Backlink is not the King of the Hill

arpitamishra

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10607307].message }}

mathompson

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Backlink is not the King of the Hill but rather royal pain in royal ass.

Yes, who has been linking to your site is important for G. algo but crazy amount
of backlinks are not simply because quality and not quantity is what Google want.

Here is another doubletalk from the horse's mouth

Backlink is not the King of the Hill - YouTube

fastreplies

i see that very clearly
content is the king
and the trend of marketing is content marketing

Thanks

Signature

Superior Singing Method Review

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10607753].message }}

yukon

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Backlink is not the King of the Hill but rather royal pain in royal ass.

Yes, who has been linking to your site is important for G. algo but crazy amount
of backlinks are not simply because quality and not quantity is what Google want.

Here is another doubletalk from the horse's mouth

Backlink is not the King of the Hill - YouTube

fastreplies

Every single thing Matt said in that video is great advice. I'm not sure why you said double talk.

He even said use a text browser (0:38) for testing your pages/links which is what I've been preaching for years & I bet my last nickel most folks trying to SEO will never do it. They'll struggle with live webpage clutter.

When he mentioned link building he was also giving good advice, a single traffic source (ex: SERPs) is a shot in the foot. Expand with multiple traffic sources targeting the same niche.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10607922].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Every single thing Matt said in that video is great advice. I'm not sure why you said double talk.

You're right, if you are reading what he's saying, I'm reading in between the lines.

Just look how he is trying to avoid to talk about backlinks and only mention them as
some nobody really cares relatives you have invited to visit but they decided to stick
around for longer and you have no guts to tell them to go away because if you do,
the rest of the family might get upset, turn and walk away too.

Google knows that as long it going to keep backlinks myth alive, it won't become another
Bing and that's where Matt coming talking out of both sides of his mouth because G. can't
afford not at least at this point dismiss backlinks for good.

Originally Posted by yukon

When he mentioned link building he was also giving good advice, a single traffic source (ex: SERPs) is a shot in the foot. Expand with multiple traffic sources targeting the same niche.

Exactly, not talking about them profusely as before because G. just can't continue to talk
about stuff that can be bought and sold by millions, Matt has mention backlinks because
just imagine uproar if he have avoided doing that. To Matt's credit, he was trying to send
clear and loud message to SEOs to stay away from backlinks, of course doing that in
so many words and instead to concentrate on building sites.

Backlinks are thing from the past. Yes G. is using something that resembles old system
but much more sophisticated system based on referrals, which cannot be bought or sold.

For example or you can call it delusions, which I'm sure time will be the judge who's wrong..
Your site sells electronics. You have posted TV set for sale whereas model of that TV
happen to have reviews from Amazon, prices from eBay, articles from Wikipedia and so
on, which G. uses to assign ranking based on importance of information.

Does it sound crazy to you? If yes, then you're strong believer that G's staff too stupid
to figure out some better than backlinks system.

fastreplies

Thanks
4 replies

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608602].message }}

yukon

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

You're right, if you are reading what he's saying, I'm reading in between the lines.

Just look how he is trying to avoid to talk about backlinks and only mention them as
some nobody really cares relatives you have invited to visit but they decided to stick
around for longer and you have no guts to tell them to go away because if you do,
the rest of the family might get upset, turn and walk away too.

Google knows that as long it going to keep backlinks myth alive, it won't become another
Bing and that's where Matt coming talking out of both sides of his mouth because G. can't
afford not at least at this point dismiss backlinks for good.

Exactly, not talking about them profusely as before because G. just can't continue to talk
about stuff that can be bought and sold by millions, Matt has mention backlinks because
just imagine uproar if he have avoided doing that. To Matt's credit, he was trying to send
clear and loud message to SEOs to stay away from backlinks, of course doing that in
so many words and instead to concentrate on building sites.

Backlinks are thing from the past. Yes G. is using something that resembles old system
but much more sophisticated system based on referrals, which cannot be bought or sold.

For example or you can call it delusions, which I'm sure time will be the judge who's wrong..
Your site sells electronics. You have posted TV set for sale whereas model of that TV
happen to have reviews from Amazon, prices from eBay, articles from Wikipedia and so
on, which G. uses to assign ranking based on importance of information.

Does it sound crazy to you? If yes, then you're strong believer that G's staff too stupid
to figure out some better than backlinks system.

fastreplies

I'm not sure why you dug up a 3 year old video just to rant about a guy that has been on leave from Google for over a year. Matt has posted more useful info than the current Google spokesperson (John Mueller), try & follow that guy If you enjoy deer in headlight confusion.

Yeah, it sounds crazy If you think backlinks are a thing of the past.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608677].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

I'm not sure why you dug up a 3 year old video just to rant about a guy that has been on leave from Google for over a year.

Whatever he is talking about in that 3 years old video could be made as well yesterday.
Again, read between the lines what he have said and what he should say, and that
"backlinks as we know are dead"

Originally Posted by yukon

Yeah, it sounds crazy If you think backlinks are a thing of the past.

I knew you will say that and to prove you wrong, would you please explain this site.
Google for: second hand depot and you will find secondhanddepot.com in top 50
NO backlinks and virtually no content. All it have is title and description.

fastreplies

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608768].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

I knew you will say that and to prove you wrong, would you please explain this site.
Google for: second hand depot and you will find secondhanddepot.com in top 50
NO backlinks and virtually no content. All it have is title and description.

Sure, here's an explanation. I don't know what you're looking at, but the site DOES have backlinks. Admittedly nothing great, but they are there. The keyword second hand depot gets approximately 10 searches per month. That's it. So there's no reason why it would take a great link profile to rank. It's about as low competition as you can get.

Nice example with the "virtually no content" site. Just demonstrates that all those people who claim that for ranking "Content Is King!!!!" might want to rethink things.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608790].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

Sure, here's an explanation. I don't know what you're looking at, but the site DOES have backlinks. Admittedly nothing great, but they are there. The keyword second hand depot gets approximately 10 searches per month. That's it. So there's no reason why it would take a great link profile to rank. It's about as low competition as you can get.

Nice example with the "virtually no content" site. Just demonstrates that all those people who claim that for ranking "Content Is King!!!!" might want to rethink things.

