Google Always Filters Good Writing Content

Google Always Filters Good Writing Content

Google Always Filters Good Writing Content

        Recently, I was struck by the fact that high-ranking web pages on Google are consistently much better written than the vast majority of what is read on the web. However, traditional SEO wisdom has little to say about good writing. Does Google, the richest media company in the world, really only show web pages that meet arcane technical criteria? Does Google, like so many website owners, really get so caught up in the algorithm process that it loses the whole point?

Apparently not.
Success factors of the most common website content on the page
Whatever the technical mechanism, Google is doing a good job of identifying websites with good content and rewarding them with high rankings.

I looked at the top five Google pages for the five most searched keywords, as identified by WordTracker on June 27, 2005. Generally, the top five pages receive an overwhelming majority of the traffic delivered by Google.

Web pages containing written content (a small but significant portion were image galleries) shared the following characteristics:

Update: Frequent update of content, at least once every few weeks, and more frequently, once a week or more.

Spelling and grammar: few or no errors. Note: spelling and grammar errors were identified by using the Microsoft Word verification function and then discarded words marked as spelling errors that are proper names or new words that are simply not in the dictionary. Does Google use SpellCheck? I can already hear the teasing on the other side of the screen of this computer. Before completely discarding the idea, keep in mind that nobody really knows what the 100 factors are in the Google algorithm. But whether the mechanism is SpellCheck or a better link popularity opportunity thanks to great credibility, or something completely different, the results remain the same.

Paragraphs: mainly brief (1-4 sentences). Few or not long blocks of text.
Lists: billeted and numbered, form a large part of the text.

Duration of the sentence: mainly short (10 words or less). The sentences of medium and long length are scattered throughout the text instead of grouped.

Contextual relevance: the text contains numerous terms related to the keyword, as well as root variations of the keyword. The page may contain the keyword itself several times or not at all.

SEO "What to do" and "Don't do"

A look at the results kills several carriers of SEO errors and sacred cows.

Page rank The median of the Page-rank was 4. A page had a PageRank of 0. Of course, this could be just another demonstration that the small number of PageRank you get in your browser window is not what Google is using. But if you are one of those people who attributes a primordial value to that small number, this is cause for reflection.

Frames The two main web pages listed for the most searched keyword use frames. Frames can still be a bad idea of   web design from a usability point of view, and can ruin your search engine ranking if your site’s link system depends on them.

Internal links with JavaScript format. Most websites use JavaScript for their internal page links. Again, that is not the best web design practice, but there are worse things you could do.
Keyword Optimization With the exception of two pages, keyword optimization was notable for its absence. In more than half of the web pages, the keyword did not appear more than three times, which means a very low density.  That can demonstrate the power of anchor text in incoming links. You can also show that Google takes into account all the content of a site when categorizing it and decides which page to display.

Subtitles On most pages, subtitles were absent or in the form of images instead of text. That is a very bad design practice, and particularly cruel to blind users. But again, Google is more forgiving.

Links: most web pages contained ten or more links; many contain more than 30, challenging SEO errors about "link popularity bleeding". In addition, almost all pages contained a significant number of non-relevant links. In many pages, the non-relevant links outnumbered the relevant ones. Of course, it is not clear what benefit website owners expect to get by placing irrelevant links on the pages. It has been a proven way to reduce conversion rates and lose visitors.

Originality: a significant number of pages contained content copied from other websites. In all cases, the content was professionally written content, apparently distributed for free. Note: Reprint content did not consist of content feeds. There was always at least a significant part of the original content, usually most of the page.

Make sure that a professional writer, or at least someone who knows how to distinguish between good and bad writing, is creating the content of your site, particularly in the case of a search engine optimization campaign. If you are an SEO, make sure you get a professional to make the content. A surprising number of SEO writes incredibly badly. I have even had clients whose websites obtained fewer conversions or page visits after their SEO ended with them, even when they obtained a strong increase in unique visitors. Most visitors simply press the "back" button when faced with nasty text, so the increase in traffic is just a wasted bandwidth.

If you write your own content, make sure it goes through the hands of an expert editor or writer before connecting.

Update your content often. If you cannot afford the original content, use free reprint content.

Distribute your content to other websites for free. It will also help spread your message and improve your visibility. Fears of a "duplicate content penalty" for free reprint content (as opposed to duplication of content within a single website) are not justified.

In summary, if you have a mature website that is already indexed and receives traffic, you should consider making sure that most of your investment in your website is dedicated to its content, rather than graphic design, search engine optimization of Old school or linking campaigns.