[SEO] All-in-One Myth Busting Thread

[IM Ash]

Guys,

I figured there are a load of bad SEO techniques been spouted around the forum and even sold to the unsuspecting. These techniques can destroy a business so I thought it will be prudent for SEOers here to each contribute at least one method that will be considered poor SEO practice (on-page and off-page).

Read through the thread before posting your method to avoid repetition. There are enough bad practices to go around so you shouldn't have a problem outlining one of them.

I'll start:

NB: this thread has become a collective contribution by members of the forum who are SEO focused

OFF-PAGE SEO

#1.1
MORE LINKS = HIGHER RANKINGS

This is not so much of a technique but more of a mindset where people are led to believe the more links they get to their site will equate to more "votes" which will result in higher rankings. This is untrue.

The more links been offered by a supplier only equates to a reduction in the quality of links which means the links themselves are high risk and of low quality. Links are not created equal. Quality always trumps quantity!

A quality link is a contextual/editorial type link on a page that is relevent which has PageRank or will increase in PageRank. The uniqueness of the content and the domain authority also carries a weightage. (check domain authority here: Open Site Explorer).

Page Authority (PA) is also important but only if the link is going to remain on the page that has a good PA score.

If the root domain has PR and the site has good internal linking and slow posting frequency then chances of a new post increasing in PR are high.

posted by me

#1.2
FORUM PROFILE LINKS

"Stay away from anyone pimping forum profiles, gov, & edu links. That eliminates most of the junk link sellers."

posted by Yukon, post no. 2

#1.3
PUBLIC BLOG NETWORKS

If you come across a seller offering you a large number of links on a blog network that accepts spun content - STAY AWAY. These type of networks leave a clear footprint and Google will find out about it which means you run the risk of getting penalized by using such links.

posted by me

#1.4
NATURAL BACKLINK PROFILE

1.4.1) "Adding crap links like profiles, article submission blasts, etc., makes your site link profile look more "natural", so that's a great thing!" (this is a myth)

1.4.2) "Add to that - you must have 20% or 15% or 10% no-follow links to look natural.

I don't know how my authority sites are still ranking with 99.99% of backlinks all passing full link juice - can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?"

Posted by remodeler and jxam respectively, post no. 15 and 17

#1.5
SPUN CONTENT

1.5.1) Another myth: "Readable spun content is just as good as unique written content" or in other words MashedUP content sucks, it increased my deindex rate of my tier 2 network hugely.

1.5.2) Unique content eats spun content and works best ALL the time!

Posted by nik0 and me respectively, post no. 18

#1.6
LINK VELOCITY

Here is another myth that is widely believed even by SEO's... Link velocity and link consistency.

Building links too fast does not harm your site. Building shitty links harms your site.

Also, there is nothing more unnatural than a site getting a consistent 20-30 links a day or whatever other amount of links you come up with. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a site getting link spikes. Happens all the time. That's what happens when a piece of content goes viral.

Posted by MikeFriedman, post no. 46

#1.7
YOU DON'T NEED BACKLINKS

Myth, you don't need backlinks

I get tired of hearing this, if you really want good rankings, you need to get some version of backlinks. In some niches most people won't link to you naturally. In fact pretty much every high ranking site in my niche definitely builds backlinks to their own site.

Backlinking is just part of the game.

posted by Slin, post no. 86

#1.8
BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME

(this is kinda of a continuation from the previous contribution by Slin)

The premise of just building a site well and it will take-off is flawed. The philosophy is a myth.

I see many many sites in the various niches that I am in that are built well with awesome site design and content. These sites deserve to rank high but they don't. There needs to be some sort of initial promotion to get the ball rolling and for people to notice these type of sites.

Perhaps one will not need SEO but rather some sort of social media marketing (SMM) to get these type of sites noticed by people and the search engines.

This is Google's philosophy btw... create compelling content and the links will follow but links can't be built to great content if no one is actually seeing it.

posted by me, post no. 89

#1.9
SOCIAL LINKS

1.9.1)Social signal myth is absolutely nonsense! I personally didnt see any benefit of social signals on SEO campaigns.