I have about 200 pages of content on brand new sites (40ish days old) with zero SEO. Basically zero links, the one domain still has a few from the previous owner, not many about 3. I get about 20 visitors a day from Google total on those sites. Which is actually nice, since for the first month I was getting about zero.

Just trying to confirm what most people seem to already know. Content by itself doesn't do jack squat for SEO.

So if you're one of those "Just keep posting every day" people. Yeah uhm... No. Doesn't really work. I'm not doing this as some kind of experiment or anything, I'm just super busy building the sites, trying to get them be respectable, before I do any SEO.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608808].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

Sure, here's an explanation. I don't know what you're looking at, but the site DOES have backlinks. Admittedly nothing great, but they are there. The keyword second hand depot gets approximately 10 searches per month. That's it. So there's no reason why it would take a great link profile to rank. It's about as low competition as you can get.

Come on man, come on... you're missing the point...
Site in top 50, I'm sure most of people in this forum can only dreaming

Originally Posted by danparks

Nice example with the "virtually no content" site. Just demonstrates that all those people who claim that for ranking "Content Is King!!!!" might want to rethink things.

Let me to share with you a little secret: Content = KEYWORDS

fastreplies

Thanks

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608815].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Google knows that as long it going to keep backlinks myth alive.

Odd that a lot of people, myself included, continue to rank pages based solely on backlinks.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Backlinks are thing from the past. Yes G. is using something that resembles old system
but much more sophisticated system based on referrals, which cannot be bought or sold

Care to provide some details on this mysterious "referrals" system. Followed backlinks could be considered a form of "referral" but obviously you aren't talking about that.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608724].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

Odd that a lot of people, myself included, continue to rank pages based solely on backlinks.

Well you certainly can't use social media to rank pages. I have a new site getting 1k UV/Day from social, I think it has like 4 visitors from Google. Total. And I'm pretty sure they're all people who googled the domain, not going to look since I don't really care. I was thinking about buying some citations from Lifehacker and a few other sites, while simultaneously doing an infographic campaign, so it looks like I got the citations naturally from the infographic campaign. THEN telling a bunch of content marketing sites about how "I EXPLODED my Organic Traffic by 7891% OVERNIGHT!" to try to get some more backlinks from the "case studies."

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608735].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

Well you certainly can't use social media to rank pages.

Absolutely true. Done right, maybe a person can get direct traffic from social. But not rankings. Backlinks I'm talking about are contextual backlinks from my own PBN that I use exclusively for my own clients.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608742].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

Absolutely true. Done right, maybe a person can get direct traffic from social. But not rankings. Backlinks I'm talking about are contextual backlinks from my own PBN that I use exclusively for my own clients.

Please tell me it's not one of those poop networks with kontent machine content.

Edit: I'll make a note in my contacts anyways.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608743].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

Please tell me it's not one of those poop networks with kontent machine content.

Haha, wouldn't still be ranking pages if that was the case. Non-spun content, each site is niche-specific, a variety of "types" of sites. Not just a bunch of "blogs" with random posts. In fact, none of the sites includes a blog.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608750].message }}

paulgl

8 years ago

If backlinks are not king, then why is this thread about getting backlinks?

Oh...because backlinks are king, if you get the right kind.

Backlinks are still king, but you people settle for court jester or :

mel brooks piss boy - YouTube

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608770].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by paulgl

If backlinks are not king, then why is this thread about getting backlinks?

You mean where Matt say:
don't concentrate on backlinks because other than that,
I don't believe I'm in any way promoting backlinks

Originally Posted by paulgl

Oh...because backlinks are king, if you get the right kind.

Okay, define 'right kind'?
Is backlink from born yesterday 1 or 10,000 sites 'right kind'?
Or 15 years old site that have nothing to offer no value WSE, will it provide
'right kind' of backlinks or even good enough for Google to pay attention.

I hear you're saying to hungry for SEO knowledge: get 'right kind' of backlinks
but can you explain to me who would want to link to freshly baked site with
the same topic as thousands of identical sites? You do realize that there is
only 10 spots on #1 G's page? What about the rest 990 sites that have the
same type of backlinks, how Google should please the rest of them?

fastreplies

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608810].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

I hear you're saying to hungry for SEO knowledge: get 'right kind' of backlinks
but can you explain to me who would want to link to freshly baked site with
the same topic as thousands of identical sites? You do realize that there is
only 10 spots on #1 G's page? What about the rest 990 sites that have the
same type of backlinks, how Google should please the rest of them?

Google isn't there to please the sites.

Visible index depth caps about 650 as well.

Again, the information is public since the patents are in plain English. Google has a list of sites it considers to be trustworthy. Trust flows from those sites, the trust that is returned back to those sites, is called authority, it's calculated and then authority flows from those sites across the internet. As the flow goes over every link, the power dilutes slightly. So each link on a page of a site that has 50 links, it's getting roughly 1/50th of the flow (over simplification.) Trust flow and authority flow are probably 80% of the page's ranking. It's just a computer algorithm, we've been trying to tell you that for quite some time now.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608816].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

Google isn't there to please the sites.

Exactly, Google is not in a business to please site owners but people who're using it
with full realization that it can't offer search results based on 10,000 bought backlinks.

Originally Posted by irawr

Google has a list of sites it considers to be trustworthy. Trust flows from those sites, the trust that is returned back to those sites, is called authority, it's calculated and then authority flows from those sites across the internet.

Well, I call that referrals where backlinks would be used to point to right source.

fastreplies

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608825].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Exactly, Google is not in a business to please site owners but people who're using it
with full realization that it can't offer search results based on 10,000 bought backlinks.

You know that real SEOs buy a handful of quality links and rank right? Like for example, if I'm deciding to get into a niche, I look at my competition's backlinks. In the report, they might have 3,000 links, I spend about 5 minutes in excel removing the links that are worthless and am usually left with a list of 5-25 links. Which is definitely something I can beat. To be fair about it, I could just source the work out and have 25 high quality links by the end of the week. It might cost 10k and might not look very natural though.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Well, I call that referrals where backlinks would be used to point to right source.

