Discussion in 'SEO Search Engine Optimisation' started by Oceanic, Jan 21, 2014.
Not exactly unpredictable.
In my opinion, they should cut all the value of external links and work on a system where the actual quality and content of the site directly impacts the ranking rather than how many links and other external things control ranking. Perhaps also put a value on what you link to to add value to your visitor. That would make the Internet and searches far more useful for the man in the street.
It's getting to the point - and will do eventually - where off-site optimisation (i.e. where most seo companies focus their activities because it's easier/profitable) is phased out totally.
At that point we'll really be in the era of brands. In some ways that's not bad idea. It will be a melding of real-world and online marketing.
For this niche though it's a kick in the teeth. At it's best it can create some dynamic and interesting sites amalgamating the thoughts of leading advocates of a niche. At best, as MC infers its just another spammy link farm.
Still a useful thing to have on your site. Just nofollow everything. The better writers will understand that. A link is still a link and a way to get to their site especially if they are essentially promoting a service or product.
If Matt Cutts said it, it must be true!
Whilst a perfectly sensible thing to state, to read the comment "That’s a clear violation of Google’s quality guidelines" annoys the 'f...' out of me. God Google so dominates the search market, its actions are pervasive and worryingly the default interpretation of being the right way. I personally hate the way it has internet users actions more and more sewn up through its own eyes only. It does a thorough job of painting the SEO sector in a bad light, and at the same time its taking out some of the last remaining methods by which we the people are able to get around its control. This video to me is just a lecture, and if you watch it more that once, it's clear it is still talking about blogging in a way which is not so easy to define in black & white.
And yet again Matt Cutts is saying he isn't telling webmasters what to do with their sites, and...
"But you can always do whatever you like on your website, in the same way that Google is able to decide not to return a website in our search results if we believe it should rank lower or shouldn’t be returned."
Thats all very well, but when you control 93% of the UK search market and consequently a huge proportion of online business in the UK, its called a monopoly.
Google just doesn't seem to realise that small businesses don't have time to take a course in wizardry and magic spells in order to get results on Google. Most SB owners have the time to check orders and maintain products on their site and thats it.
Who the hell tried to get a guest post with do follow links on MC's blog?!
Every time MC releases one of these videos it just reinforces to me that the Google algorithm ain't that clever, and they yet again need less outside forces working against them to return sensible results - the fear factor works in getting the market to play their game with them.
I am not sure you can call Google a monopoly, they have a several hundred sites in total I guess. There are billions of sites on the web, they just happen to offer the best sites and that is why people use them and for free in the large part.
It's like going to your local public library and complaining about the wallpaper, the information (books) is free, but there are other sources too. Nobody is forced to use Google.
Or, if you liken it to a popular high street, the shop fronts that get the most footfall are the ones that pay the most rent.
I sympathise with small businesses, I really do but unless you offer something really special or unique you are, in most cases going to have to pay for that footfall either on the high street or on the web.
Guest blogging has become the new article marketing, just under a different name.
Lets be clear though, Google doesn't want you manipulating search results at all, they do want you to "build links" in any shape or form
Because of the above, what Matt said is no surprise
Anything you do that is an obvious attempt to manipulate the search results will have a negative affect.
Don't be obvious.
You would think so wouldnt you?
Anything obvious eventually* should of included eventually.
One more nail in google's coffin. Glad to see them self-destruct.
Agreed. Think outside the box.
I can't see how google can possibly tell what is truly 'meaningful/accurate' content, and what is not (within reason).
I'm going to discuss this on my Flog in detail later
WoW! Just after MC announces guest posting is dead... This guy's article http://nenadseo.com/new-seo/ (linked in above) was pretty damning to Exp...
It's exactly this type of outcome which everyone should worry about where Google is concerned. SEO exploits are one thing, but for Google to have a disproportionate influence on the value of a business, and the power to shave tens of $millions of a company's market value in an arbitrary action, is plain wrong. It might be seen as self inflicted, but there will come a point where Google will be shaping markets which goes way beyond simple ad manipulation!
They will do some cleaning up and be back.
Big brands get in trouble with google all the time to varying degrees & it's not always reported.
I remember the DailyMirror & DailyRecord websites were showing as PR3 last year for a short time (probably for selling links)
Both back to PR7 and PR6 respectively now.
Should people be building businesses that are reliant on Google? NO.
If you go to many large firms, they will have strict internal guidance on the % breakdown on their suppliers and customers. You would be stupid to run a business with one customer or one supplier and the same applies for your marketing. The thing is the harder you try to optimise the more likely you are to fail, to me that is a good thing Google has put in place. Now it seems genuine businesses to do things right will start to benefit over the spammers and low quality SEOs of which there are many.
Separate names with a comma.