Yesterday, Google’s Head of Web Spam, Matt Cutts, shared a link to a simple Docs survey where they’re asking webmasters to report high-quality small sites that you think should rank better. Yes, you heard that right. They want to know about GOOD sites!
If there's a small website that you think should be doing better in Google, tell us more here: https://t.co/s80BibIBhN
— Matt Cutts (@mattcutts) August 28, 2013
If you’re like the Outspoken Media team, this was met with a company-wide, “wha?!”
While Google has been working hard over recent years to make it easier for the Web Spam team to connect with and inform webmasters, they’re usually looking for help outing bad sites. Whether it’s more support for reconsideration requests, new language on link schemes, or the recently released (then revoked, then re-released) Manual Actions report in Webmaster Tools.
For years we’ve debated the issue of size and brand as it relates to rankings and it’s interesting to see that Google is now soliciting advice from the masses to test the quality of the algorithm. The debate has raged since 2008 (and before). I put the “big business vs little guy” graphic together (thanks Todd for sharing it so long ago) to help sort through some hypocritical assumptions on Google’s part when it comes to website behavior. We’re used to the perception that big brands get away with murder while small businesses suffer, but I’ve always believed that when it comes to the algorithm it really is a matter of brand signals versus the actual size of the brand. The more sites behave like actual businesses and invest in brand development, the more they’ll align with the direction Google is going with quality signals for greater search rankings.
However, as Barry Schwartz cited,
“only 30% of SEOs believe web site size does not matter in terms of rankings.”
At first we didn’t believe the survey was legit, because it’s so simple. How could Google possibly review all of the submissions they’ll undoubtedly receive? But truthfully, how many webmasters feel confident enough in their site’s backlink profile to submit?
Will you?
I know there are plenty of webmasters who believe in the legitimacy of their link building practices, but we typically find a history riddled with old, highly questionable links. At Outspoken, we work hard to rehab those efforts, but the threshold of what’s acceptable is changing daily with the most recent updates affecting press releases, guest posts, advertorials, and
@Rhea Seems like a desperate move to me. Isn't Google's job to determine "good" sites?
— Rich Spaulding (@RichSpaulding) August 29, 2013
@Rhea I don't know of a single site owner that doesn't think their site should do better, so I don't see how it will be helpful.
— Ben Cook (@BenjaminCook) August 29, 2013
@Rhea & w/G's ever changing rules (rapidly expanding nofollow demands etc) I'm not sure anyone should want G looking closely at their site.
— Ben Cook (@BenjaminCook) August 29, 2013
@Rhea @skitzzo Up next: International Athletics Federation asks world's runners if they think their times really should be a bit faster…
— Jane Copland (@janemcopland) August 29, 2013
UPDATE:
Sorting through yesterday’s tweets, it looks like Google had only received a couple hundred websites at that point:
@robdwoods nah, less than a couple hundred so far. It's a good way to get input from a wider circle of folks.
— Matt Cutts (@mattcutts) August 28, 2013
