Last week during a SXSW panel, Matt Cutts, head of Google's search spam team, announced that Google has been working on a new tweak to its algorithm that will punish sites that are too optimized for SEO -- what he called "over-optimized" or "overly SEO'd," according to the recording of the announcement posted on Search Engine Land. Here's what you need to know about the new Google algorithm update, which has not been released yet but will go live in the next few weeks, according to Cutts' announcement.
What Cutts Revealed About the New Algorithm Update
Cutts hadn't planned on mentioning the algorithm update, but was given the perfect opportunity when an attendee asked the following question:
"With so many SEO companies showing up claiming to do SEO, a lot of markets are getting saturated with optimized content...What are you doing to prevent, for example, if you're looking for something, and the first page is just optimized content, and it's not what you're actually looking for? Are you pretty much out of luck if you're not optimizing your site but it has relevant content? If I'm a mom or pop and I'm trying to optimize a site by myself, I'm going to get beat by people paying thousands of dollars."
This algorithm update is working to level the playing field for sites without as many resources to dedicate to SEO. Matt explained the changes as "trying to make the algorithm more adaptive," or being more understanding of sites that have good content even if it isn't search engine optimized like many marketers have learned to do. The sites that will be penalized are those that "throw too many keywords on the page, exchange way too many links, whatever they're doing to go beyond what a normal person would expect."
What Google's Algorithm Update Means Practically for Marketers
If your content is driven by topics, you shouldn't expect to be penalized when the new algorithm update rolls out, even if you do take the time to search engine optimize that content with keywords and relevant links. If your writing is driven by keywords, however, we predict it's more likely you'll suffer some search ranking slips.
What's the difference between a keyword-driven content strategy and a topic-driven content strategy? A content strategy driven by what readers want, not what search engines want, is the direction that Google has been actively working toward rewarding even since last year's Panda updates rolled out. So if you're selecting topics based on what your audience would find helpful, you're doing content strategy right. If you're choosing what to write about based on the keywords you want to be found for, you don't have the reader top of mind; and Google is doing everything they can in its algorithm not to reward such sites in the SERPs.
Said Cutts on the panel, "Make a compelling site. Make a site that's useful. Make a site that's interesting. Make a site that's relevant to people's interests...We're always trying to best approximate if a user lands on a page if they are going to be annoyed...All of the changes we make are designed to approximate, if a user lands on your page, just how happy they are going to be with what they're going to get."
Marketers, business owners, and SEOs could also take a cue from Bing's Duane Forrester, who was also on the panel and addressed the attendee's question after Matt Cutts' initial response. He highlighted the importance of social sharing as a signal others actually like your content -- one of the key indicators of relevancy for search engines. "Does the rest of the world think you have a great product?" Forrester asked. "If they do, they will amplify this. If you're not engaged socially, you're missing the boat because the conversation is happening socially about you and about your content. Those are really important signals for us. Whether you're involved or not is your choice, but those signals still exist whether you're in the conversation or not."
Thankfully, Danny Sullivan asked the burning question we all had (or still have) on our minds -- whether Google is going to release an algorithm update that's designed to hurt the kinds of SEO activities that have been recommended to marketers to help their search rankings. In short, no; this algorithm update won't do that. Cutts clarified by saying, "SEO can often be very helpful. It can make a site more crawlable; it can make a site more accessible; it can think about the words users are going to type whenever they come to a search engine to make sure those words are on a page. The same things you do to optimize your return on investment and make sure things spread virally or socially are often the same things that work from a search engine perspective...but there are some people who take it too far. If you're white hat or doing very little SEO, you're not going to be affected by this change."
So marketers, it sounds like the same rules still apply. Create great content with readers in mind first, search engines in mind second. Then make sure your site is easily crawlable so bots can actually read and index that content. As more information is released, we'll keep you updated on whether this algorithm update will affect the way you approach your content or search engine optimization strategy.
What do you think of penalizing websites for over-optimization? How do you interpret Matt Cutts' announcement?
Image credit: Ed Yourdon
Inbound Marketing Blog Feed
Bernie Borges 1:28 PM on March 19, 2012
The problem I have with this update as described by Matt Cutts is that it doesn't account for volume. Example: say there are 50 great websites with relevant content about "marketing automation." Only 10 of them will be on page 1. And, which ones will be in the holy grail first three spots?
