Working in SEO we often find ourselves researching different places online where we can create or upload content.  However, it’s also inevitable that during these research sessions someone will ask if the site in question was on the Google blacklist. The blacklist, or list of banned websites, appeared as part of the Farmer update in January 2011 when Google did its best to eradicate what they referred to as content farms. Sure, there were some websites on the list that were so spam-driven that people expected them to be penalised, but there were also sites whose appearance on the list came as a surprise to most SEO professionals. These sites included Ezinearticles, Hubpages, and even Squidoo, formerly owned by SEO and online marketing guru, Seth Godin.

Bearing in mind that the algorithm change occurred on February 23^rd 2011, is it still right to be avoiding these websites nearly 12 months on?  The answer would be that it depends entirely on the website in question. While some websites used the opportunity to get their acts together, some vanished completely into oblivion. Taking three websites we look at where they are now and the impact that the algorithm update has had on them.

WiseGeek

This US-based content site was the most affected by the Farmer update, seeing a 77% decrease in the amount of keywords that it was ranking for. Duplicate content was cited as the main reason that this site was blacklisted with SEO professionals finding several articles on the site elsewhere on the web. WiseGeek never addressed the algorithm change and ten months on it appears that they have done little to eradicate it.  Each article on their website contains up to ten follow-links and the average page shows thirty Google AdSense ads. Too many adverts on a page is not only annoying to visitors, but search engines like Google see them as spammy and will often penalise a website if it appears to be getting too many links from ad-driven websites.

Ezine Articles

Ezine got proactive when it was penalised, using their blog to address the issues and let their authors know what was happening. They became far stricter with their submission policies – reducing the number of articles they accepted by 10%. Articles that were considered not unique enough were no longer accepted; the minimum word count for an article was put up from 250 words to 400 words; and articles were no longer given the option of being submitted through a WordPress plugin. There was even talk of making the links nofollow, but this was vetoed after several complaints from copywriters. Later on in the year, Ezine stepped up again putting measures in place to ensure that both the resource box and links were relevant to the article

Hubpages

In August, HubPages admitted that it struggled after the update. Frustratingly the CEO, Paul Edmonson, told WebProNews that he’d tried everything but to no avail. Finally someone on the team suggested moving each author profile over to a subdomain. Paul believes that the reason that this paid off is because Google could then treat each subdomain separately. It seems like this worked as at the beginning of October Google published its latest iteration to the Panda update and shortly afterwards SearchMetrics published an updated winners and losers list. Not only were Ezine Articles, eHow and Suite101 notably absent from the losers’ list, but Hubpages was included as one of the top ten sites on the winners’ list – it seems like you really can turn yourself around!

Photo credit: Flickr user Affiliate

What is a Q&A site?

Traditional types of Q&A sites involved the creators of the site using the images of pop culture icons to answer questions asked by users. Now users can ask questions to be answered by other users and they are an ideal way to integrate social and SEO. From an SEO point of view, interacting with users and researching various topics will be a lot of fun!

Social sites such as Quora and Facebook Answers are my personal favourites, as they involve interaction with other users, whereas standard or non-social sites (Yahoo! Answers) focus entirely on getting specific answers to questions. Q&A search engines such as Ask.com can be pretty useful, as well as How-to guides (WikiHow) although they can be time-consuming.

via Flickr

Why use them?

Because of the number of people who are typing questions into Google rather than specific words or phrases, the popularity of Q&A sites is increasing.  For example, people may write something like “Where are the best hotels in London?” rather than simply “London hotels”. This means that relevant answers on Q&A sites will appear higher in the search rankings – great news!

Search rankings and link building for keywords

As many of the top Q&A sites are continuously updated by users, they can often rank high in Google search results. Content is frequently updated on these sites as users love sharing their knowledge and expertise on a subject – who doesn’t like to show off every now and again? Google is more likely to prioritise these in the search rankings rather than dead content on other sites. If you’re link building for key words, Q&A sites can also help as they will generate natural links.

Findings

The number of questions available to answer is the main difference between a good Q&A site and a not-so-good one. Some had a lot on a variety of topics and others very little. Social sites such as Quora and AOL Answers allow users to build an online community making it lots of fun and are a great place to start. Sites that allow follow links enable you not only to link back to a relevant site, but also Google will take more notice of it. No-follow links are also useful though as they help build up a natural-looking link profile.

Q&A sites are a great way of learning new things but are also a valuable tool in link building. Other methods of generating links should not be ignored, but integrating the use of Q&A sites into your link building strategy is worth investigating. New methods of link building are sure to arise in the near future but for now Q&A sites seem to be becoming increasingly popular.

I consider myself lucky to have grown up in such a quickly advancing technical world. I was using computers by the age of 9, had my own email account, MSN login and social network account by the age of 10! It wasn’t until a couple of years later I started asking questions like ‘Who controls the internet’, ‘Who is Bill Gates’ and ‘Mum, can I have a laptop for Christmas!’

I’ve always been interested in computers and especially social media . I’m fascinated by how it can bring people together, how it can tell you exactly what you need, where a product is and how to get it. A little later on in my life, questions started turning into actual research for my A Level  IT coursework and I thought I’d be a fool not to understand how this whole thing works seeing as I use it so regularly and it’s evolving at such a rapid speed!

I have been an Intern at Bluepost Digital for the past 2 months learning all aspects of social media and specifically how businesses can use it.  I recently read an article about ‘steps to selling with social media’ and was surprised to learn that these principles aren’t widely known by businesses already. After some exploration into what businesses do to market themselves it became clear that some companies aren’t doing anything with social media at all.

From my point of view companies should be social, talk to their users, and be able to understand who their target audience is and what they want more of! As a user I want to know that a company or product I support is using social media. For me as a huge music fan I feel the same theory comes into play. When I go to see a band perform I want to be noticed and heard, and feel a connection with them not only in the crowd but on other platforms too.  I want to be part of a network where I can see what’s going on and get all the latest information.

While learning about how to run engagement campaigns at Bluepost, I’ve been excited to discover all the programs and tactics that can help a company boost its online presence.  I’ve found that there is a multitude of management and analysis tools that can save time and help gather all the data that is available. It’s pleasing to see that these tools are accessible – even if some of them only do very simple things, such as counting up @mentions on Twitter. Often it’s the simple things that make all the difference.

In my opinion social media can substantially change communication between communities and organisations as well as individuals. I’d like to think that soon the power of social media is going to be so strong that all companies will have to sit up and take notice.

At Bluepost Digital, one of our main SEO tactics is to create excellent content. Whether the content is for on-site or for link building purposes, we only publish articles and blog posts that we ourselves would enjoy reading. However, as I’m sure any link builder will agree, it can sometimes be frustrating to know that where you publish the content may not necessarily have a wide audience. Often times the goal is to make sure the search engine sees the link, and then gives it some link juice accordingly.

Such is the plight of the link builder who appreciates quality editorial. But in my opinion this is where social media can lend a helping hand. Social outlets allow both the writer and the publisher to post, tweet and share an article, reaching a far larger audience than ever before. Social media has made it simple to maximise content shareability across different platforms to diverse audiences.

It’s easy to post an article somewhere on the internet, but publishing it alone doesn’t necessarily guarantee the search engines will see that article and thus follow your links. This is where social media comes to the rescue again. Because social platforms are constantly being updated, Google in particular spends a lot of time crawling them. It’s a fact that pages linked to on Twitter are often indexed faster than if Google had to find that page on its own. Speeding up this process can be a godsend!

However, I think where social media can complement search most effectively is in its high levels of organic engagement. Link building in the past has been a relatively easy avenue to game. Search engines have cracked down on this to some extent, but those that have the resource can get the links, regardless of their quality.

Search engines have tried to sort out the quality from the quantity, but sometimes the site with the most links still reigns supreme. Yes, social platforms can be gamed as well, but it’s much more difficult and involves a lot of time and resource. This is why I predict (along with most of the industry!) that social signals will become a bonafide ranking factor in their own right. Some social signals do already contribute to rankings, but I expect we’ll see a more straight-forward correlation in the near future.

The search industry has made a lot of predictions that haven’t come true in the past, but I think it’s fair to say that the integration of search and social will affect us all in the future.

On the plus side (no pun intended), the team liked the platform’s visual appeal and were impressed with its range of features. But the conversation very quickly turned to some of the challenges that Google+ faces, which may or may not be surmountable at this stage in the game…

So, Google+… who is it actually for?

Well, at first glance it seems the platform is for everyone. The branding is clean and non-offensive, repelling no one in particular. Group chat features such as Hangouts and Messenger have perhaps been designed with younger audiences in mind. The Ripples feature is a handy tool for brands and proactive influencers. And then of course there are Circles. But, could it be that the platform is trying too hard to be all things to all people? No doubt Google would like to mimic Facebook’s success, attracting users from all walks of life. Facebook didn’t start out that way, though. It took many years to evolve from a platform for US college students to a universally appealing hub. Perhaps Google+ has taken on too much too soon, and in trying to appeal to everyone, it’s actually appealing to no one in particular.

Circles – are they really all that?

When Google+ first launched back in June, it was the Circles feature that jumped out as new and exciting – as of course it was intended to. For a short time, it seemed as though this was what would make the platform different. Even when Facebook improved its own ‘lists’ function, Circles still seemed a lot cleaner and easier to manage. But… how many users really need the process to be made cleaner and easier right now? Personally, I can already achieve what I want with Facebook messages, Google chat and emails. So, are Circles really useful enough to encourage people to move all my friends and social media interactions from other platforms over to Google+? Asking around the team, the general answer seemed to be ‘no’.

What happens in a case of Goliath versus Goliath?

It is unfortunate that Google’s two most recent branded social media ventures met such sorry ends, despite their sophisticated features (Wave) and ease of access (Buzz). Perhaps that’s because the company didn’t quite understand the needs of its audience. Or perhaps people sensed Google was increasing its presence in the social space for a bigger piece of the pie, not for the love of it? Another theory is that people don’t really want a social platform from the search engine giant. That’s not what Google is for. It’s known for its complicated search algorithms, its effective PPC, and its intuitive email system. Despite its successes with certain acquisitions, such as YouTube, what the brand itself isn’t generally associated with are friendly, cohesive communities. Maybe Google believes that it is bound to attract success eventually. But in a battle between the likes of Facebook and Google – such as the one being seen at the moment – we’re being forced to choose between one Goliath and another. There’s no underdog for people to back here. So, perhaps Google would have been better off disassociating itself slightly – even if only symbolically – and launching Google+ under an entirely new brand.

And what’s the verdict…?

The above are just some of the angles we debated during our team chat – there’s plenty more to discuss. I can’t help thinking that at the moment much of this is academic, though. Whether we believe it has a future or not, Google+ is here right now. The platform will have an impact on search (it’s Google after all). And there are audiences on there who brands could benefit from talking too – regardless of whether the numbers have been rising or declining recently. So we’re not ready to write off Google+ just yet. Let’s see how the story unfolds. And if this platform does go the way of Wave and Buzz, no doubt more ‘hard-won’ lessons will have been learnt.

Do you think Google+ has a future? Let us know your thoughts below. Or join in our #BPDdebates on Twitter next Friday, 2nd December 2011, at 1pm: @bluepostdigital.