Almost a decade ago the Google patent makes reference to a few ways that they identify spammy or generated pages. These are a few of the warning signs that Google may weigh in when determining if you have been writing for people or for search engines.
The text of the document whether it appears to be normal English (or other language), generated by a computer, such as containing a large number of keywords and not containing any sentences.
The most recent updates (Panda update) in 2011 suggest google may be redoubling efforts on templated, auto-generated or overly interlinked pages.
Using this to determine the custom content and human interaction spent on a website seems logical to me they would use this to also determine the natural usage of the words included here as well.
So if I add a paragraph to my footer for the sole purpose of SEO and keyword stuffing in a discreet location in my design I may want to make sure th text flows naturally. Now this is a “wild guess” but logic is a huge part of smart SEO, and knowing that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.
A paragraph of all keywords has no place in the internet of usable content, so makes sense that no matter what the method Google uses one of them will come to this same logical conclusion. Like me writing Miami SEO here for no reason.
Google isn’t splitting atoms (until they figure out how to sell adspace on a quark), they are just finding a mathmatical way to do what our eyes already do. They are just a giant website evaluation macro. When I read a paragraph stuffed with keywords, my brain says yuck, thats just for SEO.
When Google reads that paragraph, there is hudreds of patents and formulas to come to that same “yuck” conclusion. You have that same algorythm in your brain, its called logic and common sense.
Now apply that logic to some other basic forms of spam and manipulation google looks for below. You will find the formula in your brain can spot these as well.
Google has spent 20 years trying to see things like we see things and spot what we can spot, and at the same time we’ve been walking around wondering what google sees and trying to see things like it does.
This may be why some of the best ranking pages dont look like they were trying hard at all. (assuming they didn’t make any silly glaring mistakes as well)
Meta tags — whether the page has meta tags, and if so whether those contain a large number of repeated keywords.
Redirects — whether there are scripts in the document that redirects a user to another document upon when they access that page.
Similarly colored text and background — whether there is a large amount of text in the document that is the same color as the background of the document.
A large number of random links — whether the document contains a large number of unrelated links, though what “unrelated” might mean isn’t defined here.
History of the document — whether the text of the document, the link structure of the document, or the ownership of the website on which the document appears has changed recently.
Anchor text — whether a lot of links appear on the page, and there is very little or no text that is not anchor text.