Google Myths

[BoJon]

Find some myths online:

"Myth #1: Google Knows All and Sees All
Myth #2: Google Will Not Rank Duplicate Content
Myth #3: You Must Get Links From Related Subject Sites to Rank
Myth #4: To Maintain Good Rankings, You Must Add New Content... And Much More!"

OK, nice to know

[faceblogger]

Some of these myths are true to some extent!

[alcymart]

Can I turn Myth #2 into a question?

From the info I gathered, if lets say I put up a new domain and copy/paste the content from the original domain to my new domain, the new domain will be ignored by bots and get a static rank. Priority is given to the original domain. Isn't that a penalty?

Bernard

[webhostingrvw]

agreed with other posters. # 2 is not a myth.

[thebitbotdotcom]

Let's think about #2 logically.

I posted an article on my blog and waited for it to get indexed.

After the article had time to soak and Google was well aware of the fact that I was the originating site for "that" article.

I then syndicated it to EZA. Within a weeks time, the EZA copy outranked my original in organic search results.

Obviously, it knew that the EZA copy was a duplicate, but it still ranked the block on EZA higher.

Why? Because at the time, EZA had higher trust rank than my site for that block of text.

So Google will rank duplicate content if it is on a site that has higher trust rank and Google Webmasters even states this.

Why do you think the "Article Assassination" technique exists?

[scott g]

Originally Posted by BoJon

Find some myths online:

Myth #1: Google Knows All and Sees All
Myth #2: Google Will Not Rank Duplicate Content
Myth #3: You Must Get Links From Related Subject Sites to Rank
Myth #4: To Maintain Good Rankings, You Must Add New Content

Myth #5: Google Will "Sandbox" Your Site If Backlinks Are Built Too Quickly
Myth #6: Google Only Pay Attention To DOFOLLOW Backlinks

[Chris Sorrell]

Originally Posted by scott g

Myth #5: Google Will "Sandbox" Your Site If Backlinks Are Built Too Quickly
Myth #6: Google Only Pay Attention To DOFOLLOW Backlinks

Agreed. Two of the biggest ones right there.

[dp40oz]

#7 - Matt Cutts tells the truth in his interviews and Q&A's, he's not just telling the webmasters exactly what Google wants them to think.

[dburk]

Hi BoJon,

I tend to agree, somewhat with the folks that have a problem with myth# 2.

With the precise wording you used for myth #2 it makes you technically correct in a specific context, however somewhat misleading and absolutely incorrect in another context.

For example if you changed a single word "will" to "may" then it couldn't be classified as a myth. If you changed the word "will" with "will always", then yes, that would be a myth. If you changed the word "will" with "sometimes will" then again it is not a myth.

By using ambiguously phrased wording you may have unintentionally created controversy where there need not be any. Using similar ambiguity you could call many things a myth and be both right and wrong depending on the context presumed by the reader.

[scott g]

Originally Posted by BoJon

Find some myths online:

"Myth #1: Google Knows All and Sees All
Myth #2: Google Will Not Rank Duplicate Content
Myth #3: You Must Get Links From Related Subject Sites to Rank
Myth #4: To Maintain Good Rankings, You Must Add New Content... And Much More!"

OK, nice to know

What website did you cite this from?

[alcymart]

Originally Posted by scott g

What website did you cite this from?

I think he may have gotten it from here: A look at the myth behind duplicate content and Google's SERPS | AlexWhalley. Build | Rank | Profit

At least from the duplicate content Myth issue is concerned...and I got my understanding from there on Myth #2

Bernard

[jhonsean]

Myth #1 Google is not perfect sometimes it may miss on some content and maybe duplicated.

[slashman]

Whoa awesome post!

About duplicate content. I think after the Panda/Farmer update, syndication sites like business insider and huff post have been outranking original news sites.

Matt Cutts does not lie. He is actually a very honest person IMO. His #1 priority is to make sure that the holes in Google's algorithm is never figured out by evil geniuses. The problem is that there are always holes and that there are always people who jump through those holes. White hat webmasters always complain to Matt that their are people conducting unethical SEO practices in their niche, but there is sometimes very little Google can do about the problem. Sometimes closing a loophole will reduce the quality of search too much for a greater percentage of key phrases. The info he offers is exactly what Google wants webmasters to do. If everyone listened ed, Google would be a perfect search engine... or as close to perfect as possible.

I hope that made sense.

Thanks,

George

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by scott g

Myth #5: Google Will "Sandbox" Your Site If Backlinks Are Built Too Quickly
Myth #6: Google Only Pay Attention To DOFOLLOW Backlinks

I'll prove to you #5 is no myth

[scott g]

Originally Posted by Mike Grant

I'll prove to you #5 is no myth

With the insane amount of backlinks I've built for brand new sites... I think I've pretty well personally debunked the myth... For myself of course...

If you want to blast a million blog comments through Xrumer in a day then be my guest... But that is just stupidity and I don't think a person that stupid will know how to use Xrumer...

CHEERS!

P.s. We're talking about search engines here... There is a science behind them that we'll never know therefore consider it an art... Some people suck at it and some people are good at it. DONE!

[Mike Grant]

Originally Posted by scott g

With the insane amount of backlinks I've built for brand new sites... I think I've pretty well personally debunked the myth... For myself of course...

If you want to blast a million blog comments through Xrumer in a day then be my guest... But that is just stupidity and I don't think a person that stupid will know how to use Xrumer...

CHEERS!

P.s. We're talking about search engines here... There is a science behind them that we'll never know therefore consider it an art... Some people suck at it and some people are good at it. DONE!

I'll be happy to blast a million and then ping them all, also

[gingerlyspicy]

duplicate content is surely a myth imo....i have seen big big sites copying each and eevry article from newspapers just indicating source at the end of the post.but they arent penalised for that coz they are authoirty sites but since mine is a very new one so i usually modify those ..

another myth i think is a duplicate content within own domain and duplicate titles...i have seen titles ranking top 2-3 although they folow such practices..although i have less info abt seo and still trying to learn but thats a bit of observation i have made

[NastyBlast]

it's pretty refreshing to find people that know what really matters... and are bold enough to post it.

On other forums if you were to post these things... there would be endless arguments from people that are selling you services for building on those factors. they would call you a liar... and a fraud... a noob... and everything else in between because it would hurt their tiny little business for suckers.

they debate factual Internet history to the point of absurdity. but I guess that's why those forms don't have much traffic.

[scott g]

Originally Posted by NastyBlast

it's pretty refreshing to find people that know what really matters... and are bold enough to post it.

On other forums if you were to post these things... there would be endless arguments from people that are selling you services for building on those factors. they would call you a liar... and a fraud... a noob... and everything else in between because it would hurt their tiny little business for suckers.

they debate factual Internet history to the point of absurdity. but I guess that's why those forms don't have much traffic.

Luckily there's still plenty of knowledgeable/experienced SEO/SEM/IM/Web Developers on the Warrior Forums that call BULLSH*T when they see it (or smell it)! If for some reason you do smell it, it might not be bullsh*t...! WIPE! LOL!

It's pretty obvious to me when someone is trying to argue an inexperienced point...

CHEERS!