1.9.2) I just want to add that I too did not see much value from social links. I did see some positive SERP movement from retweets but even that has lost its punch. Although social links do not carry much of a weightage at this point in time I still believe it is important to have these type of links for diversity and possible future value.

Posted by Hossain and me respectively, post no. 90

#1.10
PAID LINKS

1.10.1) Paid Backlink: Google hate paid backlink. But i saw Paid directory word very nice in SEO. Why Yahoo directory charge huge amount of money for directory submission for a year. Yahoo directory submission work super in SEO.

1.10.2) Just to add to the above: buying links is against Google's guidelines and they hate anyone who buy links to manipulate pagerank but the truth is that it is very difficult for them to detect a paid link. A paid link on a relevent page with PR will do wonders for your rankings but staying under the radar by choosing how you acquire these links is essential.

The Yahoo directory above is an extreme case of a paid link that Google knows about but does not penalize.

posted by arshadul, post no. 102
_______________________
_______________________

ON-PAGE SEO

#2.1
KEYWORD DENSITY

2.1.1) Many people talk about a certain keyword density that will help with on-page optimization and rankings. You will hear some say 1%, others 2% and I have even heard people talk about 5% keyword density.

This is all BS and ancient SEO. There is no perfect keyword density! Over doing this may actually hurt your rankings.

What is important is having your KW in your title tag and LSI type keywords in your content (this increases relevence). Many times the LSI KWs in the content will appear naturally if one is writing naturally.

2.2.2) SEOpressor is a myth!

Or in ohter words, maintaing a certain kw density, putting your keywords with underline, bold tags, place them in h2, h3, h4 is a big myth, as it can easily lead to a Panda penalty.

Posted by me and nik0 respectively, post no. 20

#2.2
CLOAKED LINKS

Myth: Not cloaking your affiliate links is showing to Google that you run an affiliate site.

That's really the biggest nonsense myth ever, like Google bot doesn't know where it ends up on when it crawls that link. In fact it raises a red flag. Matt Cuts even admitted that but people remain stubborn and cloak all the way.

posted by nik0, post no. 93

#2.3
DUPLICATE CONTENT PENALTIES

2.3.1) My apology if Duplicate Content myth is already covered! If not then I think this myth should be added on OP as lots of newbies still believe google will punish their sites if there are any duplicate content.

There is no duplicate content penalty at all! As a webmaster you have enough right to publish same article/graphics/videos on multiple pages of your site. Google will index duplicate pages. May be sometime duplicate pages will be preserved in supplementary index but that doesnt mean Google impose penalty on the pages.

posted by Hossain, post no. 98
_______________________
_______________________

GENERAL SEO

#3.1
WEBMASTER TOOLS/ANALYTICS/ADSENSE

Here is a giant freaking myth. Putting Webmaster Tools or AdSense on your account somehow gives Google added information that they didn't have before about your link building activities and they will punish your site faster/harder/easier if you are using WMT or AdSense and using anything less than high quality links.

Posted by Mike Friedman, post no. 9

#3.2
COPYSCAPE PASSED ARTICLES/CONTENT

3.2.1) "here's a quirk i hate, if it passes copyscape then it's good unique content - well it might be unique, but any basic spinner can get past copyscape, heck a bit of magic ansi manipulation can get past copyscape, when did copyscape become the the standard for good content? it shouldn't be. copyscape is junk used by article spinning ppl to pass off their work as legitimate."

3.2.2) "Oh and here is another one. If something passes Copyscape, it is original.

Sorry, but Copyscape does not have anywhere near the resources to crawl and index the internet as Google, or most other search engines for that matter.

On top of that, Copyscape is in no way associated with Google, so what they see as "original" does not mean that Google has the same view on the same content."

Posted by Lanx and Mike Friedman respectively, post no. 11 and 12

#3.3
PAGERANK

Many believe certain on-page factors such as uniqueness of content and consistently adding new content will help a site's pagerank. This is untrue!

PR of a page or root domain is determined by the PR of the backlinks to the page or root. If there are high PR links pointing to your domain expect the domain to increase in PR.

posted by me

#3.4
DROPPED DOMAINS

Myth: Google resets the link value when a domain gets dropped!

Question by me:
Do people actually believe this? I did not know about this myth...

