Myth of .edu, .gov links counting more in Google SERPs

I think it would be correct to say that ".edu and .gov are usually the higher authority sites". There are .whateverTLD sites that are also authority sites, so a relevant and earned link from a site regardless of TLD will carry a lot of weight.

The sad fact is, a lot of these sites are heavily spammed by so-called "SEOs".

In short: Quality, relevancy, earn links, don't spam. It's the message from Google with their updates these days. Well, it was always Google's message, they are just now (thankfully) enforcing it.

 

This might be so in your experience but actually, they have been enforcing it periodically (in various ways) for many years now.

The earliest of such actions (i.e. algo change/penalty) that I can remember off-hand was the (then) famous case of a network called Search King (or something similar), back around 2004/5 or so. If memory serves me right, the owner of that network (that lost PR across the board overnight following the algo change) had also filed - and lost - a law suit against Google.

Since then, they (Google) have been taking similar action from time to time and every time that happens, a lot of FUD (Fear - Uncertainty - Doubt) start propagating across the SEO/Webmaster communities which reminds me a bit of the ancient Panchtantra tale (from Indian mythology) of the five blind men who bumped in to an elephant. One caught its tail and said: this is a serpent. Another one felt its leg and said: this is like a pillar. The one who touched its belly said this is a wall... and so on.

In a similar vein, there are many different beliefs prevailing in connection with Google algo etc. like:

* .edu and .gov links are more valuable
* reciprocal links don't count/may harm
* no-follow links don't count
* site-wide links don't count/may harm
* PR (that shows up on the toolbar) is the king
* directory links are dead/don't count for much

..... the list goes on.

The whole picture is rendered murkier by a (rich) mix of wannabe and knee-jerk SEOs, total noobs, experts and every one in-between freely (and often frivolously) expressing their views (about SEO - the elephant) at will.

The ultimate fact is, no one (except Google) knows what the real Google algo is (at a given point in time) so one must draw one's own conclusions based on his/her personal experience and that shared by others.

 

Further back than 2004, at least 2002 (when the event you mentioned happened) as far as updates go and 2003 saw the epic Florida upate. You're missing the point: the guidelines are being enforced in a bigger way than ever before. Their algorithms and filters are much more strict than ever before, tackling things that would have previously slid (or silently been ignored - see Matt Cutts comments regarding webmaster notifications). Google had been soft for quite a while, letting a lot (except the most blatant - cloaking, paid links, etc.) manipulation slide. For years, a lot of manipulation such as spun text, blog comment spam, article marketing, web 2.0s, etc, worked. It's the kind of crap quite a few (or a lot of?) people on DP still try to promote. Yes, still, even post Panda and Penguin. So thankfully, we now have regular enforcement due to these updates. This is very different to what happened before.

Google releases lists of changes, Matt Cutts provides a lot of information and there are the guidelines (recently updated) and there is the Webmaster Academy. The message from Google has been clear for a long-time: make quality content, earn links rather than making them yourself.

 

One very strong site with good editorial content, quite high PR pages is About.com and it's not .edu, .gov etc...

Back in the past here was a belief that .org might be better than .com, but after all... today it's all the same.

Anyway, some of you have underlined good points, I am reading through all you posts. Thanks for the ideas, opinions!

 

Just got to remember that even strong/authority sites aren't immune to updates (funny you mention About.com, as it was hit by Panda in 2011). This is well documented, so you will find articles (usually with something like "winners and losers for blah update" in their titles) on Search Engine Land about the big sites that were hit.

 

Mr. Dog seems to be correct, edu sites are not that effective as they were before.

 

Oh, it's interesting you're saying this...

Because I found sources and also manually effectuated checks on About.com and it did pretty well despite Panda!
In fact, it was About.com that at one particular moment at least seemed to have survived, as opposed to the sites like Mahalo, eHow... which I know were among the big losers.

Anyway, I think About.com was better built-up and could cope with the Google algorithms...

But perhaps they got hit not when I checked them but: after that! I guess About.com couldn't withstand the Google penalties as much as I believed...

If About.com didn't have much valuable content to Google, then what has?
It really looked like a well-constructed site with real authors etc. etc... in-depth articles. Like an enyclopedia.

At the same time I am surprised to see Wikipedia thrive. Endless articles are biased, single-sides points-of-view flourish, because a handful of authors can simply ban others from modifying the content. It's interesting how some groups roam and dominate certain topics of Wikipedia, which is an interested ambitious project for a website...

Too bad that really much of the content is biased, single-sided and is indeed used for promotions: some insert commercial links, but ban others from setting outbound quality referencial non-commercial links...

Wikipedia still seems to thrive...
I manages sites with several backlinks from Wikipedia and those backlinks counted a lot on 2006, 2007, all the way up to around 2010. Since Panda and Penguin, from my experience I can tell you that those links didn't count much... maybe not at all!

Could this be the case with .edu or .gov links?
They counted some time back in the past, but not now?

I know Google asked Wikipedia to set their outbound links to "nofollow", but I can still see tons of outbound (insider members insert their own links) "do follow" links...

 

In a lighter vein: Google giveth, Google taketh away ...