Time to dump the keyword rich domains?

[Clinton]

According to a recent Matt Cutts video they're next going to target keyword rich domains which, IMO anyway, get an unfairly high ranking in Google even if they have worthless content.

Now if you are still on the fence, let me just give you a bit of color. that we have looked at the rankings and the weights that we give to keyword domains, & some people have complained that we are giving a little too much weight for keywords in domains. So we have been thinking about at adjusting that mix a bit and sort of turning the knob down within the algorithm

Coverage by seobook and Barry Schwartz.

Time to sell EMDs? They've had a good run, haven't they?

[akirk]

But as you remind us Clinton - Google is not all...
And keyword rich domains do also make sense for the punter who might just type it in / for whom it is easier to remember...

Alasdair

[ScottJ]

They have indeed, it seems every now and again their weight gets turned down a bit but it's not going away altogether so they will still have some value and the top end names obviously have other benefits like memorability, radio test etc etc - I think it may put paid to a lot of the 2,3,4 word EMD, like any site though it's only ever been a part of the overall recipe.

[Clinton]

But as you remind us Clinton - Google is not all...
And keyword rich domains do also make sense for the punter who might just type it in / for whom it is easier to remember...

Alasdair

Doesn't it still devalue a domain if it loses SEO advantages and is reliant entirely on type in traffic.

Even that type in traffic is now controlled by SEs to a large extent. Type "experienced people" in the Firefox address bar and it'll take you to the site in my signature, not these forums. Google's in bed with FF just as Live powers IE.

[Andy]

Doesn't seem funny that Matt sorta admits big G can manipulate results rather easily?

I never put that much stock in keyword rich domains. It certainly is one factor and if I depended on just that factor for my livelihood, maybe I'd have something to worry about. Then again, in that situation, I'd have a lot more to worry about... like removing some bones from my head.

Andy

[crabfoot]

I've got a couple of typo domains (weghtloss, com and net) that I bought when in my cups.

"Oh bugger" I thought when sober, "another two useful for silly links", and stuck them to one side. I've done nothing with them, but they are picking up a little traffic, and I'm convinced that it has something to do with this new Google "fuzzy logic" on the search thingy.

Perhaps there are cross purposes inside the Googly works?

[JJMcClure]

A few of things come to mind on this issue, the first is that for them to be talking down keyword domains it implies that they made a difference in the first place but I can't see that being true except for non-competitive phrases. I'm not going to outrank Wiki for an even vaguely competitive search just because I have the keyword phrase in the URL. They're talking it down IMO because they want people to stop trying to spam URLs, it's just another little battle in the ongoing war against spam.

Secondly, I'm not at all surprised that they're emphasising brand, this has been the way they've been going ever since Eric Schmidt made that comment about branding being the way to sort out the cess pit of the internet.

Lastly, funny isn't it how MC suddenly becomes the voice of truth when people happen to agree with him....

[akirk]

They talk very vaguely - turning down the algo slightly - no-one really knows what that means so I would guess that they are tweaking slightly - the problem with a lot of the analysis on Google SEO algos is that people look at individual factors forgetting that it is the compound effect which is important...

I have phrases which outrank Wikipedia / ebay / Amazon - none of which are on keyword rich domains...
I also have a domain where the domain name (two words) has it ranking no 3 in google before I had even put any content into it!!!

So, I don't take them hugely seriously for Google - but I do think that they are very valuable for the end punter - they are so much easier to remember!

Alasdair

[crabfoot]

They talk very vaguely - turning down the algo slightly - no-one really knows what that means so I would guess that they are tweaking slightly -
Alasdair

I didn't put my ideas forward clearly enough above -

I think they are using the same fuzzy logic that is going into their assisted search feature when they assess keyword domain names, so as to de-emphasise the "exact match category killer" domains and allow other sites to rank on their content merits.

There's also the consideration that links in for sites with "exact match" names have been harder for the Google algo to discount, simply because they are an exact keyword match. If they feed back fuzzy logic data into that part of the algo, they have a way of dealing with that part of the decision.

That's how I see things - getting fuzzier.

[eppie]

I actually just wrote about this topic on Wednesday noting how it would impact the domain industry (http://www.flipwebsites.com/domains/...main-industry/). The value of the vast majority of domains is tied directly to their search benefit. If you strip that away, a huge chunk of their value is gone. That's bad news for people holding huge EMD names. The guys with super premium EMDs will be unaffected but 3-word + names are going to be in bad shape.

As an EMD owner, I'm not enthused about the change. As a person who uses Google to search for stuff, I am. Tons of garbage ranks because of the EMD bonus. If Google's serious about making their SERPs better, they'll definitely decrease the value of an exact match.