Is Google putting more weight on brands in rankings?

Advertisement


On February 26, 2009, Google software engineer Matt Cutts collected questions on Google Moderator and answered many of them on video. Monica from Madison, WI asked: Can you verify that Google is putting more weight on “brands” in search engine rankings? If the answer is “Yes” — what is Google’s definition of a brand? Inspired by Aaron Wall’s post: www.seobook.com

Filed Under: featured

Tags:

About the Author:

RSSComments (12)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. spam890 says:

    Hey Matt, Do you have only ONE t-shirt?

  2. askpersonaltrainers says:

    Thanks for the info, I don’t know anyone who uses any other search engine and if I have to even 1 time I get frustrated that they all suck compared to google…

  3. bmeister77 says:

    The Brand Algorithm will probably be triggered with terms like ‘buy’,'company’,’[geographic target]‘,’sale’,'shop’,'order’ etc. etc. matched by a ‘new’ database of brands (Chambers of Commerce databases etc.).

  4. jmorg1 says:

    How much did IBM pay you for that blatant advertising?

  5. zazammweightloss says:

    Very helpful video – Thanks Matt :)

    Can you please answer this with a yes or no. Does Google give more pr or preference to sites done in Joomla , word press Drupal Or other such OS compared to say frontpage or DW or CSS? There are a LOT of info saying you ( google ) will give Drupal, Joomla and such better preferences?

  6. gvanderleun says:

    Good spokesman for Google.

  7. MattCutts says:

    wa7son, the video confirms that there was an algorithmic change, but that we didn’t and don’t think of the ranking change in terms of promoting brands.

  8. spamblogger says:

    :) )))))

  9. wa7son says:

    Question: “Are Google putting more weight on brands more in search results?”

    Answer: “No we don’t, we just changed something so that brands might now be appearing higher up on the list”

    - Well isn’t that what the woman was asking?

  10. PhongTheory says:

    thanks for explaining absolutely nothing about this “change”… yet again.

  11. Busbyhead says:

    second !

  12. hprof1 says:

    first !

Leave a Reply