Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Google overhauls algorithm, content farms potentially screwed

By | February 25, 2011, 2:38am PST

Summary: Google has changed its algorithm to favor “high-quality sites” and cut rankings for sites that “are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites” and “are just not very useful.”

Google has changed its algorithm to favor “high-quality sites” and cut rankings for sites that “are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites” and “are just not very useful.”

The changes, announced in a blog post, go well beyond the usual tweaking. Indeed, nearly 12 percent of queries will be affected. Here’s the explanation:

Many of the changes we make are so subtle that very few people notice them. But in the last day or so we launched a pretty big algorithmic improvement to our ranking—a change that noticeably impacts 11.8% of our queries—and we wanted to let people know what’s going on. This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality sites—sites which are low-value add for users, copy content from other websites or sites that are just not very useful. At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality sites—sites with original content and information such as research, in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on.

We can’t make a major improvement without affecting rankings for many sites. It has to be that some sites will go up and some will go down. Google depends on the high-quality content created by wonderful websites around the world, and we do have a responsibility to encourage a healthy web ecosystem. Therefore, it is important for high-quality sites to be rewarded, and that’s exactly what this change does.

Also worth noting. Google didn’t make the changes based in feedback from the Personal Blocklist Chrome extension, which also gives the search giant some good data to use in the future.

What this amounts to is an attack on content farms and there’s definitely a public relations benefit for Google, which has come under fire for its search results quality. Specifically, sites like Associated Content, acquired by Yahoo, and Demand Media, which just went public, could take a hit.

The big question for me: What is Google’s unassailable definition of low quality content? We don’t quite know yet and Google’s algorithm is a secret. As I noted before, there’s a slippery slope here where Google acts as the Web’s judge and jury.

I do know that I’d be wary of any business model that rests on search engine optimization. Demand Media knows this and issued a statement. The gist:

We have built our business by focusing on creating the useful and original content that meets the specific needs of today’s consumer.  So naturally we applaud changes search engines make to improve the consumer experience – it’s both the right thing to do and our focus as well.

Today, Google announced an algorithm change to nearly 12% of their U.S. query results. As might be expected, a content library as diverse as ours saw some content go up and some go down in Google search results.This is consistent with what Google discussed on their blog post. It’s impossible to speculate how these or any changes made by Google impact any online business in the long term – but at this point in time, we haven’t seen a material net impact on our Content & Media business.

Of course, Demand Media wouldn’t see a material change since Google just flipped the algorithm switch. On Demand Media’s earnings conference call, Google was the main topic. After all, Google’s algorithm is one of Demand Media’s biggest risk factors.

Demand Media CEO Richard Rosenblatt acknowledged on the company’s earnings conference call that the company’s content can have “a level of specificity arcane to some.” But Rosenblatt has also indicated that Demand Media is filling a role for consumers. In the meantime, Demand Media is diversifying its traffic sources and focusing more on Facebook. The aim: Don’t become that dependent on Google.

With Google’s algorithm change we’ll find out soon enough how dependent Demand Media really is on the search giant.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
29
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Google overhauls algorithm, content farms potentially screwed
Humagaia 8th Mar 2011
@terry flores What I have found with my content is that Google finds new content and indexes it much faster than either of it's major rivals (Bing and Yahoo!). This is why Bing seems not to have the same depth of search results that Google has.
Many article farms seem to produce answers to questions that are current. If a bot does not crawl new content then they are unlikely to find the answer to any current question.
0 Votes
+ -
Google is doomed.
james347 25th Feb 2011
They have sold themselves over to the Advertising world and their results are junk. Tweaking some changes like this is nothing but lip-service. They got greedy, arrogant, and now act stupid. Good-riddance.
@james347
Huh!
On the contrary, it will drive more people to google and others like yahoo and bing will die because they can't keep up with google's innovations!
@Linux Geek So far the opposite is happening
@HalfAKilo
Come on he's a funny little boy to read and his fantasy world
@james347
its funny that you claim this as I can't stand bing because the first few links are directly to businesses. Google may do this too, but to a lesser extent and the business links are a different color, so you can skip them easily.
0 Votes
+ -
Completly agree!
Nikolayev 27th Feb 2011
@james347 Google's time is over. Looking for information through the Google reminds me 1995 when I used Altavista. And in order to find anything useful I was randomly clicking somewhere beyond page 20 happy
I started collecting useful websites and pages again, because it is very hard to find them again and again ...
Larry, if you listened to Demand Media's earnings call, you should at least acknowledge the possibility that Google's algorithm change will be good for Demand, as was discussed during the call. As Google gets better at filtering out low quality content, the high-quality work produced by Demand will rise to the top of search results more often. Or at least, that's the theory suggested by Richard Rosenblatt, Demand's CEO, on the earnings call.

David Sarokin (a Demand freelancer)
@David Sarokin That's assuming Demand is actually quality content... Which it's not it's just keyword spam designed to get people googling something to look at an irrelevant page full of ads. Hate to break it to you buddy, but your company produces crap and is a part of what's wrong with the web today.
@David Sarokin According to online reports, Demand took a stock hit because of this.
Its about time. Their search results were sorely lacking any relevance to the query.
0 Votes
+ -
No kidding
Robert Hahn 25th Feb 2011
@Loverock Davidson It's a wonder anyone values the company at all, let alone at $200 billion. The lack of relevance is probably why their stock price is barely over 600 bucks.

So tell us, Loverock, what do you do that's good besides badmouth Every. Single. Thing. referenced in these blogs?
0 Votes
+ -
Dear Google...
sismoc 25th Feb 2011
I don't want 73,926 results for every search. I want GOOD QUALITY, RELEVANT results.

