Google hits duplicate content, low-quality, and aggregated sites, according to Matt Cutts

Follow FullPress on Google

Add us to your preferred sources.

Matt Cutts’ statements on quality content and so-called “Content Farms (content factories) have shaken the internet environment. In these hours, considerations are multiplying on what Matt Cutts meant in his statement, which, as usual, left an aura of mystery. The Google engineer, considered the voice of anti-spam, was more than eloquent with his statement which reads more or less like this:Google fights low-quality content in order to provide increasingly clean results in the SERPs. The sentence leaves no room for doubt: ban aggregators that suck “blood” from content creators, ban sites built for AdSense, ban sites that produce no value. If we want to analyze these statements even more closely, starting from the “Google revolution 2010”, here are my personal considerations.

1. Quality Content
   On what constitutes quality content, I don’t think there are many doubts if the evaluation is made by a human being. Personally, I am very skeptical about what “quality content” means to a Google algorithm. As much as technologies have evolved significantly, there are topics that can only be captured by “human thought”. How can Google determine if a site has quality content or not, if not by relying on other algorithms that consider parameters such as links to a site, trust, domain age, etc.? If so, at this point, I would ask Google (if it had a human face): if the content must be of quality (I agree with this), don’t you think that links should also be of quality and not artificial or hidden, as I have often seen on some sites that are still in the top positions of the SERPs for very competitive keywords?
2. Content Farms
   Matt Cutts wrote, without mincing words, that Google has declared war on content farms. Those who, like me, chose journalism cannot help but rejoice at such a declaration. I have never liked “kilogram content” to the point that, when speaking in my editorial spaces (this site, personal blog, FullTravel.it blog, etc.) and in public and private discussions I participated in, I have raised my alarm against pseudo-publishers and last-minute journalists on more than one occasion. Paying for an article at 2 euros, I believe, is an insult to those who write and those who read. A few months ago, I happened to read a job posting in a very popular forum that read more or less like this: seeking article writers for copy and paste with a remuneration of 50 cents. You can imagine my reaction; in this case, not only the professional in the information world was insulted, but also human dignity. Yes, it’s true, the web doesn’t reward content in terms of advertising revenue (the only form of income to date), but from here to “buying a person’s dignity” for 0.50 cents, there’s a long way to go. Matt Cutts’ statement should give me hope. Those who operate in the quality content sector will finally benefit, whether they are a publisher or an editorial service (a company that creates original, high-quality content for third parties), and perhaps some SEO publishers will have to review their networks.
3. Death of press release sites
   It is clear that Matt Cutts’ statements leave no chance for “press release” sites as the content is duplicated. Of course, a press release should be unique content because it represents the official voice, but over the years it has been misused on the web. At this point, I feel compelled to share the story of FullPress.it (from the ashes of FullPress.it the current FullPress was born), the first aggregator of technology press releases in Italy, whose story began back in 1998. In those years, I wrote for various print magazines specializing in Internet and Travel. I received a large volume of press releases from communication agencies. One day I thought of making this material available to my journalist colleagues. Thus, FullPress.it was born, which was registered as a newspaper in February 1999, when the court did not yet know the procedures. More than two decades have passed since then, but FullPress.it has remained standing despite the proliferation of clone sites that, with the cry “press releases can be used for marketing” (I had not thought of this at all when I founded FullPress Agency and created FullPress.it), have attracted communicators from renowned communication agencies, including those with offices abroad, into garbage bins, children of misusedWordPress (software for content management, particularly blogs) and a raped business. In the end, everyone wins: the communicators who could sell the press review by the kilo to their client, and the site owners who earned effortlessly thanks to Google AdSense. After Matt Cutts’ statements, however, everyone loses. And FullPress.it? The site has given way to FullPress.info, the hub that hosts this article, and will continue to live because, in its own way, it represents the history of technological information in Italy. It is no longer a press release aggregator, in fact, it hasn’t been for some time, but it is a technology culture magazine that has changed months ago, not only in graphics but also in content, which is now created by the editorial staff and authors who still want to contribute to this site with original, quality content.
4. Death of aggregators
   I cannot hide my elation. I have always detested sites that aggregate content from others and that, for the reasons mentioned in the first point (artificial links, etc.) combined with some SEO “sleight of hand”, position themselves in Google’s SERPs even before others (often manipulating them). In the vast majority of cases, these sites are stuffed with advertising (Google AdSense primarily) and in most cases violate copyright laws. Some sites have become so important that they are managed by public companies. Theleechesare parasites I have always hated. Evidently, Google has now written the final word. However, until I see aggregators disappear from the SERPs, I won’t believe it.
