SEO

My “Meet the Search Engines” SMX West 2014 Takeaways

When I entered the "Meet the Search Engines" session at SMX, I certainly did not count the "live tweeter". Typically these sessions consist of Duane Forrester offering clear guidelines to rank well in Bing while Matt Cutts gives very vague answers as to ranking in Google.

I have to say that although Matt – still vague at times – was more open in this session than I have seen in recent years, and so my tweets ended up being multiples in volume.

 Search Engines "width =" 550 "height =" 281 "/> </p>
<p align= * Photo credit (used with permission) in Virginia Nussey of

blog Bruce Clay

While I was tweeting live, I was just repeating the answers given, and I did not add any comments to them because of the time constraints between the questions, so i figured i would compile the list of tweets below, add my own thoughts where i have them 🙂

The first question was from Danny Sullivan and wa s a general question "did you you have something to announce. "Matt mentioned several things.

A" softer "version of Panda is coming soon

. @mattcutts says that G is working on next generation of panda – which can make the "softer" panda appear #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

The first was that Google was going to release a new "softer" version of Panda . He then clarified that it would seem softer to "most people in this room". I took this to mean that the researchers would not notice, but the SEOs.

You have to get your mobile site ready and you'd better do it soon

. mattcutts says that he thinks the mobile can overtake the desktop for Google searches in the year #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

He then argued that serving a large mobile was taking on more and more importance – noting that he personally believed that mobile searches would exceed searches on Google within one year. More on why this counts for "you" below below.

A well-known guest blog network will be "hit" next week

. @mattcutts says a "well known" blog network will have a "hit" next week #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Quite explicit. Tons of chatter in the world of SEO right now by assuming who this could be.

AJOUTÉ:

Matt posted a tweet following the 19/03/2014. ] Today, we have taken action on a large network of guest blogs. A reminder about the spam risks of guest blogs: http://t.co/rc9O82fjfn

– Matt Cutts (@mattcutts) March 19, 2014

That the network he spoke to SMX was officially touched. Because he gave us an "advanced warning", I had looked at brand terms for several networks that link blogs with guest message writers. MyBlogGuest is no longer ranked for their brand terms since the tweet above by Matt so the hint is that they were the unlucky "winner".

EDITOR ONCE AGAIN ADDED:

On 3/19/14 the owner of MBG confirmed that his site had received a manual action from Google. Barry Schwartz published a post on 20/03/14 citing a tweet from Matt Cutts:

@ n2tech when we take action on a spam network, it can include blogs hosting guest messages, sites with links, and so on.

– Matt Cutts (@mattcutts) Mar 20, 2014

But, that should not come as any surprise. Finding service users is easy as can be. Add IFTTT variables that accompany them and I expect service users to see a kind of fall.

Are we recovering organic keyword data?

As I was heading to SMX, Larry Kim posted on Google+ that Google was working on a solution to the "not provided" problem. I took this to mean that Google was looking to bring back organic keyword data in a certain way.

During the opening speech, Amit Singhal made the following statement :

"Over time, we moved to secure research. Referrals are not forwarded to webmasters, but they are passed on to advertisers.But webmasters get a lot of information in Central Webmaster.

But over time, we have looked into this problem.We have heard our users say that they want their research to be secure – it's very important to users – we like the way things have evolved with the organic side of research

So, in the weeks and months ahead, we are looking for better solutions for that.We have nothing to announce, but we have discussed with the commercials how we should handle this in the future. "

[1945] 9001] After seeing the quote myself, I think this statement reflects paid advertisers may have reasons to worry about their future keywords. But, and I'm clear here, it was my interpretation based on the quote above and a slight comment that Matt did in the MTSE session (I do not remember the exact wording and Matt is not not paid, so it was clear he was not "aware" of what was happening on this side of things.)

. @mattcutts says his interpretation re kws comment of Amit was not to wait to recover kw queries for bio soon #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

What Matt said was that he interpreted Amit's comments as meaning that Google was satisfied with the results of the Removal of organic keyword data with regard to creating a better experience for their users [insert slight eye roll from me here] and that he did not see this decision overturned.

