Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Matt Cutts On Big Daddy: Major Message To Seos
Posted 17 May 2006 - 03:37 AM
Posted 17 May 2006 - 04:03 AM
When I read that, here's what I get:
Now who links to you CAN hurt you.
Actually, I think that is sort of a smokescreen. Maybe they are looking more at who links to you, but the concrete examples Matt provided focused on the outbound links, not on the inbound links.
I think who you link to is by far the most important factor in determining whether your pages are trustworthy.
And taking this back to NOFOLLOW, if you have a lot of NOFOLLOW links on your page, does that make it more trustworthy or less so? After all, you're linking to a lot of sites you obviously don't trust.
I'm not worried about Google bowling. Thousands, if not millions, of scraper sites have linked to Xenite and I haven't lost any rankings. Google is aware of that concern and I don't think they'll be easily led down that path.
The new SEO motto should be Think Before You Link.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 04:08 AM
When you do nothing and you lose almost all indexed pages - it is penalty.
A penalty is a situation where you have to ask Google to forgive you. In this situation, people need to rethink their linking strategies. Running around to all the free directories and article submission sites and press release sites probably won't work any longer.
Matt is walking a fine line here because he has revealed a ton of information. In essence, he is saying, "Get more sites that discuss your content to link to you but don't just swap links blindly."
He gave a tremendous hint with the blog posts. He doesn't want you to go out and reciprocate links with your competitors. He wants you to create content that will get people who just naturally link out to good content to link to you.
Blogging is, for now, the heart of new content development. Anyone can blog. It's easier to set up a blog than to design a custom Web page.
What Matt is saying -- what I have been telling people for years -- is that you want to get links from the NON-business Web sites that don't worry about whether you're making money.
If you sell felt hats, someone out there is blogging about felt hats. You want links from their sites. Whether your felt hat industry links to you is not as important as whether the people who love and buy felt hats link to you.
That is at the heart of what Matt is telling people.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 04:14 AM
I don't think so. I believe that Big Daddy is just crawling out from a smaller set of trusted domains (somewhat like in Yahoo!'s TrustRank strategy, but I believe the scope is larger). You need to get some more links from frequently crawled sites.
Frequency of crawling is an indication of trust. I can tell you that my network's two main sites, Xenite.Org and SF-FANDOM, are being hammered by the crawlers. I've blocked them off once again from my forums, but I can only afford to do that temporarily.
While that is a good thing in terms of showing that I have trusted domains, I think it's a bad thing in that Google appears now to be like Yahoo!. They are both coming back to refetch the same content over and over again.
Google is trying to minimize that with its cache pool, but the cache pool is slowing down the process for less frequently crawled sites.
My feeling is that as Webmasters continue to complain about this process Google will make some changes. But the only advice I can offer those of you who don't have trusted domains is to scream often and scream loudly (but scream nicely).
You will be heard.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 05:22 AM
It is just another step towards a more social networking based search engine.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:28 AM
While I don't have any directories, I'll note the comment that:
... so we can forget the advice that PageRank doesn't matter.
Well, I am thankful that I've been urging clients to write good articles (or good blog posts) for their sites for some years now.
As an aside, I've always marvelled when I read that someone has created tens of thousands (or millions) of pages on any site, right up until I realized that they're likely using software to create gibberish pages (same stuff we get in spam email, a "writing model" that blogspam seems to have copied lately) — and so, in the long run, those pages are worth precisely zero. On the other hand, I've never understood why anyone would invest time into generating worthless pages, and then do it again and again ad infinitum (endlessly). Because, in the end, what have they built? What fantastic, long-lasting, valuable property has their time and effort created for them? What thing do they look at with some amount of pride and say, "yeah, I built that".
But, of course, I'm singing to the choir here.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:36 AM
Yep, ole MC is really undermining everything we say here lately.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:40 AM
Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:43 AM
Not necessarily Diane. There's a niggling point, but an important one.
The displayed PageRank --the one we can see in the toolbar-- still doesn't matter. Never has in the grand scheme of things. It is well known to be extremely flakey, give ghost PR to pages that shouldn't have any, etc, etc.
The real PageRank always has and probably always will count. That's the PR that only Matt and other Googlites can see, and what they refer to when they talk about PageRank.
The displayed PR and the real PR are measurements that rarely meet in the dark of the night. So you still cannot trust the one we can see.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:49 AM
Not so sure about that. I personally would rather have them just shut up than post propaganda that we know isn't true. And that's basically all we get from search engines these days, so to me, it's not very useful at all.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:52 AM
My thought is that, the fact that they don't mention something *today* is no cause to throw it out in our thinking until proven invalid.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:54 AM
You're right, of course. I'm sure that official FUD and misinformation is not helpful when you're trying to teach people. Especially if it's mixed in with true stuff.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:57 AM
People just need to remember that when the Source has data that we'll never see, we need make our judgements when reading between the lines based upon this knowledge or lack thereof. JMO, but it's much like what we lowly webmasters have to do when creating a site and writing content for a market that is obviously different from who/what we are.
If I wrote the copy on my sites so that it appealed to people on my technical level 99% wouldn't get it and my sales would suck! I don't do this. Obviously.
Look at it another way. Maybe he's not doing it on purpose. Maybe Matt just needs to buy Nitty Gritty and Karon's Copywriting Course to learn how to write for his audience.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 07:58 AM
That is some of the most bland stuff ever written!
- If your links in look dodgy, you can suffer.
- If your links out look didgy, you can suffer.
Um, that's about it! Really, everything said makes sense,a nd seems fair and reasonable to me. Why do sits have footer links to every site in the world? Why do sites that are on a topic insist on having all sorts of non-related content?
I think that post pretty much just confirms what this place always said: build a good site, get relevant links, keep on choogling.
Posted 17 May 2006 - 08:05 AM
I personally think it's great and a long time coming.
Not sure I believe they're actually doing it, but that's another story!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users