Some Surprising Comments by Matt Cutts

Halfdeck · 12:59 PM

Definitely check out this Matt Cutts interview, where Matt Cutts reveals some facts that should answer some questions that I see people asking many times on forums.

Excerpt (emphasis mine):

Quote:

Question: what is excessive in the length of a keyword-rich URL?

Answer: If you can make your title four- or five-words long - and it is pretty natural. If you have got a three, four or five words in your URL, that can be perfectly normal. As it gets a little longer, then it starts to look a little worse. Now, our algorithms typically will just weight those words less and just not give you as much credit.

Quote:

Question: are social bookmark links given less weight than other back links - given how easy these services are to manipulate?

Answer: Typically, our policy is: a link is a link, is a link; wherever that link's worth is, that is the worth that we give it. Some people ask about links from DMOZ, links from .edu or links from .gov, and they say: "Isn't there some sort of boost? Isn't a link better if it comes from a .edu?" The short answer is: no, it is not. It is just .edu links tend to have higher PageRank, because more people link to .edu's or .gov's.

To the best of my knowledge, I do not think we have anything that says social bookmark links are given less weight. Certainly, some sites like del.icio.us and other people, may choose to put individual "nofollows" in and they may choose to take actions to try to prevent spam, but we do not typically say anything like: social bookmarking by itself - give less weight.

Quote:

Regarding nofollow and anchor text: It is interesting. Whenever we talked about it originally, we said PageRank would not be passed, and the messaging that I tried to do was that it would not even be followed and it would not even be crawled. It turned out there was a really weird situation, where, if you had totally unique anchor text that nobody else had, we would not follow that link - but if we had found the page from some other source, we still had this anchor text lying around and we were willing to associate it with that page...I almost view it as, for a short time it was almost like a bug - that some anchor text, in some very strange situations, could flow. We have fixed that.

Quote:

Question: Could we assume that, if the page is nicely usable, it might be OK to do far more, perhaps, than the 100 links per page guideline?

Answer: I would recommend that people run experiments, because, if you have 5,000 links on a page, the odds that we would flow PageRank through those is kind of low. We might say at some point: that is just way too many thousands of links. And at some point, your fan-out is so high that the individual PageRank going out on each one of those links is pretty tiny...Nowadays, I forget exactly how much we crawl and index and save, but I think it is at least, we are willing to save half a megabyte from each page.

ericbramlett · 05-03-2008, 03:19 PM

Thanks for the link - great info.

Smuck · 05-03-2008, 10:07 PM

Excellent info Halfdeck! When you start a thread, you are one of those whose thread's I tend to subscribe to, as your information is always helpful. Keep up the good work!

Riviera · 05-04-2008, 08:42 AM

Very interesting. Nice to hear it from the horse's mouth.

Ron Tarvin · 05-04-2008, 05:12 PM

That is interesting that .edu and .gov are not necessarily better links because I've always heard that they are. Never had it substantiated but you know how seo goes...you hear something about google and think the crazier it is, the more likely it's TRUE!!

erogers · 05-04-2008, 06:47 PM

I believe MC about as much as any spin artist for any company or government. I think G is well known for saying one thing and doing something completely different. if "a link is a link is a link" how does topic relevancy relate? How about all the myriad other reasons G has said they "devalue" certain links for certain reasons.

I don't necessarily think that .EDU and .GOV are inherently soooo much better. I just cringe when people read what MC says and point to that as gospel.

Halfdeck · 12:19 AM

Quote:

I believe MC about as much as any spin artist for any company or government. I think G is well known for saying one thing and doing something completely different.

And how is that different from any other business? Google bashers are probably the biggest hypocrites out of the bunch. While SEOs consider spamming the SERPs a legit piece of their business model, when a site like Sphinn gets spammed to armageddon, suddenly people change their tune. What's not hypocritical about a not-in-my-back-yard mentality? So Google is guilty of double talk. Who isn't guilty of it? There are too many people throwing stones in glass houses.

If you were smart, when someone throws you a bone you take it.

Let me put it to you like this. I will believe Matt Cutts over ANY SEO out there hands down. SEOs are some of the biggest spinmeisters in town. Some of them will exaggerate, lie, and will not let facts get in the way of a good story. If flashy headlines mean more links that's what you're gonna get. At the end of the day, many SEO bloggers (though of course not all) are journalist-wannabe marketers. Nothing more. They report a rumor and leave the fact checking to you and me. If the rumor turns out to be wrong, it doesn't matter; a story gets a bunch of backlinks by the time people realizes its BS.

