How warnings of being “Penalized by Google” can sometimes be the online equivilent of the big bad wolf.
Clients are often be told by SEO consultants that a wide range of technical issues will lead to their website being “penalized by search engines”, notably Google.
The fundamental message this sends is inaccurate. This message can lead to dogged adherence to change without good business reason or SEO advice being disregarded as scaremongering.
There is only a small range of activities that search engines actively penalize, yet many reasons for poor performance that could appear to be penalties if cruedely interpreted.
This is not to say that search engines do not heavily favour certain sites for reasons other than pure query-document match relevancy but thats another post altogether.
Being organized and conforming to expected standards = Good SEO (blazing a trail is to be encouraged but be aware search engines take a while to catch up, and only follow the trends that have significant human user traffic already)
So here is my offline metaphor to explain why the penalties are not always penaties. Lets compare SEO and crossing international borders.
Event: Imagine arriving at JFK to change flights to San Francisco, on a last minute bargain single ticket & forgetting the address of your hotel. Casually mention your girlfriend lives in SF and it’s a romantic surprise visit. Several hours later, as you leave secondary interviews, you’ll have missed your onward flight with no recourse, face overnight hotels at your expense, a 24 hour delay and the costs of an airport issued ticket home to reassure US Immigration. Your Intentions? Good, Your Outcomes?, Bad.
But it’s important to realise none of the inconvenience “caused by US Immigration” was motivated by a desire to punish.
Analysis: The passenger was not trusted to perform as expected, had failed to conform to system requirements and had to be processed in a secondary manner requiring multiple research activities from a resource constrained team and systems.
Unlikely as it seems this scenario happens every day at airports around the world.
Event: The online equivalent of this story is a website re-launching without a URL cutover strategy, integrating large volumes of third party feed into it’s pages, not publishing a valid sitemap at an easily found location, with hard to interpret dynamic URLs and no inbound links as years of link equity is lost to 404 error pages. Site traffic drops precipitously for 90 days while the programme sponsor rides out the turbulence spending valuable time reassuring senior stakeholders everything is going to be ok and there will be a positive ROI. Of course it normally does, but it’s been stressful.
None of the inconvenience “caused by Google” was motivated by a desire to punish.
Analysis: The website was not trusted to perform as expected, had failed to conform to expected standards and had to be processed in a secondary manner requiring multiple research activities from a resource constrained team and systems.
Unlikely as it seems this scenario happens every day at huge online companies around the world.