[affmage source="chitika" results="0"][/affmage]
page rank journals

If Original Content Get Higher Rankings in Google?

End of February, Google has some changes to make it the algorithm that rumors in Big Brands support was achieved search rankings. Of course this is vehemently denied Google, did not even consider their algorithm brands and, instead, it is still largely based on trust, authority, reputation, high quality and Page Rank.

Search Engine Land reported in late March and AdAge on a coalition of the major brands (The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time Inc, Hearst, ESPN) that Google will actually go further and explicitly help with their rankings.

All of the above Google trademarks are the members of the network publishers, and as such, can expect to have some clout with Google. One is its main gripes that the components of Google's algorithm angry, for example, page rank, how they can keep these criteria "parasites from the true content producers benefit" disproportionately.

The report by AdAge describes an example that uses these publishers – When entering in Gaza in Google, they were unhappy that the Wikipedia entries that BBC article the CIA Factbook entry into Gaza, a Twitter entry (bizarre) and a YouTube video quality in front of a Times news story about the conflict.

They were also outraged that all these results were presented in the same way, so that their brand is not easy to identify. While complaining about the uniform presentation of the results and Google's algorithm (both of which want no preference other than "relevance" to show a query), seems to be immature and display a lack of knowledge about the point a search engine, the very basis of their complaint has not absurd to me. This means that they think the original publishers of content for the publication should be rewarded.

However, this then becomes a debate between the relative value of original and derivative content. Of course original content is necessary, since independent bloggers do not necessarily have the clout and budget to reporters everywhere (or everywhere sometimes). Though derivative content often mean a lot of added value that the researchers prefer the original content could. For example:

* A derivative items summarize and could be the link to an original article, so that it more digestible.
* It has often different perspectives and could be seen as more impartial if not associated with a major brand or politically friendly publisher.
* Writers of derivative content have more time to consider arguments, positions and facts because, the fact that they do not fight to a time limit, have the advantage of time tested.
* You are in a better position to many other published pieces on the subject link and all in one resource (eg Wikipedia).
* Derivative products often offer interaction, so that comments and participation.

If not Google try to continue to develop their algorithm so that the original content to help a little bit more (which is, of course, what they will do), is that fine, as long as it continues with other aspects such as the value listed above, which also liked to look seekers.

This Big Brands could also help a little, adding some more SEO for their sites. One of the publishers listed in the Ad Age article acknowledged this by following comment:

"You do not owe us that we show a special way. You do a whole lot about how you show your site as much as possible to publish. If people have not taken action on it that is doomed their own fault. "

About the Author

This article was written by Steve Went for MooMu Media, a digital agency specialising in website marketing including search engine optimisation, affiliate marketing and Pay Per Click.

Category based journal rank

[affmage source="amazon" results=""]page rank journals[/affmage]
[affmage source="cj" results=""]page rank journals[/affmage]
[affmage source="clickbank" results=""]page rank journals[/affmage]

Tagged with: • • • • •

Filed under: Uncategorized

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!