The Core
Why We Are Here => Traffic => Topic started by: ukgimp on October 18, 2011, 03:13:16 PM
-
Snagged it soon as, you never know when things might get pulled.
http://searchengineland.com/figz/wp-content/seloads/2011/10/General_Guidelines-2011.pdf
-
Some of this doesn't seem to be well grounded in reality:
- Pay-Per-Click (PPC) ads: Spammers get paid each time ads are clicked on their webpages. Another term for PPC ads is “sponsored links”.
- Thin Affiliates: Spammers make money when a transaction is completed after the user has clicked through to the merchant’s site from their webpages.
PPC ads appear on many, many webpages. Some pages with PPC ads are spam, but many pages with PPC ads are not. Pages should not be assigned a Spam flag if they are created to provide information or help to users. Pages are spam if they exist only to make money and not to help users.
Sometimes, spam pages do not have moneymaking links. These spam pages are created to change search engine rankings or even to do harm to users’ computers with sneaky downloads. They are spam because they use deceptive techniques, even though you can’t see how they are making money.
-
5.1.3 Recognizing True Merchants
Features that will help you determine if a website is a true merchant include:
a “view your shopping cart” link that stays on the same site
a shopping cart that updates when you add items to it
a return policy with a physical address
a shipping charge calculator that works
a “wish list” link, or a link to postpone the purchase of an item until later
a way to track FedEx orders
a user forum that works
the ability to register or login
a gift registry that works
Please note the following:
A page does not need to have all of these features to be considered a true merchant.
Yahoo! Stores are true merchants – they are not thin affiliates.
Some true smaller merchants take users to another site to complete the transaction because they use a third party to process the transaction. These merchants are not thin affiliates.
-
I haven't read through it all, but yes that bit caught my eye. Amusingly US-centric, I thought, although hopefully the UK reviewers would be bright enough to know that sites selling to UK only rarely have shipping charge calculators, tend not to use FedEx and are quite unlikely to have a forum *unless* they're a bit spammy.
But hey, if FedEx trackers are good, then I can do a fedex tracker......
-
Cheers Gimp ;D
-
404 error :(
-
Found a copy
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ppgdotcom/General_Guidelines-2011.pdf
-
http://www.potpiegirl.com/2011/10/how-google-makes-algorithm-changes/
Supposed to be on there somewhere.
-
cheers Paul :)
-
Here's one bit I'd disagree with:
Sneaky Redirects: We call it a sneaky redirect when a page redirects the user from a URL on one domain to a different URL on a different domain, with spam intent. Search engines “see” the first page, while the user is sent to a different page and sees different content. Here are some other things you should know about sneaky redirects:
- While being redirected, you may notice that the page redirects through several URLs before ending up on the landing page.
- Sneaky redirects may take the user to one of several rotating domains; so clicking on the same URL several times may send you to different landing pages each time.
- Some sneaky redirects take users to well-known merchant websites, such as Amazon, eBay, Zappos, etc.
So ipso facto, affiliate tracking links are deemed to be sneaky redirects.
-
you visually remove all of the spam elements from the page (PPC ads and copied content), there is nothing of any value remaining.
Good pages usually have these characteristics:
- The page is well-organized. There may be ads on the page, but they are well identified and not distracting.
- If you do a text search, the original page is usually the first result displayed.
- The page will have value to the user. A good search engine would want the page in a set of search results.
... a lot less true since Panda.
-
If you removed the PPC ads and copied text from the page, is there anything helpful left?
By that criterion Google itself is mostly spam.
-
too slow. It seems they've been pulled from all the above listed sources.
Anyone have a copy they could upload here or mail me?
-
keeps getting removed or blocked from most sites, search for intitle:" Part 1: Rating Guidelines"
-
1.4 Raters Must Represent the User
It is very important for you to represent the user. The user is someone who lives in your task location and reads the task language, and who has typed the query in the search box.
You must be very familiar with the task language and task location in order to represent the experience of users in your task location. If you do not have the knowledge to do this, please inform your employer.
Hmm. So Google farms this out. Wonder who gets that gig.
-
I ask this because...
Was this document legitimately leaked? Or was it leaked on purpose?
-
>So Google farms this out
Big time. We know a woman working for a Danish company who worked for them. She said they have plenty of quality raters in each country and they rate the same sites/serps, but never talk to each other or even know each other. Think there was a job description somewhere where they hired raters.
Afaik the raters have had a huge impact on Panda.
-
I would imagine is was AI based. Learning what was deemed quality and trying to make it part of the algo.
-
I have seen Google advertise for such raters in Australia some years ago.
-
Here's a link to a working copy :
http://www.huomah.com/quality-rater-guidelines-2007.pdf
but its from 2007 so maybe a little out of date?
-
The version I have is dated March 30, 2011. I think the classifications of user intent as "Do-Know-Go" are well worth studying.