Answer by Nik0:
Yeah if you Google on the subject you see it mentioned more often then not.

The idea to esarch about it started when I saw that the dropped domains from my broker were a lot cheaper then the expired ones. Then I started to read a lot of stories that Google would reset the PR of those or reset the old links but I was like wth I'm just going to try it and they seem to work just as good as expired ones. I also asked the broker what he thought and he only said: People don't like dropped ones (and obvious they are also cheaper to achieve for him, not sure what method he uses but it's not Hayden's). Anyway a domain is as good as the back link profile it has, whether it's expired or dropped.

posted by nik0, post no. 85


#3.5
SEO IS DEAD


3.5.1) Oops I think you guys missed the biggest myth flooding after each and almost every google updates! After every algo update some headless chickens star running screaminng SEO IS DEAD! I personally believe White Hat SEO cant be dead as SEO is not all about manipulation. Google was, is and will be continuing devaluation of spammy links, websites, methods etc. but that doesnt mean sooner or letter SEO gonna be found on history books! In fact there are tons of legitimate white hat methods are still available.

Posted by Hossain, post no. 88

#3.6
COMPETITION ANALYSIS

3.6.1) One big myth that i remember rite now is that google keyword tool can tell you about the competition of a particular keyword. i've seen a lot of people say "this keyword is easy to rank coz google keyword tool shows its low competition".

3.6.2) Even bigger myth is that the number of competing pages shown in google can determine the level of competition. Utter nonsense!!!

posted by Ben Acharyaa, post no. 92

#3.7
AGED DOMAINS


3.7.1) New domains are difficult to rank so start with old aged domains. I saw this types of garbage opinions from so called gurus on SEO forums. Domain age has very little impact on SEO campaigns. I ranked just 1 month old domains which outranked even 10 years old domains. When it comes in SEO perspective authority comes first.

3.7.2) Just to add to the above: it is not the age of the domain that matters but the trust and the authoirty that was built to the domain via the backlinks and PR it has gained over time that makes the aged domain valuable. An aged domain with no backlinks is pretty much as good as any new domain.

posted by Hossain and me, post no. 100

[yukon]

Stay away from anyone pimping forum profiles, gov, & edu links. That eliminates most of the junk link sellers.

I seriously doubt anyone will read this thread & take any advice because the junk links are so low in cost. They buy the junk link blast because of the low cost, $%#@ up their search rankings, then come here to the free forum & ask for free help on where it all went wrong.

I'm in the mood today to tell them all to go %$#@ up their sites & be done with it.

[yukon]

One thing I don't understand about Warrior Forum is, WF doesn't like spammers but they allow people to sell forum profile link blast in WSOs.

Counterproductive.

[IM Ash]

Originally Posted by yukon

I seriously doubt anyone will read this thread & take any advice because the junk links are so low in cost.

You probably right... but worth the effort! I guess if one person learns about the bad SEO practices out there then the thread has served its purpose!

With you on the forum links... utter garbage!

[jazbo]

Focus on things like scrapebox and xrumer. Smash your main site with as many links as you can. Forget good writing and people visiting your site, just hammer it until it bleeds links.

[KevL]

Originally Posted by jazbo

Focus on things like scrapebox and xrumer. Smash your main site with as many links as you can. Forget good writing and people visiting your site, just hammer it until it bleeds links.

You have any idea how many people do not get that you're joking??

[nik0]

Originally Posted by jazbo

Focus on things like scrapebox and xrumer. Smash your main site with as many links as you can. Forget good writing and people visiting your site, just hammer it until it bleeds links.

Exactly cause the worse the quality of your site the higher the CTR

Money, money, money!

[IM Ash]

This thread turned out to be an epic fail! It is only the SEOers on this forum who can make it into something worthwhile but I can see no one is interested in helping the newbs stay clear from bad practice. This forum is clearly for people who just want to drop their sigs. in as many places as possible.

[MikeFriedman]

Here is a giant freaking myth. Putting Webmaster Tools or AdSense on your account somehow gives Google added information that they didn't have before about your link building activities and they will punish your site faster/harder/easier if you are using WMT or AdSense and using anything less than high quality links.

