Connect with us

NEWS

Expired Domains And Google Ranking Bonus? via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Published

on

In a Google Office-hours hangout Google’s John Mueller answered whether reviving content on a parked domain would have any kind of ranking advantage. Google’s John Mueller explained how Google handles expired domains.

Parked And Expired Domains

An expired domain is a domain that’s been previously registered but was allowed to expire and it returned to the general pool to be registered by someone else.

A parked domain is a domain that is registered but is not being used.

When many people buy an expired domain from a domain broker, what they’re really buying is a parked domain that had previously been registered.

Authority Of Expired Domains?

The person asking the question wanted to know if there was any “authority” left over from a parked domain that would cause Google to speed up the indexing and ranking of the domain.

While Mueller did not address the issue of website authority in his answer, he has in the past vigorously denied that Google uses any kind of metric that represents authority.

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

This is the question:

“I have a domain that hasn’t been used in four years. The blog I had was doing great in its niche. But because I didn’t want to sell it I deleted all the content and left the domain parked.

I want to revive the content on it but I want to take a slightly different approach.

My question is, does Google need to learn about my blog again as if it was new or do I have a better chance to be an authority in my niche faster than usual because of this old domain?”

Google’s John Mueller Discusses Expired Domains

Google's John Mueller explains why expired domains have no impactRelated: Domain Authority: Is It a Google Ranking Factor?

Google's John Mueller explains why expired domains have no impact

Google And Expired Domains

John Mueller confirms that there is no ranking related advantage to using an expired domain and explains what the next steps are from the point of view of SEO.

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

Mueller:

“So if the content was gone for a couple of years, probably we need to figure out what this site is, kind of essentially starting over fresh.

So from that point of view I wouldn’t expect much in terms of kind of bonus because you had content there in the past.

I would really assume you’re going to have to build that up again like any other site.

Like, if you have a business and you close down for four years and you open up again then it’s going to be rare that customers will remember you and say oh yeah I will go to this business.

And it looks completely different. They offer different things. But it used to exist.

I think that situation is going to be rare in real life …if you will, as well.

So I would assume that you’re essentially starting over, here.

This is also one of the reasons why it usually doesn’t make sense to go off and buy expired domains in the hope that you’ll get some kind of a bonus out of using those expired domains.”

Related: Should You Buy & Redirect Expired Domains?

See also  Vulnerabilities Are Not an SEO Issue… Until You Get Hacked via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Expired Domains Have No Ranking Bonus

For those of us with twenty years or more of SEO experience, Mueller’s explanation that expired domains have no bonus does not come as a surprise.

We already knew this because it was our generation of SEOs that pioneered the practice of buying expired domains and experienced the moment when Google applied an algorithm update to deal with them.

We experienced first hand how expired domains did in fact help sites rank better.

Not only were they useful for ranking purposes but we could actually see in Google’s toolbar how much PageRank they offered.

And it wasn’t just expired domains that contained holdover PageRank. A link to a broken domain could be a source of PageRank as well.

The practice was to run a crawler on a popular website and review the outbound links that returned a 404 Page Not Found error message.

Those 404s were links to pages and sites that did not exist.

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

So what SEOs did was to purchase those domains, usually misspellings and then redirect those domains to affiliate sites. In a matter of weeks the PageRank would flow and the affiliate site would begin to rank higher.

These practices of buying misspelled domains with lots of inbound links and buying expired domains were part of a practice of recycling PageRank to help rank sites without having to build links.

They were link building shortcuts.

Related: 11 Domain Factors You Must Evaluate During an SEO Audit

Google Algorithm Already Handles Expired Domains

Google found out about the practice and eventually changed their links related algorithm to reset the PageRank of expired domains way, way back in 2003.

See also  Study Finds Virtual Assistants Are Getting Worse at Answering Questions Correctly

That might come as a shock to those who are new to SEO and have five or so years of experience and believe in expired domains.

But it’s true that Google’s algorithm resets the PageRank and link influence of expired domains since 2003.

I was practicing SEO at the time when it happened and I witnessed the fallout from that change.

