Webmasters Frustrated with Google Panda Update


Are the webmasters frustrated with Google’s Farmer/Panda update? Well, the answer is YES (in capital letters indeed!). Although none of my good blogs have taken a major beating in terms of traffic after the recent Panda/Farmer update, I have been reading through various threads @ webmastercentral, but when I read the comments on googlewebmastercentral blog, they were rather hilarious, and here’s the ultimate one amongst all of them (read and enjoy)

As a matter of fact, I had never seen some-one really write such an AWESOME comment ever in my life, and hats off to Will who posted this on Webmastercentral.

I’d say this is the BEST user response I’ve read in past few years – check it out and let me know what you felt about it!

Let’s see how this blog post rates according to Google’s recommendations.

* Would you trust the information presented in this article?

Definitely not. This is a public relations piece which ventures far from the truth.

* Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?

Amit may be an expert, but this post is the very definition of shallow. It presents no useful information. It’s worse than an eHow page.

* Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?

Definitely. This post is yet another regurgitation of Google’s standard content-free public relations platitudes.

* Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?

This article purposefully avoids containing any facts.

* Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?

Based upon Amit’s unwilling to provide honest answers, it is pretty clear that he isn’t “driven by genuine interests of readers of the site.” This is a bait-and-switch page. The readers came looking for information and were delivered only prevarication.

* Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?

Nothing in this post is original. This is simply a mashup of half-truths and misdirection which Google’s PR droids have already posted elsewhere.

* Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?

This page provides no value at all.

* How much quality control is done on content?

This article has no content to QC.

* Does the article describe both sides of a story?

Absolutely not.

* Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?

Blogger can be considered an authority on Google, but it can not be trusted to communicate honestly on that topic.

* Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?

Blogger content is mass-produced by a huge number of creators, many of which do not give their individual pages significant attention or care.

* Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?

It looks like a cheap cut and paste job from Google’s webmaster forums.

* Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?

Definitely not. Blogger is a spam pit.

* Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?

Definitely not. This article is content-free. It provides absolutely no useful information.

* Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?

Definitely not. This article eschews analysis, and in fact recommends against analysis.

* Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?

Definitely not. I have wasted enough time here. I would hate to be responsible for another person being subjected to this soul-sucking post.

* Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?

There is no content.

* Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?

No one but Google would publish this drivel.

* Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?

There are no specifics and there is no helpful information.

* Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?

There are no details.

* Would users complain when they see pages from this site?

The comments are full of users complaining about this content.

Clearly, the entire blogger domain should be penalized for hosting low-quality pages such as this one.

So, now what has Google got to say about this? Surprisingly, I didn’t really see a response posted to this comment on webmastercentral either!

If Google thinks pissing off webmasters, and website owners isn’t going to hurt their rapport, and share of internet users, then perhaps they’re really got it wrong. The bizarre thing is that MAJORITY of internet users are webmasters, and without them, Google won’t be able to enjoy 65% share for sure!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here