Vaughns On/Off Webpage SEO
Vaughns page factors have been retired - website deleted - but it lives
on at archive.org... However - I still believe it's a great guide for
website seo optimization.
I salvaged a bulk of it below.
| 1. Alleged Positive ON-Page SEO Factors Patent Claim # |
Brief Note | |
| KEYWORDS - 50 | Google patent - Topic extraction For keyword selection, try Google Ad Words - Google Trends |
|
| 1 | Keyword in URL | First word is best, second is second best, etc. |
| 2 | Keyword in Domain name | Same as in page-name-with-hyphens |
| - | Keywords - Header | |
| 3 | Keyword in Title tag | Keyword in Title tag - close to beginning Title tag 10 - 60 characters, no special characters. |
| 4 | Keyword in Description meta tag | Shows theme - less than 200 chars. Google no longer "relies" upon this tag, but will often use it. |
| 5 | Keyword in Keyword metatag | Shows theme - less than 10 words. Every word in this tag MUST appear somewhere in the body text. If not, it can be penalized for irrelevance. No single word should appear more than twice. If not, it may be considered spam. Google purportedly no longer uses this tag, but others do. |
| - | Keywords - Body | |
| 6 | Keyword density in body text | 5 - 20% - (all keywords/ total words) Some report topic sensitivity - the keyword spamming threshold % varies with the topic. |
| 7 | Individual keyword density | 1 - 6% - (each keyword/ total words) |
| 8 | Keyword in H1, H2 and H3 | Use Hx font style tags appropriately |
| 9 | Keyword font size | "Strong is treated the same as bold, italic is treated the same as emphasis" . . . Matt Cutts July 2006 |
| 10 | Keyword proximity (for 2+ keywords) | Directly adjacent is best |
| 11 | Keyword phrase order | Does word order in the page match word order in the query? Try to anticipate query, and match word order. |
| 12 | Keyword prominence (how early in page/tag) | Can be important at top of page, in bold, in large font |
| - | Keywords - Other | |
| 13 | Keyword in alt text | Should describe graphic - Do NOT fill with spam (Was part of Google Florida OOP - tripped a threshold - may still be in effect to some degree as a red flag, when summed with all other on-page optimization - total page optimization score - TPOS). |
| 14 | Keyword in links to site pages (anchor text) | Links out anchor text use keyword? |
| - | NAVIGATION - INTERNAL LINKS (on site) | |
| 15 | To internal pages- keywords? | Link should contain keywords. The filename "linked to" should contain the keywords. Use hyphenated filenames, but not long ones - two or three hyphens only. |
| 16 | All Internal links valid? | Validate all links to all pages on site. Use a free link checker. I like this one. |
| 17 | Efficient - tree-like structure | TRY FOR two clicks to any page - no page deeper than 4 clicks |
| 18 | Intra-site linking | Appropriate links between lower-level pages |
| NAVIGATION - OUTGOING LINKS - 54 | ||
| 19 | To external pages- keywords? 55 |
Google patent - Link only to good sites. Do not link to link farms. CAREFUL - Links can and do go bad, resulting in site demotion. Unfortunately, you must devote the time necessary to police your outgoing links - they are your responsibility. |
| 20 | Outgoing link Anchor Text - 56 | Google patent - Should be on topic, descriptive |
| 21 | Link stability over time - 61, 62 | Google patent - Avoid "Link Churn" |
| 22 | All External links valid? | Validate all links periodically. |
| 23 | Less than 100 links out total | Google says
limit to 100, but readily accepts 2-3 times that number. ref 2k |
| 24 | Linking to Authority | Some say this gives a boost - Others say that is absurd. However, it certainly is the opposite of linking to trash, which WILL hurt you. |
| - | OTHER ON-Page Factors | |
| 25 | Domain Name Extension Top Level Domain - TLD |
.gov sites seem to be the highest status .edu sites seem to be given a high status .org sites seem to be given a high status .com sites excel in encompassing all the spam/ crud sites, resulting in the need for the highest scrutiny/ action by Google. Perhaps one would do well with the new .info domain class.<update> - Nope. Spammers jumped all over it - no safe haven there. Not so much, now - .info sites can rank highly. |