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

Announcement Of Google Expired Domains Update

The announcement about resetting the PageRank for expired domains was done by a Google engineer who used the WebmasterWorld nickname of GoogleGuy.

Most of the time the identity of GoogleGuy was Matt Cutts.

But other search engineers used that alias as well to make announcements in the name of Google as well.

In a WebmasterWorld post called Good News About Expired Domains, Google posted this:

“Hey, the index is going to be coming out real soon, so I wanted to give people some idea of what to expect for this index. Of course it’s bigger and deeper (yay!), but we’ve also put more of a focus on algorithmic improvements for spam issues.

One resulting improvement with this index is better handling of expired domains–the authority for a domain will be reset when a domain expires, even though dangling links to the expired domain are still out on the web. “

Google affirmed that an expired domain could still rank but not because of any pre-existing links since they no longer counted.

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

GoogleGuy wrote:

“…you can get that domain into Google; you just won’t get credit for any pre-existing links. “

GoogleGuy additionally noted that expired domains with pre-existing penalties would still carry those penalties.

GoogleGuy advised:

“Right now the penalties can remain on a domain. So you’ll want to do your research before you buy a domain.”

PageRank resetting wasn’t limited to expired domains. The PageRank of misspelled domains were also reset as well.

See also  Google Search Console Can More Accurately Report on Indexed Pages via @MattGSouthern

The market for expired domains collapsed soon after and people pretty  much stopped buying them.

Resurgence Of Expired Domain Buying

Then around ten years later a new generation of SEOs came along and rediscovered expired domains, without knowing the history of Google taking measures to assure they no longer worked.

The whole expired domain thing started all over again.

Anecdotal evidence can be found to support virtually any SEO practice.  One can even find vocal advocates in support of ineffectual strategies such as comment spam. So it’s not surprising that something like expired domains would catch on all over again.

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

Adversarial Information Retrieval

  • Google can stop PageRank from flowing from links in  the sidebar or the footer.
  • Google can limit how much PageRank flows from one site to another depending on whether that link is relevant.
  • Google can stop PageRank from flowing from one site to another site because there is no relevant context for the link.

Most SEOs can comprehend those facts about Google.

But when it comes to expired links, some SEOs feel that Google is ineffectual and unable to reset the PageRank of expired domains.

Google has over 20 years experience dealing with manipulation of their search engine, including dealing with expired domains (which is documented above).

There’s even a name for designing search systems that are resistant to manipulation, it’s called Adversarial Information Retrieval.

In a world of Natural Language Processing, BERT, and MUM, and given that Google announced a PageRank reset for expired domains in 2003, a case could be made that it strains the limits of plausibility to claim that all it takes to defeat Google is to buy an expired domain.

Citation

2003 Announcement That Google Will Reset PageRank On Expired Domains

Good news about expired domains

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

No SEO Bonus For Expired Domains

Watch John Mueller explain that expired domains have no SEO advantage at the 35:31 Minute Mark

[embedded content]

Searchenginejournal.com

NEWS

Google December Product Reviews Update Affects More Than English Language Sites? via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Published

on

Google’s Product Reviews update was announced to be rolling out to the English language. No mention was made as to if or when it would roll out to other languages. Mueller answered a question as to whether it is rolling out to other languages.

Google December 2021 Product Reviews Update

On December 1, 2021, Google announced on Twitter that a Product Review update would be rolling out that would focus on English language web pages.

The focus of the update was for improving the quality of reviews shown in Google search, specifically targeting review sites.

A Googler tweeted a description of the kinds of sites that would be targeted for demotion in the search rankings:

“Mainly relevant to sites that post articles reviewing products.

Think of sites like “best TVs under $200″.com.

Goal is to improve the quality and usefulness of reviews we show users.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

Google also published a blog post with more guidance on the product review update that introduced two new best practices that Google’s algorithm would be looking for.

The first best practice was a requirement of evidence that a product was actually handled and reviewed.

The second best practice was to provide links to more than one place that a user could purchase the product.

The Twitter announcement stated that it was rolling out to English language websites. The blog post did not mention what languages it was rolling out to nor did the blog post specify that the product review update was limited to the English language.

