Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo

Google Reminds Me Of The Irs


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
87 replies to this topic

#46 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 05:07 PM

I think we need to get out of the business of turning people in and Google penalizing people. This is not healthy and creates too much uncertainty for small businesses to build a business model around.

The only ones that can are big businesses, they can afford to set up other sites to offset. Paste www.o.co in your address bar and see where it goes. That's what they did while they were being penalized.

It used to be that Google was the great field leveling tool of the 21st Century -- the little guy could compete. Not anymore, small businesses are going to get squeezed out and it seems these current penalties are part of that process.

It started with the Vince update when Big Business Brands jumped up in the rankings for no other reason than they are big. Eric Schmidt said, "Brands are the solution, not the problem...brands are how you sort out the cesspool."

#47 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,012 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 05:51 PM

so does low quality = low PR?


No. As you've seen. It just means they use schemes to link one crap network to a bunch of other crap networks. And they work for awhile to provide link juice to the dopes that pay to be in them, but eventually Google nukes them and they have to create more.

#48 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 06:50 PM

We need to eliminate -- low quality = low pr

Get off the link standard.

What do we replace them with?

Engagement metrics will favor big business and limit privacy.

So what, then?

How do we determine relevance without links?

#49 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,112 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 28 April 2012 - 04:37 AM

How do we determine relevance without links?

Relevance to what?

Relavence is about context, relavence is about meanings, relavence is for real people not search engines.

If I may quote myself here.

Relevant is what people make it and how people see it, it is a purely subjective view. To a gardener, fertiliser and gloves are relevant, to a pet lover dog and lead are relevant, to a plumber, lead and copper are relevant, does that mean dog and copper are in some way connected? After all, according to the spelling it is the same word.

http://webmaster-talk.eu/en/articles/7-website-marketing-and-search/25-reciprocal-linking-good-or-bad

#50 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,012 posts

Posted 28 April 2012 - 10:43 AM

How do we determine relevance without links?


You don't. That's already been proven. Google won't and shouldnt give up using links as a strong signal.

#51 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 28 April 2012 - 10:32 PM

I think you're right. How would Google's crawlers get around. They rely, to some degree, on the website owners to create a path to what's important. Discouraging links wouldn't help that.

And, all you have to do is go look at the review sites to see that reviews can, will and are gamed so I don't see Google relying on that.

The best source of info is actual engagement, but less and less people are going to want to let Google on their sites so it will be nearly impossible to collect that data.

So we come full circle back to square one -- if Google doesn't like a particular type of link, they should turn down the link juice and people will stop all by themselves -- self deport, if you will.

Then you'll be happy and so will I.

Sure seems easy when you put it like that, doesn't it.

Google???

Edited by ChuckFinley, 28 April 2012 - 10:34 PM.


#52 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,012 posts

Posted 29 April 2012 - 09:27 AM

So we come full circle back to square one -- if Google doesn't like a particular type of link, they should turn down the link juice and people will stop all by themselves -- self deport, if you will


What do you think they've just done?

#53 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,112 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 29 April 2012 - 10:32 AM

So we come full circle back to square one -- if Google doesn't like a particular type of link, they should turn down the link juice and people will stop all by themselves -- self deport, if you will.


What do you think they've just done?


And what they do FAIRLY OFTEN, many of the "my Google traffic/rankings/income stopped suddenly" panic attacks are caused by the links that are pointing to just the one page (the "Home" page) of a website being 'devalued', and as those links are probably the ONLY links that the myopic site owner/operator ever 'built', the WHOLE site disappears at once.

Edited by chrishirst, 29 April 2012 - 10:32 AM.


#54 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:21 AM

What do you think they've just done?


Then why the penalty? Just becuase they enjoy inflicting pain?

#55 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,012 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 08:38 AM

It's not a penalty. The links just don't count anymore so you lose all that fake link juice, etc.

#56 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:01 PM

It's not a penalty. The links just don't count anymore so you lose all that fake link juice, etc.


I'm confused. Why the "unnatural links notices" and the reports of people losing rankings. Why not just devalue the links and leave people alone, they're busy creating traffic that will click on Google's PPC ads so Google can post profits 60% above last year....

Just crank blog network links down to ZERO and get to work on things that help people.

#57 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,012 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 09:12 PM

Why the "unnatural links notices" and the reports of people losing rankings.


Rankings lost because the links don't count anymore. The notice is to let you know and also so they can learn about new splog networks that you're dumb enough to divulge to them.

#58 1dmf

1dmf

    Keep Asking, Keep Questioning, Keep Learning

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,167 posts
  • Location:Worthing - England

Posted 01 May 2012 - 04:43 AM

The notice is to let you know and also so they can learn about new splog networks that you're dumb enough to divulge to them.


Do you not agree with reporting these valueless sites selling and passing on PR just for link juice sake?

I guess encouraging penalised people to divulge these splog networks to G! as though it will help with their situation isn't ethical?

#59 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 33,012 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 06:38 AM

I agree they should be reported, but I don't use them. If I did I certainly wouldn't be sqealing on myself.

#60 clandestino

clandestino

    HR 3

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 84 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 09:01 PM

Rankings lost because the links don't count anymore. The notice is to let you know and also so they can learn about new splog networks.


I wouldn't report myself, don't have to. I wouldn't put up links like that. Have the peasants no panache?!!!

I hope you're right, but I'm not as confident as you are. The jury's still out. May I direct your attention to a document that you previously included in one of your blog posts, thereby confirming your support for it's validity -- http://www.branded3....link-algorithm/

However, I am most encouraged by your statements as they confirm your distaste for these most grievous and self absorbed actions undertaken by said Search Giant commonly known as -- Google, albeit, your distaste springs from different concerns.

However, I agree that said Search Giant is likely dishonest enough to undertake a scam of an order of magnitude such as this simply becuase they can and they would like to reap the benefits of their misused power.

Not likely, in this case, that it's not real, that is -- too many reports of people receiving the penalty and being given sample links with instructions that the penalty will be lifted when all offending links are removed.

What do you think, should we roll the dice on a client's branded site and hope that there really isn't any penalty?

Edited by ChuckFinley, 01 May 2012 - 09:03 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!