Could a Penguin penalty follow you with a change of URL even without redirection?

The first question The audience session was actually the one I had submitted. After seeing that John Mueller had made a comment that a penalty could follow you if you change domain even without using a 301 (if not much changed on the site other than the one you want. URL), there was a debate between several private groups geared towards SEO to find out whether it was in reference to Panda or it also applied to Penguin

Now, if you are hit by duplicate content (Panda) and change domain but not duplicate content, it makes sense that it "follows you" without redirection. The part I wanted to get clarification on was whether this was also true with respect to Penguin

Since I thought the comment also indicated that a Penguin penalty could follow you, I thought it was a good thing. I asked my question quite deliberately. Rather than ask if this applied to Penguin, I instead asked why a Penguin penalty would follow you – because if you do not use a redirect, you essentially disavow all the links – so why Google would he "tracked"? so to speak when you have already said "uncle" and have resigned to start again?

My question was deliberately asked to make the potential of a Penguin penalty to follow you even without 301 if you changed domains "Done" so to speak. The reason was that Matt was saying that the "fact" was wrong, or that he was explaining why they would do it (rather than asking if it was a fact and getting a yes or no )

@mattcutts says that a penguin penalty can follow you even if you change domain without 301 #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Matt's answer was that if you have a Penguin penalty, Google does not want you to "change domain" as a kind of disavowal massive. They want you to really disavow the links for the current domain. And he certainly hinted through his (long) answer that Penguin could actually follow you and gave some reasons for "why" Google would do it (sorry, I do not remember the exact wording, but it was essentially that they wanted your problems and did not "run away" from them so to speak). But the feeling was clear: a Penguin penalty following you potentially without 301 was a reality.

Keeping your parameters clean is a good practice in both engines

@DuaneForrester says keep the URLs as clean as possible regarding the Bing parameters

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

. @mattcutts agrees with Duane on cleanliness of settings – not because of punishment concerns but because of pop problems

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Duane commented here that webmasters should not just rely on canonical tags but rather try to solve the problem at the source and clean the URLs. Duane said that canonical was meant for cases where you could not do it, but you should not use tons of it.

Matt quickly said that you could use the canonical tag as much as you wanted. no problem. But, it was also quick to mention that it was indeed better to solve the problem at the source if possible to avoid the problems of "link popularity"

The mention of the popularity potential of the shared link let me use the Canonical tag does not transfer the popularity of the link to the canonical URL. I've always had the impression that Google has given the impression that a canonical beacon essentially merges all aspects of a duplicate page to the correct source page. But, the statement above might imply otherwise.

But I hate when people dissect every word that Matt says as if they had a line of flight to his brain. His comment could have meant many things or nothing. But, that was the point of questioning that went into my head after hearing his comments on the issue. But, I've always been a fan of using the canonical tag only if problem-solving at the source is not possible, so anyway, it does not change much for me. .

Widgets Go Good

@mattcutts says that not all widgets are created equal – some are legitimate, others not – quote "intent" <from me: fucking shame that you can not scale intention

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Ok, so my subject on this issue is voluntarily me to be a smartass. This topic was stimulated by Danny asking if Getty was violating Google's guidelines by referring to their site in their image. Matt said no, because Getty's "intent" was not to manipulate Google. He cited several other examples of big brands doing this without the "intention" of manipulating Google. He also mentioned that the keyword-based links of the widgets were really bad, no matter the intention.

The problem here for me was that you can not scale the decisive intent . So, if you're not big enough for Google to see your "intent", you're likely to be struck by the use of widgets, even if your "intent" was legitimate.

Seriously, get "ready for mobile" ASAP

. @mattcutts says he wants mobile sites to be displayed in search results on mobile devices and he expects this trend to increase

] – Rae Hoffman (@ sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Matt had already mentioned that the mobile could overtake the desktop with regard to people searching on Google soon. He mentioned that sites that do not offer a good mobile experience might not be as good for users searching from a mobile device.