A "backlink" is any link that links back to your site. The term just means that it's any link to you. I'm not sure what you're saying here. I think you are thinking that garbage links are backlinks. For example people on fiverr sell garbage. I don't want any garbage backlinks pointed at my sites. Zero. If I find them, I disavow them immediately out of paranoia. Seriously get that stuff away from my site.

The garbage links building services create links that are so weak that Google probably just rounds their authority flow to zero. So now the target site has a massive and easily detectable pattern of worthless junk pointed at it. That's what you get for 5$ on fiverr.

To anyone reading this: if you purchased link building jobs on Fiverr, the value of your site went from $10 for the domain and about $10 per 500 words of content, to about negative 100$ because that's about what it's going to cost to move the site to a new domain.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608853].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

A "backlink" is any link that links back to your site.

Right, the same one Google just announced is dead, kaput, мертвый, muerto, morto
by removing PR for good putting the last nail in the coffin of backlinks merchants.

BTW, I don't see your explanation how forgotten and neglected for the last 9 years
web site secondhanddepot.com ended up in top 50

fastreplies

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608913].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Right, the same one Google just announced is dead, kaput, мертвый, muerto, morto
by removing PR for good putting the last nail in the coffin of backlinks merchants.

Dude, in this thread, it's you vs a bunch of people who rank pages in Google as a career. I have employees who help me accomplish this. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Do I need to go buy a Lamborghini, get a custom license plate that says "BackLink" and drive it to your business in Canada? I seriously will, if you will agree to stop with this insane BS.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

BTW, I don't see your explanation how forgotten and neglected for the last 9 years
web site secondhanddepot.com ended up in top 50

Domain Score

Root Domain

Backlinks

IP / Country

First Seen

Last Seen

1 bestdirectorieslist.com 4,017 US 74.126.5.254 9 Dec 2013 6 Feb 2016 6 amrayhosting.com 58 US 74.126.5.253 12 Jun 2013 17 Mar 2016 2 amray.net 18 US 74.126.5.245 7 Jun 2013 7 Jan 2016 1 infospeck.com 2 GB 176.74.176.188 9 Sep 2013 8 Jan 2016 20 amray.com 1 US 74.126.5.252 9 Dec 2013 7 Jan 2016
It has 5 linking domains.

There's very little competition on the keyword.

It's ranking on par with my 10x 40 day old sites that have zero links. (Which probably get more traffic as well.)

You understand that I have sites that are trying to compete with sites that are worth millions of dollars and get hundreds of thousands of visits every day right? Take that site and try to target a keyword like "dating advice" and see what happens. You won't even find yourself in the SERP at all. Your impression of competing in racing terminology is on par with snail racing, the other people in the thread professional race car drivers.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608922].message }}

fastreplies 8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

people in the thread professional race car drivers.

I know you have to protect your money making turf, good for you, enjoy while it's last.

BTW, I never tried to change your mind but mark my word sooner or later you will,
that is if you're really smart, open-minded and can see beyond your nose.
You have your opinion, I have my and hopefully year from now we will compare them
to see who was right.

As to your reasoning about how secondhanddepot.com with 5 old cached backlinks
got in top 50... come on, stop making me laugh, be serious, don't belittle yourself.

fastreplies
- Thanks
Signature
AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608949].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Right, the same one Google just announced is dead, kaput, мертвый, muerto, morto
by removing PR for good putting the last nail in the coffin of backlinks merchants.

You are absolutely correct about Google's removal of the *displayed* PR value of pages greatly affecting link sellers. Where the big flaw in your logic is that you then make the leap to saying "backlinks are dead", as in, backlinks don't matter to Google. Are you assuming that because PR is no longer displayed to Internet surfers, that this somehow means Google removed backlinks from their algorithms for ranking pages? Why would that be? Many years ago Google made it known that backlinks mattered, and for years Google did not release PR information to the public for display on web pages.

In my opinion Google should never have released PR information to the public. It did nothing to help an average person surfing the web, and it gave out valuable information to people doing SEO.

So, yes, it is (and has been for a couple of years since Google stopped updating publiclly displayed PR values) now harder for a person to determine the value of a page as far as getting a backlink from that page. But that has nothing to do with whether or not backlinks are valuable, and are a part of Google's algorithm. Because it's harder to determine the worth of a backlink doesn't mean everyone should say "screw it, I'm not going to try to get any sites to backlink to my site."

Come on now, you don't seem to have any problem voicing your opinion on things. Why won't you let us know what Google has replaced backlink worth with as far as rankings go? You said they had a different system, why not clue us backward fools in on that so we can gain some insight into how Google is now ranking pages?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608933].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

Where the big flaw in your logic is that you then make the leap to saying "backlinks are dead", as in, backlinks don't matter to Google.

And your logic want us to believe that Google sitting there quietly and watching
backlinks merchants working like a bees hive screwing Google while enjoying
every moment doing nothing to stop that assault for good.

I'm saying, Google got enough on personal and corporate levels and now it fighting back.
Get use to that because sooner or later you will have to after one day you all the sadden
found that all your backlinks become useless and ain't doing anything for your SERP.

Just be patient.

Originally Posted by danparks

I notice that irawr doesn't have a signature link of any kind, especially one promoting any kind of link selling, so I'm not sure what "turf" he'd be protecting.

He's selling himself in every post he's making leading other to ask him for help. How? PM

fastreplies

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608960].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

I'm saying, Google got enough on personal and corporate levels and now it fighting back.Get use to that because sooner or later you will have to after one day you all the sadden found that all your backlinks become useless and ain't doing anything for your SERP.

And again, your theory of what has replaced backlinks as a guide to ranking pages is .....................?????

Silence.

And Google has done things about backlinks. Using the nofollow attribute. Deindexing PBNs that became too public. Associating relevancy with backlinks (most knowledgeable people believe that Google is getting good at determining whether a web page with a backlink is somehow related or not to the web page the backlink points to). If backlinks don't matter, why would Google bother putting any effort into anything related to backlinks?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608967].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

And again, your theory of what has replaced backlinks as a guide to ranking pages is .....................?????

Silence.

