<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Latest Google Algorithm change</title>
		<description>Discuss Latest Google Algorithm change</description>
		<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 21:05:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://searchnewscentral.com/feed/com_content/124/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Bruce says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-1737</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Two years later from the original post and still see these same problems in search results. I think google likes to claim they can do more with their algo than they actually can when it comes to reducing spam results. Do a search for any city "real estate" and check the results. 70+ of the top 100 results will be various pages or trulia or zillow rather than actual local real estate offices and realtors who can actually assist people. The listing information found on trulia and zillow is often years old.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bruce</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-1737</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Web Design UK says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-675</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For me the web has always been about finding what you want as quickly and as accurately as possible. There is nothing more annoying than finding a "website", which is in fact just a directory of links to other sites advertising crap from face wash to tyres.Great sites should get good ranking and the others, well.....]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Web Design UK</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:50:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-675</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Salsa Classes Toront says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-364</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think it's about time. I'm getting tired of some SEO firms using blackhat techniques pumping all these spam and dup content on the internet to achieve ranking. If you stick with the books, you should not be affected.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Salsa Classes Toront</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:41:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-364</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dana Lookadoo says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-312</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Like your analysis, Dave, and agree. With Google putting more infrastructure & processing power in place, Caffeine, and the integration of social signals, the stage is set for better SERPs. I'm encouraged. I ponder, if social is more of a factor, then these content farms will have fewer social influences. Will lack of such signals be of the algo? I used the Chrome extension to report a #1 SERP content/link farm result in a space in which this long-standing crap result does not produce the best user experience (blinking ads) nor the underlying related content for the query. Of note, Google does send the "spam reporter" an email acknowledging receipt of the grievance. Given that communication from them in other properties like Google Webmaster Tools has been lacking, this acknowledgment email offered another bit of hope.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dana Lookadoo</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 04:44:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-312</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Brad Marcus says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-295</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Google has always stated in their SEO Bible that the best websites for them are the ones that are originally created and have compelling content for the visitor. To me, this seems like an extension of that original principle. I think the spammy sites that are clogging up the SERP's are the ones that simply have lists and lists of links and a few pieces of content created elsewhere. While these sites might rank due to excellent SEO tactics, the sites themselves are threadbare.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Brad Marcus</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:05:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-295</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Andy says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-294</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This seems like a good move on the part of Google, I'm sure everyone would like to see their articles properly attributed. As far as crap content is concerned, it's not just about rubbish articles, it's far more difficult than that. For example, I did a search this morning looking for an example of an exponential graph (or something similar, I can't quite remember) and on an initial scan of the first few results, it looked like spammy content. However, hidden between the adverts and hundred or so links to other sites there was a two line answer. It was the most relevant result, it just looked like a crock. How can Google fix that? I personally hope they don't. If life gets too easy I'll just get fatter and forget how to read. I've already forgotten where my bookshelf is.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-294</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Harry says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-293</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, hey, I am merely reporting on what's been said. And as far as that is concerned, this is about attribution. As I mentioned in the post we actually had talked to Google about this very problem last year (and 07 before that). So this is a problem that has existed for some time. And in many cases, it wasn't even spam that was the problem, it was attribution of syndicated content and how Google handled it. As for testing, I haven't had the time to see if it is actually working, so I shall spend some time later on to see if it is 'as advertised'. I have though already talked to some folks that have seen an increase in traffic over the last week, we shall see. As you say, time will tell.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Harry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-293</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>John says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-292</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So many theories, so many experiments and so much speculations ! - What I believe is - its not yet the time to come to a conclusion on new algo. shift - we still need few weeks to get the dust settle and then only we could comment on how this new algo effected the SERPs - on a broader field.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-292</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Harry says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-291</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hard to say Marjory, but most certainly, from what's been said publicly, this isn't really about 'thin content' such as the Demand Media and other crap. It's looking like this was aimed at getting attribution right, scrapers just get caught in that same net. So, I can't see this actually sorting some of the crap content that ranks because it's from an authority domain or is an exact match to a query (aka Q&A sites).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Harry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-291</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Marjory says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-290</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The one thing that struck me about this was that it really had more to do with content scraping and duplication than what I see is the real source of the problem - really crappy content that's being distributed all over the internet - likely in the interest of link building. Some of this content seems to be ranking pretty high - especially in the blog search. I'd like to know if they have any plans to do anything about that - and if so, what does it mean for future link building?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Marjory</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:24:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110131124/Latest/latest-google-algorithm-change.html#comment-290</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