This one is routinely told by low quality link builders (because they are morons), and has never made any sense to me. So you want Google to know about your links so they rank you better, but you want to hide some kind of magic link data that WMT gives to them?

[nik0]

Originally Posted by IM Ash

This thread turned out to be an epic fail! It is only the SEOers on this forum who can make it into something worthwhile but I can see no one is interested in helping the newbs stay clear from bad practice. This forum is clearly for people who just want to drop their sigs. in as many places as possible.

I try to teach the noobs every day, do they listen?

[Lanx]

here's a quirk i hate
if it passes copyscape then it's good unique content - well it might be unique, but any basic spinner can get past copyscape, heck a bit of magic ansi manipulation can get past copyscape, when did copyscape become the the standard for good content? it shouldn't be. copyscape is junk used by article spinning ppl to pass off their work as legitimate.

[MikeFriedman]

Oh and here is another one. If something passes Copyscape, it is original.

Sorry, but Copyscape does not have anywhere near the resources to crawl and index the internet as Google, or most other search engines for that matter.

On top of that, Copyscape is in no way associated with Google, so what they see as "original" does not mean that Google has the same view on the same content.

[MikeFriedman]

Lanx and I must have been on the same brainwave there.

[jxam69]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Here is a giant freaking myth. Putting Webmaster Tools or AdSense on your account somehow gives Google added information that they didn't have before about your link building activities and they will punish your site faster/harder/easier if you are using WMT or AdSense and using anything less than high quality links.

This one is routinely told by low quality link builders (because they are morons), and has never made any sense to me. So you want Google to know about your links so they rank you better, but you want to hide some kind of magic link data that WMT gives to them?

One of my favorites is when people delete their WMT account because they're rankings dropped

[remodeler]

Adding crap links like profiles, article submission blasts, etc., makes your site link profile look more "natural", so that's a great thing!

[legoog8]

really forum link profiles are just pages just like all the other internet pages.

Its what is one the pages that matters.

Forum profiles that are basically repeated:

name:james
job:I dont have one
where you live:the moon
intrests:music
blahblahblahblah

But if you have a extensive page then with more content then they can actually be good. Some forum profiles let you actually post comments and posts.

[jxam69]

Originally Posted by remodeler

Adding crap links like profiles, article submission blasts, etc., makes your site link profile look more "natural", so that's a great thing!

Add to that - you must have 20% or 15% or 10% no-follow links to look natural.

I don't know how my authority sites are still ranking with 99.99% of backlinks all passing full link juice - can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?

[nik0]

Originally Posted by remodeler

Adding crap links like profiles, article submission blasts, etc., makes your site link profile look more "natural", so that's a great thing!

Good one.

Another myth: "Readable spun content is just as good as unique written content" or in ohter words MashedUP content sucks, it increased my deindex rate of my tier 2 network hugely. 10% in the last month.

[Lanx]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Lanx and I must have been on the same brainwave there.

i live in lancaster, so our seo minds are only 30miles away!

[nik0]

SEOpressor is a myth!

Or in ohter words, maintaing a certain kw density, putting your keywords with underline, bold tags, place them in h2, h3, h4 is a big myth, as it can easily lead to a Panda penalty.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by Lanx

i live in lancaster, so our seo minds are only 30miles away!

Lol. What are the chances?

We could have an SEO War of the Roses...

[jxam69]

I've just had a brilliant idea for a unique TV show - I call it "SEO Mythbusters" (well, it passed copyscape )

[gearmonkey]

Originally Posted by nik0

SEOpressor is a myth!

Or in ohter words, maintaing a certain kw density, putting your keywords with underline, bold tags, place them in h2, h3, h4 is a big myth, as it can easily lead to a Panda penalty.

I have not tested this myself, but I believe this is true. I don't understand how a content formula can be good. I bought an SEOpresser article before (paid too much), and it did no good for me. Nothing better than a natural article that is written for real readers.

[jxam69]

I nearly forgot - all those people who keep telling me to use no-follow internally to sculpt PageRank.

[remodeler]

Originally Posted by nik0

Good one.

Another myth: "Readable spun content is just as good as unique written content" or in ohter words MashedUP content sucks, it increased my deindex rate of my tier 2 network hugely. 10% in the last month.

Julia is not going to like this thread...