To be very clear, he did not say penalty or even something very close

The example cited was flash will not be made on iPhones and is a bad experience on an iPhone

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

He used the flash not rendering for a user of any kind. iPhone as an example. If your site is based on Flash, the fact of distributing it to iPhone users would not be a "good experience" for the user and he could choose to adjust his results for the latter.

This means for us that getting ready mobile sites can no longer stay on the back (if you read my non mobile site from a mobile device, then yes, I am a pot calling a black kettle). If being mobile responsive has been an item on your to-do list that you have not yet found the time to address (as I do not have it here on Sugarrae), then you'd better take the time – and soon.

What is the "risk factor" for a penalized site?

. @DuaneForrester says that Bing does not give a lot of penalties – says you have to seriously, seriously spam to get one #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae ) March 13, 2014

Duane was very clear in that Bing does not charge a lot of penalties. He said you had to do something very, very badly to get a penalty from Bing. He hinted that Bing was smart enough to reduce or penalize.

. @mattcutts says the sanctions that Google has manual spam detection teams examining 40 different languages ​​

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Matt on the other hand let us know that Google is trying to control spam – in 40 different languages ​​when it comes to manual spam review (I did not even know that there were 40 different languages). But Matt also quickly noted that Google mainly used their algorithm to detect penalties, which meant that the vast majority of the penalties were algorithmic and were not transmitted manually.

How long do the penalties last?

@mattcutts says that the seriousness of the offense may affect the duration of the penalty of a site #smx

] – Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Matt then noted that the duration of your penalty may be affected by the severity of your offense. According to John Mueller, the average site is probably looking 6-12 months to recover from a penalty even after cleaning. (* cough unless you are a major brand? )

. @mattcutts If you are hit by panda or penguin you have to wait for the update of the data of this filter #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae ) March 13, 2014

I have often noted when I discussed Penguin Recovery that if your penalty is algorithmic, then you will have to wait until the next refresh of the Penguin filter is "released" from this filter (same thing for Panda) after cleaning everything. Matt confirmed that this was true before, but did (blatantly) again during the session.

Since Google says they're no longer advertising filter refreshments, Danny has asked Matt to give time to update the Panda and Penguin data. Matt was reluctant to give an answer, so Danny started to "suggest a few".

. @mattcutts says that panda is a little monthly and that refreshments are spread over several days # smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) The 13 March 2014

After some back and forth, Matt said that saying the updated Panda filter a little bit monthly was a fair statement. He also pointed out that Panda refreshments are now done over a period of days versus being a "hit" striking in a day as they have been in the past.

When it came to Penguin, Matt was much more "doubtful" on giving a lapse of time than he was on Panda. Danny asked if there had been a refresh of the Penguin data since the last one announced (October 4, 2013 for those who do not follow)

. @mattcutts says re Penguin that he does not believe there has been another penguin refresh since last (4 October) #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Matt said to his knowledge, no, that there had been no refresh of Penguin data since this dated. Danny insisted on finding a deadline for Penguin refreshments. Danny asked if 6 months was a fair estimate as to the time period.

. @mattcutts says that 6 months is a fair bit to hope that the penguin data is updated but it could be longer. as well #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Matt really "ahhhh, uhhhh" & # 39; ed this this, but then told Danny six months was a "fair enough" delay to expect Penguin data refreshments – and pointed out that Penguin data refreshments are more complicated to implement so to speak than the Panda.

@mattcutts says re carousel that he can not highlight how better to figure it – quotes spammers as why they must be quiet, silence #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Matt is completely stuck here and has not offered any advice at all. He cited the spammers who exploited it as reasons for needing to stay completely dumb on the subject

What should you focus on to categorize yourself in the algorithms of today? hui?