For example, many SEO sites (I won't name names) reported that Google will treat subdomains like subdirectories - that report turned out to be false.

A well known SEO blogger also reported that Google confirmed an algo update recently - that again turned out to be false.

Another SEO blogger reported that link bait will be penalized in the future. That turned out to be a made up story using a made up quote written by a Googler that doesn't exist.

Of course, there's no reason to forget Matt Cutts works for Google. His love for his company creates bias. But regardless of what company he works for, he is one of the most rational, honest, objective guy I ever came across on the web. Most other SEOs let their pocketbooks dictate their thinking; what else would explain 99% of SEOs bashing Google during the latest paid links clampdown?

Take it or leave it. If you rather fill your head with all the unsubstantiated rumors on forums and blogs be my guest.

It reminds me of last year when Matt Cutts said internal nofollow and PageRank sculpting was ok. Back then many protested. I said if Google gives you lemons make lemonade. It took a year for people to wisen up.

erogers · 05-05-2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfdeck

....when someone throws you a bone you take it.

I'll take a bone, but when someone throws me a rock and tells me it's a bone, I start to question everything else thrown my way. That's all I'm saying.

MC has a history of laying the spin on to what G can and will do. Then folks go out and test those things and find out different. Take, for example, the no-follow situation MC explained above. For a year-and-a-half folks knew that no-follow wasn't working exactly like it was supposed to - no-follow links would still show up in the profile. Noone knew exactly why but we knew it was broken somehow. According to MC, everything was working properly - it wasn't and we knew it wasn't.

Why would I bring this up? Because I want to float the idea that maybe folks should realize that what MC says and what G does is two different things. MC isn't SEO - MC, if anything, is anti-SEO so don't think he's trying to help the SEO crowd.

And let's keep the negative comments about other forum members in check shall we? I don't go around calling others stupid because they dissagree with someone and you shouldn't either. Controversy is the basis of discussion on these forums and personal slights should be left out of the conversation thankyouverymuch.

ericbramlett · 05-05-2008, 08:09 AM

Eric -

I don't think that there's a single person in or out of the Googleplex that understands the algorithm 100%. There are also bugs in the algo - the position 6 penalty, MC's admission that nofollows weren't working as they were supposed to, etc... However, I think that MC is far from a spin doctor, and I believe he genuinely wants to help people build better websites that will rank well.

There's not a chance that Cutts will give away any info that will help anyone manipulate the SERPs, but I tend to REALLY listen when he speaks, and he definitely has more credibililty than 99.99% of the bloggers & forum posters out there. IMHO, Halfdeck hit the nail on the head describing "unsubstantiated rumors on forums & blogs." Oftentimes, forums devolve into little better than a sewing circle (with regards to SEO speculation.)

greekhomes · 05-05-2008, 08:21 AM

Why don't we start reading Google patents on their algorithm instead of chasing the holy grail through forums?

Don't we want the primary source to understanding how Google works and cut the speculation and debates from secondary sources, that are sometimes based on less facts and more gossip or assumptions?

I think this forum is great for learning or at least getting insight into SEO, but far from being the only alternative together with blogs and other forums, for understanding SEO.

I personally get very little from reading Matt Cutts interviews. No concrete answers based on actual data or proof is accentuated. The patents, however, make you think and see how this process works. Now of course, not every Google patent might be fully implemented, but at least you start thinking in line with the creators of the algorithm.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Where Is That Matt Cutts Video?	Smuck	Laid Back Chat	2	12-07-2007 04:02 PM
Matt Cutts on Paid Links	kyle422	Real Estate and Google	32	09-07-2007 04:20 PM
We can now join Matt Cutts in the fight against spam!	Smuck	Laid Back Chat	22	08-27-2007 07:23 AM
Matt cutts and WP	waynelong	Real Estate and Google	3	07-28-2007 08:09 PM
Matt Cutts on reciprocal links	Calculator	Real Estate and Google	81	05-07-2007 02:16 PM

Real Estate Forums

REW Conference

For our members

Main Sections

IDX Coverage Areas

Spiders Welcome