Google "Brand Update"?
There has been a lot of talk recently in the SEO community about the update recently made by Google to its algorithm, based around the importance of brands. The first SEO blogger to tap into this algo change was Aaron Wall, on his influential SEOBook blog. In a post which has caused a lot of buzz in the SEO space, he argued, with evidence, that Google was "...promoting brands for big money core category keywords."Wall argues that this update by Google was one of, if not the biggest since the notorious "Florida" update of 2003. Then, Google shifted its algorithm in two ways - first, it made gaming Google with basic SEO tactics much harder. The second result of the Florida update was a shift away from commercial, brand oriented results for many queries toward more information driven results (hence the virtual ominpresence of Wikipedia in many SERPs today.)
In his influential blog post Wall gives evidence, admittedly on a small scale, of searches for queries such as "airline tickets" and "auto insurance" displaying higher positions for brands after the new update took effect. In some instances he describes, 9 out of the top 10 rankings are for brands.
However, key Google blogger Matt Cutts was keen to dampen down any talk about a "brand update", saying in a YouTube video that although there had been an algorithm change recently, it was only minor (one of the hundreds of algorithm tweaks that take place every year). Cutts was keen to stress that the focus of the algorithm change was NOT a focus on brands, and that Google would not be focusing on anything like this anytime in the future.
This seems to be in direct contradiction to the position adopted by Matt Cutts's boss, Google CEO Eric Schmidt. In a recent address the technology guru clearly stated that: "The internet is fast becoming a "cesspool" where false information thrives" He stated that brands were increasingly important signals that content can be trusted: "Brands are the solution, not the problem," Mr. Schmidt said. "Brands are how you sort out the cesspool." "Brand affinity is clearly hard wired," he said. "It is so fundamental to human existence that it's not going away. It must have a genetic component."
So it seems that the information at the top of the organisation is not filtering down to the troops. Either that, or different Google departments are moving in different directions deliberately. Either way, this episode does not speak well of a Google machine that is normally so well oiled, efficient, and has everyone singing from the same hymn sheet (more or less). My guess is that Mr Schmidt, being the boss, is going to have the last call on how the Google algorithm works out, and if he supports brands, then I guess Matt Cutts and the rest of the engineers at Google will have to toe the line and follow suit.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link