If 50 websites truly do have great and relevant content, Google must use other SEO criteria to select the SERP rankings.
I hope they don't over engineer this update and continue to score other factors such as website architecture, quality (organic) linkbacks and social sharing.
George Murphy 2:40 PM on March 19, 2012
When it comes to geo-based searches, I take this as "we're going to be fully focusing on Google Places eventually and the traditional organic ranking factors are probably going to take a back seat or be combined with the Places algorithm".
Catherine Lockey 3:10 PM on March 19, 2012
Yessss! This is what I've predicted and it couldn't happen at a better time. I'm pretty sure Google's most valuable social sharing signal is Google+.
Sherry at SkyHawk Studios 3:54 PM on March 19, 2012
Hallelujah! It's about time. Copy writing has been one of our services for years. It's been a trial convincing our clients that well thought out, excellently written RELEVANT content helpful to the reader in understanding what they are offering,is what we should be writing for their website pages.(and not to worry about a bunch of keywords on every line) It's been confusing for our clients, getting hit with all the SEO marketers promising "I'll make you #1 on Google" to wrap their wits around what to do and what not to do, who to believe, etc. Great great news! Thanks for sharing.
Lotus Marketing 3:58 PM on March 19, 2012
You cannot go wrong with White Hat SEO.
nancy chovancek 4:27 PM on March 19, 2012
I think this is wonderful news. I always tell clients that insightful, meaningful, relevant content is what web visitors are looking for. Yes, keywords ARE important, but you need to be a good writer in strategically placing those keywords in appropriate spots.
Kirsten Wright 4:53 PM on March 19, 2012
This is fantastic news for companies who have always understood the value that solid content brings. I'm glad to see Google making a shift to reward meaningful content instead of a large checkbook for SEO campaigns.
Hend 5:48 PM on March 19, 2012
I always say content is king... thumb up Google
Zoho CRM 7:16 PM on March 19, 2012
Google has been telling us that "content is king" for years. The only thing that I can see with the new algorithm is that Google is placing more importance on the content and the amount of time users are spending on the landing page.
George White 11:49 PM on March 19, 2012
Will this affect keyword optimization in domain names, or was that never really important to begin with? I have been told that you could name a page "retards.com" for example, and as long as you had good content about your real product, the domain name keywords were either secondary or not important to begin with.
Christina 5:17 AM on March 20, 2012
About time too! People need to focus on running a business and solving their clients problems. Not losing the plot and thinking they have to rank for every word in the English dictionary!
Sune @ ExtraIncomeBlogger 7:23 AM on March 20, 2012
I agree with this update - people should write naturally and come up with good, useful content - not solely content that search engines might love. What's the use then...? Yes, you get good rankings but chances are, your site wont be relevant to what the visitor was actually looking for, so it's not really helping you either.
Dan Blumenthal 8:52 AM on March 20, 2012
While the old adage Content is King applies, its in the nuance of trying to figure out to go with keyword writing or subject content writing that we will never know the difference as what's being graded by Google. We're still in the dark.
Dave 11:50 AM on March 20, 2012
Generally, you should aim to optimize your keyword density to be around 2%. It used to be recommended to use around 6%, and I'm guessing that anyone with a density that high will now get punished, as it is indicative of keyword stuffing.
@PatrickBerzai 12:29 PM on March 20, 2012
Wouldn't this be the perfect opportunity for Google Plus to add a "G-(minus)" button so that instead of recommending content you can tell the search engines/your network this is poor content or simply 'over optimized?'
Hunter Boyle 1:36 PM on March 20, 2012
Each recent Google update seems to be pushing SERPs in a better direction: promoting the best legit content for people, not bots or pages that game the system. The social proof aspects (G+) will keep playing a larger role, too. Glad to see things moving in this direction.
