Alleged Negative ON-Page SEO Google Ranking Factors (24)
| 2. Alleged Negative ON-Page SEO Google Ranking Factors (24) | ||
| Factor# | NEGATIVEON-Page SEO Factors | Brief Note |
| 39 | Text presented in graphics form onlyNo ACTUAL body text on the page | Text represented graphically is invisible to search engines. |
| 40 | Affiliate site? | The Florida update went after affiliates with a vengeance – flower and travel affiliates were hit hard – cookie-cutter sites with massive inter-linking, but little unique content. Subsequent updates have also targeted affiliates. |
| 41 | Over optimization penalty (OOP) | Penalty for over-compliance with well-established, accepted web optimization practices. Too high keyword repetition (keyword stuffing) may get you the OOP. Overuse of H1 tags has been mentioned. Meta-tag stuffing. |
| 42 | Link to a bad neighborhood | Don’t link to link farms, FFAs (Free For All’s)Also, don’t forget to check the Google status of EVERYONE you link to periodically. A site may go “bad”, and you can end up being penalized, even though you did nothing. For instance, some failed real estate sites have been switched to p0rn by unscrupulous webmasters, for the traffic. This is not good for you, if you are linking to the originally legitimate URL. |
| 43 | Redirect thru refresh metatags | Don’t immediately send your visitor to another page other than the one he/ she clicked on, using meta refresh. |
| 44 | Vile language – ethnic slur | Including the George Carlin 7 bad words you can’t say on TV, plus the 150 or so that followed. Don’t shoot yourself right straight in the foot. Also, avoid combinations of normal words, which when used together, become something else entirely – such as the word juice, and the word l0ve. See why I wrote that zero? I don’t even want to get a proximity penalty, either. Paranoia, or caution? You decide. I always want to try to put my “best foot forward”. |
| 45 | Poison words | The word “Links” in a title tag has been suggested to be a bad idea. Here is my list of Poison Words for Adsense. This penalty has been loosened – many of these words now appear in normal context, with no problems. But watch your step. |
| 46 | Excessive cross-linking | |
| 47 | Stealing images/ text blocks from another domain | Copyright violation – Google responds stronglyif you are reported. ref egol |
| 48 | Keyword stuffing threshold | In body, meta tags, alt text, etc. = demotion |
| 49 | Keyword dilution | Targeting too many unrelated keywords on a page, which would detract from theming, and reduce the importance of your REALLY important keywords. |
| 50 | Page edit – can reduce consistency | Google patent -Google is now switching between a “newer” cache, and several “older” caches, frequently drawing from BOTH at the same time.
This was possibly implemented to frustrate SERP manipulators. Did your last edit substantially alter your keywords, or theme? Expect noticeable SERP bouncing. |
| 51 | Frequency of Content Change | Google patent – Too frequent = bad |
| 52 | Freshness of Anchor Text | Google patent – Too frequent = bad |
| 53 | Dynamic Pages | Problematic – know pitfalls – shorten URLs, reduce variables, lose the session IDs |
| 54 | Excessive Javascript | Don’t use for redirects, or hiding links |
| 55 | Flash page – NOT | Most (all-?) SE spiders can’t read Flash contentProvide an HTML alternative, or experience lower SERP positioning. |
| 56 | Use of Frames | Spidering Problems with Frames – STILL |
| 57 | Robot exclusion “no index” tag | Intentional self-exclusion |
| 58 | Single pixel links | A red flag – one reason only – a sneaky link. |
| 59 | Invisible text | OK – No penalty – Google advises against this.(The text is the same color as the background, and hence cannot be seen by the viewer, but can be visible to the search engine spiders.) I believe Google does penalize for hidden text, since it is an attempt to manipulate rank. Although they don’t catch everyone. |
| 60 | Gateway, doorway page(I see changes here – not only does the doorway page disappear, but the main page gets pushed down, as well – this is a welcome fix.) | OK – No penalty – Google advises against this.Google used to reward these pages. |
| 61 | Duplicate content (YOUR’S) | OK – No penalty – Google advises against this.Google picks one (usually the oldest), and shoves it to the top, and pushes the second choice down. This has been a big issue with stolen content – the thief usurps your former position with YOUR OWN content. |
| 62 | HTML code violations(The big G does not even use DOCTYPE declarations, required for W3C validation.) | Doesn’t matter – Google advises against this.Unless of course, the page is totally FUBAR.
Simple HTML verification is NOT required (but advised, since it could contribute to your page quality factor – PQF). |
| Since the above 4 items are so controversial, I would like to add this comment:There are many things that Google would LIKE to have webmasters do, but that they simply cannot control, due to logistical considerations. Their only alternative is to foment fear and doubt by implying that any violation of their “suggestions” will result in swift and fierce demotion.
(This is somewhat dated – G is fixing these things.) |
IN GENERAL, this works pretty well to keep webmasters in line. The fallacy of this is that attentive webmasters can readily observe continuing, blatant exceptions to these official pronouncements.There are many anecdotes about Goggle “taking care” of a problem. Google states that they do not provide hand-tweaked “boosts”, but are silent about hand-tweaked demotions. They occur, for sure. To believe otherwise is naive. Wouldn’t YOU swat the most obnoxious flies? I would.