See also  Instagram expands shopping on IGTV, plans test of shopping on Reels

Google’s Mueller Thinking About Product Reviews Update

Screenshot of Google's John Mueller trying to recall if December Product Review Update affects more than the English language

Screenshot of Google's John Mueller trying to recall if December Product Review Update affects more than the English language

Product Review Update Targets More Languages?

The person asking the question was rightly under the impression that the product review update only affected English language search results.

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

But he asserted that he was seeing search volatility in the German language that appears to be related to Google’s December 2021 Product Review Update.

This is his question:

“I was seeing some movements in German search as well.

So I was wondering if there could also be an effect on websites in other languages by this product reviews update… because we had lots of movement and volatility in the last weeks.

…My question is, is it possible that the product reviews update affects other sites as well?”

John Mueller answered:

“I don’t know… like other languages?

My assumption was this was global and and across all languages.

But I don’t know what we announced in the blog post specifically.

But usually we try to push the engineering team to make a decision on that so that we can document it properly in the blog post.

I don’t know if that happened with the product reviews update. I don’t recall the complete blog post.

But it’s… from my point of view it seems like something that we could be doing in multiple languages and wouldn’t be tied to English.

And even if it were English initially, it feels like something that is relevant across the board, and we should try to find ways to roll that out to other languages over time as well.

So I’m not particularly surprised that you see changes in Germany.

But I also don’t know what we actually announced with regards to the locations and languages that are involved.”

Does Product Reviews Update Affect More Languages?

While the tweeted announcement specified that the product reviews update was limited to the English language the official blog post did not mention any such limitations.

See also  LinkedIn Launches 6 Free Advertising Courses

Google’s John Mueller offered his opinion that the product reviews update is something that Google could do in multiple languages.

One must wonder if the tweet was meant to communicate that the update was rolling out first in English and subsequently to other languages.

It’s unclear if the product reviews update was rolled out globally to more languages. Hopefully Google will clarify this soon.

Citations

Google Blog Post About Product Reviews Update

Product reviews update and your site

Google’s New Product Reviews Guidelines

Write high quality product reviews

John Mueller Discusses If Product Reviews Update Is Global

Watch Mueller answer the question at the 14:00 Minute Mark

[embedded content]

Searchenginejournal.com

Continue Reading

NEWS

Survey says: Amazon, Google more trusted with your personal data than Apple is

Published

on

survey-says:-amazon,-google-more-trusted-with-your-personal-data-than-apple-is-–-phonearena
 

MacRumors reveals that more people feel better with their personal data in the hands of Amazon and Google than Apple’s. Companies that the public really doesn’t trust when it comes to their personal data include Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram.

The survey asked over 1,000 internet users in the U.S. how much they trusted certain companies such as Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon to handle their user data and browsing activity responsibly.

Amazon and Google are considered by survey respondents to be more trustworthy than Apple

Those surveyed were asked whether they trusted these firms with their personal data “a great deal,” “a good amount,” “not much,” or “not at all.” Respondents could also answer that they had no opinion about a particular company. 18% of those polled said that they trust Apple “a great deal” which topped the 14% received by Google and Amazon.

However, 39% said that they trust Amazon  by “a good amount” with Google picking up 34% of the votes in that same category. Only 26% of those answering said that they trust Apple by “a good amount.” The first two responses, “a great deal” and “a good amount,” are considered positive replies for a company. “Not much” and “not at all” are considered negative responses.

By adding up the scores in the positive categories,

Apple tallied a score of 44% (18% said it trusted Apple with its personal data “a great deal” while 26% said it trusted Apple “a good amount”). But that placed the tech giant third after Amazon’s 53% and Google’s 48%. After Apple, Microsoft finished fourth with 43%, YouTube (which is owned by Google) was fifth with 35%, and Facebook was sixth at 20%.

See also  Google Shares 16 Stats About Holiday Shoppers

Rounding out the remainder of the nine firms in the survey, Instagram placed seventh with a positive score of 19%, WhatsApp was eighth with a score of 15%, and TikTok was last at 12%.

