Is Google putting more weight on brands in rankings?
kery | Mar 08, 2010 | Comments 12
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
Related items
Filed Under: featured
About the Author:
เราเริ่มต้นมาจากเว็บเล็กๆ thaihealth.net แต่ทรงพลังด้วยความมุ่งมั่น และระบบที่ดีเยี่ยมของโฮสติ้ง dochost
SEO คืออะไร คือการปรับแต่งเว็บและเนื้อหาให้ถูกต้อง และเพื่อให้ผลการค้นหาอยู่ในอันดับดีที่สุดในเว็บไซต์การค้นหา เช่น google ,yahoo และ Bing ทำไมหรือ? เพราะมีผลการวิจัยพบว่า ลูกค้าจะเลือกเว็บในอันดับ 1-3 ในผลการค้นหาเป็นจำนวนถึงกว่า 70%

Hey Matt, Do you have only ONE t-shirt?
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…
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.).
How much did IBM pay you for that blatant advertising?
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?
Good spokesman for Google.
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.
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?
thanks for explaining absolutely nothing about this “change”… yet again.
second !
first !