Matt Cutts says Co-op is bad???

Where are you basing this from? Sure, some companies are getting cheaper, but not all.

 

That is about the size of it Currently the spiders collect the content of a page,and that is that. The entire content is used for the algorithm in equal amount. BLLA parses the code, and then looks at where and how the content is displayed. So very small text in the footer area of a page might be disregarded, then again, if it is made up of internal links it might be given more weight as it is a site map, and google luvs sitemaps .

The top weighted are for links is the body copy, mainly because it is 'buy Cialis' very difficult to spam and retain credibility, I mean to say, did you spot the spammy link in this paragraph? See what I mean

 

The Google Adsense heat map is a pretty good indicator of how they value the different parts of a web page IMO.

Get your links in the orange bits.

 

That heat map is very generic and may or may not conform to your website. On page factors can dramatically alter where the "orange bits" appear.

 

just put as many ads as possible in front the visitor and they'll click! as simple as that

 

Google hates you if your a seo and your site looks like crap and grammar is bad.

Google likes you if your Site is designed well and grammar and spelling is imp3ctaBBle.

Finally if you do well they will ban you regardless.

If your PR8+ you either work for them or are a educational domain or Government or Military or .ORG of some pathetic capacity.

In regards to this Matt Cutts GUy he doesn't have a clue about SEO obviously

Google "Google Bigdaddy fiasco" I see he is 2nd under some clowns Blogger Site with looks to me to be of fundamental importance in Googles database most likely run by a Physics or English Proffesor at Harvard.

 

wow what a great addition to digitalpoint you are! Welcome

 

I swear my grammar is right but this keyboard is in Russian so bear with me.

 

Thank you SO much for cheering up my morning. So Matt knows NOTHING about SEO .

I have to say that for a short post you sure have stuffed in the maximum amount of misinformation. Congratulations

 

Based on my own experience. I am just comparing what I used to pay for hosting, bandwidth etc. a few years ago to now .... It's been dropping all the time and as the scale of things grows bigger it will only get cheaper: Economies of scale

 

Here's a great read:

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/indexing-timeline/

He is thorough and specific in the "whys and wherefores" of the loss of pages in indexes and the spammy links in websites unrelated to the content.

Check it out if you haven't read it. Comments by readers are helpful too.

 

It's an interesting blog post but missing a few things, IMO.

From: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/indexing-timeline

The problem is his explanation does NOT adequately account for many of the sites affected. AND, according to that quote, Cutts claimed that problem was fixed. So why are so many sites still affected?

Conclusion? Maybe what we're talking about is something else. Maybe it's not Big Daddy - I can accept that. But the problems started with Big Daddy or around that time and they are still not fixed, no matter what Cutts says.

Maybe Google's just broken?

 

That conclusion appears to be inarguable.

It's more of a question of "In how many ways is Google broken?"

 

the simple conclusion is that you need less bad links and more good links.

the more complicated one though is that ...

 

This is a MASSIVE admission from Matt. Google spider way more than they index! It is something I have been looking at a lot of late whereby google have spidered 300 pages a day of good content, but indexed none of it.

 

Not indexing content is a clever way for google to remove spam from their index. Rather than worrying about ranking certain sites really low they just don't index them in the first place.

 

LMAO that is hysterical

 

I'd like to look at this from an end users perspective. When was the last time anyone actually found a relevant response to a search term in Google? I know I rarely do. I'm not just talking about finding a bunch of spammy results mixed with other results. I am talking about entering a search term (while legitimately looking for something) only to have things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEARCH TERM, show up. Upon visiting these mystery links I end up at pages that have no relevant content (and no, they are not spam or built of AS sites), they are just bad results.

I have spent time looking through pages that I landed on, looking for the search terms in the page, the source, cache, you name it. I never find anything on these pages that would even remotely be related to what I searched for.

The biggest problems I have seen as an end user are the damn eBay auction links (almost all of which are almost always DEAD). I search for something, see a bunch of nice results, click on the page and land at an eBay auction that no longer exists.

Google should either stop indexing eBay auctions, or find a way to nuke them from their index prior to eBay nuking them from theirs.

I was looking for something last night using Google getting no where as usual, only to use Google Images on a whim, for the same search term. I ended up finding what I was looking for seeing the item in a picture on someone else's' site. Luckily they had a link to where they bought the item.

What gives?

Personally I think Google has lost site of the "Less is more" concept. I'd like to see less quantity and more quality.

If Google wants to reduce the number of spammy, built for AS or useless pages, instead of de-indexing them, why not give us (the end user) a filter/option that lets us filter out all sites with X.

My 2 cents.

 

yup agree here, ebuy auction page pop up in the results all the time, that's really annoying.
but that's the google algo, big sites get all the serps

mia, what you are talking about already exists