I think human reviews of all the important websites and SERPs, that's harder for a competitor to reproduce.
Google was forced into that by improved "search engine optimization". SEO used to be about things like keyword stuffing, but as Google made their search engine smarter, SEO companies made their search spamming smarter. There are now SEO operations using machine learning to reverse engineer Google's algorithms and then automatically spam just enough to stay under the threshold.
In 2010, Google tried using "local" data to improve search. That turned out to be extremely easy to spam. A classic example of this can be found by searching for "laptop repair bradford pa". This brings up "Illusory Laptop Repair", located in the middle of a railroad crossing. A SEO expert created that phony business listing to demonstrate how bad Google was at detecting such spam. Google still thinks it's real.
In 2012, Google tried using "social" data to improve search. That worked even worse. Fake Google accounts created to create fake "+1"s may have exceeded the number of real ones. Google "+1" are still for sale; the going rate is about $0.10 each.
Meanwhile, links aren't as useful as they used to be. Who creates a link to a retail outlet other than on social media any more? Google is trying all sorts of "signals", but in heavily spammed areas, they're not doing all that well.
Yandex has been trying search that doesn't weight links at all for some heavily spammed categories in the Moscow area. It seems to be working for fake real estate ads.
(We have a partial solution - find the real-world business behind the web site and check it out in hard data sources, such as Dun and Bradstreet or Experian, which have business credit data. See "sitetruth.com/doc".)
I agree. And what are the implications? Wasn't Google sued by people unhappy with their rankings (Howard Stern?) and wasn't Google's defense that their algorithm was unbiased? (Not a rhetorical question, I never followed how that played out.) Once you introduce human reviewers, you're going to have more unhappy businesses. I'd rather a SEO spammer push me down (nothing personal) than know an actual Googler secretly decided my website wasn't good enough--a personal bias against me in particular. Who are the reviewers, what do we know about them, what are they looking for, not looking for, have they reviewed you personally, etc. I think Google may call it a "manual action" in Webmaster Tools, an ambiguous way of saying somebody at Google manipulated the algorithm against you. Do they have different levels of manual actions? Are manual actions always disclosed?
A classic example of this can be found by searching for "laptop repair bradford pa". This brings up "Illusory Laptop Repair", located in the middle of a railroad crossing. A SEO expert created that phony business listing to demonstrate how bad Google was at detecting such spam. Google still thinks it's real.
Comments
I think human reviews of all the important websites and SERPs, that's harder for a competitor to reproduce.
Google was forced into that by improved "search engine optimization". SEO used to be about things like keyword stuffing, but as Google made their search engine smarter, SEO companies made their search spamming smarter. There are now SEO operations using machine learning to reverse engineer Google's algorithms and then automatically spam just enough to stay under the threshold.
In 2010, Google tried using "local" data to improve search. That turned out to be extremely easy to spam. A classic example of this can be found by searching for "laptop repair bradford pa". This brings up "Illusory Laptop Repair", located in the middle of a railroad crossing. A SEO expert created that phony business listing to demonstrate how bad Google was at detecting such spam. Google still thinks it's real.
In 2012, Google tried using "social" data to improve search. That worked even worse. Fake Google accounts created to create fake "+1"s may have exceeded the number of real ones. Google "+1" are still for sale; the going rate is about $0.10 each.
Meanwhile, links aren't as useful as they used to be. Who creates a link to a retail outlet other than on social media any more? Google is trying all sorts of "signals", but in heavily spammed areas, they're not doing all that well.
Yandex has been trying search that doesn't weight links at all for some heavily spammed categories in the Moscow area. It seems to be working for fake real estate ads.
(We have a partial solution - find the real-world business behind the web site and check it out in hard data sources, such as Dun and Bradstreet or Experian, which have business credit data. See "sitetruth.com/doc".)
I agree. And what are the implications? Wasn't Google sued by people unhappy with their rankings (Howard Stern?) and wasn't Google's defense that their algorithm was unbiased? (Not a rhetorical question, I never followed how that played out.) Once you introduce human reviewers, you're going to have more unhappy businesses. I'd rather a SEO spammer push me down (nothing personal) than know an actual Googler secretly decided my website wasn't good enough--a personal bias against me in particular. Who are the reviewers, what do we know about them, what are they looking for, not looking for, have they reviewed you personally, etc. I think Google may call it a "manual action" in Webmaster Tools, an ambiguous way of saying somebody at Google manipulated the algorithm against you. Do they have different levels of manual actions? Are manual actions always disclosed?
This doesn't seem to work.
It does work on Google Maps, I find, but not on the main search page.
This is what I found: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=laptop+repair+bradford+pa&hl=...
If you're logged into Google, your results may vary.