[FakeItTilYouMakeIt]

I still see references on here every day to the "sandbox". Not only using it the the original erroneous way but using it to mean anything from a google penalty to a banned site. We need new euphemisms people. I propose "spank tank" as in: My crappy links and content got me sent to the Google spank tank. Slightly more accurate and lots more entertaining

[jfambrini]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Here is a giant freaking myth. Putting Webmaster Tools or AdSense on your account somehow gives Google added information that they didn't have before about your link building activities and they will punish your site faster/harder/easier if you are using WMT or AdSense and using anything less than high quality links.

This one is routinely told by low quality link builders (because they are morons), and has never made any sense to me. So you want Google to know about your links so they rank you better, but you want to hide some kind of magic link data that WMT gives to them?

Actually one of the moderators of a very big SEO forum had told me to stay away from Webmaster Tools and Google Analytics and he had site this very reason to shun them. So this myth is widely shared among even some SEO experts.

[heavysm]

Originally Posted by nik0

SEOpressor is a myth!

Originally Posted by jxam69

Add to that - you must have 20% or 15% or 10% no-follow links to look natural.

Lol and yes to both.

I really believe that seopressor made strong use of newbie panic when they first get into SEO. "What major on-page things do i need on my site?" and so they go with an automated option that happens to be pushed at them from affiliate links in X number of WSO's.

[Lanx]

i said it elsewhere, onsite seo is silly, it's a checklist:
h1/h2/h3 check
bold something check
alt img text check
link to wikipedia check

or whatever else weird myths are told about onsite seo, it's not onsite seo, it's a footprint, normal ppl don't do this!

[IM Ash]

Great contributions everyone... I will be adding them to the OP (with credit) later today/tonight!

[legoog8]

I dont have webmasters installed not because im trying to hide my backlink builders but because if you have multiple website on one webmasters account then its like just exposing your network and ..maybe just maybe sneaky google might ignore atleast the links to one of your websites pointing to your other website on webmasters. Also its to much hassle setting up webmaster accounts per website probably google would link ips...who knows.

Thats my reasoning for not using webmasters or what ever (im not a adsense user so i dont know about adsense and multiple websites with that)

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by legoog8

I dont have webmasters installed not because im trying to hide my backlink builders but because if you have multiple website on one webmasters account then its like just exposing your network and ..maybe just maybe sneaky google might ignore atleast the links to one of your websites pointing to your other website on webmasters. Also its to much hassle setting up webmaster accounts per website probably google would link ips...who knows.

Thats my reasoning for not using webmasters or what ever (im not a adsense user so i dont know about adsense and multiple websites with that)

Trying to limit exposure of a network is something completely different and a totally valid reason to avoid WMT and Analytics.

For a network site, there really is no benefit to using WMT. For your main site though, there really is no reason not to use it.

[yukon]

Originally Posted by Lanx

i said it elsewhere, onsite seo is silly, it's a checklist:
h1/h2/h3 check
bold something check
alt img text check
link to wikipedia check

or whatever else weird myths are told about onsite seo, it's not onsite seo, it's a footprint, normal ppl don't do this!

So your saying build a $hitty site than rely 100% on external links?

[Lanx]

who says a site without h tags are shitty?, have you ever truely seen a h1 tag? it's ugly! it's so in your face. use formatting to give the user readability, tabs, list, of course paragraphs...
don't just tags because they are there,

who in their normal right minds uses
h1
h2
h3

those were there as a choice, not as a checklist, you're not supposed to use h1/h2/h3 in descending order to talk about your topic, what kind of relevance is that?
what does h1/h2/h3 even mean? it means heading a page heading, you're only supposed to have one heading, do you have three heads?

this "supposed" onsite seo checklist is all it is, "supposed" and a checklist, and a checklist easily leads to a footprint.

does every post have to link to wikipedia or some "supposed" authority site? does that even make sense? i have a store, i have a best buy, am i going to send my customers to the apple store to check out all the mac crap to loose a sale? if it had a purpose yea, say i cared about my customers and said "we don't have it in stock, but you can go here to just buy it, since you need it" but just to throw the apple store link out there cuz they're authority, does that give me anything?

not use onsite seo, does not create a shitty site, h1/h2/h3 tags and bolding a keyword doesn't make a site less shitty now does it?