Go back and read again what I have suggested they could do...
or adapt Bing/Yahoo system which work perfectly without backlinks.

fastreplies

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608975].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Go back and read again what I have suggested they could do...
or adapt Bing/Yahoo system which work perfectly without backlinks.

Actually Bing (which is the same technology as Yahoo) use backlinks as a major component of their ranking algorythm, along with social media signals, which can actually be manipulated with Fiverr gigs, so it's actually much easier to manipulate Bing.

To rank sites on Bing, assuming you know what you are doing, you can actually just spam backlinks directly into the page you want to rank. This is a really bad idea for Google SEO.

There's some techniques here that work really well for bing that I'm not going to reveal. I know you won't believe me, but Bing is 1000% easier to manipulate then Google.

Exact match domains are also really effective for bing... Google doesn't really value the domain name a whole lot.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609006].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

Google doesn't really value the domain name a whole lot.

LOL, at last we both agreed on something...
best free web directory is placing amray.com in top 10, factual proof you're right
in Bing... nowhere to be find

fastreplies

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609026].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

LOL, at last we both agreed on something...
best free web directory is placing amray.com in top 10

Backlinks don't matter? Maybe that's easy to say from someone who has a site with thousands of backlinks. You realize that SEO SpyGlass shows that your site has almost 19,000 backlinks, right? You realize that ahrefs.com shows that your site has over 200,000 backlinks, right? You realize that third party link checkers don't find anywhere close to all the backlinks to any given site, so that your site must have well over a quarter million backlinks, right?

Do you really think those backlinks have no impact on your ranking? If so, then why not do this. Make up a list of all your backlinks, and disavow them with Google. Won't take long at all to do that. Why not do that? It can't possibly hurt your rankings, right? Those backlinks don't matter. Why not simply tell Google to please disregard all of them. Won't affect rankings. Go for it!

Start with the backlink from castles.org/links/. That's a followed link from a PR4 page. PR is "dead" and doesn't matter, and backlinks don't matter, so certainly that PR4 backlink is worthless and of no help in rankings. Here, how about disavowing the followed backlink from the PR3 page amrayhosting.com. That's no help. How about the followed link from the PR4 avivadirectory.com/strongest-directories/ page? How about the followed link from PR3 page digitalzones.com? I don't have time to look through the quarter million backlinks, so I'll stop there.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609087].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

Backlinks don't matter? Maybe that's easy to say from someone who has a site with thousands of backlinks. You realize that SEO SpyGlass shows that your site has almost 19,000 backlinks, right? You realize that ahrefs.com shows that your site has over 200,000 backlinks, right? You realize that third party link checkers don't find anywhere close to all the backlinks to any given site, so that your site must have well over a quarter million backlinks, right?

His site would actually probably have been deindexed because of the hidden text, but it got saved because the HTML is broken.

Code:

    <td height="0" align="left" width="337"><iframe bgcolor="#FFFFFF" style="width: 100px; height: 0px" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true" src="AMRAY%20Free%20Web%20Directory%20-%20best%20of%20the%20web%20quality,%20strongest%20general%20Business%20and%20Personal%20Web%20Directories%20sites%20link%20listing_files/ip.htm" frameborder="0">&lt;/td&gt;
  &lt;/tr&gt;

&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;table width="989" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" height="150"&gt;
  &lt;tr class="text_small"&gt; 
    &lt;td&gt; 
      &lt;h2&gt;&lt;br&gt;
        Free strongest SEO quality friendly Wide World Web Directory Submission. 
        Best of the web Free Business and Personal Website Directories List including 
        locate ip address, PR page rank, Alexa ranking.&lt;br&gt;
        At AMRAY - you will get the Best Free Authority general and niche Premium 
        inclusion quality categories directed at International, American and Canadian 
        users provided by our Web Link Directory and Website Search Engine Portal. 
        Web Page is presenting an authoritative source for Business Directory 
        and World Wide Web free website Directory Search, free of charge in America 
        and Canada web directory listing. Whois World Wide Search, Free add URL 
        Site and Top 10, 50 and 100 best web sites directory list. Free for general 
        public web directories reviews, Top Internet SEO friendly Web Directory 
        and free utrace Search Engines list. WWW and Canadian Internet Business 
        Directory created to serve people from around the world.&lt;/h2&gt;
    &lt;/td&gt;
  &lt;/tr&gt;
  &lt;tr class="text_small"&gt;
    &lt;td&gt;&amp;nbsp; &lt;/td&gt;
  &lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;/body&gt;
&lt;/html&gt;

</iframe></td></tr></tbody></table></body></html>

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609111].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

Backlinks don't matter? Maybe that's easy to say from someone who has a site with thousands of backlinks.

You do realize that we're not in control who is linking to us?

Originally Posted by irawr

His site would actually probably have been deindexed because of the hidden text, but it got saved because the HTML is broken.

excuse me...hidden?
And that's coming from "Pro" who's advising multimillion dollars companies?

Do you have any idea what makes something hidden?
You do realize that Google bots can see it?

LOL man, after all you ain't as smart as you're trying to sound

fastreplies

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609969].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

Backlinks don't matter? Maybe that's easy to say from someone who has a site with thousands of backlinks.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

You do realize that we're not in control who is linking to us?

What does that have to do with your claim that backlinks don't matter for ranking? Who cares how you came about getting all of those thousands of backlinks (many of them decent ones)? You have them. So why are you so convinced that having a quarter million backlinks isn't what's causing you to rank?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610018].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

What does that have to do with your claim that backlinks don't matter for ranking? Who cares how you came about getting all of those thousands of backlinks (many of them decent ones)? You have them. So why are you so convinced that having a quarter million backlinks isn't what's causing you to rank?

I don't think you have any idea about reality of the past, present and the future.

Based on what you're saying you're living in the past and as long you and a few
others who solidly share you outdated believes wake up to new reality, there is
nothing I can do or even want to at this point.

fastreplies

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610049].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Based on what you're saying you're living in the past and as long you and a few others who solidly share you outdated believes wake up to new reality.