Looking at the scoring for the two negative responses (“not much,” or “not at all”), Facebook had a combined negative score of 72% making it the least trusted company in the survey. TikTok was next at 63% with Instagram following at 60%. WhatsApp and YouTube were both in the middle of the pact at 53% followed next by Google and Microsoft at 47% and 42% respectively. Apple and Amazon each had the lowest combined negative scores at 40% each.

74% of those surveyed called targeted online ads invasive

The survey also found that a whopping 82% of respondents found targeted online ads annoying and 74% called them invasive. Just 27% found such ads helpful. This response doesn’t exactly track the 62% of iOS users who have used Apple’s App Tracking Transparency feature to opt-out of being tracked while browsing websites and using apps. The tracking allows third-party firms to send users targeted ads online which is something that they cannot do to users who have opted out.

The 38% of iOS users who decided not to opt out of being tracked might have done so because they find it convenient to receive targeted ads about a certain product that they looked up online. But is ATT actually doing anything?

Marketing strategy consultant Eric Seufert said last summer, “Anyone opting out of tracking right now is basically having the same level of data collected as they were before. Apple hasn’t actually deterred the behavior that they have called out as being so reprehensible, so they are kind of complicit in it happening.”

See also  Shopify joins Facebook’s cryptocurrency Libra Association

The Financial Times says that iPhone users are being lumped together by certain behaviors instead of unique ID numbers in order to send targeted ads. Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg says that the company is working to rebuild its ad infrastructure “using more aggregate or anonymized data.”

Aggregated data is a collection of individual data that is used to create high-level data. Anonymized data is data that removes any information that can be used to identify the people in a group.

When consumers were asked how often do they think that their phones or other tech devices are listening in to them in ways that they didn’t agree to, 72% answered “very often” or “somewhat often.” 28% responded by saying “rarely” or “never.”

Continue Reading

NEWS

Google’s John Mueller on Brand Mentions via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Published

on

Google’s John Mueller was asked if “brand mentions” helped with SEO and rankings. John Mueller explained, in detail, how brand mentions are not anything used at Google.

What’s A Brand Mention?

A brand mention is when one website mentions another website. There is an idea in the SEO community that when a website mentions another website’s domain name or URL that Google will see this and count it the same as a link.

Brand Mentions are also known as an implied link. Much was written about this ten years ago after a Google patent that mentions “implied links” surfaced.

There has never been a solid review of why the idea of “brand mentions” has nothing to do with this patent, but I’ll provide a shortened version later in this article.

John Mueller Discussing Brand Mentions

John Mueller Brand Mentions

John Mueller Brand Mentions

Do Brand Mentions Help With Rankings?

The person asking the question wanted to know about brand mentions for the purpose of ranking. The person asking the question has good reason to ask it because the idea of “brand mentions” has never been definitively reviewed.

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

The person asked the question:

“Do brand mentions without a link help with SEO rankings?”

Google Does Not Use Brand Mentions

Google’s John Mueller answered that Google does not use the “brand mentions” for any link related purpose.

Mueller explained:

“From my point of view, I don’t think we use those at all for things like PageRank or understanding the link graph of a website.

And just a plain mention is sometimes kind of tricky to figure out anyway.”

That part about it being tricky is interesting.

He didn’t elaborate on why it’s tricky until later in the video where he says it’s hard to understand the subjective context of a website mentioning another website.

Brand Mentions Are Useful For Building Awareness

Mueller next says that brand mentions may be useful for helping to get the word out about a site, which is about building popularity.

Mueller continued:

“But it can be something that makes people aware of your brand, and from that point of view, could be something where indirectly you might have some kind of an effect from that in that they search for your brand and then …obviously, if they’re searching for your brand then hopefully they find you right away and then they can go to your website.

And if they like what they see there, then again, they can go off and recommend that to other people as well.”

Advertisement

See also  Twitter Announces Communities Feature via @sejournal, @martinibuster

Continue Reading Below

“Brand Mentions” Are Problematic

Later on at the 58 minute mark another person brings the topic back up and asks how Google could handle spam sites that are mentioning a brand in a negative way.