| 26 | File Size | Try not to exceed 100K page size (however, some subject
matter, such as this page, requires larger file sizes). Smaller files are preferred <40K (lots of them). |
| 27 | Hyphens in URL | Preferred method for indicating a space, where there can
be no actual space One or two= excellent for separating keywords (i.e., pet-smart, pets-mart) Four or more= BAD, starts to look spammy Ten = Spammer for sure, demotion probable? |
| 28 | Freshness of Pages 6, 7, 12, 13 |
Google patent - Changes over time Newer the better - if news, retail or auction! Google likes fresh pages. So do I. |
| 29 | Freshness - Amount of Content Change - 8, 9 | New pages - Ratio of old pages to new pages |
| 30 | Freshness of Links - 27 | Google patent - May be good or bad Excellent for high-trust sites May not be so good for newer, low-trust sites |
| 31 | Frequency of Updates | Frequent updates = frequent spidering = newer cache |
| 32 | Page Theming | Page exhibit theme? General consistency? |
| 33 | Keyword stemming | Stem, stems, stemmed, stemmer, stemming, stemmist, stemification |
| 34 | Applied Semantics | Synonyms, CIRCA white paper |
| 35 | LSI | Latent Semantic Indexing - Speculation, no proof |
| 36 | URL length | Keep it minimized - use somewhat less than the 2,000 characters allowed by IE - less than 100 is good, less is even better |
| - | OTHER ON-SITE Factors | |
| 37 | Site Size - Google likes big sites - 5 | Larger sites are presumed to be better funded, better organized, better constructed, and therefore better sites. Google likes LARGE sites, for various reasons, not all positive. This has resulted in the advent of machine-generated 10,000-page spam sites - size for the sake of size. Google has caught on and dumped millions of pages, or made them supplemental. |
| 38 | Site Age - 4 | Google patent - Old is best. Old is Golden. |
| 39 | Age of page vs. age of site - 3 | Age of page vs. age of other pages on site Newer pages on an older site will get faster recognition. |
| Added 2014 - POSITIVE On-Page Factors (6) |
||
| 40 | Authorship Participation | Becoming Was a factor? Denegrated due to abuse. Authorship
feature abandoned by Google, but they still have the data that
was generated. - No more author photos in the SERPs - No more circles count in the SERPs |
| 41 | Change Your Titles | If Google appends your Name to your Titles, take the hint. Add the same Name to the titles on ALL your other pages. |
| 42 | Supplementary Content | Links to closely-related pages on the same site |
| 43 | Use recommended ad sizes | More ads available (AdSense Advice) |
| 44 | Enable Image Ads | More ads available (AdSense Advice) Many, like myself, find that image ads pay far less, and sometimes displace higher-paying text ads. I have tested this over and over again. |
| 45 | HTTPS | No ranking advantage now, but Google says https will provide a "slight boost" in the future. |
| Note: For ALL the POSITIVE On-Page factors listed
above, PAGE RANK can OVERRIDE them all. So can Google-Bombing. |
||
| 2. Alleged Negative ON-Page Factors SEO Google Ranking Factors (37) |
||
| Factor # |
NEGATIVE ON-Page SEO Factors |
Brief Note |
| 46 | Text presented in graphics form only No ACTUAL body text on the page |
Text represented graphically is invisible to search engines. |
| 47 | Affiliate site? | The Florida update went after affiliates with a vengeance - flower and travel affiliates were hit hard - cookie-cutter sites with massive inter-linking, but little unique content. Subsequent updates have also targeted affiliates. |
| 48 | Over optimization penalty (OOP) | Penalty for over-compliance with well-established, accepted web optimization practices. Too high keyword repetition (keyword stuffing) may get you the OOP. Overuse of H1 tags has been mentioned. Meta-tag stuffing. |
| 49 | Link to a bad neighborhood | Don't link to