It is becoming easier to determine the best thing to do. Try to avoid any Google penalties or demotions. |
|
| 119 | Phrase-based ranking, filters, penalties | Feb. 2007 – Google patent granted. Do not use phrases that have been associated and correlated with known spamming techniques, or you will be penalized. What phrases? Ahh, you tell me. |
| Alleged NEGATIVE OFF-Page SEO Google Ranking Factors (13) | |||
| Note | Factor# | NEGATIVEOFF-Page SEO Factors | Brief Note |
| – | 120(added) | Traffic Buying | Have you paid a company for web traffic? It is probably low quality traffic, with a zero conversion rate. Some providers of traffic for traffic’s sake may be considered “bad neighborhoods”. Can Google discount your traffic (for true popularity), because they know it’s mostly phony?Have you read about Traffic Power? |
| 22-29 | 106 | Temporal Link Analysis | In a nut shell, old links are valued, new links are not.This is intended to thwart rapid incoming link accumulation, accomplished through the tactic of link buying.
Just one of the sandbox factors. |
| 18 | 107 | Change of Meanings | Query meaning changes over time, due to current events |
| BAD | 108 | Zero links to you | You MUST have at least 1 (one) incoming link (back link) from some website somewhere, that Google is aware of, to REMAIN in the index. |
| BAD | 109 | Link-buying (Very good IF you don’t get caught, but don’t do it –
when caught, the penalty isn’t worth it.) |
Google patent – Google hates link-buying, because it corrupts their PR model in the worst way possible.1. Does your page have links it really doesn’t merit?
2. Did you get tons of links in a short time period? 3. Do you have links from high-PR, unrelated sites? |
| 41, 42 | 110 | Prior Site Ranking | Google patent – High = Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| BAD | 111 | Cloaking | Google promises to Ban! (Presenting one webpage to the search engine spider, and another webpage to everybody else.) |
| 112 | Links from bad neighborhoods, affiliates | Google says that incoming links from bad sites can’t hurt you, because you can’t control them. Ideally, this would be true.However, some speculate otherwise, esp., when other associated factors are thrown into the mix, such as web rings. | |
| BAD | 113 | Penalties – resulting fromDomain Hijacking
(work with Google to fix) |
Should result in IMPRISONMENT, forthwith!Grand Theft, mandatory minimum sentence.
The criminal COPIES your entire website, and HOSTS it elsewhere, with . . . a few changes. |
| – | 114 | Penalty – Google TOS violation | WMG is the worst offender – gobbles up tons of Google server time by nervous Nellie webmasters. Google even mentions them by name. I think that Google will spank you when you cross the threshold, of say, 100 queries per day for the same term, from the same IP. Google can block your IP. Get a Google API. |
| 115 | Server Reliability – S/B >99.9% | What is your uptime? Ever notice a daily time when your server is unavailable, like about 1:30 AM? How diligent must Googlebot be? This is the worst reason to get dropped – you just aren’t there! An ISP maintenance interruption can cause delisting.. | |
| – | 116 | No more roomPages being dropped from large sites | Google now has over 8 Gigs of indexed pages.Thousands of pages are disappearing from various huge websites, but I think that it is G just cleaning house, by dumping computer-generated pages. |
| HOT | 117 | Rank Manipulation byCompetitor Attack (1. Content theft causing you to get a duplicate content penalty, even though your content is the original. People are still stealing my content, but nobody trumps me (in Google) with my own content – hats off to Google.) Examples –
and and |
Impossible by Google definition (except for a few nasty tricks, like making your competition appear to be link spammers)Ideally, there SHOULD be nothing that your competition can do to directly hurt your rankings. However, an astute observer noticed that Google changed their website to read :
Old verbiage = “There is nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking …” New verbiage = “There is ALMOST nothing a competitor can do …” An obvious concession that Google thinks that at least some dirty tricks work! Of course, there will always be new ones! |
| – | 118 | Bouncing Ball Algorithm | G has moved to a daily dance. Multiple changing factors are applied daily. GOOD LUCK NOW on trying to figure things out!IN ADDITION, some the above factors are being “tweaked” daily. Not only are the “weights” of the factors changed, but the formula itself changes. Change is the only constant. An algo change can boost or demote your site. I put this in the negative factors section, because your position is never secure, unless of course, you are huge (PR=7 or greater). If you simply cannot achieve top position, your only alternative to first page SERP exposure may be Google Ad Words (you pay for exposure). Today, I searched for an extremely competitive “2-word term”, and I found that NOT ONE of the top ten Google SERPs had even one of the words on the page. YOWSA! Today’s theory – when it doesn’t matter, anybody can get #1 in a second, if they know the on-page rules. BUT, after a certain “commercial competitive level”, the “semantic analysis” algo kicks in, and less becomes more. The keyword density rules are flipped upon their noggins. I think that we are witnessing the evolution of search engine anti-seo sophistication, right before our very eyes. Fun stuff. |