27 replies to this topic

[SelfMade]

You won't like this.

 

But, I actually don't have solid cast iron proof.

 

So I agree, I probably should have worded it differently.

 

But, I read it.

 

I read it browsing the web, there were comments raging by all these SEO experts and in a nutshell, they were all saying what amounted to: "Matt cutts has said backlinks are irrelevant".

[chrishirst]

Above quote, No, I don't understand what you mean?

I was  musing on that IF you do everything Matt suggests not to do, then the chances of your URLs being shown to Google searchers will be diminished by several orders of magnitude.

 

Assuming of course that the URLs would actually remain indexed by Google.

[stoneman]

as with anything in SEO, there is no actual proof that anything works or not, it is all causation theories or case studies backed up by data.  Google as well as other search engines does not give spec sheets on which type of links "work" and which do not.  In fact, Google recommends not building links at all!

 

What do you think a link from this site would get you:

 

usa.gov?

 

It's one of the last PR10 sites left 

 

It has always been my opinion that a mix of edu and gov links will help diversify any link portfolio, thereby normalizing it to what a natural link portfolio shoud be.

 

There are thousands of xxx.xxx.edu links out there that aren't worth a damn, its all about the amount of authority the page on the domain and the domain itself has, and passes onto your site.

[chrishirst]

What do you think a link from this site would get you:



usa.gov?

Nothing at all probably.
 
 

Google recommends not building links at all!
 

Actually they don't recommend that, Google say don't build links for PR or rankings, but DO get links that will send real traffic to your URLs.
 

[Jill]

 

 

I read it browsing the web, there were comments raging by all these SEO experts and in a nutshell, they were all saying what amounted to: "Matt cutts has said backlinks are irrelevant".

 

 

 

Anyone who thought Matt said that is clearly an idiot. 

[SelfMade]

Nothing at all probably.
 
 

You sound pretty sure about that.

 

I don't doubt your expertise, but what are you basing that on?...

 

 

 

 

Anyone who thought Matt said that is clearly an idiot. 

 

 

Yeah I'd probably agree with that.

 

But one of the guys arguing, seemed to know something.

 

Now I wish I bookmarked it, but one of the guys, I don't know, seemed to know a lot. Not sure if he was an ex google guy or what, but it was a right royal row, it was liked on the facebook button I remember about 100K times.

[Jill]

 

 

But one of the guys arguing, seemed to know something.

 

 

 

I highly doubt that. You're reading at the wrong places.

[torka]

It's like the woman says in the State Farm insurance company commercial running here in the USA right now: "They can't post anything on the Internet that isn't true." And she knows this because she read it on the Internet.

 

--Torka

[qwerty]

Remember a few months ago, when Matt Cutts said that he'd personally noticed that a lot of SEOs were overdoing it with infographics? He said that he thought too many of them were poorly designed, not offering interesting information, and seemed to be designed just to generate lots of quick links using their alt attributes to rank for keywords, and that he wouldn't be surprised if Google did something to make such practices stop working.

 

Remember how the SEO community interpreted that? A lot of us read it to mean that infographics were all viewed as spam, they'd never work again, and we should all stop using them immediately.

 

A shrink would view this as "catastrophizing."

[chrishirst]

 

 

Nothing at all probably.

 

 

You sound pretty sure about that.

I don't doubt your expertise, but what are you basing that on?...

I am, let's say for example that I have a website that  sells welding supplies, is ANYBODY going to a goverment website 'home' page to find welding supplies??

 

I'd rather have a link on Adobe's flash plugin download URL because my URLs will at least have a chance of getting a conversion from a random visitor to there than the visitors to the "Government Gateway".

[SelfMade]

I am, let's say for example that I have a website that  sells welding supplies, is ANYBODY going to a goverment website 'home' page to find welding supplies??

 

I'd rather have a link on Adobe's flash plugin download URL because my URLs will at least have a chance of getting a conversion from a random visitor to there than the visitors to the "Government Gateway".

That's not the same as saying backlinks from those sites are worthless.

 

All your saying is the links are irrelevant.

 

"Irrelevant" and "worthless" are two different words with two different meanings.

 

Your assuming that because they are irrelevant that means they are worthless.

 

You can't KNOW they are worthless, your logic is just telling you that. It's an opinion and a myth in other words.

Edited by SelfMade, 10 January 2013 - 02:17 PM.

[chrishirst]

So how are you going to measure "worth"??

 

Sure, they "might" help with ranking but how can you prove that? And what use is a rankings "boost" for the couple of words that MIGHT be in the anchor text for ONE SINGLE URL of a site???

 

 

There are FAR too many intangibles and unknowns to make it worth considering.

[SelfMade]

So really all your saying is that I win.

Edited by SelfMade, 11 January 2013 - 07:58 AM.