what matt cutts should do next

7/29/2019 What Matt Cutts Should Do Next

1/5

WHAT MATT CUTTS SHOULD DO NEXT!

Matt Cutts, head of Web Spam at Google, is one of my modern day heroes- as he has been resolute

in initiating changes to the search algorithms to return the results listings that best match the users

search intent. This crusade can probably be traced back to Christmas 2010 when JC Penny appeared

to top the entire search listings within the NY area for just about any product. Enough was enough. A

programme of algorithmic changes have followed since that date known collectively as the Penguin

and then Panda updates which have progressively outlawed these dubious practices.

These changes, although often criticised at the detailed level, have been almost universally

welcomed by everyone involved in Digital Marketing. With the penalising of Black Hat methods the

emphasis has shifted to the importance to content and content marketing to get noticed in search.

Marketers have thrown themselves enthusiastically onto this new altar and articles abound extolling

the virtue of creating more and more content.

THE NEW PROBLEM

However, this has created a new problem- the sheer volume of low quality, boring, plagiarised

content that is flooding the web, all competing for attention and Googles approval via prominent

search ranking.

There is so much content nowadays that it is a full time job to even read the titles on some of themain curated lists circulated on a daily basis! This is before selection of appropriate material to read.

Let alone finding the time to read and absorb and evaluate the content itself!

Recent researchhas confirmed that it is over posting and poor grammar are the two biggest turnoffs

for consumers of this deluge of recent content

Now Googles ownQuality Guidelinesgive us lots of clues as to what it regards as quality content but

in reality this is just guidance and, in fairness, rooting out the obvious abuses is a herculean task in

the short term.

It would be nice to think that user approval systems, such as Googles own +1 system, would be some

help but in reality this is more a vote for the popularity of the source rather than the content, (rather

like TV talent competitions!) with approval often being given without even reading, let alone

evaluating, the content concerned!

So, what could Mr Cutts do address this veritable mud slide of mediocre material? Here are

some suggestions based upon my particular pet hates...

1. Relegate content with numbered lists in the title.

I have reproduced, below, an extract from a curated list of articles from a well known source,

this shows a whole section in which all of the articles started with some form of numbered list

in the title (Three things you did not know about x etc.). Now this is an extreme example, but

overall in the lists I analysed, over 40% used this device.
http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Simple-Errors-Social-Marketing-Alienate-UK-Users/1010133http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Simple-Errors-Social-Marketing-Alienate-UK-Users/1010133http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.htmlhttp://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.htmlhttp://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.htmlhttp://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.htmlhttp://www.emarketer.com/Article/Simple-Errors-Social-Marketing-Alienate-UK-Users/1010133


2/5

This format, to me, is a key indicator of potential low quality. I do not know who originally

concluded that articles in this form are more successful, but it is now part of digital marketingfolk law that is avidly adhered to as a winning formula. The reason it is popular, appears to me

to be because it allows authors to sling together a series of partially (and usually borrowed)

points and quickly produce some impressive looking content. These points have usually been

assiduously culled over a period of time and inserted in a note system, or the like, under a

content ideas tab for later editing into a post or article.

Giving content that uses this device a lower quality score will no doubt catch a few gems but

overall may well cause a significant increase in the overall quality of published content.

2. Downgrade anything with word Awesome somewhere in the title

Clearly to be effective, content should be well written and balanced. I find that the vast majority

of pieces with awesome in the title are usually far from it and usually indicate either a lack of

judgment by the author or indeed the desire to impart some importance to the subject matter

that simply is not there.

The English language is rich and diverse with a wide choice of adjectives, indeed my battered

and aging thesaurus lists awesome under Wonderful along with 52 other alternatives (twenty

of the best ones are reproduced in the figure below)including such words as: Marvelous,

Magical, Stupendous, Sensational, Extraordinary. Fantastic Unbelievable, Fabulous and evenThaumaturgic! All of these words have subtly different connotations and can only make content

more informative and meaningful.


3/5

So come on Matt send content containing the word awesome to room 101 with a hefty quality

penalty,

3. Penalize organisations which promote content publishing schedules.

I fully expect howls of outrage at this point! - but stay with me for a moment.

I am in fact a great fan of publishing schedules- but they are not right for everyone. If you are a

large organisation with substantial teams of people responsible for producing content or

organising content with multiple authorships then, clearly, a publishing schedule is a must for

all sorts of good reasons.