link farms, FFAs (Free For All's) Also, don't forget to check the Google status of EVERYONE you link to periodically. A site may go "bad", and you can end up being penalized, even though you did nothing. For instance, some failed real estate sites have been switched to p0rn by unscrupulous webmasters, for the traffic. This is not good for you, if you are linking to the originally legitimate URL. |
| 50 | Redirect thru refresh metatags | Don't immediately send your visitor to another page other than the one he/ she clicked on, using meta refresh. |
| 51 | Vile language - ethnic slur | Including the George Carlin 7 bad words you can't say on TV, plus the 150 or so that followed. Don't shoot yourself right straight in the foot. Also, avoid combinations of normal words, which when used together, become something else entirely - such as the word juice, and the word l0ve. See why I wrote that zero? I don't even want to get a proximity penalty, either. Paranoia, or caution? You decide. I always want to try to put my "best foot forward". |
| 52 | Poison words | The word "Links" in a title tag has been suggested to be a bad idea. |
| 53 | Excessive cross-linking | - within the same C block (IP=xxx.xxx.CCC.xxx) If you have many sites (>10, author's guess) with the same web host, prolific cross-linking can indicate more of a single entity, and less of democratic web voting. Easy to spot, easy to penalize. "This does not apply to a small number of sites" ... (this author guesses the number 10, JAWG) . . . "hosted on a local server". . Matt Cutts July 2006 |
| 54 | Stealing images/ text blocks from another domain | Copyright violation - Google responds strongly if you are reported. ref egol File Google DMCA |
| 55 | Keyword stuffing threshold | In body, meta tags, alt text, etc. = demotion |
| 56 | Keyword dilution | Targeting too many unrelated keywords on a page, which would detract from theming, and reduce the importance of your REALLY important keywords. |
| 57 | Page edit - can reduce consistency | Google patent - Google is now switching between a "newer" cache, and several "older" caches, frequently drawing from BOTH at the same time. This was possibly implemented to frustrate SERP manipulators. Did your last edit substantially alter your keywords, or theme? Expect noticeable SERP bouncing. |
| 58 | Frequency of Content Change 6-7 | Google patent - Too frequent = bad |
| 59 | Freshness of Anchor Text 32, 33 | Google patent - Too frequent = bad |
| 60 | Dynamic Pages | Problematic - know pitfalls - shorten URLs, reduce variables (". . no more than 2 or 3", M.Cutts July 2006), lose the session IDs |
| 61 | Excessive Javascript | Don't use for redirects, or hiding links |
| 62 | Flash page - NOT | Most (all-?) SE spiders can't read Flash content Provide an HTML alternative, or experience lower SERP positioning. |
| 63 | Use of Frames | Spidering Problems with Frames - STILL |
| 64 | Robot exclusion "no index" tag | Intentional self-exclusion |
| 65 | Single pixel links | A red flag - one reason only - a sneaky link. |
| 66 | Invisible text | OK - No penalty -
Google advises against this. All over the place - but nothing is ever done. (The text is the same color as the background, and hence cannot be seen by the viewer, but can be visible to the search engine spiders.) I believe Google does penalize for hidden text, since it is an attempt to manipulate rank. Although they don't catch everyone. |
| 67 | Gateway, doorway page (I see changes here - not only does the doorway page disappear, but the main page gets pushed down, as well - this is a welcome fix.) |
OK - No penalty -
Google advises against this. Google used to reward these pages. Multiple entrance pages in the top ten SERPs - I see it daily. There they are at #2, with their twin at #5 - 6 months now. Reported numerous times. |
| 68 | Duplicate content (YOUR'S) Duplicate content (THEIR'S) below (Highjack) |
OK - No penalty -
Google advises against this. Google picks one (usually the oldest), and shoves it to the top, and pushes the second choice down. This has been a big issue with stolen content - the thief usurps your former position with YOUR OWN content. |
