Post by warner123 on Feb 27, 2024 3:49:21 GMT
A few days ago Google announced an update to its search engine aimed at targeting sites with low quality content, which however positioned better than sites with higher quality content. This new update affected almost 12% of the engine's results, and on the web we continue to talk about the implications brought about by this change, which have led on the one hand to dramatic losses for some companies (such as Mahalo and Suite 101), and on the There are also growths of some sites known for their high-quality content. Wired asked Amit Singhal and Matt Cutts some questions about the “Panda Update” (this is the name that Google itself gave to the update) and I'll report them to you below. Wired : What is the code name of this update? Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land called him “Farmer,” because it seems his goal is to target content farms.
AS: Internally we named it after an engineer, who is called Panda. So internally Uruguay Mobile Number List we call it “big Panda”. He's one of our key guys. A few months ago, he found the solution to make this update possible. Wired : What is the purpose? AS: At the end of 2009 we made Caffeine. Our index had grown very quickly, and we needed a much faster crawling system. All in all we were treated to a lot of fresh new content, even if some of it wasn't so good. In practice the problem had moved from “garbles”, which our spam team is able to detect quite well, to something similar to written prose, with superficial content. MC: We asked our working groups this question: “What is the “content limit” beyond which spam begins?”. Once we agreed, we tried to figure out how to approach the problem.
Wired : How do you recognize a site with superficial content? Can you give a definition of low quality content? AS: This is a very, very difficult problem that we're trying to solve, and we're constantly evolving to try to do that. We wanted to maintain a rigorously scientific approach, and therefore we used the standard evaluation system that we have developed, where we basically send the documents to external testers. We asked these people questions like: “Would you trust giving your credit card number to this site? Would you trust giving the medicines prescribed on this site to your children?” MC: An engineer prepared a set of very rigorous questions, like “Do you consider this site authoritative? Would it be OK if this site were a magazine? Does this site have too many advertisements?” and so on. AS: Based on this, we have basically defined what can be considered low quality.
AS: Internally we named it after an engineer, who is called Panda. So internally Uruguay Mobile Number List we call it “big Panda”. He's one of our key guys. A few months ago, he found the solution to make this update possible. Wired : What is the purpose? AS: At the end of 2009 we made Caffeine. Our index had grown very quickly, and we needed a much faster crawling system. All in all we were treated to a lot of fresh new content, even if some of it wasn't so good. In practice the problem had moved from “garbles”, which our spam team is able to detect quite well, to something similar to written prose, with superficial content. MC: We asked our working groups this question: “What is the “content limit” beyond which spam begins?”. Once we agreed, we tried to figure out how to approach the problem.
Wired : How do you recognize a site with superficial content? Can you give a definition of low quality content? AS: This is a very, very difficult problem that we're trying to solve, and we're constantly evolving to try to do that. We wanted to maintain a rigorously scientific approach, and therefore we used the standard evaluation system that we have developed, where we basically send the documents to external testers. We asked these people questions like: “Would you trust giving your credit card number to this site? Would you trust giving the medicines prescribed on this site to your children?” MC: An engineer prepared a set of very rigorous questions, like “Do you consider this site authoritative? Would it be OK if this site were a magazine? Does this site have too many advertisements?” and so on. AS: Based on this, we have basically defined what can be considered low quality.