I’ve read many times over that Google’s using a filter to help screen out results for certain search terms. GoogleGuy, Google’s PR representative at WebMasterWorld, all but denies the existence of filters. Because of the continued filtering questions and adamant denials I decided to enlist some help from professionals and find out what a filter is, why Google receives filtering accusations, and what the implications of a filter would be.
Do you think Google’s using a filter that may adjust their results pages on-the-fly?
A cautionary word – this report is based entirely on analysis by individuals who don’t work for Google. They are all intelligent and certain of their observations, but this remains speculation. That said, let’s dig in.
What is a filter? The most lucid filter description came from Daniel Brandt, of Google-Watch.com. In his words a filter is “an algorithm that is applied post-facto, on-the-fly, to results produced by prior ranking algorithms, such that certain results produced by the main prior algorithms can be deleted or suppressed (a crude filter) or rearranged (a sophisticated filter) before they are sent to the searcher.”
Carl Rajkowski, a prolific poster and SE watcher from the SEOChat forum (and employee of iExplore.com) said, “a filter by nature would follow a strict set of “rules” solely based on stop words and not gauge a page by it’s content or outside importance/relevancy/theme, similar to a spam filter.”
Does the filter exist? Here’s where expert opinion splits.
Andy Beal said, “I don’t believe that Google is using a filter at this stage.”
Dan Thies agrees. “The only public statements we have from Google indicate that there’s no secret filter, right? So, let’s consider the two possibilities: 1. They’re lying. There is a secret keyword filter. 2. They’re not lying. There is no secret keyword filter.
“My bet is on #2.”
Daniel Brandt, however, says that “I call this a ‘filter’ because it looks like a filter, walks like a filter, and quacks like a filter.”
Vaughn Aubuchon, who declined to comment for this report, created the “Florida Update Dictionary Filter Chart,” which gives a visual representation of what he thinks may be happening. Brandt referred me to this chart.
So why did the filtering accusations arise? Rajkowski put it plainly: “it seems to me that Google has implemented a quality check but for a lack of a better term it’s been dubbed as a ‘filter.’ The main object of the ‘filter’ was not to filter out sites at all but to simply make sure a site was relevant. Google wanted to know if you were telling the truth that your site was really about what your backlinks and content said you were about.”
Beal put it a little differently: “what often happens is that certain keywords are more aggressively promoted by SEO’s than others. The impact of an algorithm therefore appears to be exaggerated too. But no filters!!!”
Thies explained it this way: “What some people see as a filter, I see as Google attempting to understand the type of information represented by a page, and the type of information that’s appropriate for a given query. It’s not going to be as unsophisticated as ‘commercial’ or ‘non commercial.’ Google’s changes aren’t driven by SEO; they’re about Google’s users.”
Brandt put it like this: “once your search terms are found in the dictionary (this is an oversimplification, but will do for now), then the pages returned by the search are analyzed for their ‘over-optimization’ on those terms. The use of the terms in the title, in headlines, in links (domain, path and filename) and in anchor text attract extra attention.”
Notice that there are four different explanations for a similar phenomenon – the seeming adjustment of Google’s algorithm for certain search terms.
Filter or not, what should webmasters do? Brandt wrote in his article that, “a small number of webmasters have claimed improvements after tweaking their pages to avoid the filter. They rarely want to say exactly what they’ve done, but it can be assumed that certain two-word terms that seemed toxic were broken up, or synonyms used, or variations introduced by using stemmed forms of those words.”
Brandt’s suggestion doesn’t prove the filter’s existence necessarily, but if you’re still not ranking well, even after the Brandy update, be sure to try and rearrange your keywords on your pages or adjust your use of words if possible.
Rajkowski, who optimizes iExplore.com, said “I SEO a website that is SEOd from the neck down. Every possible SEO trick and tip has been implemented into the design. I’m SEOd but I was never “filtered” during Florida or Austin because my backlinks justify my relevancy.”
His best advice then is for webmasters to get relevant links and not worry about filters.
Be sure to read the complete text of my conversations with Brandt, Rajkowski, and Thies in the forums. They are lengthy, but give a much deeper understanding of the intricacies of filtering and may better reveal any biases that may be affecting each individual analysis.
Garrett French is the editor of Murdok’s eBusiness channel. You can talk to him directly at WebProWorld, the eBusiness Community Forum.