| 69 | HTML code violations (The big G does not even use DOCTYPE declarations, required for W3C validation.) |
Doesn't matter -
Google advises against this. Unless of course, the page is totally FUBAR. Simple HTML verification is NOT required (but advised, since it could contribute to your page quality factor - PQF). |
| - | Since the above 4 items are so controversial, I would like
to add this comment: There are many things that Google would LIKE to have webmasters do, but that they simply cannot control, due to logistical considerations. Their only alternative is to foment fear and doubt by implying that any violation of their "suggestions" will result in swift and fierce demotion. (This is somewhat dated - G is fixing these things.) |
IN GENERAL, this works pretty well to keep webmasters in
line. The fallacy of this is that attentive webmasters can readily
observe continuing, blatant exceptions to these official pronouncements. There are many anecdotes about Goggle "taking care" of a problem. Google states that they do not provide hand-tweaked "boosts", but are silent about hand-tweaked demotions. They occur, for sure. To believe otherwise is naive. Wouldn't YOU swat the most obnoxious flies? I would. It is becoming easier to determine the best thing to do. Try to avoid any Google penalties or demotions. |
| 70 | Phrase-based ranking, filters, penalties | Feb. 2007 - Google patent granted. Do not use phrases that
have been associated and correlated with known spamming techniques,
or you will be penalized. What phrases? Ahh, you tell me. |
| 71 | Poor spelling and grammar | Pages that are higher quality and more reputable (i.e. higher PageRank) tend to use better spelling and grammar. Demotion for bad spelling is highly logical. |
| Added 2014 - NEGATIVE On-Page Factors (12) |
||
| 72 | Thin Content | Very little text on the page (Panda) |
| 73 | Low Quality Pages | Now, never acceptable (Panda) |
| 74 | Drop-Down Menus Cover Text | Not allowed - poor experience |
| 75 | Session IDs - URL | Google says "don't use them" |
| 76 | Link-Stuffed Footers | Discouraged, unless closely related |
| 77 | Excessive Movement | Too much distraction (I hate this.) |
| 78 | Wretched Colors | RED/ YELLOW combined comes to mind |
| 79 | No Flash on Mobile | Deprecated - Google says "lose the flash" |
| BAD ADS | ||
| 80 | Ads Above the Fold | Too many ads above the fold |
| 81 | Too Many Ads Period | Too many ads period |
| 82 | Bad Kinds of Ads | Google doesn't like Fixed ads, Floating ads, Interstitial ads, In text ads, Pop-up ads, Pop-under ads |
| 83 | Ads No Longer Targeted | Google AdSense has decided to serve untargeted ads, which
have no targeting whatsoever, to those sites that it has determined
are of "Inferior Quality". Be aware that these "ads from outer space" DO NOT appear in the AdSense preview section, so you CAN'T reject them. They sneak in a back door, with no accountability, explanation or review. Should you suffer from this issue (this site has), be aware that Google no longer thinks that your content is much good. Try to fix it, although it is difficult to do, when you don't know why you have been singled out for punishment. Some suggest that the long-awaited Penguin Update (Oct. 2014) will address this issue ("... it will be a delight".) It is now November 6, 2014. I have yet to see any "delight". |
| 3. Alleged Positive OFF-Page Factors SEO Google Ranking Factors (50) |
||
| Factor # |
POSITIVE OFF-Page SEO Factors |
Brief Note |
| - | INCOMING LINKS : | |
| Page Rank 84 | Based on the Number and Quality of links to you Google link reporting continues to display just a SMALL fraction of your actual backlinks, and they are NOT just greater than PR4 - they are mixed. |
|
| Total incoming links ("backlinks") 85 |
Historically, FAST counted best (www.alltheweb.com). No more - Yahoo (parent) broke it. In Yahoo search, type in: linksite:www.domain-name.com linkdomain:www.domainname.com Try MSN - http://beta.search.msn.com Use link:www.domainname.com Current TYPICAL Backlink Reporting Ratios - Google - 30 links MSN - 1,000 links Yahoo - 3,000 links |
|
