Comments on: How Bad Content Is Ruining SEO

By: Unmana Datta

Unmana Datta — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 05:41:19 +0000

In reply to Hendry.

Thanks for taking the time to comment, Hendry! I’m glad you liked it!

By: Hendry

Hendry — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:49:30 +0000

Strongly agree with “Don’t write for search engines”.

Most people make this common mistake. They continue to add more keywords in the article, so it becomes awkward to read article.

Even on google webmaster guideline was written in “Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn’t exist?”

Just make useful articles for visitors not for robots. And believe me, if they think your article is useful, they will spread your articles in the forums, social media, blogs, etc. And surely you already know, this would make natural backlinks that Google loves and will boost your SERP.

Thanks Unmanna for the inspiring write, I hope somebody can benefit!

By: Hemendra Kumar Saini

Hemendra Kumar Saini — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:26:54 +0000

quality sites always have an upper hand over quantity sites. thats why i love gigaom over mashable and other tech blogs.

By: John

John — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:31:26 +0000

I agree totally, don’t write for big G but for your readers, doing so your readers will share your posts and do the seo for you…

By: Steve Cook

Steve Cook — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:43:11 +0000

It’s ironic that in Google’s push for content, they have actually made it more difficult to find high-quality content. As you suggested, there is so much content now that it’s difficult to quickly and easily find what you’re looking for. Although this will likely help Google perfect its algorithm in the long-term, the growing pains are somewhat inconvenient.

By: Unmana Datta

Unmana Datta — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:43:34 +0000

In reply to Mike Dawson.

Thank YOU, Mike!

By: Unmana Datta

Unmana Datta — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:43:13 +0000

In reply to Christopher Skyi.

Christopher, I like your comment, but I especially, especially love your last paragraph. Thanks!

By: Unmana Datta

Unmana Datta — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:42:01 +0000

In reply to Dan Thornton.

Dan, I love the “embedded journalist” idea, and I think that’s an excellent way to approach content! Thanks for commenting!

By: Mike Dawson

Mike Dawson — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 12:56:53 +0000

After Penguin, Google has layed down the law as far as content is concerned. I recommend writing short but writing well. Quality over quantity always! Great post, thanks!

By: Christopher Skyi

Christopher Skyi — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 01:41:41 +0000

Bad content can still escape detection by Google’s quality content detectors, but over time it will get harder and harder to do so.

Evaluating the quality of content comes out of Google’s “natural language understanding” initiative, to put it broadly. In short, they need algorithms that can read and understand as well as you or I. Full realization of this is probably at least decades if not a century out or more, but this has been a holy grail in A.I. research since at least the 1950’s. Panda is Google’s first practical application of this A.I.-based technology and that’s why Panda will continue to evolve. If your site had quality issues, this is probably why traffic and rankings continued to fall, i.e., new releases of panda kept identifying more issues. That’s just a guess, but probably a good one. Letting their algorithms “learn” from their human quality raters is a huge part of this initiative.

A great definition of Google is “a smart machine that keeps getting smarter.”

The long-term aside, the other reason to avoid junk is that everything you type is reflection of you, how you think, how deeply. It shows if you really have something to offer. If Google is smart, human brains are vastly smarter. They will instantly recognize junk when they read it, no matter how high it might accidentally rank.