fact recommends against analysis.
* Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
Definitely not. I wasted enough time reading this drivel. I would hate to be responsible for another person being subjected to this soul-sucking post.
* Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
For some reason, Google won't run AdSense on their own pages. Perhaps that should be a hint for the rest of us.
* Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
No one but Google would publish this article, because it is completely lacking in honesty.
* Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
There are no helpful specifics. The "content" is completely unsubstantial.
* Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
There are no details, only broad and useless platitudes designed to deflect criticism of Google's failure.
* Would users complain when they see pages from this site?
The comments are full of users complaining about this content.
Clearly, the entire blogger domain should be penalized for hosting low-quality pages such as this one.
                                 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment