With Mrs. Cutts out of town, Matt's blogging like... like a... well, like an SEOmozzer. I don't want to take up too much of Matt's very precious time, but I do have some questions I'd love to get answered so, since Matt couldn't make it to Chicago to be on any any panels, let's see if he's willing (or able) to run through some multiple choice questions:
(Matt - if you can't answer any of these, we'll be sad, but we understand. Oh, and feel free to add "E) Fill in your own answer" to any you'd like.)
UPDATE: Since Matt's been kind enough to respond; I've gone through and highlighted his answers in bold and red:
#1 - Will Google offer full link data through Webmaster Central?
- A) Yes, within the next 90 days
- B) Yes, within the next 6 months
- C) Maybe, but not before next June
- D) Sorry, not gonna happen; use Yahoo! or MSN
- E) I've learned never to promise stuff in the future.
#2 - Is Google worried about the inherent link bias that sites such as Digg, Slashdot and Reddit provide (specifically, the "linkbait" effect whereby URLs mentioned on these sites typically pick up hundreds or thousands of new inbounds)?
- A) We have no plans to treat these phenomenon any different than a site that picks up buzz via any other method (advertising, email, word-of-mouth, etc.)
- B) We are a bit concerned about the power of the so-called "linkbait effect" and may take steps to limit the value of all those new inbounds just because the Digg crowd loved it
- C) We already have in place measures that limit some of the value you see from this effect.
#3 - In my interview with Vanessa Fox, she mentioned that there really isn't a penalty for having internal duplicate content issues (pages inside your own site that are copies of other pages on your domain). Would you agree with that statement? Would you advise site owners to attempt to fix internal dup content issues, or is it really OK to let Google sort it out?
- A) Vanessa was right - internal duplicate content isn't too big of an issue, and we're pretty good at sorting out which pages to rank. (he added: but it never hurts to help search engines with dupe content issues if it's easy to help, e.g. in the webmaster console, tell us if you prefer www vs. non-www.)
- B) For those who believe they can do a better job than Google at sorting out which pages they want us to index and rank, I'd say that directing our spider away from dup content or eliminating it is advisable.
- C) Vanessa wasn't neccessarily wrong, but I'd probably advise that folks strongly think about duplicate content internally - it can cause some troublesome issues.
#4 - The AdSense monetization model is responsible for a very large percentage of the monetization of spam & scraper sites - Google's always taken a policy of shutting down individual domain accounts, rather than banning users, which many believe would considerably lessen the problem. Is this a step Google's willing to take?
- A) I think you're wrong Rand - AdSense isn't the primary monetization method for spammy sites, and our account practices are effective and fair.
- B) There are some problems with AdSense funding spam sites, but it's an issue that we'd rather address alogrithmically than by banning users from AdSense.
- C) We're moving towards banning users for running AdSense scrapers - watch out kiddies :)
- D) I wouldn't be surprised if Google got stricter with reports of webspam in AdSense.
#5 - Which of the following best fits a description of your position at Google today:
- A) Responsible for the quality of Google's algorithmic search results as a whole (from spam to relevancy to inclusion to crawling and ranking)
- B) In charge of Google's spam police - finding manipulation and shutting it down
- C) Head of Google's search team and able to make decisions about which "onebox" results to include, where search engineers should spend their time and Google's ongoing search strategy
- D) A lowly engineer who has some influence on the results, but is generally assigned far more influence than he actually has
#6 - When large sites see lots of crawling activity with a low percentage of the crawled pages being included in the index (assuming they've already done the basics like sitemap submission through webmaster central and posting in the group), what's the best course of action?
- A) Send me an email - that doesn't sounds right at all
- B) Wait for 40-60 days; sometimes Googlebot takes its sweet time; particularly this close to Hannukah
- C) Watch out for issues like huge numbers of 301's, non-unique meta descriptions, low quality pages or pages without significant unique content - we often spider these, but don't include them
- D) Give us fewer pages to crawl - restrict spidering to 10-20K pages and once we pick those up, expand to a new set to help us index slow and steady
- E) I'd look for more high-quality, editorially chosen backlinks.
#7 - If you were to identify one ranking factor that SEOs don't pay enough attention to, which of the following would it be:
- A) Temporal link data - have your new inbounds slowed to a snail's pace... maybe you're not so relevant any more?
- B) Relevance and quality of on-page content; we're smarter than you think we are about detecting that stuff
- C) Internal linking - for goodness sake; one link from a deep page and you think it's supposed to rank well? Come on!
- D) Pagerank - you've taken my advice about ignoring the toolbar data too far and now your PR pixie dust meter is running on empty - fill that guy up.
- E) One ranking factor we don't use currently is phase of the moon. But if that helped, I'd be open to using it. :)
#8 - SEOs sometimes get paranoid that Google is trying to take over their jobs for them. Would you like to see Google fill the role of optimization consultant or do you think the profession should remain its own cottage industry?
- A) In all honesty, it would be great if the world didn't need SEOs, but they do - Google doesn't want your job, Rand, we've got plenty on our plates and the air of mystery / game of cat and mouse is good for both us and you.
- B) I would like to see Google do a better job of informing and helping folks to get their websites indexed and ranking, but there will always be a need for the high-quality, value-added consultancy that a search strategist can bring to the table.
- C) Watch your tail; we're gunning for you - Google has thought seriously about providing SEO-style services on a paid or free basis to help eliminate the SEO industry.
#9 - Wikipedia has "nofollowed" and "un-nofollowed" their links over the past year, but Wikipedia-spamming and editing has climbed ever-higher. If Matt Cutts ran Wikipedia, would he:
- A) Keep the links followed - kudos to anyone who can build up a high profile at Wikipedia, buy off an editor or stay under their radars (ignore my seething bias in this answer, please).
- B) Nofollow the links - if you get listed in Wikipedia, you're already getting the traffic and branding benefits and by their very nature, Wikipedia links fit the definition of what "nofollow" should be.
- C) Google already discounts Wikipedia links because we know they're not an "editorial vote for quality," so really, it doesn't matter.
- D) In my ideal world, Wikipedia would add nofollow to their untrusted links, but work out ways to allow trusted links to remove the nofollow attribute.
#10 - The hordes of paparazzi-like drones that swarm you at conferences have already been given the moniker of Cuttlets. Many of these poor folks don't end up getting their questions answered (as you're restricted regarding what you can say and often simply don't have time). What would you advise rejected or untimely Cuttlets to do in order to have the best chance of getting in front of a Google engineer's eyes?
- A) Send an email to ______ (you'd have to tell me what address to put here)
- B) Leave a note in the Google Webmaster Central Groups site
- C) Ask at a forum like Cre8asite or HighRankings; use your best judgement, but you can often get better answers there than even I can provide
- D) Go to a smaller conference and push harder to get to the front of that line
- E) Mainly B, but C&D aren't bad ideas either.
#11 - Just for fun; if you were unmarried and could have a date with any of the following ladies of SEO, who would it be (sorry, Mrs. Cutts, but your husband is a heartthrob):
- A) SEO Fangirl
- B) Jessie Strichiola
- C) Heather Lloyd-Martin
- D) Rae Hoffman
- E) Lisa Barone
- F) My God, Rand; don't make me choose!
- G) Wait, my husband sense is tingling! I sense danger!
It's completely possible that Matt won't have a chance to answer these, so feel free to go with the "wisdom of the crowds" phenomenon and have a guess at his answers.
Heres some questions I would like to see the answers to:
1. I have seen a feature on Google organic results that asked me if I found the site useful. Could you explain what this was and the future of this?
2. Is it true run of site links are harmful and viewed as text link advertising?
3. Has Google recently implemented a system for checking the content on linking pages to see if it is duplicate i.e mass article blasting?
Good questions.... thoug when in doubt the obvious tends to apply. Rand actually asked Vanessa Fox about duplicate content on one of the WebMasterWorld videos... he may have some insight to that one.