I guess the "new reality" is what you referred to below. Yet you give no details on this system you believe Google now uses, or even how you came to believe in this new reality. So of course people are going to call you out on what you say. Until you offer up something on this, it's like someone describing a dream they had at night, and claiming the dream was a factual representation of how the world works.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Backlinks are thing from the past. Yes G. is using something that resembles old system but much more sophisticated system based on referrals, which cannot be bought or sold

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610092].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

[plunk]

Originally Posted by danparks

Yet you give no details on this system you believe Google now uses, or even how you came to believe in this new reality.

[/plunk]

For the second time, I had mention what could be new reality
and all you have to do is to go back and to find what I have said.

Ciao Amigo

fastreplies

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610137].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

[plunk]

[plunk]

For the second time, I had mention what could be new reality
and all you have to do is to go back and to find what I have said.

Ciao Amigo

fastreplies

Maybe you're right, but I'm sure I'll know before you and I'll be ranking way ahead of the rest of the crowd.

That's the problem. Getting quality links is actually hard and it can be quite expensive.

If Google decides to use any other metric, it will only make the SERPS easier to manipulate.

Also, there's already paid placement, it's called adwords. So if Google tried to tighten their control of the SERPS it would #1 dilute the value of the SERPS and #2 probably land them in court since their dominance of the search engine market place is already borderline monopolistic. Google has actually been scaling back their monetization of the SERPs by actually reducing the number of ads that are displayed and cutting certain types of ads out entirely. They also cracked down on low quality adwords accounts which really upset thousands of marketers when they got banned. If you were actually a professional and followed the subject, you would already know all of these things.

But you're not a professional SEO. You're just coming onto these forums spouting off borderline insane theories and telling professionals who make quite a bit of money doing SEO that what we do doesn't work when it clearly does.

Today is March 28th 2016. On March 28th 2026, Google may no longer be the dominant force in the search market place, but links will still be a major component of ranking sites. They were a major factor on day one, and they will be until people stop using Google.

If you think they might eliminate links from the algorythm, then please suggest a method (and be detailed, saying a "referral system" doesn't mean jack squat) that would work as an effective search engine result popularity forecasting algorythm that would have equal granularity to the current system and would be 100% compliant with all laws in every major country of the world since Google is a global company. The system would also need to work consistently across every language used on the planet, with refined local and geographical results for every city on Earth. Your system would also have to be deemed superior to the current system and be less prone to manipulation. Also, it needs to be technologically feasible and implementable.

I would really like to hear this.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610218].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610341].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

[plunk]

[/plunk]

I would really like to hear this?
Really? I mean really???
After all, you ain't so smart and all you're adages is nothing but verbal diarrhea.

If I had solution, I wouldn't talk to you in this forum or anywhere else because
this is second time you're making fool of yourself with your lack of understanding
what is hidden text and cheap theatrics now

To paraphrase The Big Lebowski: keep your body limber

Oh. I see. I'm the one making a fool out of myself with my lack of understanding. 10,000+ pages of quality content across 100+ domains, all making me money. Yeah I'm a complete fool. I have no idea what's going on here. I've spent over 300k on just content between text, video, and images... That doesn't even factor in hosting, domains, SEO tools, designs, wages, or my time. I'm the one that doesn't have this figured out. Right... OK.

I've built a business over my lifetime that makes me quite a bit of money and I've tested just about everything there is to test.

I'm also completely willing to give away quality information, you know why? Because it's hard work and 99% of people aren't going to do it anyways. So I can comfortably just tell people exactly what they need to do and it doesn't really matter since they won't do it anyways.

Backlinks are required to rank quality pages in competitive niches.

You are wrong.

It's not going to change any time soon.

Move on with your life.

Use the information or go do something else.

You sitting here arguing with professionals who own companies and businesses is completely irrational.

Go read:

SEObytheSea.com
SearchEngineLand.com
SearchEngineWatch.com
Moz.com
Backlinko.com

Make sure you read every single page on the entire site. SEObytheSea also discusses the patents, which you should read every single patent. Every word of it.

Then go read about 10,000 posts at webmasterworld.com

I have done these things, because it's my job.

If you are not just arguing for no other reason but to be a massive prick and waste our time (which I'm pretty sure that's what's going on here) and you truly believe that links don't matter, then I'm sorry to inform you that you are insane and should go see a doctor and a psychiatrist.

I am serious.

It would be a better use of your time to go argue that man has never been to the moon in off topic, because at least there aren't any astronauts in there. I promise.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610403].message }}

nettiapina

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

OK, you want to proof me wrong, then proclaim that G's staff is too stupid to figure out how to make system better than it's now and to make backlink leaches to go away for good.

That's not how it works. You've got a claim, so you've got to defend your claim. That's just shifting the burden of proof.

Also, your demand is borderline insane. So I should proclaim something completely ludicrous for some bizarre reason?

Of course Google is constantly making their system better. Nobody in their right mind would think otherwise.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Are you talking about the same “SEOs” who are only a couple of years ago told everybody:
you need backlinks from good “high” PR sites, and now saying forget PR?

Again, there's several issues here. First, "links from high PR pages" hasn't gone anywhere. You should just ignore the score that Google used to provide, but that's been the case for, you know, the last couple of years.

Secondly, what worked "only a couple of years ago" to an extend may not work today. You should know that Google has had their focus on all sort of spam control.

Third point, the "high PR site" people have always been amateurs.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

'mark my word one day Google will kill green PR bar' guess what... they too went
berserk, calling me crazy and even ban me "to proof their point". Who’s crazy now?

You do realize that you're talking about two completely different things? I would like to say that it's a rhetorical question, but at this point I have no idea any more.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Do you have any proof that Google will continue letting freeloaders to feeding on crumbs from the master's table and will let you f*** it forever?

That's awesome. You want some random bloke to prove something that a secretive corporation is potentially doing in the future. Not only that, but tightening spam controls are something that everyone agrees on. That's the reality of today.

There's so many levels of reverse nostradamus that I'm just speechless. That's some next-level, world-class shit.

Thanks

Signature

Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

What's your excuse?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10612908].message }}

paulgl

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

You mean where Matt say:
don't concentrate on backlinks because other than that,
I don't believe I'm in any way promoting backlinks

Okay, define 'right kind'?

Google says a lot of things that you ignore, so why listen to Cutts?