[IM Ash]

Originally Posted by FakeItTilYouMakeIt

I still see references on here every day to the "sandbox". Not only using it the the original erroneous way but using it to mean anything from a google penalty to a banned site. We need new euphemisms people. I propose "spank tank" as in: My crappy links and content got me sent to the Google spank tank. Slightly more accurate and lots more entertaining

Please clear this up for me so I can add it to the OP! My understanding of what has become known as the sandbox is when a new site is blasted with links and then it gets relegated to the back of the SERPs and cannot move from that spot for a while.

What exactly is the myth here?

There is even a Wiki article on it: Sandbox effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Lanx]

just cuz there's a wiki doesn't mean anything, besides all wiki info on anything seo is outdated by 2 years and just guesstimates.

[IM Ash]

I am leaving the SandBox theory out because it is highly debateable!

[FakeItTilYouMakeIt]

Ok I'll give it a go, I'm sure the vets can chime in too. The "sandbox" theory was toyed with in like 2009. The theory went something like this: I launch my new totally awesome site and very quickly I see it ranking high for my keywords. I pat myself on the back "good job on the optimization" then suddenly my site drops like a rock.

Time frames for the drop ranged from a few weeks to a few months. The theory was that Google put new sites into a a sort of holding pattern until they could mature. Basically penalizing new sites. There was no consensus as to what made some sites go through the sandbox effect and other sites were unaffected. This holding period or test period theory was eventually discredited in favor of common sense and research.

The new working theory is that Google rewards fresh content (which a new site should have by definition) and can reward a site with a temporary boost in the serps. Afterwards the site drops to it's rightful "earned" spot in the serps.

Here on WF the term sandbox has been used to describe all kinds of things from a google ban to a penalty to just getting beat fair and square by the competition. I think sometimes it's easier to blame a drop on a mysterious Google conspiracy theory than to take a hard look at our links and our sites. HTH

Originally Posted by IM Ash

Please clear this up for me so I can add it to the OP! My understanding of what has become known as the sandbox is when a new site is blasted with links and then it gets relegated to the back of the SERPs and cannot move from that spot for a while.

What exactly is the myth here?

There is even a Wiki article on it: Sandbox effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[FakeItTilYouMakeIt]

Originally Posted by Lanx

who says a site without h tags are shitty?, have you ever truely seen a h1 tag? it's ugly! it's so in your face. use formatting to give the user readability, tabs, list, of course paragraphs...
don't just tags because they are there,

who in their normal right minds uses
h1
h2
h3

I do. h1 doesn't have to be ugly have you tried scaling it down with css?

h1 gets a lot of weight in comparison to other text on the page. Why wouldn't you want your keywords there? Good SEO and good site aesthetics don't have to be mutually exclusive and when combined they are a powerhouse that pleases both humans and bots. HTH

[IM Ash]

Originally Posted by FakeItTilYouMakeIt

Ok I'll give it a go, I'm sure the vets can chime in too. The "sandbox" theory was toyed with in like 2009. The theory went something like this: I launch my new totally awesome site and very quickly I see it ranking high for my keywords. I pat myself on the back "good job on the optimization" then suddenly my site drops like a rock.

Time frames for the drop ranged from a few weeks to a few months. The theory was that Google put new sites into a a sort of holding pattern until they could mature. Basically penalizing new sites. There was no consensus as to what made some sites go through the sandbox effect and other sites were unaffected. This holding period or test period theory was eventually discredited in favor of common sense and research.

The new working theory is that Google rewards fresh content (which a new site should have by definition) and can reward a site with a temporary boost in the serps. Afterwards the site drops to it's rightful "earned" spot in the serps.

Here on WF the term sandbox has been used to describe all kinds of things from a google ban to a penalty to just getting beat fair and square by the competition. I think sometimes it's easier to blame a drop on a mysterious Google conspiracy theory than to take a hard look at our links and our sites. HTH

Thanks man! My theory is different form yours and I am sure there are a ton of other theories about it.

I think it is best to leave this one out of the OP since even us SEOers have different thoughts on it. Don't take it personally

[Slin]

Myth? Take my word for it.