Jason Rios 3:57 PM on March 20, 2012
In my professional opinion, this new update Is Not intended to gear anything towards the Map Section or the Organic Results and Especially Not to "level the playing field." SEO can be Very expensive & the campaign can also take a while before you start seeing the Organic results on the results page and generating any ROI. However, SEO is a critical & fundamental facet of online marketing/advertising for the long-term success of Any business who wishes to thrive both online & in the local marketplace. The new algorithm will ultimately push more businesses to SEM, which by no surprise is the highest revenue generating aspect of Google's available services. Think about it, Google has no vested stake (from a revenue perspective) in the Organic Results. The Map Section is also a Free service that businesses can utilize IF they claim their Listing. Thus, change the rules of engagement & businesses will be forced to partake in SEM campaigns! SEM is Great but this is only 1 facet & I fear that business owners are going to skimp on SEO & partake in SEM & the result is that they are going to drive traffic to an inferior website with no relevant content & the bounce rate is going to be as high as the cost per click will start to be, even in previously uncompetitive markets. Time will ultimately reveal the motive of this update. Is it an ulterior one or for the betterment of the small locally owned business on a shoe-string budget, you will be able to decide. Feel free to contact me with any questions & I will respond accordingly.
JB-Media 7:41 PM on March 20, 2012
If I am to understand what I have been reading on this new update correctly, the only new change is to an increase in content valuation. At the end of the day it seems like this will only force the SEO to invest more heavily in content creation which I still feel lends a more helping hand to expensive campaigns. I am just not seeing how this will not more benefit a company that invests heavily in SEO. Content creation has been the more time consuming and expensive parts of SEO and now it is receiving higher importance. I think this change is definitely a good one, but don't think its helping 'mom and pops' companies at all
Greg Longmuir 11:16 PM on March 20, 2012
How interesting this question was asked, I wrote about this "Do Google changes hurt the small businesses?" in my blog back in December 2011.
http://greglongmuir.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/do-google-changes-give-big-business-an-advantage/
Payroll 9:20 PM on March 22, 2012
I don't believe that Google is actually going to punish those sites that go too far because there is no such thing as being too optimized. If you do what Google has been recommending for years, you're doing everything you need to do and your results should stay. They should have said we're working to remove the spammy SEO'd sites that provide little value.
This statement is meant to scare people straight, so to speak, but legitimate SEO strategies, and a few gray-hat tactics (or newbie mistakes) are going to be overlooked.
I'd only be worried if you have paid to get a ton of links from low value, non-relevant websites or you've loaded down your sites with a higher ratio of keywords than make sense for the reader.
I'd like to see how sites that don't create regular content, because the very nature of them is informational and they don't need to continually update text, will perform. I'm afraid Wikipedia and the big brands will swallow up all the informational sites (restaurants, many small businesses, e-commerce) that have value, but don't have the resources to develop a social media strategy or blog constantly.
Hey Google. Content is great, but some people have to focus on B2C sales, not constantly creating blog posts.
The rule is to test, test, test. Get out your daily GA reports!
Wayne Lappas 2:20 AM on March 25, 2012
I think at the end of the day it will come down to how well you've balanced your strategies not how well you've focused on one over another.
Now, more then ever, having a lot of back links without the social signals (likes, retweets, etc.) makes it seem like there is something suspicious about the true value of those back links. Google should go back and re-evaluate the pages it can easily determine are unbalanced; even more so if they can do a better job at deciding if the visitor will have a positive experience once they get to that page for a given term.
If real people are talking positively about your content in various social channels, and are linking to your assets from their own blogs and articles NATURALLY then you should have nothing to worry about with the coming update!
alice hancock 9:43 AM on March 26, 2012
Google is smart. I have been telling my clients this for a while. Build good sites and people will come. I have taken over sites for clients that have paid mega bucks to SEO only firms and tripled their presence in a month the old fashion way, good design and good content. This does level the playing field where any mom and pop as long as they provide good content, clean interface can compete.
Above Promotions 11:19 AM on March 26, 2012
Hopefully this will help to drive home content over links. Although the thought is to help the mom and pop shops, those are the ones who may still not be fully utilizing Google for their web presence. Yet again, hopefully this will help to clarify the importance of a good site, blog, etc.
Guido E. Zecckine III 12:05 PM on March 26, 2012
Getting to the front page of Google is only HALF the battle, conversion is the other half.
It doesn't matter where you rank in the search engines, or how much SEO you do on your sites, if you don't get conversion to a signup or sale.
Maybe conversion optimization would be better than hardcore SEO efforts.
I think if a site has the correct architecture, and good on/off page SEO, with relevant content, Google won't punish you, but that's just my opinion.
What you REALLY need to focus your efforts on is CONVERSION.
I'm not sure how this will affect everyone, but as always, content IS king.