I did not watch the full movie as in my opinion if you need a site map your sites fubar.
When needing a site map to get pages indexed you miss out on all interlinking and displays theres indexing problems.
Also It seemed to be more on-page duplication than off page duplication but I will watch it again
Make that WebProNews... sorry guys!
I understand that not every post is the "Rosetta Stone" of SEO, but generally I have found good information on this blog, that I appreciate the most.
I don't know about #10. Have you seen the Google Webmaster Central Groups? It's like visiting Mos Eisley.
That seems to be Google's answer for support - just make a forum and let the members help the members. They do it for AdWords, too. If Google's going to "do" customer support, then they should actually do it. If they're not going to build a world class customer support team, then why bother?
Incidentally, I'm not sure that they should "do" customer support for the natural listings. I think they should invest their customer support resources for their paying customers.
At any rate, comments on SEOmoz on a particular topic end up being just as useful as Q/A in a forum. I suggest letting SEOmoz readers submit SEO/M questions and then those that seem like they'd be interesting for the whole community to solve in an open source kind of way, be posted to the blog. How's that for UGC?
Ask and ye shall receive - the new site has a UG Content section specifically for stuff like this. :)
Oh joy another forum to spend time at... may have to quit the job... have to find a sugar momma to pay my bills... now that would be an interesting list... any recommendations folks?
It's like they're all psychic or something....
I for one am really excited about the new site. It's going to be great.
The questions asked to matt cutts are the same questions people have been asking for a while just re-worded.
this is growing kind of old and im sure mr cutts must be getting bored answering them.
Some people got value out of this post. Quit your nay-saying just because you didn't.
Are you taking my privilege away to pass my comment?
You have a right to comment, but grow up. A lot of people found this post to be valuable, and you saying "This is growing kind of old" serves nothing more than to get a rise out of the people who don't agree with you. Well, I'm giving you the reaction you wanted, so bask in it and move on.
Could you please tell me what I have done thats immature?
Listen, if you think a post is repetitive or has no value, then you don't have to read it. Instead, you posted a whiny comment. Talk about contributing noise on a quality blog.
You questioned me. Anyways this is kind of pointless I will go post else where.
Sorry to have upset you but I really did think based on the rest of rands stuff it was missing the normal quality I expect when coming to his blog.
Why are they ranking above me? I released this site on a full moon, surely that gets me to the top? Dammit, according to this tool, they released theirs during a lunar eclipse...
;)
RAND!!!!!!!!!
Yes????????
You soooo owe me dinner in NY. :P
Rae if he doesn't buy you dinner I will......
For suggesting that you might be Matt's type? Or was there unintended innuendo that I might have missed.
Actually Aussie, I think I owe you one for accidentally running out on that tab in San Jose. ;-)
I really enjoyed the quiet time.... good crew a few beers away from the Hilton bar - sitting out in the daylight (reminded me of a beer garden in Australia except for that inept waiter)...
and genetlemen never allow ladies to pay.... unless they have really big expense accounts.
SEO or SEgO?
Rand I'd love to see a post on how to build a site that is a resource aqnd highly valued by the community but that doesn't get so big to attract knee-jerk jerks.
...but it seems even you haven't mastered that one (yet).
Really, if you don't like something go somewhere else. Or if you feel compelled to bring it up at least have some constructive critism so the webmaster can actually address whatever the issue is.
Good post Rand. Thanks. I especially like the "google-engineer bait". Now that's original and definately more "signal" than "noise".
BTW Spell check would be nice.
Spell check would really be nice. Other things that would be nice:
1) I understand that you don't want to send the complete comment via the notification email to have people to come to the site and increase hits and page views (as if you would need it), but I have for example for this post 66 emails with the same subject and almost the same content.
Please add at least the posters name to the email subject (and keep the post title).
Since you allow comments to comments, add the name of the person the comment responds to also to the email. If it is a comment to your (my) comment, highlight it (email subject).
Best would be to also include the comment itself in the email of course, but I don't want to "push it". :)
2) Provide a Post Preview (just to make sure that you did not forget or misspelled an HTML Tag
like this one oh no, still bold ... I forgot the "/"....
Previewing responses in the email is a good idea. It may not draw as many people back but it will prevent wasting the viewer's time which can only be a good thing. It's the same concept as a feed: let the viewer decide when they want to jump in.
EDIT: You weren't kidding about the </b>
https://www.seomoz.org/blogdetail.php?ID=1411 ...- the best spot for making any new feature requests :)
This was a cute post; It was informative and easily digested on a day when my attention span is nada.
hehe I wouldnt post here if the info was lets be polite and say jobbie.
I just peffer it to be more meaty like a lot of the other info. :)
More on ranking seo and less of the filler!
It's so nice to see that there is a site out there matt is willing to answer and it's all for us!
Thank you
Thanks Rand and Matt
Despite what some people seem to think that was a very interesting post with some replies that are well worth thinking about.
Now all we have to do is work out how to fire that blonde Kiwi up - maybe we could start talking about bowling underarm - but then again ... :)
The underarm bowling thing ages you my friend it had to happen maybe 30 years ago!!
I think it might have been more than 30 years ago but the Kiwis still remember it like it happened last week :)
Wait. I thunk yor makung fun of me!
Moi???
I'm cut to the quick :)
Yeah not Greg Chappel's finest moment.
Matt,
TY, you know we appreciate it.
Can you clarify how Google handles duplicate content for sites like blogs and shopping carts?
Also, as to too many 301s, what is the net effect of using 301s to redirect bots from dynamic links to the static equivalents that we do want indexed?
Cheers, Tom
ONE ADDITONAL QUESTION:
There are perceptions by SEOs that NOFOLLOW does NOT really work, based on a variety of observations and measurements.
What does NOFOLLOW currently accomplish on Google SERPs?
What should it Ultimately accomplish, once it is perfected?
Demotes the "Set it and forget it" links. Those links are usually the ones in historic places like old forum or blog posts. Wikipedia has also the problem that not all articles are watched all the time.
Spam links (if not added completely obvious for spamming purposes) can remain in an articles between a few minutes to several weeks or even few months.
Pure spam links usually don't add any value to the article and "stick out" as junk (like a Viagra banner on a page about the Rocky Mountains). The value of those links is only the "link juice" they pass on. Bots that add the same crap in hundreds of articles are usually aiming for that and not for direct human traffic.
But there are also the links that fit into the article. They are also called "spam" but are not that really. Wikipedia is not a Directory or Link-farm. The SEO article for example. Sure, there are millions of pages the article could link to that would be "on topic", but that does not mean, that every page should be added to the article.
Links should only be added to the source of a fact that was claimed in the article, sites that add a lot of value to the article itself (for the reader) and in cases of articles about companies, events, websites or people, a link to the official site.
There are of course different opinions about what is relevant and what not. For that reason exist the talk pages, to discuss things. Usually will a consensus be reached, if everybody has the goal to make the article a good article. Other solutions do exist, but are "extreme solutions" IMO... the baby with the bath water ... etc.
conclusion. The nofollow will not be the all-problem-solving solution, but it helps a little bit without too much negative effects on the flip side. The flip side is that nofollow attributes would be added to very strong editorial votes as well, which is sad.
I understand the arguments there which is the reason why I proposed to add the nofollow only to links that are not on article pages, but anywhere else, as compromise.
I hope this clarifies things a little.
Rand question #7 ..... you'll never get a straight, real answer to this.
Oh no ... the answer will be ...
E) Quality content.
Very good questions. Good balance of easier questions that allow a simple and straight forward answer and some more tricky questions.
I'd like to know the answer to a few of them. To questions 3 would I add following answer as option too:
3 D) Vanessa did not say anything wrong, but also not everything. Excessive duplicate content does not result in automatic penalties or even removal of a site from the index, but it triggers a red flag.
The Google QA team might checks the site manually to determine the likelihood of possible intend to spam or simply an oversight of a Webmaster. Penalties will be applied if we are certain, that the duplicate content was created with the intention to spam the search engines. ....
It is good that you left a door open at any question Matt might be unable to answer, even if he wants to, that is good, because he can answer all questions and still control what to say and what not.
comment to 9) ... Google demoted the Talk Pages (PR0). I blogged about that in September. See post here
I have to say (even though I hurt myself by doing that) that also the User pages should be demoted to PR0, actually all pages that are not in the article or category name space.
I was fighting for months to get the nofollow attribute enabled again. I was discussing it within the Wipipedia SPAM project and on user pages. After I was done with dismantling any argument for NOT enabling it did everybody leave the discussion.
Since those discussions took place at multiple places and some at wikipedia started enjoying too much the permanent delete feature which was "discovered" earlier this year, did I copied all of the discussions to here.
I did not follow up on that thing during the last months, but it is not forgotten. I am trying to get some data to reinforce the case. More to that at the long discussions at my sire. If anybody can and want to help out there a bit, let me know.
oops.. long comment, sorry .. well, free UCC for rand :)
You are welcome hehe.
Cheers, Carsten
n/m what the negative ppl say: i'm glad you're sharin your concerns with us, and if matt choses to answer some of those: even better :)
This could be one of the best posts ever if Matt chooses to answer some of the questions.
I thought the questions were good, dunno what jbwebs is on about. Well, the first nine were good anyway. ;) A couple of them were very good.
Haha ah yes, the Hannukah sandbox effect of new websites!
Ah, the multiple choice interview. Bear in mind this is all my personal (5-minute) take:
1. I've learned never to promise stuff in the future. 2. A 3. A, but it never hurts to help search engines with dupe content issues if it's easy to help, e.g. in the webmaster console, tell us if you prefer www vs. non-www. 4. I wouldn't be surprised if Google got stricter with reports of webspam in AdSense. 5. B 6. I'd look for more high-quality, editorially chosen backlinks. 7. One ranking factor we don't use currently is phase of the moon. But if that helped, I'd be open to using it. :) 8. B 9. In my ideal world, Wikipedia would add nofollow to their untrusted links, but work out ways to allow trusted links to remove the nofollow attribute. 10. Mainly B, but C&D aren't bad ideas either. 11. Wait, my husband sense is tingling! I sense danger!
On behalf of SEOmoz readers: Thanks for taking the time to answer. :)
Also, your reply to point 11 was a complete cop-out! But I'm not surprised tbh. Very smoothly answered :p
Thanks Matt, greatly appreciated... Of course, if you have any questions for us, don't let me stop you. :)
BTW - On the Wikipedia issue (#9), I think there could be a fascinating discussion on just what, exactly, constitutes a "trusted link" in Wikipedia (has it been through enough editorial reviews? been seen by Jimmy himself? been removed by a rogue editor and re-added by a higher-up, more fair-minded editor, etc.?)
That's a really wide open question, and unless Google wants to parse through the revision history of Wikipedia articles (or Goggle gets access to Wikipedia's internal database), that may not be possible.
Rand,
I've been studying Wikipedia spam protection and editorial process for a while now, and though it works quite well (yes there's spam in there, but there's loads and loads of spam reversed each hour), I don't think ANY link could be really trusted.
I think age is the best measurement though, a link that manages to stay in there for a year or so is probably a good one. Now i know this doesn't fit in with the pace at which SE's would like to index and rank stuff, but on the other hand: one of the reason Wikipedia is getting spammed so much is because of the quick indexing a link in Wikipedia guarantees.
Next to that, a lot of admins find that Google shouldn't value Wikipedia pages that have been defined as "stubs" so much, since these have been editorially picked as needing work, they shouldn't be showing up high in SERPs.
My 2 cents :)
Hey thanks Matt! It's cool that you actually spend the time to answer our SEO questions, and espically so that you answered the ones on this blog :-)
Matt, big thanks for responding. I've been wondering about some of these questions.
This post goes beyond linkbait. Apparently this post is commentbait.
I think that every post here is going to be commentbait for a while now that the signal to noise ratio has been brought up recently. Now everyone will find the need to comment on the quality and effectiveness of every post rather than the information covered in the post itself.
without totally bursting into flames, i didn't like this post.
reason: the content is speculation/rumor/old news. it didn't teach me anything. instead, this article relies on hype it generates to encourage someone else to enlighten me on a future visit to this site.
Well, at least your complaint is more valid than "This sucks."
postscript: That read a lot harsher than I intended it to! I really did appreciate that you gave a reason behind why you didn't like the post. For some reason my coworkers are obsessed with cage matches, seeing as how we haven't had one lately...
We've been training Rebecca to be a cage fighter. Anyone got a problem with a blog post? Y'all best be ready to face off with her in THE OCTAGON!
I believe it. Cage match champion of SES - all with a smile on her face!!!
Our office is sort of small. How about "Be ready to face off with her in the triangle!"
Oh come on Rebecca, you can do better than that. Your comment sucks!
Then again, Rands post sucked so much that Matt took the time to respond to it. Hooray suckiness!
(Remembering the time -- 8th grade -- that I had to run laps for saying 'That sucks' in front of the PE teacher)
I liked this post - thanks Rand!
For the few haters on this blog, a bit of advice...relax. Blogs are not always about hard core learning. It's awesome when you can learn something (as we often do from SEOmoz), but it’s also a great way to build a community and have some fun.
Even though I see the point with some of the more educated complaints - still, I don't look to this blog to educate me with every post, and I submit - maybe you shouldn't either.
I disagree. Yes, it's only worthy of real merit to YOU, IF Matt/someone else in similar position replies.
However, seeing how Rand thinks is worthy of note to me. As is checking back here to see what other people are thinking of as being the "right" answers.
If you just want SEO facts, go buy an SEO ebook. When you want to learn in a broader sense, come back.
Hey ruug,
how about answering the questions based on your knowledge and opinion and enlighten us?!
It would also fill the gap until Matt shows up (or not). See it this way. After you provided the answers will this post be much better and useful than without, right?
Thanks in advance. I am looking forward to your answers.
carstenc: ok. i just got to work, so you'll have to wait about 10 hours or so.
no problem, thanks, I appreciate it. Cheers!
#11- Jesse Strichiola. She's purty.
I agree... but don't know why Rebecca was not on that list!
Dude, my boss wrote it!
This blog is getting worse and worse and this type of boring crap is the reason why.
Your crap comments are the reason why.
lmfao!
jbwebs seriously, chill out. Trolling blogs like that is the equivalent to having an open invite to somebody's house and you walk in the door and do a #2 on the carpet.
Rand, that was actually a good angle, and I look forward to seeing if Matt responds and how. Don't let blog trolls make this blog crappy, it's da bomb.
jb - what, in particular, do you not like about the post? Do you think the questions are too vague? not valuable? Do you object to the lack of advice provided (and merely the hope of advice to come)? Is it the tone or the writing style?
Help me out here so I can improve.
Rand - I know you keep hinting at new bells and whistles for the upcoming site, including a way to voice approval or problems with a particular post. How about a way to promote or bury comments a la Digg? Better yet, after so many buried comments your ability to comment gets revoked. Just a thought.
Scott - done and done. Matt (our Matt)has already built it in.
Does this not defeat the purpose of comments?
within reason there can be no insults or offensive content but everyones allowed to post what they feel and think. If you don't agree thats just hard luck as its the nature of the web.
The new site won't allow you to remove, revoke, or bury a comment from other users, you can simply mod it down.
He threw one joke question in among ten serious questions. What's the big deal Jbwebs? Can't handle humor?
Ugh, it's worthless comments ilke jbwebs that make me really want to get the new SEOmoz site up so he can get modded down.