Great article about Google's rating guidelines

16 Insights Into Google's Rating Guidelines 

We can discuss them here, if you like.   

Excellect article that gives more of a strategic insight into SEO rather than tactical.

"(1) Relevance Is A Continuum"

I am still learning all of this but I have some fun watching google trying to make a connection between my publication and others' soon after I release it. Relevance is more important to google than I ever thought it was.

But I am surpised....

"(7) Useful Goes Beyond Relevance"

... that google actually rates content for "highly satisfying, authoritative, entertaining". This is actually good news for those of us who compete with writers with big pockets who can have their content written by professionals.

From the article: "One quote stood out in the document – “If a page exists only to make money, the page is spam.” Now, some business owners will object, saying that most sites exist to make money, in some form. When Google says “only to make money”, they seem to be saying money-making without content value. It’s ok to make money and have ads on your page, as long as you have content value to back it up. If you’ve just built a portal to collect cash, then you’re a spammer."

This is why wizzley is doing so well so far. We are required to have a minimum number of words in our content, and it is personally reviewed.

chefkeem had to remove the stuf I, ahem, linked to, (I can see where he's coming from).

But continuing the discussion - I think section 4.3 of the Google document is interesting because they mention "huge ads". When I previewed my first wizzle, there was a massive block ad at the top that took up most of the screen, and after browsing some other people's wizzles, I added an image to my intro, which forced the ad into a thin banner.

Do other people think that having a big ad block at the top which took up most of the area above the fold, would make a manual reviewer class a page as "shallow" no matter what the content was like?