Translate this into the situation of a small business or an individual (which are numerically

huge compared with the former categories) and you get a recipe for poor content. The tyranny

of a schedule allied to the mantra of quantity- you must publish x items daily or at least very

regularly, is a formula for the proliferation of low quality dross.

I have over the years stopped subscribing from a number of blogs and the like, simply because

although the authors at one time produced interesting and insightful pieces, the quality dropped

off , and this was almost always was allied to an increase in the periodicity of publishing. The

posts often became clearly formulaic, unoriginal, and often regularly featured the numbered list

technique described above.

Unfortunately, the shibboleth that quantity is important is clearly in the best interests of those

commercially involved in producing content and therefore will not be popular

4. Demote content from people who have expert, ninja or guru etc. in their

description line.


4/5

I often wonder what people thing they gain by giving themselves a self appointed title which

implies they know what they are talking about and therefore I should pay particular attention to

their pearls of wisdom. To me it has the reverse effect.

The motives behind people who attempt to boost their credibility by adopting such titles have to

be questioned and therefore, by implication, the veracity of the content they generate.

Now maybe the new authorship index will help this (certainly more than a Klout score!) but this

may end up measuring popularity rather than quality- and then we are back into the quantity

versus quality argument again.

Matt, in the interim, please mark them down!

CONCLUSIONS

This, somewhat light heated, consideration of the current trend towards the overproduction of

current does throw up a number of more important considerations:

1. The importance of curation

Personally, most of the content I consume comes via curated lists of some form or another. The

problem with this approach is that the vast majority of curation lists concentrate on the basic

activities of aggregation and classification. The net result of this is that even scanning the lists to

assess what to read in depth (or file away for later) is a herculean task in its own right. I would

like to see curators come off the fence and take on the more advanced curation tasks of saying

what is good and original and what is not(selecting and contextualising). Clearly this might

reduce popularity- but sometimes you have to take risks to move forward.

2. Quality is always relative.

One of the dangers of advanced curation is that what is relevant to one person is not to

another. Clearly the requirement of someone who is familiar with a topic is very different from

that of a novice. For example, being a complete numpty at even the most basic of DIY tasks them

I need really basic guides which a skilled tradesman would regards a complete waste of time

and may well scoff with some of the simplistic advice given. In this situation I believe it should


5/5

be the responsibility of the provider to indicate at what level context the information is being

offered at. Some organisations, to their credit, do classify their content into beginner,

intermediate and advanced levels. Wider adoption of this practice by more content creators and

curators would help the consumer identify what content is relevant for them.

Well there you have It.- some off the wall ideas on how to stem the tidal wave of mediocrecontent and avoid having to throw the baby of valuable content out will the bathwater of

regurgitated dross..

Anybody else got any other ideas for Matt on how to achieve this?

Stop Press

After penning this piece, I note that Google haveannouncedthat they are indeed to produce

listings of what they regard as in depth and quality pieces of content- wow that was quick Matt!

Richard Masters

www.rjmasters.co.uk

If you enjoyed this you might like:

Linked In: Connections are for show relationships are for Dough!

Any Business can now build its own Website

Is the BBC's new classification of social classes of use in marketing?

Or Contact me:Richard Masters
http://%3Chttp/techcrunch.com/2013/08/06/google-search-starts-highlighting-in-depth-articles-in-new-knowledge-graph-box/http://%3Chttp/techcrunch.com/2013/08/06/google-search-starts-highlighting-in-depth-articles-in-new-knowledge-graph-box/http://%3Chttp/techcrunch.com/2013/08/06/google-search-starts-highlighting-in-depth-articles-in-new-knowledge-graph-box/http://www.rjmasters.co.uk/http://www.rjmasters.co.uk/http://tinyurl.com/blsum78http://tinyurl.com/blsum78http://tinyurl.com/cf5g8zdhttp://tinyurl.com/cf5g8zdhttp://tinyurl.com/cdrss7chttp://tinyurl.com/cdrss7chttp://tinyurl.com/cz285dthttp://tinyurl.com/cz285dthttp://tinyurl.com/cz285dthttp://tinyurl.com/cz285dthttp://tinyurl.com/cdrss7chttp://tinyurl.com/cf5g8zdhttp://tinyurl.com/blsum78http://www.rjmasters.co.uk/http://%3Chttp/techcrunch.com/2013/08/06/google-search-starts-highlighting-in-depth-articles-in-new-knowledge-graph-box/

what matt cutts should do next

Documents