Don't trust people, go out and run some tests! That's how I always have gained SEO knowledge, read, research, and test.

[SamanthaB]

Originally Posted by yukon

One thing I don't understand about Warrior Forum is, WF doesn't like spammers but they allow people to sell forum profile link blast in WSOs.

Counterproductive.

I don`t sell and don`t even buy spammy links, but I do believe that if someone offers a legit service and actually gives what people are paying for.. then I don`t get why he shouldn`t be allowed to sell

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by yukon

One thing I don't understand about Warrior Forum is, WF doesn't like spammers but they allow people to sell forum profile link blast in WSOs.

Counterproductive.

There's one person here who they should ban, straight up. Nothing but
junk threads, junk spam, then touting some gawd-awful WSO.

Makes my stomach turn. See, people like Yukon (and a really a TON)
of others here, actually WANT people to succeed. Sometimes we just
hold our collective noses.

I can't say I agree with everything the OP says, but SEO myth busting
is a passion of mine here. Stopping the junk peddlers.
But, alas. They always seem to win more followers like
the Pied Piper leading rat's down a sewer hole.

Ever wonder why there are so many fail threads here? Why? There
is no reason to wonder.

I can't fault the WF too much. They want to make as much money as
humanly possible. I do wish there would be quite a few big, in
your face disclaimers.

But then, any fool who buys a WSO, and does not glean and read this
forum first, is a fool. And a fool and his money are soon parted.

Paul

[seoed]

ok, instead of making jokes on some bad practices how about telling people
then how to do it correctly?

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by seoed

ok, instead of making jokes on some bad practices how about telling people
then how to do it correctly?

The thread is not about doing SEO. It is about highlighting many of the myths that are out there in SEO.

[MikeFriedman]

Here is another myth that is widely believed even by SEO's... Link velocity and link consistency.

Building links too fast does not harm your site. Building shitty links harms your site.

Also, there is nothing more unnatural than a site getting a consistent 20-30 links a day or whatever other amount of links you come up with. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a site getting link spikes. Happens all the time. That's what happens when a piece of content goes viral.

[IM Ash]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Here is another myth that is widely believed even by SEO's... Link velocity and link consistency.

Building links too fast does not harm your site. Building shitty links harms your site.

Also, there is nothing more unnatural than a site getting a consistent 20-30 links a day or whatever other amount of links you come up with. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a site getting link spikes. Happens all the time. That's what happens when a piece of content goes viral.

Haha... I was just about to add that one... you beat me to it!

[dreamtoreality]

Originally Posted by Slin

Myth? Take my word for it.

Don't trust people, go out and run some tests! That's how I always have gained SEO knowledge, read, research, and test.

Your "Professional Website SEO Package" consists of

- 150 High PR 2- 9 Article Backlinks(Blogs)
- 150 Web 2.0 Backlinks
- 250 Social Bookmarking Backlinks
- 250 Wiki Backlinks
- 250 Article Submissions
- 250 Profile Backlinks
-250 Web Directory Backlinks


Do you actually find this stuff to be effective, then?



What about "Select the amount of days over which your backlinks should be created. It is recommended to use at least 10 days for small orders and 30 days for bigger orders. If too many backlinks are created within a very short period of time, Google might detect that as spam and devalue all of your links." Link velocity and consistency, as mentioned above, is considered to be bullshit. So....

[Lanx]

because that's what you say to customers to "appease" them. "will my pickup truck run up mountain?" "uh sure, why not"
the customer just wants to hear you say yes, and be assured. so you basically sell your pitch and your "experience" before hand.

customer goes
"oh i read about this panda,velocity thing"
"yea this guy has it covered!"

in truth you don't know if/when/maybe google will even see your preciously/mathematically calculated drip fed comments, or google could just choose to see all your weeks worth of comments on a saturday, you have no control over it, it's just like fishing.

[JoshMcNary]

Do you really think not using relevant/kw terms in heading tags makes no difference? I understand not wanting to overoptimize or not wanting to be extremely unnatural through keyword stuffing, but the claim that using heading tags doesn't help as an SEO measure seems like a far-fetched one.

If Google isn't looking at headings, what is it looking at?