Post by amirmukaddas on Mar 11, 2024 6:02:06 GMT
Today we're talking about copywriting, or rather SEO copywriting, provided it exists, of course. In particular we will focus on spelling errors to understand if and how much they impact Google's evaluations of relevance. SEO and Spelling Let's start by saying something important : overall, a generous text, a few poorly written words have never had a huge impact on the probability that a piece of content would position itself well among the organic results. The context of meaning cannot be undermined by a typo here or there. However, it is interesting to note that until a few years ago, Google left a "gap" in understanding where it found the spelling error and this entailed the risk of losing the meaning of the entire sentence. Today Google evolves in such a way (and continuously) as to avoid leaving that hole, therefore in the context of phrasal semantics, the single misspelled term is replaced by the search engine with what is most likely the correct term, in order to return value to the single sentence. So what? The first consideration is that there is no longer a need to worry about typos like a few years ago, but this does not mean it is a good thing to publish articles full of typos.
In short, let it not be an excuse to avoid rereading the text. This is not a good thing because users are the judges of a content that Google offers them, therefore the relevance that Google initially sees in a text must have the approval of the public, otherwise the content will be downgraded until it is no longer visible among the search engine results. “endorsement” means dwell time, bounce Denmark Telegram Number Data rate, shares, backlinks, mentions and any other signal Google can capture with its own, far from limited, means. Punctuation, the real enemy The big problem in the algorithmic understanding of phrasal semantics – which in any case does not concern the overall context of the entire text – is not in spelling errors, but in punctuation errors. A comma more or less, a period put in passing or not put at all can completely change the meaning of the sentence. At this point, having spelling errors or not may be irrelevant, because if the individual periods are not well connected to each other, the meaning will still be subject to interpretation... and as we know, Google associates, not interprets.
Understanding on an associative basis is often such as to confuse us, because sometimes Google really seems to be able to understand what we mean as if it were interpreting a phantom "sub text", an unsaid thing magically intuited by the grace and virtue of the Holy Spirit. It is not so. It seems like it, but it's not like that. Rather, Google no longer limits itself to associating single terms with others to create the context of meaning, but takes the next step: it associates entire expressions, including the idioms it has assimilated and uses them to capture a value that goes beyond beyond the simple denotative function. Google tries to "characterize" content and give it meaning beyond the individual terms that compose it. It does this because it's what people do, so it's the natural evolution for software that needs to understand what's behind a search. And it makes perfect sense.
In short, let it not be an excuse to avoid rereading the text. This is not a good thing because users are the judges of a content that Google offers them, therefore the relevance that Google initially sees in a text must have the approval of the public, otherwise the content will be downgraded until it is no longer visible among the search engine results. “endorsement” means dwell time, bounce Denmark Telegram Number Data rate, shares, backlinks, mentions and any other signal Google can capture with its own, far from limited, means. Punctuation, the real enemy The big problem in the algorithmic understanding of phrasal semantics – which in any case does not concern the overall context of the entire text – is not in spelling errors, but in punctuation errors. A comma more or less, a period put in passing or not put at all can completely change the meaning of the sentence. At this point, having spelling errors or not may be irrelevant, because if the individual periods are not well connected to each other, the meaning will still be subject to interpretation... and as we know, Google associates, not interprets.
Understanding on an associative basis is often such as to confuse us, because sometimes Google really seems to be able to understand what we mean as if it were interpreting a phantom "sub text", an unsaid thing magically intuited by the grace and virtue of the Holy Spirit. It is not so. It seems like it, but it's not like that. Rather, Google no longer limits itself to associating single terms with others to create the context of meaning, but takes the next step: it associates entire expressions, including the idioms it has assimilated and uses them to capture a value that goes beyond beyond the simple denotative function. Google tries to "characterize" content and give it meaning beyond the individual terms that compose it. It does this because it's what people do, so it's the natural evolution for software that needs to understand what's behind a search. And it makes perfect sense.