Google says do not worry about getting a bunch of links, raising PR, etc.

They never said NOT to get links, NOT to raise PR, etc.

If you seriously do not know the right kind of links to get,
then like I said...you ignore a lot of what google says.

I have told people, ad nauseum, what kinds of links to get.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609000].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by paulgl

Google says a lot of things that you ignore, so why listen to Cutts?

I ignore Google since year 2007. Period

Originally Posted by paulgl

Google says do not worry about getting a bunch of links, raising PR, etc.

They never said NOT to get links, NOT to raise PR, etc.

PR? Again?
As if G. have control over who is linking and where.
What else can they say, go ahead f*** us, you're in charge?

fastreplies

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609010].message }}

paulgl

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

I ignore Google since year 2007. Period

PR? Again?
As if G. have control over who is linking and where.
What else can they say, go ahead f*** us, you're in charge?

fastreplies

ROTFLMAO! Again!!!!!!!!!!!
You are completely clueless!

Google updates PR on a daily basis....so of course I mention it again.
And PR is based on NOTHING except backlinks.

Of course google controls who links to what, why, where, and when, at least as far as google search is concerned.

They own the friggin thing, so dang straight they can control backlinks. And they do like a madman.

How? They invented nofollow. Now every webmaster worth a fig knows about it and uses it.
Nofollow is DIRECTLY related to PR! Go figure...there's that pesky word again!

Nofollow links are NOT counted. So very simply put, google has created a way for webmasters to not pass PR, and make the links a nonissue. So google most assuredly has put their stamp on who, what, where, when, and how for backlinks. Before nofollow, you backlink anywhere....now you can't. All on account of google! Bing even recognizes the tag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How else to they control backlinks? By ignoring them! LOL! That's right, google ignores some links even without nofollow!

You want more? The ubiquitous disavow tool! You can now, via GWT, simply take a list of links and say, "Please google, I disavow any and all of these links"

Google has done a trifecta on backlinks!

Not to mention that de-indexing thingy. In the blink of an eye, anything they de-index that has your links, is GONE!

Wanna try again on how google cannot control backlinks?

If you ignore google you are a fool. But then, that explains EVERYTHING!

Paul

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610577].message }}

fastreplies

8 years ago

Originally Posted by paulgl

Of course google controls who links to what, why, where, and when, at least as far as google search is concerned.

And you're calling me clueless???

I'm looking around all over SEO forum and I can see rotten bodies killed by death of PR.
I can smell rotten stench rising over dead committed to PR "SEO Pros" and newer rot
coming from fresh stiffs killed by close proximity of backlinks demise.

My advice to you and alike, get white bed sheets, cover yourselves and slowly, very very
slowly start moving in direction of cemetery. Why very slowly? Well, to make sure you want
cause panic and walk all over other stiffs moving in the same direction. R.I.P.

fastreplies

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610727].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

And you're calling me clueless???

I'm looking around all over SEO forum and I can see rotten bodies killed by death of PR.
I can smell rotten stench rising over dead committed to PR "SEO Pros" and newer rot
coming from fresh stiffs killed by close proximity of backlinks demise.

My advice to you and alike, get white bed sheets, cover yourselves and slowly, very very
slowly start moving in direction of cemetery. Why very slowly? Well, to make sure you want
cause panic and walk all over other stiffs moving in the same direction. R.I.P.

The people who you are referring to as "Pros" I refer to as "Amateurs."

There's a big disconnect with you and what goes on here. The members of these forums range from "Newbie" to "Amateur" to "Work at home success" to "Professional" to "CEO of small company." I don't think you know enough to be able to identify who is who.

There are indeed a handful of people, who actually know what they're doing on WF.

And you're not helping the amateurs by posting this BS.

If you spent time testing things, you could help people by demonstrating what works and what doesn't.

It's kind of hard for me to do that since it's not a good idea to say "Hey look at this website I built that makes 300$ a day, it cost me $5000 and 1000 hours of work, here's exactly how I did that." Only to find a few months later I have 100 new friends who replicated exactly what I did and are now competing against me effectively ruining my rankings.

Now you're loosely making what I would interpret as a death threat? If it's not a death threat, what is that? You're suggesting people go die? Because you don't know what you're talking about? Alright man. I'm done.

There is something extremely wrong with you. You need professional help. Desperately.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610823].message }}

Tim3

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

I'm looking around all over SEO forum and I can see rotten bodies killed by death of PR.
I can smell rotten stench rising over dead committed to PR "SEO Pros" and newer rot
coming from fresh stiffs killed by close proximity of backlinks demise.

Nah, that's me, I've just taken my socks off after a long run.

Righto, if backlinks are dead I'm off to increase my Alexa Rank, fill up my meta-keyword tags, and 'advance my substance'.

Lighten-up folks, forums should be fun

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10612304].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Backlinks are thing from the past. Yes G. is using something that resembles old system
but much more sophisticated system based on referrals, which cannot be bought or sold

Originally Posted by danparks

Care to provide some details on this mysterious "referrals" system. Followed backlinks could be considered a form of "referral" but obviously you aren't talking about that.

Any more information on your "referral" system that doesn't involve backlinks, and that "cannot be bought or sold"?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608827].message }}

nettiapina

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

You're right, if you are reading what he's saying, I'm reading in between the lines.

You know, this explains a lot. But probably not in the way you'd hope.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Does it sound crazy to you? If yes, then you're strong believer that G's staff too stupid
to figure out some better than backlinks system.

Yes, it sounds pretty much as crazy as the last time you tried to bring it up. And I see you've brought the exact same tired non-arguments again. Yeah, Google went and totally killed the PR score. No, nothing has changed.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

And you're calling me clueless???

I’m looking around all over SEO forum and I can see rotten bodies killed by death of PR.
I can smell rotten stench rising over dead committed to PR “SEO Pros” and newer rot
coming from fresh stiffs killed by close proximity of backlinks demise.

Sure, I would call you clueless. And I have to agree with irawr's assessment. Several SEOs have repeatedly told you what's their view on PR. Yet you vehemently defend the pet theory and the accompanying straw man of yours, and use some rather disturbing images to do so. Giving some solid evidence of your claim would be a good start, but I've seen this already so it's safe to say that it's not going to happen.

