• About Us
  • Contributors
  • Guides
  • Speaking Engagements
  • Write for The SEM Post
  • Submit a tip or contact us!
  • Newsletters

The SEM Post

Latest News About SEO, SEM, PPC & Search Engines

  • Google
  • SEO
  • Mobile
  • Local
  • Bing
  • Pay Per Click
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • State of the Industry
You are here: Home / Google / To Fix Panda, Better to Improve Quality Content Than Remove Pages

To Fix Panda, Better to Improve Quality Content Than Remove Pages

October 8, 2015 at 4:21 am PST By Jennifer Slegg

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • WhatsApp
  • Evernote
  • SMS

fix pandaWhen it comes to cleaning up from a Panda penalty, many people will simply remove all the suspected low-quality content from a site rather than improving the quality on those pages.  And it turns out that many people are removing good content and Google itself recommends that improving quality should be the solution to Panda, not simply removing it.

The topic of content and Panda came up on Twitter over comments made at Pubcon yesterday. And Gary Illyes from Google says that they do not recommend removing content for Panda reasons, but instead add more high quality content instead.

@jenstar We don't recommend removing content in general for Panda, rather add more highQ stuff @shendison

— Gary Illyes (@methode) October 7, 2015

When it comes to perceived “thin content” on the page, it is better to increase the quality on those pages, rather than knee jerk and remove it all, as some people do as an “easy fix”.  But you can easily lose pages that would perform well by removing pages too broadly.

@Marie_Haynes Thin content: make it better, make it … thick, and ADD more highQ stuff. @jenstar @shendison

— Gary Illyes (@methode) October 7, 2015

@Marie_Haynes What you really need is content created with care for the users, that's it. Blank pages we'd just ignore @jenstar @shendison

— Gary Illyes (@methode) October 7, 2015

Illyes eventually said that Twitter wasn’t exactly the right place to have an in-depth discussion on various nuances, but did say that Google sees many people removing content that shouldn’t be.

@Marie_Haynes twitter is not the right medium for this discussion. we see way too many people cut the good. Careful what you trim #defcon1

— Gary Illyes (@methode) October 8, 2015

But when it comes to perceived “thin content” pages, there are actually pages that at first glance someone could say is thin content, but in actuality, it is content with value.

While Marie Haynes was bringing up the example of single forum posts, there are examples of forums that do extremely well even with these types of pages – Stackoverflow was one example I shared.

@Marie_Haynes @methode @shendison What about a site like Stackoverflow? They have a ton of no-response posts & they do amazingly well in G.

— Jennifer Slegg (@jenstar) October 8, 2015

Which of course circled back around to quality content is key for a site to perform well in the search results.

@Marie_Haynes so… you're back to my point? Overwhelm your users with great content that's created for THEM? @jenstar @shendison

— Gary Illyes (@methode) October 8, 2015

That said, depending on the content in question, it can sometimes be easier and less of a headache – not to mention faster – to remove the content, especially if the content is spam auto-generated or purchased 1,000 articles for $50.  But it seems this should be reserved for clear cut spam cases, and otherwise, site owners should look to increase quality across all those pages.

And back to the original point about 404 vs 410 for content that is removed, either works but Illyes suggests following it with noindex and sitemap.

@shendison i think either would make sense, no preference there. I'd strongly encourage noindex+sitemap though @Marie_Haynes @jenstar

— Gary Illyes (@methode) October 8, 2015

It is an interesting discussion on Twitter to read through – there were many other comments made by many industry people, but I did include all the related tweets that Illyes made.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • WhatsApp
  • Evernote
  • SMS
The following two tabs change content below.
  • Bio
  • Latest Posts
My Twitter profileMy Facebook profileMy Google+ profileMy LinkedIn profile

Jennifer Slegg

Founder & Editor at The SEM Post
Jennifer Slegg is a longtime speaker and expert in search engine marketing, working in the industry for almost 20 years. When she isn't sitting at her desk writing and working, she can be found grabbing a latte at her local Starbucks or planning her next trip to Disneyland. She regularly speaks at Pubcon, SMX, State of Search, Brighton SEO and more, and has been presenting at conferences for over a decade.
My Twitter profileMy Facebook profileMy Google+ profileMy LinkedIn profile

Latest posts by Jennifer Slegg (see all)

  • 2022 Update for Google Quality Rater Guidelines – Big YMYL Updates - August 1, 2022
  • Google Quality Rater Guidelines: The Low Quality 2021 Update - October 19, 2021
  • Rethinking Affiliate Sites With Google’s Product Review Update - April 23, 2021
  • New Google Quality Rater Guidelines, Update Adds Emphasis on Needs Met - October 16, 2020
  • Google Updates Experiment Statistics for Quality Raters - October 6, 2020

Filed Under: Google, SEO

Sign up for our newsletter


Trackbacks

  1. SearchCap: Duplicate Content Study, German's Google Tax & Bing Ads Syndication says:
    October 8, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    […] To Fix Panda, Better to Improve Quality Content Than Remove Pages, thesempost.com […]

  2. Google: How to Remove Low Quality Thin Content says:
    October 9, 2015 at 6:44 am

    […] To Fix Panda, Better to Improve Quality Content Than Remove Pages – October 8, 2015 […]

Founder & Editor

Jennifer Slegg (2052)

Sign up for our daily news recap & weekly newsletter.


Follow us online

  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Twitter

Latest News

2022 Update for Google Quality Rater Guidelines – Big YMYL Updates

We finally have the first Google Quality Rater Guidelines update of 2022, and like usual, it is … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • 2022 Update for Google Quality Rater Guidelines – Big YMYL Updates
  • Google Quality Rater Guidelines: The Low Quality 2021 Update
  • Rethinking Affiliate Sites With Google’s Product Review Update
  • New Google Quality Rater Guidelines, Update Adds Emphasis on Needs Met
  • Google Updates Experiment Statistics for Quality Raters
  • Analyzing “How Google Search Works” Changes from Google
  • Google Quality Rater Guidelines Update: New Introduction, Rater Bias & Political Affiliations
  • Google Updates Quality Rater Guidelines: Reputation for News Sites; Video Content Updates; Quality for Information Sites
  • Google Makes Major Changes to NoFollow, Adds Sponsored & UGC Tags
  • Google Updates Quality Rater Guidelines Targeting E-A-T, Page Quality & Interstitials

Categories

  • Affiliate Marketing
  • Amazon
  • Apple
  • Bing
  • Branding
  • Browsers
  • Chrome
  • Content Marketing
  • Design
  • Domains
  • DuckDuckGo
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Firefox
  • Foursquare
  • Google
    • Analytics
    • Google RankBrain
    • Quality Rater's Guidelines
  • History of Search
  • Industry Spotlight
  • Instagram
  • Internet Explorer
  • Links
  • Local
  • Mobile
  • Native Advertising
  • Other Search Engines
  • Pay Per Click
  • Pinterest
  • Publishers
  • Security
  • SEO
  • Snapchat
  • Social Media
  • State of the Industry
  • The SEM Post
  • Tools
  • Twitter
  • Uncategorized
  • User Experience
  • Video Marketing
  • Week in Review
  • Whitepapers
  • Wordpress
  • Yahoo
  • Yelp
  • YouTube
March 2023
MTWTFSS
« Aug  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031 

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2023 · News Pro Theme On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in