Comments on: What is a quality website according to Google?

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:11:34 +0000

Thanks for the feedback.
Ismael, I was going to do the big reveal of the actual document tomorrow but you beat me to it.

Tim, You are absolutely right about it being common sense. I have a checklist I like to use to ensure I cover all these points. I divide them out into design, content, SEO and marketing checklists which I use for all websites I develop. It makes sure I do not have to rediscover the wheel each time.

By: Tim_Myth

Tim_Myth — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:40:11 +0000

Excellent post, and I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s post as well. lot of this is kinda common sense, but its easier to conceptualize and wrap your head around when its all neatly tied up.

By: Ismael Casimpan

Ismael Casimpan — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:27:14 +0000

It only shows that Google not taking any chances with their index. They factor in humans to the algorithm just to make sure.

For those curious, Aaron Wall of SEOBook.com has an archive of the Google’s raters handbook at http://www.seobook.com/full-text-googles-general-guidelines-remote-quality-raters-april-2007

Enjoy!

Ismael

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:00:38 +0000

Patrick,
I meant spamming. They term it Webspam. I have a link to the original document in tomorrow’s post so you can see the whole thing. Typo in the first example there.Just fixed it. Thanks for catching that.

By: Patrick McDermott

Patrick McDermott — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:31:27 +0000

“They also make sure that the ranking of the website in the search engine is not due to scamming techniques.”

“Next time I will go over what Google considers
as spam.”

Barry, did you actually mean scamming techniques?

Or did you mean spamming techniques?

Or both?