Google Panda Update是否真的讓高品質內容出頭呢?

Google Panda Update自從今年二月初推出，到四月開始影響全球英文網站，我們在”Google Panda Update是否算成功達成任務?“也提到，其實Google的這次更新是有很多瑕疵的，SEOmoz的文章”More Panda Update Information Starting to Come Out“透露，還會有另一波的Google Panda Update的再更新 …

可能在五月初就已經進行更新，但是目前尚不知道有哪些不同的發展。

這篇”Google’s Panda Update Cripples Open Publishing Competition“則是延續HubPages的抱怨，認為Google破壞了開放性出版平台的競爭，並指出”Google is not being transparent about their new standards, which prevents platforms like ours from having access to a level playing field with Google’s own services. ” 說到Google對於這些標準不夠透明化，並且讓他們(指HubPages)跟Google自己的服務(指YouTube)在不同的地位上，也就是說Google讓其他業者立於不公平的競爭起點上。目前HubPages正與Google溝通中，但是尚未獲得正面的回應。

這篇”Does Google Spam Still Work Post-Panda?“則提到，如JCPenney的Spam Link仍然有效，並且exact match keyword domain、Madlib Spam Pages、Keyword Stuffing都還是有效，這三種作法竟然在Google Panda Update下，也沒被列為低品質網站。

所以到底Google Panda Update的標準如何呢? Google的這篇”More guidance on building high-quality sites“說 …. 以下是高品質與低品質的差異:

• Would you trust the information presented in this article? 你是否信賴這篇文章的資訊?
• Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature? 這篇文章作者是否由專精人士撰寫? 或是內容空洞?
• Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations? 是否有重覆內容? 或是僅些微的差異?
• Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site? 你是否放心把信用卡資料給予該站?
• Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors? 該文章是否有錯字?格式或是事實上的錯誤?
• Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines? 該文章是否為該站的主題? 或是為了吸引讀者而製作?
• Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis? 該文章是否原創?
• Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results? 與其他搜尋結果的文章相比，是否更有價值?
• How much quality control is done on content? 該文章有多少的品質管控?
• Does the article describe both sides of a story? 該文章是否描述故事的各種面向?
• Is the site a recognized authority on its topic? 該站是否被認為是具有權威?
• Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care? 該大量文章網站是否一大群作者?是否單一文章並不值得關注?
• Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced? 該文章是否被謹慎編輯?
• For a health related query, would you trust information from this site? 你是否信任該站資訊?
• Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name? 該站是否能被認為是權威的?
• Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic? 該文章是否有完整的描述?
• Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious? 除了顯而易見的內容之外，是否有深入的訊息?
• Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend? 你是否願意分享或是標記該文章?
• Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content? 是否有一大堆廣告?
• Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book? 該文章是否值得被印成紙本?
• Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics? 該文章是否短而缺乏有用的內容?
• Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail? 該文章內容是否仔細小心?
• Would users complain when they see pages from this site? 讀者看到該站的文章是否會抱怨?

但是這篇”Google’s Second Attempt At Panda Relief Advice“則說~ 似乎網站的品牌印象會影響是否被Google Panda Update處罰，並且對於某些類型的網站特別不利。

其實說老實話，Google上面所說的標準，說了等於沒說，因為大家都會認為自己的網站最值得信賴，況且上面的標準「根本不可能有演算法能夠判別」。

面對這些問題，如果Google Panda Update真的也開始推動到所有語言的網站，將會是如何呢? 可以預知的是「文章的精華比例」變得很重要，如果文章被大站抄襲，可能反而原創會被處罰，也就是「錦上添花效應」即將發生。

Google Panda Update在英語網頁已經吵翻天了，不知Google後續會有哪些更多的更新? 結局真的會讓讓高品質內容出頭嗎? 其實並不太樂觀。