The person said that one can disavow links but one cannot disavow a “brand mention.”

Mueller agreed and said that’s one of things that makes brand mentions difficult to use for ranking purposes.

John Mueller explained:

“Kind of understanding the almost the subjective context of the mention is really hard.

Is it like a positive mention or a negative mention?

Is it a sarcastic positive mention or a sarcastic negative mention? How can you even tell?

And all of that, together with the fact that there are lots of spammy sites out there and sometimes they just spin content, sometimes they’re malicious with regards to the content that they create…

All of that, I think, makes it really hard to say we can just use that as the same as a link.

…It’s just, I think, too confusing to use as a clear signal.”

Where “Brand Mentions” Come From

The idea of “brand mentions” has bounced around for over ten years.

There were no research papers or patents to support it. “Brand mentions” is literally an idea that someone invented out of thin air.

However the “brand mention” idea took off in 2012 when a patent surfaced that seemed to confirm the idea of brand mentions.

There’s a whole long story to this so I’m just going to condense it.

There’s a patent from 2012 that was misinterpreted in several different ways because most people at the time, myself included, did not read the entire patent from beginning to end.

See also  6 Best Practices For Effective Landing Pages

The patent itself is about ranking web pages.

The structure of most Google patents consist of introductory paragraphs that discuss what the patent is about and those paragraphs are followed by pages of in-depth description of the details.

The introductory paragraphs that explain what it’s about states:

“Methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs… for ranking search results.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

Pretty much nobody read that beginning part of the patent.

Everyone focused on a single paragraph in the middle of the patent (page 9 out of 16 pages).

In that paragraph there is a mention of something called “implied links.”

The word “implied” is only mentioned four times in the entire patent and all four times are contained within that single paragraph.

So when this patent was discovered, the SEO industry focused on that single paragraph as proof that Google uses brand mentions.

In order to understand what an “implied link” is, you have to scroll all the way back up to the opening paragraphs where the Google patent authors describe something called a “reference query” that is not a link but is nevertheless used for ranking purposes just like a link.

What Is A Reference Query?

A reference query is a search query that contains a reference to a URL or a domain name.

The patent states:

“A reference query for a particular group of resources can be a previously submitted search query that has been categorized as referring to a resource in the particular group of resources.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

Elsewhere the patent provides a more specific explanation:

“A query can be classified as referring to a particular resource if the query includes a term that is recognized by the system as referring to the particular resource.

…search queries including the term “example.com” can be classified as referring to that home page.”

The summary of the patent, which comes at the beginning of the document, states that it’s about establishing which links to a website are independent and also counting reference queries and with that information creating a “modification factor” which is used to rank web pages.

“…determining, for each of the plurality of groups of resources, a respective count of reference queries; determining, for each of the plurality of groups of resources, a respective group-specific modification factor, wherein the group-specific modification factor for each group is based on the count of independent links and the count of reference queries for the group;”

The entire patent largely rests on those two very important factors, a count of independent inbound links and the count of reference queries. The phrases reference query and reference queries are used 39 times in the patent.

See also  Tim and Chris Vanderhook buy back Viant – Adelphic DSP

Advertisement

Continue Reading Below

As noted above, the reference query is used for ranking purposes like a link, but it’s not a link.

The patent states:

“An implied link is a reference to a target resource…”

It’s clear that in this patent, when it mentions the implied link, it’s talking about reference queries, which as explained above simply means when people search using keywords and the domain name of a website.

Idea of Brand Mentions Is False

The whole idea of “brand mentions” became a part of SEO belief systems because of how that patent was misinterpreted.

But now you have the facts and know why “brand mentions” is not real thing.

Plus John Mueller confirmed it.

“Brand mentions” is something completely random that someone in the SEO community invented out of thin air.

Citations

Ranking Search Results Patent

Watch John Mueller discuss “brand mentions” at 44:10 Minute Mark and the brand Mentions second part begins at the 58:12 minute mark

[embedded content]

Searchenginejournal.com

Continue Reading

DON'T MISS ANY IMPORTANT NEWS!
Subscribe To our Newsletter
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

Trending