How they affect publishers and SEOs

Description of your first forum.
Post Reply
WhatsApp Number
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2023 4:15 am

How they affect publishers and SEOs

Post by WhatsApp Number »

There seems to be a pattern in Google's actions toward publishers and the digital marketing industry that worries me a bit. It seems the company has become less and less transparent with publishers over the past couple of years – and frankly, that makes me a little uneasy. Google Transparency Now, there have always been conflicts between Google and the SEO community; some think Google hates SEOs, while others think Google really needs us. I've always been in the camp that thought Google knew they needed the SEO community because they couldn't control the end product. No matter how good the search results are, the end product is always the website. If the websites returned by Google aren't very usable or relevant, people won't use Google to find them. This has made the SEO industry an almost necessary middleman, giving Google a fairly direct method of affecting site quality by forcing SEOs to communicate their policies to publishers.

However, in light Luxembourg WhatsApp Number List of recent actions by Google – such as bypassing standard SEO industry channels to announce major changes and representatives telling us they know five percent or less of algorithms – I think we have to consider the possibility that they have started to care a lot less about transparently communicating Google's website guidelines to SEOs and publishers. Of course, those of us who spend our lives immersed in these algorithms know this is not a successful strategy. No matter how many useful webmaster guidelines you post, the average site owner will still never understand the intricacies of what makes a good site without the help of a knowledgeable SEO specialist. It won't stop spam either, because spammers represent money, and money can still flow through Google. However, for the rest of us in the industry, SEO is starting to become a painful process. The death of Matt Cutts Matt Cutts - the former head of web spam at Google who went on indefinite leave in July 2014 - has always been a polarizing figure in search.

Image

Some thought he deliberately misdirected the industry, while others felt you just needed to understand 'Matt Speak', and you could learn a lot from what he said (or more importantly, what he did not say). I fell into the latter category. Whichever way you slice it, Cutts had a very difficult role. I felt he was doing his best within the parameters of this role to help us understand how research worked and how it didn't. He had a fine line to draw between the needs of the industry and the company he worked for, but I felt he did it well. The Cutts transparency effect Cutts was instrumental in what was communicated to publishers and SEO professionals. There was advance notice of changes, sometimes months or years in advance. Editors were notified of the algorithm update and guidelines change, and Cutts made himself available to answer questions via Twitter and YouTube videos and at industry events. Matt Cutts helped create the rules. He understood these rules and communicated them to us insofar as he could. For all the controversy surrounding his role, Cutts was the little bit of transparency between Google, its algorithms, SEOs and publishers. Then things changed. Google released Hummingbird, their entity-driven algorithm.
Post Reply