| Incoming links from high-ranking pages 86 |
In 2004, Google used to count (report) the links from all PR4+ pages that linked to you. In 2005-2006, Google reported only a small fraction of the links, in what seemed like an almost random manner. In Feb. 2007, Google markedly upgraded (increased) the number of links that they report. | |
| Acceleration of link popularity (". . . used to be a good thing" ... Martha) 87 |
Google patent Link acquisition speed boost - speculative Too fast = artificial? Cause of -30 penalty? Sandbox penalty imposed if new site? |
|
| - | FOR EACH INCOMING LINK : | |
| 88 | Page rank of the referring page | Based on the quality of links to you |
| 89 | Anchor text of inbound link to you |
Contains keyword, key phrase? #1 result in SERP does NOT EVEN need to have the keyword(s) on the page, ANYWHERE!!! What does that tell you? (Enables Google-bombing - search for "miserable failure") |
| 90 | Age of link | Google patent - Old = Good. |
| 91 | Frequency of change of anchor text | Google patent - Not good. Why would you do that? |
| 92 | Popularity of referring page | Popularity = desirability, respect |
| 93 | # of outgoing links on referrer page | Fewer is better - makes yours more important |
| 94 | Position of link on referrer page | Early in HTML is best |
| 95 | Keyword density on referring page | For search keyword(s) |
| 96 | HTML title of referrer page | Same subject/ theme? |
| 97 | Link from "Expert" site? 28 |
Google patent - Big time boost (Hilltop
Algorithm) Recently reported to give a big boost ! |
| 98 | Referrer page - Same theme | From the same or related theme? BETTER |
| 99 | Referrer page - Different theme | From different or unrelated theme? WORSE |
| 100 | Image map link? | Problematic? |
| 101 | Javascript link? | Problematic- attempt to hide link? |
| - | DIRECTORIES : | |
| 102 | Site listed in DMOZ Directory?
The "Secret Hand" DMOZ Issues |
This is a tough one. Google's directory used to come STRAIGHT from the DMOZ directory. You should try to get into dmoz. But you can't. Be careful whom you approach with the old spondulix - Formal DMOZ Bribe Instructions. It is almost impossible to get into DMOZ. This site cannot get in, after waiting over 2 YEARS (33 months). Not even in the lowest, most insignificant category, "Personal Pages". I guess I just don't "measure up" to the other 20,000+ sites in the personal category. I'm not the suck-up type - I kissed them off long ago. What a waste of time! UPDATE: This page (not site) finally got indexed in June 2007, thanks to a legitimate editor. No money was paid. Google needs to DO SOMETHING about populating its own directory with the skewed, incomplete, poorly determined results from the dysfunctional Open Directory Project - the ODP!. The Google directory is GONE! Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely (DMOZ) |
| 103 | DMOZ category? | Theme fit category? General or geographic category? Both are possible, and acceptable. |
| 104 | Site listed in Yahoo Directory? | Big boost - You can get in by paying $299 each year. Many swear it is worth it - many swear it isn't. In 2014, Yahoo abandoned its directory. |
| 105 | Site listed in LookSmart Directory? | Boost? Another great vote for your site. The Looksmart directory, acquired from Zeal in 2000, was closed in 2006. |
| 106 | Site listed in inktomi? | Inktomi has been absorbed internally by Yahoo. |
| 107 | Site listed in other directories (About, BOTW, etc.) | Directory listing boost (If other RESPECTED directories link to you, this must be positive.) |
| 108 | Expert site? (Hilltop or Condensed Hilltop) | Large-sized site, quality incoming links |
| 109 | Site Age - Old shows stability | Google patent Boost for long-established sites, new pages indexed easily The opposite of the sand box. |
| 110 | Site Age - Very New Boost | Temporary boost for very new sites - I estimate that this boost lasts from 1 week to 3 weeks - Yahoo does it too. |
| 111 | Site Directory - Tree Structure | Influences SERPs - logical, consistent, conventional |
| 112 | Site Map and more site map | Complete - keywords in anchor text |
