Alleged Negative ON-Site SEO Ranking Factors |
Factor
# |
NEGATIVE
ON-Site SEO Factors |
Brief Information |
|
1 |
Text presented in graphics form only No ACTUAL body text on the page |
Text represented graphically is invisible to search engines. |
|
2 |
Affiliate site? |
The Florida update went after affiliates with a vengeance - flower and travel affiliates were hit hard - cookie-cutter sites with massive inter-linking, but little unique content. Subsequent updates have also targeted affiliates. |
|
3 |
Over optimization penalty
(OOP) |
Penalty for over-compliance with well-established, accepted web optimization practices. Too high keyword repetition (keyword stuffing) may get you the OOP. Overuse of H1 tags has been mentioned. Meta-tag stuffing. |
|
4 |
Link to a bad neighborhood |
Don't link to link farms, FFAs (Free For All's) Also, don't forget to
check the Google status of EVERYONE you link to periodically. A site may go "bad", and you can end up being penalized, even though you did nothing. For instance, some failed real estate sites have been switched to p0rn by unscrupulous webmasters, for the traffic. This is not good for you, if you are linking to the originally legitimate URL. |
|
5 |
Redirect thru refresh metatags |
Don't
immediately send your visitor to another page other than the one he/ she clicked on, using meta refresh. |
|
6 |
Excessive cross-linking |
- within the same C block (IP=xxx.xxx.CCC.xxx) If you have many sites (>10, author's guess) with the same web host, prolific cross-linking can indicate more of a single entity, and less of democratic web voting. Easy to spot, easy to penalize. "This does not apply to a small number of sites" .. (this author guesses the number 10, JAWG) . . . "hosted on a local server". . Matt Cutts July 2006. |
|
7 |
Stealing images text blocks from another domain |
Copyright violation - Google responds strongly if you are reported. ref egol File Google DMCA. |
|
8 |
Keyword stuffing
threshold |
In body, meta tags, alt text, etc. demotion. |
|
9 |
Keyword dilution |
Targeting too many unrelated keywords on a page, which would detract from theming, and reduce the importance of your REALLY important keywords. |
|
10 |
Page edit - can reduce consistency |
Google patent -
Google is now switching between a "newer" cache, and several "older" caches, frequently drawing from BOTH at the same time. This was possibly implemented to frustrate SERP manipulators. Did your last edit substantially alter your keywords, or theme? Expect noticeable SERP bouncing. |
|
11 |
Frequency of Content Change |
Google patent
- Too frequent = bad. |
|
12 |
Freshness of Anchor Text |
Google patent
- Too frequent = bad. |
|
13 |
Dynamic Pages |
Problematic - know pitfalls - shorten URLs, reduce variables (". . no more than 2 or 3", M. Cutts July 2006), lose the session IDs. |
|
14 |
Excessive Javascript |
Don't use for redirects, or hiding links. |
|
15 |
Flash page - NOT |
Most (all-?) SE spiders can't read Flash content Provide an HTML alternative, or experience lower SERP positioning. |
|
16 |
Use of Frames |
Spidering
Problems with Frames - STILL. |
|
17 |
Robot exclusion "no index" tag |
Intentional self-exclusion. |
|
18 |
Single pixel links |
A red flag - one reason only - a sneaky link. |
|
19 |
Invisible text |
OK - No penalty -
Google advises against this
.
All over the place - but nothing is ever done. (The text is the same color as the background, and hence cannot be seen by the viewer, but can be visible to the search engine spiders.) I believe Google does penalize for hidden text, since it is an attempt to manipulate rank. Although they don't catch everyone. |
|
20 |
Gateway, doorway page
(I see changes here - not only does the doorway page disappear, but the main page gets pushed down, as well - this is a welcome fix.) |
OK - No
penalty -
Google advises against this
.
Google
used to reward these pages.
Multiple entrance pages in the top ten SERPs - I see it daily. There they are at #2, with their twin at #5 - 6 months now. Reported numerous times. |
|
21 |
Duplicate content (YOUR'S)
Duplicate content (THEIR'S) below (Highjack) |
OK - No penalty -
Google advises against this
.
Google picks one (usually the oldest), and shoves it to the top, and pushes the second choice down. This has been a big issue with stolen content - the thief usurps your former position with YOUR OWN content. |
|
22 |
HTML code violations
(The big G does not even use DOCTYPE declarations, required for
W3C validation.) |
Doesn't matter -
Google advises against this
.
Unless of course, the page is totally FUBAR. Simple HTML verification is NOT required (but advised, since it could contribute to your page quality factor - PQF). |
|
23 |
Since the above 4 items are so controversial, I would like to add this comment:
There are many things that Google would LIKE to have webmasters do, but that they simply cannot control, due to logistical considerations. Their only alternative is to foment fear and doubt by implying that any violation of their "suggestions" will result in swift and fierce demotion.
(This is somewhat dated - G is fixing these things.) |
IN GENERAL, this works pretty well to keep webmasters in line. The fallacy of this is that attentive webmasters can readily observe continuing, blatant exceptions to these official pronouncements.
There are many anecdotes about Goggle "taking care" of a problem. Google states that they do not provide hand-tweaked "boosts", but are silent about hand-tweaked demotions. They occur, for sure. To believe otherwise is naive. Wouldn't YOU swat the most obnoxious flies? I would.
It is becoming easier to determine the best thing to do. Try to avoid any Google penalties or demotions. |
|
24 |
Phrase-based ranking
, filters, penalties |
Feb. 2007 - Google patent granted. Do not use phrases that have been associated and correlated with known spamming techniques, or you will be penalized. What phrases? We don't know.
|
Maxtrade AIO
Online DEMO
(157840)