Google about ranking: abuse is penalized
The goal is to be at the top of the search engine rankings. To achieve high rankings, website operators and SEOs focus on the ranking factors that are relevant for Google. However, as in cases of so-called keyword stuffing, a recognized and effective method can quickly turn into the opposite. Penalties are the result.
Nevertheless, it still happens that ranking criteria are misused for manipulative purposes towards the search engine and over-optimization takes place. For Paul Haahr from Google, there is a dissonance between the use of the criteria that are relevant for a ranking in the Google search engine and the form of implementation in the optimization itself.
A current and less outdated example than keyword stuffing is backlinks. For Google, such links serve the purpose of assessing and determining the seriousness and relevance of a domain. In order to dominate the search results with this method, links were offered for sale as well as for exchange. A form of manipulation that Google obviously does not approve of.
Paul Haahr commented on this via the Twitter platform as follows:
“But from the platforms’ perspective, it’s not about rewarding behavior, it’s about finding indicators of goodness. Clickbait is the example in Clegg’s post – because clicking is more relevant to Facebook and feeds in general – but linking is a better example for search engines.”
Backlinks
Links haven’t just been around since today. So let’s take a look at the past, when links had a much different meaning for Google. At that time, they merely served as an indicator that a website had relevance such as prominence and other appealing characteristics.
From the point at which links became a factor for ranking in the search engine – i.e. generating greater added value – the abuse of optimizing them with a focus only on the search engine itself increased. The actual background of labeling a website with convincing content fell by the wayside.
“From the (early) Google perspective, links were all about relevance, authority, prominence, etc. But once it’s known that a search engine uses links as an indicator (a ‘signal’), there’s an incentive to create links that exist only for search engines.”
According to Paul Haahr. He also comments:
“For the search engines, it wasn’t that links were “rewarded”. But from an SEO’s perspective, of course, links absolutely were. So link exchange programs were developed that seemed perfectly ethical to (some) SEOs, but were treated as abuse by the search engines.”
Divergence between optimization and signal
It is not only a big problem in the case of backlinks. It is reasonable to assume that this principle applies to other areas of the ranking factors. Whether for keywords, URLs or other indicators: it is understandable that website operators want their own website to claim the best position for a search query. Everyone wants visibility and relevance.
But Paul Haahr sees this as a major problem. The relationship between the actual value of a website that ranks among the search results and a thoroughly optimized website is becoming ever greater.
“This behavior, I expect, will occur with any signal that is understood by an optimization community. But it will lead to worse divergence if there is a greater distance between the signal as an indicator and its use in optimization.”
Reward/punishment cycle
We would like to pause here once again and give the all-clear. Because optimization alone does not make the poison, but the quantity does. SEO is a good, sensible craft that brings benefits and has its justification. A good SEO will optimize your website in a way that pleases Google. This means that your content is convincing and offers added value/benefits. Your keywords will prevail with an extensive analysis of your website and the competition. The URLs are according to Google’s quality standards and your defined search term, via which you are found, matches the content.
These are only small aspects of good optimization, but it underlines the core of the statement. Search engine optimization should create quality websites that Google can recommend in the knowledge that they deliver what they promise.
A major problem here, however, is the incentive to over-optimize, as already mentioned. In times when keyword stuffing, for example, was not yet penalized, the pages that delivered the most abstruse texts were high in the rankings.
Here is an example:
“Coffee mug Coffee Pink. A pink coffee mug to enjoy your coffee. Enjoy coffee in a pink coffee mug with our Coffee Pink coffee mug.”
You see, well-placed keywords are one thing, but nobody wants to enter a search term as a user in order to get a text like this displayed as the best result. That’s how a user sees it, Google and any good reputable SEO.
Paul Haahr therefore speaks of a so-called reward/ reinforcement cycle:
“Sorry I didn’t make myself clear. By divergence, I meant the reward/punishment cycle in Daphne’s paraphrase “we will reward this behavior until they adapt this approach and get too good at it, and then we will punish it.””
In other words, as long as the optimization serves quality, you will be rewarded accordingly. However, if you start to take your optimization to extremes, Google will react accordingly with penalties.
Distance between signal and optimization
“And by “greater distance between what the signal is used for as an indicator and how it is used in optimization”, I meant the way a signal is manipulated (e.g. by buying links) as opposed to how it was originally seen by a platform (e.g. a signal with good reputation).”
A positive example are the page titles in the search. They give a signal for relevance, which can also be realized through good optimization. In other words, the signal does not suffer in its significance as a result of the optimization; rather, the distance problems that Paul Haars talks about are not present here or are only very minor.
“For search, good titles are an example of a signal where optimized titles are usually still a good signal for relevance (assuming the page isn’t a scam of some sort), so they don’t pose the same “distance” issues.”
A negative example, on the other hand, is keyword stuffing, which we have already mentioned:
“On the other hand, keyword stuffing can lead to the word count being less representative of relevance than it should be as a naive information retrieval, so that the distance becomes greater.
I hope that clarifies the situation.”
Conclusion
The top positions in the search results are coveted and the temptation is great to optimize signals from Google accordingly in order to secure a place in the ranking.
But there is a very good reason why a good SEO does not make use of these forms of abuse and Google calls them abuse by name.
Imagine Google would not penalize these forms of optimization and every SEO can use these techniques. No matter which website you visit, there is a great deal of uncertainty as to whether it is a reputable domain and whether you will find what you are looking for at all. So it’s not just safety that suffers. It costs you time, the search becomes tedious and it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish quality from lack of quality.
In the long term, this can turn Google into an unattractive search engine and direct information procurement to other channels. Besides, do you really want to get into a battle with the competition to see who can pack the word “coffee” into their website the most? Or do you want to attract your customers through exciting and unique content, sensibly placed search terms and UX usage, etc.?
In order to make the world around the search engines a reputable and quality-promising environment, Google places its value and focus on checking the signals and does not hold back with penalties.
It is precisely for this reason that search engine optimizers also fight for quality, advise you on a realistic level and show that a high ranking is possible without manipulation.
Therefore, be part of a small divergence between signal and optimization. Don’t do a lot of everything – do it better.