| 113 | Site Size | Previously, many pages preferred - conferred authority upon
site, thus page. Bigger sites = better SERPs Now, fewer pages preferred, due to proliferation of computer-generated pages. Google has been dropping pages like crazy. |
| 114 | Site Theming | Site exhibit theme? Use many related terms? Have you used a keyword suggestion tool? A thesaurus? |
| - | PAGE METRICS - USER BEHAVIOR: | Currently implemented through the Google tool bar? |
| 115 | Page traffic 34, 35 | Google patent - # of visitors, trend |
| 116 | Page Selection Rate - CTR 15,16,21 | Google patent - How often is a page clicked on? |
| 117 | Time spent on page 36, 37 | Google patent - Relatively long time = indicates relevance hit |
| 118 | Did user Bookmark page? 45, 46 | Google patent - Bookmark = Good |
| 119 | Bookmark add/ removal frequency 47 | Google patent - Recent = Good? |
| 120 | How they left, where they went | Back button, link clicked, etc. |
| - | SITE METRICS - USER BEHAVIOR : | Currently implemented through the Google tool bar? |
| 121 | Site Traffic 34, 35 | Google patent - # of visitors, increasing trend = good |
| 122 | Referrer | Authoritative referrer? |
| 123 | Keyword | Keyword searches used to find you |
| 124 | Time spent on domain | Relatively long time = indicates relevance hit Add brownie points. |
| DOMAIN OWNER BEHAVIOR : 38 | ||
| 125 | Domain Registration Time 40 | Google patent - Domain Expiration Date Register for 5 years, Google knows you are serious. Register for 1 year, is it a throw-away domain? |
| 126 | Are associated sites legitimate? 39 | Google patent - No spam, ownership, etc. |
| Added 2014 - POSITIVE Off-Page Factors (9) |
||
| 127 | Authorship Reputation | Stressed in 2014 rating guidelines |
| E, A, T Compliance | Endurance, Acceptance, Thoughtfulness Whoops! Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness |
|
| 128 | Expertise | - Fame? (Everyone in his area knows author) - Accomplishments? (list) - Published works? (Prolific?) - Large body of work? (Prolific?) - Uncontroversial? (Universally respected) |
| 129 | Authoritativeness | - IQ Test results? Mensa membership? - College? - Degree? - GPA? - Past job titles? - Current Employer? - Current job title? |
| 130 | Trustworthiness | - Web Rep? (No bad press?) - Email address? (Is a graphic still OK?) - Contact page link on every page? (accessibility) - Physical address required? (or just snail-mail) - Telephone number? (OK to use graphic?) - Privacy policy? |
| 131 | Fast Load Speed | Google has REALLY stressed reducing load time. Toward that
end, I have removed Google analytics, as well as Google+, which
slowed my site down more than anything else. Do you notice your status bar when it frequently says, "Waiting for Google Analytics"? Fixed. |
| 132 | Google+ Adoption | A possible coming factor, or not. |
| 133 | Google+ Participation | A possible coming factor, or not. |
| 134 | Compliance | Do you do what you are told? Implement ALL Google suggestions, or suffer the consequences. Google AdSense degrades you on their "Scorecard", for not fully complying with their suggestions (ad sizes, image ads, etc.). I find some of their "suggestions" disingenuous. Good for them, not so good for you. How hard do I get whacked for not implementing them? If you think "not at all", then think again - "We do not take any account actions based on your scores". ("But you had better do what we suggest.") |
| 135 | Social Signals | How many incoming links do you have from social media, such as Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, Pinterest, StumbleUpon, Twitter, etc.? Prominent social sites linking to you enhance the credibility of your site, and result in higher Google ranking. |
| 4. Alleged Negative OFF-Page Factors SEO Google Ranking Factors (18) |
||
| Factor # |
NEGATIVE OFF-Page SEO Factors |
Brief Note |
| 136 | Traffic Buying | Have you paid a company for web traffic? It is probably
low quality traffic, with a zero conversion rate. Some providers
of traffic for traffic's sake may be considered "bad neighborhoods".