. @DuaneForrester indicates priorities for classifying in bing – content then utility then social then link building #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) 13 March 2014

Duane cited the emphasis on content, usability, social cues and link building – and he made it clear that he had declared them in the order

@mattcutts @DuaneForrester completely – adds google wants to rank popular websites #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

. @mattcutts says that he knows you're tired of hearing "write good content" chooses to emphasize with you write nick content, amazing content #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Matt said that he was in agreement with most of this that Duane had said. He then tried to point out that you needed "good content" while telling us that he knew we were tired of hearing him say that. He started giving some examples of sites that he thought produced great content and "did it well". The one that he seemed to mention the most was Android Police .

Matt joked that, as a Googler, he hated being able to get leaked on Android, but quickly pointed out that despite that, they were doing it so to speak in as an example of "great content" according to its definition of it.

Does Google use and use "Author Rank"?

@mattcutts "author rank" (he did not call it that, Danny did) is used when he s'. In-depth articles

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Danny asked Matt if Google was using the "rank author "to influence rankings. To be clear, Matt did not call him "Author Rank" but he also did not correct the use of that term by Danny. He simply said yes, these signals were used with respect to In Depth articles appearing in Google. It did not specify whether they were or were not used to determine rankings apart from In Depth items. It was clear that he was only commenting on his use regarding In Depth articles.

Google and JavaScript / iFrames

I have not experienced a tweet on this subject, but it is worth emphasizing. Matt mentioned that Google is now much more able to read and execute JavaScript. When Danny asked about Getty Image Embeds, he specifically asked if the fact that they were in an iframe meant that they had no impact with regards to Google. Matt was shy in saying that Google was improving regarding the iFrames

What do we need to know about Hummingbird?

. @mattcutts says that many hummingbirds are targeted to better understand queries and weight words to understand meaning #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) March 13, 2014

Matt responded quickly and succinctly as though there was not much to say or to do on the subject. He clearly hinted through his statements that it was more about the way Google handled search queries and less of "our sites" – what Ammon Johns (in my opinion, correctly) said long ago.

How far do I need to be on negative SEO?

. @mattcutts negative SEO re – it says that many people claim negative SEOs who do not experience negative SEO but old bad practices #smx

– Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) On March 13, 2014

Matt seemed to have the impression that most people claiming that SEO was negative are not really "Victims" of negative SEO, but rather people who have already used shady practices (or formerly firms using shady practices).

This part I tend to nod my head after seeing several customers ] come to us for Penguin Recovery telling us that "their old SEO firm said that 39 they hit by the negative SEO "while in fact, everything I look at says that's not the case, but rather the scapegoat of the old job that comes back to bite them in the ass .

He, as usual, implicit negative SEO is not something that the average webmaster should worry about. There, I do not necessarily agree. But I also believe that there is not much to do about it if it has not happened to you except worry – and this is not productive for us in this regard. as marketers.

I have bad links but I have not been penalized

. @mattcutts says that if you are aware of bad links to your site, you should probably disavow them even if you are not penalized #smx

] – Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae) On March 13, 2014

Matt says that if you are aware that you have bad connections, it's a good thing. I will probably disavow them. Someone tweeted to me that Google has always recommended withdrawal by disavowal and was a bit confused by Matt's immediate jump to disavow them. To be fair, the subject of the discussion was centered on when to disavow or not to disavow and I think that was the reasoning behind Matt saying "disavow" vs. saying "withdraw and then disavow" – AKA, do not read too much in that.

After the session, Matt apparently read my tweets live

@sugarrae Only thing I would add if it is 1-2 links , maybe not a big deal. The closer he gets to "lots", the more valuable he can be

– Matt Cutts (@mattcutts) March 13, 2014

He tweeted in essentially explaining that he was not trying to induce paranoia. I've taken his answer above to mean that if you have some bad links that you have not gotten yourself, you probably do not need to worry. But if you have a bunch of comment spam that you've created during your 2006 link building campaign and you have not been touched yet, you can be proactive in removing or disavowing these links to avoid getting caught. To be touched in future updates of Penguin.





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*