Is Google Using Chrome As Their ‘Panda Algorithm’?
Think about it – Google has spent millions of dollars creating and regularly updating their own Browser: Google Chrome. And what do they get out of it?
Ah Ha! My point exactly. On numerous occasions Matt Cutts has said how smart the Google Bot is now – so is it actually Google Chrome? And is Panda a reflection of new insight gleaned from the statistics of Chrome?
Matt Cutts - Google Reading Java Script & Ajax
Logically – Do you think they wouldn’t use statistics like “Time on Page” or “Time on Site” or “Bounce Rate” indicators to rank websites accurately.
|Noun: || |
- A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Hypothesis: Google Panda is an algorithm gleaned from the fruits of their browser: Google Chrome. (I’ll show you why – keep reading)
Google Panda Algorithm AKA Farmer
Let’s face it – how could they tell some of these points that they lay out in this Webmaster Tools post without something like Google Chrome?:
“Our site quality algorithms are aimed at helping people find “high-quality” sites by reducing the rankings of low-quality content. The recent “Panda” change tackles the difficult task of algorithmically assessing website quality. Taking a step back, we wanted to explain some of the ideas and research that drive the development of our algorithms.
Below are some questions that one could use to assess the “quality” of a page or an article. These are the kinds of questions we ask ourselves as we write algorithms that attempt to assess site quality. Think of it as our take at encoding what we think our users want.
Of course, we aren’t disclosing the actual ranking signals used in our algorithms because we don’t want folks to game our search results; but if you want to step into Google’s mindset, the questions below provide some guidance on how we’ve been looking at the issue:
- Would you trust the information presented in this article?
- Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
- Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
- Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
- Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
- Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
- Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
- Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
- How much quality control is done on content?
- Does the article describe both sides of a story?
- Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
- Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
- Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
- For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
- Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
- Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
- Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
- Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
- Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
- Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
- Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
- Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
- Would users complain when they see pages from this site?
Writing an algorithm to assess page or site quality is a much harder task, but we hope the questions above give some insight into how we try to write algorithms that distinguish higher-quality sites from lower-quality sites.”
Panda Update – 3.3 – 3.4 – 3.5 … 4. – 5. – 6. – 7. -8. – 9. and 10!
With all the “Panda Increments” 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 – you would think that people would realize that “Panda ‘aint going away” – and perhaps that it is a regular algorithm that is run to verify website quality.
The best way to beat Panda is to focus not on Search Engines – But focus on the user: As illustrated in this Google Video:
Take it to heart – and focus on the user – not on the Search Engine