Can Google discount your traffic (for true popularity), because
they know it's mostly phony? Have you read about Traffic Power? |
| 137 |
Temporal Link Analysis 22-29 |
In a nut shell, old links are valued, new links are not. This is intended to thwart rapid incoming link accumulation, accomplished through the tactic of link buying. Just one of the sandbox factors. |
| 138 | Change of Meanings 18 |
Query meaning changes over time, due to current events |
| 139 | Zero links to you - BAD | You MUST have at least 1 (one) incoming link (back link) from some website somewhere, that Google is aware of, to REMAIN in the index. |
| 140 | Link-buying - BAD (Very good IF you don't get caught, |
Google patent - Google hates link-buying, because it corrupts
their PR model in the worst way possible. 1. Does your page have links it really doesn't merit? 2. Did you get tons of links in a short time period? 3. Do you have links from high-PR, unrelated sites? |
| 141 | Prior Site Ranking 41, 42 |
Google patent - High = Good |
|---|---|---|
| 142 | Cloaking - BAD | Google promises to Ban! (Presenting one webpage to the search engine spider, and another webpage to everybody else.) |
| 143 | Links from bad neighborhoods, affiliates ?? |
Google says that incoming links from bad sites can't hurt
you, because you can't control them. Ideally, this would be
true. However, some speculate otherwise, esp., when other associated factors are thrown into the mix, such as web rings. |
| 144 | Penalties - resulting from Domain Hijacking (work with Google to fix) BAD |
Should result in IMPRISONMENT, forthwith! Grand Theft, mandatory minimum sentence. The criminal COPIES your entire website, and HOSTS it elsewhere, with . . . a few changes. |
| 145 | Penalty - Google TOS violation | WMG is the worst offender - gobbles up tons of Google server time by nervous Nellie webmasters. Google even mentions them by name. I think that Google will spank you when you cross the threshold, of say, 100 queries per day for the same term, from the same IP. Google can block your IP. Get a Google API. |
| 146 | Server Reliability - S/B >99.9% ?? |
What is your uptime? Ever notice a daily time when your server is unavailable, like about 1:30 AM? How diligent must Googlebot be? This is the worst reason to get dropped - you just aren't there! An ISP maintenance interruption can cause delisting. |
| 147 | No more room Pages being dropped from large sites |
The 232 problem - Google has hit the 4.3 Gigabyte address
space wall. Bull! Google now has over 8 50 Gigs of indexed pages. Thousands of pages are disappearing from various huge websites, but I think that it is G just cleaning house, by dumping computer-generated pages. |
| 148 | Rank Manipulation by Competitor Attack (1. Content theft causing you to get a duplicate content penalty, even though your content is the original - Google has problems tracking original authorship. People are still stealing my content, but nobody trumps me (in Google) with my own content - hats off to Google.) Examples - |
Impossible by Google definition (except for a few nasty
tricks, like making your competition appear to be link spammers) Ideally, there SHOULD be nothing that your competition can do to directly hurt your rankings. However, an astute observer
noticed that Google changed their website to read : |
| 149 | Bouncing Ball Algorithm |
At least 2, and often 3 identifiable Google Search Algos
are currently in use, alternating pseudo-randomly through the
data centers. G moved to a daily dance in 2007. Multiple changing factors are applied daily. GOOD LUCK NOW on trying to figure things out! IN ADDITION, some the above factors are being "tweaked" daily. Not only are the "weights" of the factors changed, but the formula itself changes. Change is the only constant. An algo change can boost or demote your site. I put this in the negative factors section, because your position is never secure, unless of course, you are huge (PR=7 or greater). If you simply cannot achieve top position, your only alternative to first page SERP exposure may be Google Ad Words (you pay for exposure). Today, I searched for an extremely competitive "2-word term", and I found that NOT ONE of the top ten Google SERPs had even one of the words on the page. YOWSA! Today's theory - when it doesn't matter, anybody can get #1 in a second, if they know the on-page rules. BUT, after a certain "commercial competitive level", the "semantic analysis" algo kicks in, and less becomes more. The keyword density rules are flipped upon their noggins. I think that we are witnessing the evolution of search engine anti-seo sophistication, right before our very eyes. Fun stuff. |
| 30 | 210 | 360 - 600 |
| Added 2014 - NEGATIVE Off-Page Factors (6) |
||
| 150 | Link Velocity | Links acquired too quickly = UNNATURAL (Penguin) |
| 151 | Link Schemes | ANY kind! Don't do it! (Penguin) Circles, Directories, Farms, Purchased, Reciprocal, etc. |
| 152 | Bad Reputation | Does the author have lots of negative press on the Internet? Anarchist? Liar? Troll? Spammer? Repugnant personality? |