The more is not always the merrier.
0 Votes
+ -
Yay Google
Robert Hahn 25th Feb 2011
If this is about getting rid of those sites that are obviously created to pop up no matter what you search for, I applaud this change. Sometimes the top 5 or 6 results turn out to be junk web sites that are created by Evil People for the purpose of wasting other people's time. I send the Pincer Beetles of Pain to infest their loins.
@Robert Hahn

+1

for some searches this useless crap is all you get. I hope it works!
@wkulecz try searching for corrupt windows backup recovery. You get pages of junk, all from about 2 sites. To be fair, I tried it on Bing and it was nearly identical. After 2 days, I still haven't found anything I would consider legit. Just tried the search again and it didn't change.
@Robert Hahn

A year ago I was doing a lot of shopping online, and the thing that was most frustrating was the number of sites that would appear in the search listings supposedly selling an item, but when you went to the site they didn't actually have it. Their idea of "SEO" was to put the model number of every conceivable product in their page so that Google would always display them first.

This year, the search results do seem more relevant, so Google is apparently trying to get better. I give them credit for that. Bing still doesn't find all the stuff that Google does, so I only use it as a last resort.
@terry flores What I have found with my content is that Google finds new content and indexes it much faster than either of it's major rivals (Bing and Yahoo!). This is why Bing seems not to have the same depth of search results that Google has.
Many article farms seem to produce answers to questions that are current. If a bot does not crawl new content then they are unlikely to find the answer to any current question.
@Robert Hahn

as opposed to pincer beatles of pleasure? lol. But I agree with your statement. I have used a few search engines and Google is on, if not near the top. I am not sure how good yahoo's is anymore now that MS has a partnership with them. I am not a big fan of Bing as it seems very ad centric when it comes to searches. I used to use Askjeeves all the time in highschool, then ask.com, then google, with smatterings of yahoo in between, but for years Google has been my main search engine.
@Robert Hahn The purpose is ad impressions, wasting people's time is ancillary.
@Robert Hahn

You used to be able to do a google search on a phone number and get something worthwhile.

Recently, all you get are pages of listings of all the phones in the prefix, noting how much information you could get if you paid for this web site's most wonderful service.
0 Votes
+ -
@Robert Hahn Size of internet is about 14 billion pages, where English is 27%. So we have 1.5 millions pages for every word on average. So do you really believe that Google is capable to create relevant Internet search engine for everybody? Huh!
Time of centralized Internet is over guys!
Welcome to new epoch ...
Thank god, I hate searching for something and the first page is littered with junk sites that have a million links to whatever subject you just searched for in google.
0 Votes
+ -
As well as totally irrelevant pages
david.hunt@... 27th Feb 2011
@skyoneder I've been annoyed for a long time at the waste of time opening many poages that don't even contain the search terms used. If Google eradicates these sites from the results then it is a much better service to use.
It was about time!
In the last year those junk sites were completely killing my Google experience!
Everything I searched for, there were 10 absolutely irrelevant, badly made, fully copied jokes of web sites with 10000 links going inside themselves.

The search engine stops being a search engine if we have to dig in a pile of trash just to see the first relevant answer.
I've never had a problem with Google's results. I tell it to find something and 90% of the time I get the answer within the first 3 links. Seriously if it wasn't for the ease with which I find info on Google I would have probably lost my job years ago.
0 Votes
+ -
Google Haters
Naryan 25th Feb 2011
Man these Google haters really are funny. I guess they'll just have to get used to Google taking over the world. Maybe they don't realise they wouldn't be able to cope without them.
That's really good news fromn Google and one of my major complaints for a long time. KUDOS to Google for at least this serious attempt to clean things up. Only trouble is, IMO I find more than 12% of bad sites on my searches if they're not completely scientfic or professional, iffy results add up to more like 25% IMO. Maybe overall that comes out to 12%; dunno.
But I like what Google is trying to do.
Anything would be an improvement. It's bad enough when the first page of 14 million results is all junk sites, but then you add in all the duplicate results from pages that have your search word on them ten times.
How about instead of 21 million results we shoot for 100 good ones?
The thing that we all need to keep in mind is- This is a free service to us from Google. If they have to put up some ads before search results, so be it. At least they are identifiable, not like some search pages. They also don't serve pop-ups, or add ads to the pages that you find which is what some search engines do.
Downgrading sites that have a multiplicity of writers with differing writing capabilities for the creation of quality information sources is not the way to go for Google. They would do better to concentrate on the creation of software algorithms that could determine the quality of individual pages in answering the question posed by an individual.
The 'Panda' ('Farmer') algorithm change seems to be, considering many different analyses of the effects, indiscriminate and more or less unfathomable.
Quality is not a function of where a page is written or how many ads occur on a page. It is a function of how well it answers a question and whether it can be understood. Understanding, also, does not rely on spelling, grammar, or from whence the writer emanates.
For instance, an answer written by a writer from India, even if not following conventional Western grammar, can be understood by a searcher from India.
Google determining what constitutes good quality is like me determining that certain music genres are not worthy of listening to. It is a personal thing and should be left to the individual.
The chrome extension that allows individuals to determine that they do not wish to see a particular site within their search results is the best way forward for each of us to obtain the results that best suit our requirements.
Each search engine has it's good points and bad points. IMO the engines would do better to revert to an older style where paid for results are only shown to the right of the search results rather than above or below those that are generated from the search databases. But that is my opinion.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix