Google's "Good Writing"
Content Filter
The web pages actually at the top of Google have
only one thing clearly in common: good writing. Don't
let the usual SEO sacred cows and bugbears, such as
PageRank, frames, and JavaScript, distract you from
the importance of good content.
I was recently struck by the fact that the top-ranking
web pages on Google are consistently much better written
than the vast majority of what one reads on the web.
Yet traditional SEO wisdom has little to say about
good writing. Does Google, the world's wealthiest
media company, really only display web pages that
meet arcane technical criteria? Does Google, like
so many website owners, really get so caught up in
the process of the algorithm that it misses the whole
point?
Apparently not.
Most Common On-the-Page Website Content Success
Factors
Whatever the technical mechanism, Google is doing
a pretty good job of identifying websites with good
content and rewarding them with high rankings.
I looked at Google's top five pages for the five
most searched-on keywords, as identified by WordTracker
on June 27, 2005. Typically, the top five pages receive
an overwhelming majority of the traffic delivered
by Google.
The web pages that contained written content (a small
but significant portion were image galleries) all
shared the following features:
* Updating: frequent updating of content, at least
once every few weeks, and more often, once a week
or more.
* Spelling and grammar: few or no errors. No page
had more than three misspelled words or four grammatical
errors. Note: spelling and grammar errors were identified
by using Microsoft Word's check feature, and then
ruling out words marked as misspellings that are either
proper names or new words that are simply not in the
dictionary. Does Google use SpellCheck? I can already
hear the scoffing on the other side of this computer
screen. Before you dismiss the idea completely, keep
in mind that no one really does know what the 100
factors in Google's algorithm are. But whether the
mechanism is SpellCheck or a better shot at link popularity
thanks to great credibility, or something else entirely,
the results remain the same.
* Paragraphs: primarily brief (1-4 sentences). Few
or no long blocks of text.
* Lists: both bulleted and numbered, form a large
part of the text.
* Sentence length: mostly brief (10 words or fewer).
Medium-length and long sentences are sprinkled throughout
the text rather than clumped together.
* Contextual relevance: text contains numerous terms
related to the keyword, as well as stem variations
of the keyword. The page may contain the keyword itself
few times or not at all.
SEO "Do's" and "Don'ts"
A hard look at the results slaughters a number of
SEO bugbears and sacred cows.
# PageRank. The median PageRank was 4. One page
had a PageRank of 0. Of course, this might simply
be yet another demonstration that the little PageRank
number you get in your browser window is not what
Google's algo is using. But if you're one of those
people who attaches an overriding value to that little
number, this is food for thought.
# Frames. The top two web pages listed for the most
searched-on keyword employ frames. Frames may still
be a bad web design idea from a usability standpoint,
and they may ruin your search engine rankings if your
site's linking system depends on them. But there are
worse ways you could shoot yourself in the foot.
# JavaScript-formatted internal links. Most of the
websites use JavaScript for their internal page links.
Again, that's not the best web design practice, but
there are worse things you could do.
# Keyword optimization. Except for two pages, keyword
optimization was conspicuous by its absence. In more
than half the web pages, the keyword did not appear
more than three times, meaning a very low density.
Many of the pages did not contain the keyword at all.
That may just demonstrate the power of anchor text
in inbound links. It also may demonstrate that Google
takes a site's entire content into account when categorizing
it and deciding what page to display.
# Sub-headings. On most pages, sub-headings were
either absent or in the form of images rather than
text. That's a very bad design practice, and particularly
cruel to blind users. But again, Google is more forgiving.
# Links: Most of the web pages contained ten or more
links; many contain over 30, in defiance of the SEO
bugbears about "link popularity bleeding."
Moreover, nearly all the pages contained a significant
number of non-relevant links. On many pages, non-relevant
links outnumbered relevant ones. Of course, it's not
clear what benefit the website owners hope to get
from placing irrelevant links on pages. It has been
a proven way of lowering conversion rates and losing
visitors. But Google doesn't seem to care if your
website makes money.
# Originality: a significant number of pages contained
content copied from other websites. In all cases,
the content was professionally written content apparently
distributed on a free-reprint basis. Note: the reprint
content did not consist of content feeds. However,
no website consisted solely of free-reprint content.
There was always at least a significant portion of
original content, usually the majority of the page.
Recommendations
* Make sure a professional writer, or at least someone
who can tell good writing from bad, is creating your
site's content, particularly in the case of a search-engine
optimization campaign. If you are an SEO, make sure
you get a pro to do the content. A shocking number
of SEOs write incredibly badly. I've even had clients
whose websites got fewer conversions or page views
after their SEOs got through with them, even when
they got a sharp uptick in unique visitors. Most visitors
simply hit the "back" button when
confronted with the unpalatable text, so the increased
traffic is just wasted bandwidth.
* If you write your own content, make sure that
it passes through the hands of a skilled copyeditor
or writer before going online.
* Update your content often. It's important both
to add new pages and update existing pages. If you
can't afford original content, use free-reprint content.
* Distribute your content to other websites on a
free-reprint basis. This will help your website get
links in exchange for the right to publish the content.
It will also help spread your message and enhance
your visibility. Fears of a "duplicate content
penalty" for free-reprint content (as opposed
to duplication of content within a single website)
are unjustified.
* In short, if you have a mature website that is
already indexed and getting traffic, you should consider
making sure the bulk of your investment in your website
is devoted to its content, rather than graphic design,
old-school search-engine optimization, or linking
campaigns.
About the Author:
Joel Walsh is the owner, founder and head-writer
of UpMarket Content. To read more about website content
best practices, get a consultation with Mr. Walsh,
or get a sample page for your site at no charge, go
to the SEO website content page: http://www.upmarketcontent.com/website-content/#seo
>> Return to Web
Design Article Knowledgebase Index
