Google aren't stupid (which is why they don't like EZA)

Kierkegaard · 02-26-2011, 07:56 PM

I've used most of the more well known article directories (and some less well known ones as well) and I can say right now that I get more traffic from EZA than the others.

However, this doesn't mean Google 'loves' EZA

All along Google have said that they don't want anyone trying to manipulate their results page. Google have cracked down on methods in the past, such as keyword stuffing, hidden text, nonsense with keywords dotted around in it, etc. Then link farms and other linking stategies. What they want is sites linking naturally to each other (which is a genuine form of 'recommendation' or 'vote' or whatever you want to call it).

Everyone on here knows that EZA is full to the brim with crap. Some of it is even correctly spelled, grammatically correct crap but it is still crap. Generic, barely relevent information, all to get a link to your website at the bottom. I know some people find it difficult to get their articles approved by EZA but really they will accept any old rubbish that doesn't have spelling mistakes, and isn't obviously spam.

If I know this. And you know this. Then Google knows this

If Google doesn't want its results pages filled with spam then why would it favour sites linked to by EZA? The answer is, it wouldn't and doesn't.

A second point. When authority sites, like the BBC for example, do link to one of my sites, I used to get annoyed that they never did it with 'keyword anchor text'. Now I realise that 'genuine' links, ones done purely as a recommendation very, very, rarely use keywords in the text.

If I've noticed this, then Google has noticed this. Surely it is not beyond Google's abilities to recognise that Site A has a page about (for example) dog baskets and links to a page on Site B about dog baskets and that the hypertext link simply uses the domain name of Site B or text such as "this site" (as in 'check out this site'). If Google wants unmanipulated results then, at the moment, this is the type of link it should favour.

The thing to do now is work at writing high quality, well researched and useful articles - one's that 1000s of people actually want to read. Then to get this articles published on high quality authority websites. Not spam-dumps like EZA.

P.S.

EZA knows this which is why the are desperately trying to clean themselves up. They're binning as much crap as they can and turning to no-follow links.

O0o0O · 02-26-2011, 08:00 PM

Big G still likes natural linking as you've said. That's a main part of their algorithm. If you want good results in the SERPS, then keep a diverse linking strategy.

gsrx750 · 02-27-2011, 04:35 AM

I don't beleive this to be true.
In fact, Google operates entirely using an automatic algorithm, and it doesn't tune itself per site.

02-26-2011, 07:56 PM	#1
Kierkegaard HyperActive Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 472 Thanks: 36 Thanked 200 Times in 112 Posts	Google aren't stupid (which is why they don't like EZA) I've used most of the more well known article directories (and some less well known ones as well) and I can say right now that I get more traffic from EZA than the others. However, this doesn't mean Google 'loves' EZA All along Google have said that they don't want anyone trying to manipulate their results page. Google have cracked down on methods in the past, such as keyword stuffing, hidden text, nonsense with keywords dotted around in it, etc. Then link farms and other linking stategies. What they want is sites linking naturally to each other (which is a genuine form of 'recommendation' or 'vote' or whatever you want to call it). Everyone on here knows that EZA is full to the brim with crap. Some of it is even correctly spelled, grammatically correct crap but it is still crap. Generic, barely relevent information, all to get a link to your website at the bottom. I know some people find it difficult to get their articles approved by EZA but really they will accept any old rubbish that doesn't have spelling mistakes, and isn't obviously spam. If I know this. And you know this. Then Google knows this If Google doesn't want its results pages filled with spam then why would it favour sites linked to by EZA? The answer is, it wouldn't and doesn't. A second point. When authority sites, like the BBC for example, do link to one of my sites, I used to get annoyed that they never did it with 'keyword anchor text'. Now I realise that 'genuine' links, ones done purely as a recommendation very, very, rarely use keywords in the text. If I've noticed this, then Google has noticed this. Surely it is not beyond Google's abilities to recognise that Site A has a page about (for example) dog baskets and links to a page on Site B about dog baskets and that the hypertext link simply uses the domain name of Site B or text such as "this site" (as in 'check out this site'). If Google wants unmanipulated results then, at the moment, this is the type of link it should favour. The thing to do now is work at writing high quality, well researched and useful articles - one's that 1000s of people actually want to read. Then to get this articles published on high quality authority websites. Not spam-dumps like EZA. P.S. EZA knows this which is why the are desperately trying to clean themselves up. They're binning as much crap as they can and turning to no-follow links.
	CONTENT IS KING. Magazine quality content to go straight onto your website or blog! PM for details...

02-26-2011, 08:00 PM	#2
O0o0O Expert Warrior War Room Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,217 Thanks: 245 Thanked 198 Times in 158 Posts	Re: Google aren't stupid (which is why they don't like EZA) Big G still likes natural linking as you've said. That's a main part of their algorithm. If you want good results in the SERPS, then keep a diverse linking strategy.

02-27-2011, 04:35 AM	#3
gsrx750 SEO incarnation Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: Google aren't stupid (which is why they don't like EZA) I don't beleive this to be true. In fact, Google operates entirely using an automatic algorithm, and it doesn't tune itself per site.