PRWeb Discusses Panda Impact
Press release distribution services BusinessWire and PRNewswire were both cited as losers in search visibility by the hands of Google’s Panda Update, by data released by Searchmetrics throughout the year. However, PRWeb, another service in this category, appears to have done fairly well.
PRWeb put up a blog post discussing the impact the Panda Update has had its traffic. Here’s the graph they provide, indicating that traffic has gone up over the course of time since Panda was first announced.
The company says:
The methodology that Google uses to algorithmically determine whether a site is “low-value” or not, is a matter of some debate however Google has been forthcoming in explaining that it involved their “standard evaluation system,” where they “send out documents to outside testers,” review the feedback and then determine how to algorithmically simulate the experience of quality evaluation.
The key in all of this is to remember that Panda is really about editorial quality. For years, PRWeb has employed a refined set set of editorial guidelines, informed largely by standards set by established media institutions (e.g. the Associated Press), which are clearly considered to be “high quality.” Our editorial guidelines, which have been the source of some debate in the past, are one of the main reasons we have been able to maintain certain standards for our content while enhancing the authority of PRWeb.com in search and expanding our distribution network.
It should be further noted that in addition to our editorial guidelines, we are also constantly iterating our site and the manner in which we syndicate content to ensure ongoing compliance with the evolving standards that Google and other search engines maintain. This combination of editorial oversight and technological iteration has helped us significantly increase our traffic in the “year of the Panda” while some notable high volume content sites have been hurt.
I guess the question is: what has PRWeb done right that the others haven’t. Any takers?