Why do you do this to yourself? You're impossible to take seriously.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

What's your excuse?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10611194].message }}

fastreplies 8 years ago

Originally Posted by nettiapina

I have to agree with irawr's assessment.

Really? @irawr, someone who have no idea what for "" used sometimes and that I meant
“armatures”, or sees my metaphoric line of reasoning like some kind of threat. @irawr, really?

Originally Posted by nettiapina

Yes, it sounds pretty much as crazy as the last time you tried to bring it up.

OK, you want to proof me wrong, then proclaim that G's staff is too stupid to figure out
how to make system better than it's now and to make backlink leaches to go away for good.

Originally Posted by nettiapina

Several SEOs have repeatedly told you what's their view on PR.

Are you talking about the same “SEOs” who are only a couple of years ago told everybody:
you need backlinks from good “high” PR sites, and now saying forget PR?

About 5 years ago, I told in one of forums to people with your PR/backlinks mentality:
'mark my word one day Google will kill green PR bar' guess what... they too went
berserk, calling me crazy and even ban me "to proof their point". Who’s crazy now?

Originally Posted by nettiapina

Giving some solid evidence of your claim would be a good start

What are you some kind of clown? If I had idea how to shutdown people who're exploiting
Google, I'm sure G. would hire me as consultant and as to evidence, well, I will leave it up
to you. Do you have any proof that Google will continue letting freeloaders to feeding on
crumbs from the master's table and will let you f*** it forever?

At this point non of us have any idea what Google will do thus can offer only brain farts,
so I will suggest we wait for a couple of years and continue this “banter” then. Shall we?

fastreplies
- Thanks
Signature
AMRAY Free Web Directory Since Year 2000
AMRAY List of Top 50 Web Directories <> Best 5 Web Directories Reviews
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10612101].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

I know you have to protect your money making turf, good for you, enjoy while it's last.

I notice that irawr doesn't have a signature link of any kind, especially one promoting any kind of link selling, so I'm not sure what "turf" he'd be protecting.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

BTW, I never tried to change your mind but mark my word sooner or later you will, that is if you're really smart, open-minded and can see beyond your nose. You have your opinion, I have my and hopefully year from now we will compare them to see who was right.

It seems like there are a number of people here who feel that way towards you. There are more than a couple of posts about ranking using backlinks as the method of ranking, and you've ignored them all.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

As to your reasoning about how secondhanddepot.com with 5 old cached backlinks got in top 50... come on, stop making me laugh, be serious, don't belittle yourself.

Actually, I addressed that in Post #13, and irawr addressed it in Post #22, so the ball is in your court as far as further explanations. And there are a lot more than 5 backlinks to the site (try using multiple link checkers to see that). And "top 50" is nothing to brag about - even "top 5" is nothing to get excited about for a very low search volume keyword (which is what "second hand depot" is).

And for about the 3rd time, why not tell us your theory on exactly what Google is using to rank pages, other than "it's not backlinks."

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10608958].message }}

st0nec0ld

8 years ago

Don't make things complicated here, backlinks and content are equally important and necessary.

Thanks

Signature

12BET | Live Casino Malaysia

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609022].message }}

KylieSweet

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Would you please explain this site.
Google for: second hand depot and you will find secondhanddepot.com in top 50
NO backlinks and virtually no content. All it have is title and description.

I wonder why Google still ranking this kind of site and has nothing to offer for the target audience. Google's basis is only title and description. So if I'm the user i will not waste my time visiting this site.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609233].message }}

Anubhav712

8 years ago

Saw this video 1 year back and did not even find the better video till now. till date it is best video of matt cutts. advice on the video are great everyone who has their own website. worth watching

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609386].message }}

yukon

Banned 8 years ago

Lol at the Google rant but he ignores Google since 2007.

My bet is Google ignores him more than he ignores Google.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609424].message }}

am7l

8 years ago

Everyone is saying content is king, but how can people find you without backlinks, so it is kind of chicken and egg thing.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609814].message }}

irawr Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by am7l

Everyone is saying content is king, but how can people find you without backlinks, so it is kind of chicken and egg thing.

That's actually exactly the problem and why I think it's so incredibly difficult for people to wrap their heads around SEO.

You need people coming to your site or you will never get natural links without building them. But without links, no matter how good your content is, you won't really get much traffic. So it takes an enormous amount of time kind of going back and forth between content production and link building.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10609956].message }}

guptanisha80

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610041].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

This, I guess? This is what Google does now, and why we should all ignore backlinks? This is why "backlinks as we know are dead"?

Originally Posted by fastreplies

For example or you can call it delusions, which I'm sure time will be the judge who's wrong. Your site sells electronics. You have posted TV set for sale whereas model of that TV happen to have reviews from Amazon, prices from eBay, articles from Wikipedia and so on, which G. uses to assign ranking based on importance of information.

"G. uses to assign ranking based on importance of information." That's what the system based on backlinks is about, and why people talk about "quality" of backlinks rather than "quantity." It's the whole idea behind PageRank, and determining which backlinks is worth more than others. Can it be gamed? Sure, to some extent. It's what most of us are trying to do. Is the system perfect? No. So Google is constantly working to make it better (deindexing major PBNs, expecting nofollow on links from user-contributed links such as in forum signatures, and so forth).

Your proposed system would certainly be open to getting gamed as well. You don't think there'd be "Amazon review sellers" popping up all over the place, selling you 10, 25, 100 reviews on the product of your choice? Additionally, your system is geared for reviews of products sold on big sites such as Amazon and eBay. What does that have to do with all the products being sold at other sites - all the many smaller ecommerce sites? If the Super Duper Toaster gets many good reviews at Amazon, how does that tell Google whether to rank the Toaster Heaven site above or below the Toaster King site?

Your system is also geared entirely for ecommerce websites - sites that have "things" that can be reviewed. There are millions of searches every day that don't have to do with buying a product. With your "review" system how does Google determine rankings of sites if a person searches for "is global warming real"? Amazon reviews? eBay reviews? A site needs to be specifically mentioned in a Wikipedia article on global warming in order to get ranked?

