Google's Definition of Quality Content

[HairyCornflake]

Tweet

Despite the majority of our attempts to adhere to G's guidelines and build worthwhile links etc etc, it appears that some sites will still profit from spamming the web.

For example, consider phibbi.com, out of over 1 billion, 100 million results, it is deemed the 9th most relevant site for the search term of "mobile phone tariffs" with the result of "Heavily compare mobile phone tariffs the printer to a few utility meter, ring and travel and let bats reserve issue constantly from horribly"



mobile phone tariffs - Google Search

click this link at your redirect peril

[Shane]

it'll be cloaking the page then redirecting out via a nixxie paid link when I clicked it which is totally against the feed providers and Nixxies T&C's.. not only spam but dodgy link forced click spam by the looks of it.

here's what google sees:

Compare mobile phone tariffs @ www.phibbi.com™

a choice snippet example "Web spinning prepaid you with easy, eyed, proto subwoofer for plate or compare mobile phone tariffs giveaway web heat crunch partner are web scroll"

yip.. quality content huh

[IntroSites]

I take it Google jumped on this as i see nothing

[aotagain]

Well that's a coincidence - I was just about to post something along similar lines, having been looking at mobile phone websites. I have no interest in them, but was doing a bit of research on their 'techniques'.

Found several right near the top for quite a few popular terms which quite frankly were absolute rubbish. No use to any consumer and full of pigeon english random phrases containing keywords.

I'm reporting every single one to Google out of principle. I don't think anyone wants to see the web go that way. It also makes the search results look complete rubbish, which can't be in Googles interest.

imo sooner or later, G will implement something that tests for a reasonable number of backlinks for any given sort of shop. I mean what sort of genuine site has 11,000 backlinks for mobiles. Who the .... thinks mobile phones are interesting enough to actually put in a link to a site ? Not that many people.

Another one had 2000+ articles, half in the same article directory. How exciting !
Same thing goes for loads of other areas.

Given Googles resources, I'm sure they could go through all the areas manually and then implement some sort of 'expected limits' on number and speed of backlinks and articles and associated detritis.

Supposedly spamming links and stuff doesn't get you anywhere.
Supposedly, slowish 'natural' looking linking works best.
But that's not borne out very well by the search results.
Or is that something put out in bulk by the sites that do it, to put you off the scent ?

And all the while bizarrely there are some sites ranking highly with hardly any content whatsoever, that haven't been updated since 2000 and the site links don't work.

I can see why some newbies are put off. You need some sort of feeling that all your carefully crafted and useful writing is actually going to pay off, rather than it appearing to be some sort of gamble.

Perhaps its too late for that. Perhaps we should all offer content writing services - then you get paid whether it works or not !