5. Explanation of what happened in October 2010 when many sites started losing traffic
   Finally, Google’s statements arrive. We awaited them as one awaits the enemy’s corpse to pass on the riverbank. A few months ago, I wrote an article about the situation that arose in October 2010, when several sites lost traffic from Google. The article’s title is:Google traffic drop, what happened to some sites from October 21st?It is still present on this site, but don’t search for it on Google; for reasons we don’t know, Google indexes our articles in the SERPs but decides not to show them. Low-quality content? Read the article and decide for yourself. After all, you are the ones who should judge us, not a Google algorithm. In any case, Google’s statements could suggest the launch of the algorithm (we launched two in 2010, said Mountain View) in October. This new algorithm has certainly delivered positive results, but many negative ones as well.
6. Google’s algorithm on content quality, false negatives, and false positives
   As often happens, the launch of a Google algorithm leaves significant consequences. It also happens in medicine: often a drug brings benefits but also side effects. In our case, concerning this site, I can only speak of a false negative. Google seems to reward us every day on Google News but doesn’t do the same in organic Google search. Yes, I am aware that these are separate departments, but since Google considers various factors as rewarding or penalizing for a site, why doesn’t it consider quality sites from Google News as equally important in organic Google search? Mysteries of a search engine. Another eloquent false negative isWebmasterworld.com, a well-known community among SEOs, which in October 2010 lost an unimaginable amount of traffic. To these false negatives (many quality sites have literally disappeared from the SERPs) remain alive many garbage sites that turned out to be positive for Google’s algorithm. It is sufficient to look at the SERPs to understand. Evidently, Google has decided to reward site speed (those with little content are the fastest) in order to improve real-time results, which sometimes leave much to be desired.
7. Something has changed at Google
   A few days ago, media worldwide reported the change at the top of Google. After ten years (not a trifle), Eric Schmidt left his CEO position at Google to founder Larry Page. This change at the top left me with considerable perplexity. Is Google copying the Apple model where its founder, Steve Jobs, is at the helm (on sick leave a few days ago)? Are Google’s founders no longer happy with the company’s business and deciding to take the helm? Whatever the reason, something is unclear, and in my opinion, it is the result of Big G’s new strategies.
8. Google Advertising (AdWords) becoming less performant
   Google’s new changes are, in my opinion, also the result of Google’s search for quality sites because (perhaps) “fake sites full of AdSense” are causing BIG G to lose customers and credibility on the advertising front. Let’s not forget that Google’s primary source of business remains advertising (Google AdWords) and Google AdSense, which allows the publication of advertisements on publishers’ sites (even presumed ones). In recent years, it has only sought to build critical mass, neglecting “quality” content. Evidently, clients did not appreciate it, and now Google is scrambling to fix it. What better solution than a good, no-nonsense cut?
9. Google advertising increasingly present in the AdSense circuit
   For some months now, there has been an increasing amount of advertising from the Mountain View engine promoting its own services. The publisher doesn’t know how much Google actually pays for this advertising promoting Big G’s services; however, I am certain that the AdWords auction went uncontested because no other clients participated. In simple terms: the advertising might even be free, and the publisher is unaware of it. I haven’t tried filtering it from the AdSense panel as unwanted ads. It could be an idea against Google’s smart pricing and unagreed free services. Is Google afraid of its leadership on the web? If this is a sign of power for some, for me it is an evident sign of weakness.
10. Google and copyright, Mountain View doesn’t want problems
    It is evident that the content, which has always been the wealth of the Web and Google, has today become unmanageable. Real-time needs to deliver fresh and relevant results. This is not always the case. Google’s wealth is today also becoming its “obsession.” Worldwide, a mobilization has begun for respect of “copyright.” In the United States, serious regulations had to be implemented to marginalize this hemorrhage; in France, the situation is quite dire fora heavy handthose who violate copyright; in Italy, FIEG (Federation of Italian Newspaper Publishers) has already achieved a partial success on the advertising rights of content in Google News. It is quite evident to Google that content has authorship, and based on what has already happened with Microsoft, which was taken to court multiple times for abuse of power, they will evidently have thought to curb “unauthorized free content” in order not to end up in court repeatedly. The most malicious, finally, think that Google has done all this because it wants absolute power over content, to be the sole undisputed king of the web.Content is king”