25 replies to this topic

[torka]

Just ran across this while searching SitePoint for another article:

How to Beat Google's Brandy Update

Abstract: The best techniques to use are: to increase your use of synonyms, rather than focusing strictly on your desired key phrases; to set yourself up as an "authority site" by including strategic outbound links to related sites; to beef up inbound links using a combination of link buying and a strong "link to us" page; to consider setting up a network of "mini-sites" (but be sure you know the risks involved). Additionally, the author is of the opinion that the impact of traditional "tag based" optimization techniques has been downgraded; this is one of the five major changes he thinks have taken place over the past several months at Google.

Interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with the mini-sites suggestion, but he does point out that there are risks in the strategy and advises the reader to consider them carefully before starting down that path. And, it may be that the tactic works, which, technically, is what the article's about -- not what we should do, but what will work under the current set of conditions.

Discuss amongst yourselves...

--Torka

[bwelford]

Yes, OK. ... but will that work with the new Y!

[Jill]

First of all, what's "Brandy"?

Second of all, why would anyone want to set out to "beat" Google?

I'm sure if I actually read the article, I'll have more comments.

Jill

[bwelford]

Brandy came after Austin.

It was the very last monthly Google update this year since G is now saying:
"People should expect to see daily or near-daily updates this coming year as we continually update our index data..."

[braveheartdesign]

Second of all, why would anyone want to set out to "beat" Google?

I agree with Jill..In the past I have tried to keep up with all the latest changes and to "beat" this engine or that one. What I ended up doing was driving myself and my clients crazy.

Instead I find now that if I focus on creating a clean, easy to use web site with good copywriting and graphics, that the ROI for client increases and the search engine rankings stay about the same.

[Jill]

Brandy came after Austin.

Oh, you mean, Jason? (Which came after Gladys.)

[torka]

Actually, I think the article's title was a bit sensationalistic, just to grab some attention.

Most of what the author advocates appears to me to be just good old fashioned proper SEO (with the possible exception of the "mini site" bit). Well, with a few twists to accomodate the refinements that many of the major SEs seem to be working toward, not just Google...

The part I found interesting was that he was advocating getting away from the formulaic, "H1, TITLE, META, anchor text, keyword density" model and more toward mixing up your text with synonyms... semantic web sort of stuff, as I read it.

And advocating adding outbound links. How often do you hear that in an SEO "how to" article?

His worst sin, of course, is using the "wrong" terminology for the updates...

--Torka

[Jill]

His worst sin, of course, is using the "wrong" terminology for the updates...

LOL...hang him!

[rohgan03]

I'll love to hear what the experts here have to say about the outbound link strategy. I had previous bought up this concern for my site where I had some non-related outbound links on a links page purely for increasing PR. Do you think this can possibly do harm now and should be removed even though I paid almost $3-10 per link?

[Jill]

Outbound links on your site don't increase your PR. Only inbound links do.

[torka]

Exactly.

The reason the article author says you should get outbound links -- and then only tightly relevant ones to good quality sites -- is so your site may be interpreted as an "authority site". Sort of like being a directory, without actually being a directory. I think.

I'm not entirely sure it would be a successful strategy for SEO, but I do think that outbound links that are of use to the site visitor (ie. tightly-relevant ones to good quality sites ) is A Good Thing (TM-Martha Stewart) anyway.

--Torka

[glengara]

Topicality is the new Black, and can be determined as readily from OBLs as from IBLs.

[rohgan03]

Sorry Jill, was meaning to write that the only reason I have them is that they are reciprocol links for increasing PR. I m unsure if they are actually causing harm now.

[Scottie]

I doubt they are causing harm, but they may not count for much. UNLESS they are considered "bad neighborhoods" (spammy) and you could be penalized for linking to them.

If they are completely irrelevant to your site, you are better off without them.

[rohgan03]

So OBL to unrelevant sites does not confuse engine about topicality? Sorry, I am really confused here.