It certainly would be nice if Google could somehow figure out a means of incorporating a non-gameable review system as part of their algorithm that affected some search results. But it would need to be something that couldn't be gamed and would affect only some searches. It would only be a small part of the algorithm. It would be foolishness to use that to replace the backlink-based system. So keep dreaming.

Another dream would be for Google to incorporate social media signals in search results. Again, it would need to be something not easily gamed, and would only affect a subset of searches (there are way too many businesses/niches that the social world has no interest in). Aside from Google+, Google has no control of social media and can't track the inside information (Facebook, Twitter etc can lock out Google at any time should they give Google information in the first place, and in any case would never release all the information they have as to what constitutes a real or fake Like, etc.). So having social signals be a big part of the search algorithm is for now just another big dream, much like your idea that Google now uses reviews instead of backlinks in ranking determination.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610170].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

It certainly would be nice if Google could somehow figure out a means of incorporating a non-gameable review system as part of their algorithm that affected some search results. But it would need to be something that couldn't be gamed and would affect only some searches. It would only be a small part of the algorithm. It would be foolishness to use that to replace the backlink-based system. So keep dreaming.

4.63 billion pages indexed by Google.

There's only 7.4 billion people on Earth.What is Google going to hire half the entire planet to review the internet?

Wow...

Dude... That would lead to literally the entire planet arguing about internet reviews.

What are we going to have a global election process for every single search term?

"Sigh, somebody typed a search into Google that was never searched before, get the entire planet ready to vote on this..."

Will we be able to run as elected officials over keywords? Can I run as President for the keyword "Credit Card Application." I won't be corrupt, I swear.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610237].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

4.63 billion pages indexed by Google.

There's only 7.4 billion people on Earth.What is Google going to hire half the entire planet to review the internet?

Well, I spend quite a lot of time on the Internet. Probably too much time, I admit. Google could hire me as I think I could probably handle reviewing maybe half those 4.63 billion pages. But that would still leave Google the problem of finding another person to review the other half of the pages!

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610255].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

Well, I spend quite a lot of time on the Internet. Probably too much time, I admit. Google could hire me as I think I could probably handle reviewing maybe half those 4.63 billion pages. But that would still leave Google the problem of finding another person to review the other half of the pages!

LOL. You sure man? There's more than 10 new websites created a second...

If you could take a snapshot of the internet right now: 4.63 billion pages.

Then you started going through the internet at a blistering rate of 1 page per second.

Say you lived another 100 years, never slept, or spent any other time doing anything else at all (aliens...)

so that's 100x365x24x60

that's 52,560,000.

That's only 1.135% of the internet that was available for a single instant in time.

Yeah. This might work after the aliens come and show us how to unlock our DNA so we don't need to eat, sleep, exercise, go outside, get sick, or die. Oh and actually process 1 webpage a second.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

I know you're not serious BTW

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10610272].message }}

Whintaked40

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Backlink is not the King of the Hill but rather royal pain in royal ass.

Yes, who has been linking to your site is important for G. algo but crazy amount
of backlinks are not simply because quality and not quantity is what Google want.

Here is another doubletalk from the horse's mouth

Backlink is not the King of the Hill - YouTube

fastreplies

I think backlinks can play good role in getting traffic to your site. also if you content is good and healthy then it would be great along with backlinks.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10611050].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by fastreplies

OK, you want to proof me wrong, then proclaim that G's staff is too stupid to figure out how to make system better than it's now and to make backlink leaches to go away for good.

Of course Google's staff is smart enough to make a system better. They have been continually doing this over the years, and will continue to do so. What has that got to do with your claim that the new, improved system of "reviews" is now in place? Nothing.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Do you have any proof that Google will continue letting freeloaders to feeding on crumbs from the master's table and will let you f*** it forever?

Same as above. The argument was never about that the backlink-based system will go on "forever." Nothing to do with how the system works now (backlink-based).

Originally Posted by fastreplies

At this point non of us have any idea what Google will do thus can offer only brain farts, so I will suggest we wait for a couple of years and continue this "banter" then. Shall we?

That's odd. You include yourself in saying that none of "us" have any idea what Google will do, yet you emphatically state that it's pointless to worry about backlinks because Google now has a better system in place.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

About 5 years ago, I told in one of forums to people with your PR/backlinks mentality: 'mark my word one day Google will kill green PR bar'

Yeah, and for 5 years people have been using the publicly available PR information to rank pages and make money. This is tech, tech changes. So, were those people who made money on SEO using the publicly available PR information stupid for doing so, for 5 years, because "eventually" it would end?

Originally Posted by fastreplies

Who's crazy now?

I'm pretty sure there's a strong consensus here on the answer to that one.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10612144].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

Same as above. The argument was never about that the backlink-based system will go on "forever." Nothing to do with how the system works now (backlink-based)

I said that because it will. The algorythm might change and it might be less important. Which is likely. But why would they ever eliminate links entirely? It's how the internet works, right?

I'm actually totally glad public PR is finally gone and confirmed to be gone forever. Now it takes actual skill to do this, or at the very least, people have to assume that it takes very high quality, which takes skill or money to invest.

Public PR just created a situation where people could do SEO on training wheels.

It actually ended quite some time ago when the PR updates started to become much less frequent, so if you were doing SEO with public PR and you're still successful today, guess what? You're only going to do better and better over time since it's going to be much harder to figure out how to do SEO for new people now, there's no way to know what you are doing actually works other then looking at your analytics. So the exact opposite of what this FR is saying will be true, the game isn't over for us, it's just beginning.

Eliminating public PR gives an advantage to successful SEOs, not the other way around. Being one of the few people who got to test things during the periods of public PR just gives you massive job security. If you're an SEO and you had that experience, I would definitely put that experience at the top of your resume. "Tested SEO Strategies during the era of public Page Rank"

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10612262].message }}

danparks

8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

I'm actually totally glad public PR is finally gone and confirmed to be gone forever. Now it takes actual skill to do this, or at the very least, people have to assume that it takes very high quality, which takes skill or money to invest.

Public PR just created a situation where people could do SEO on training wheels.

I'm glad as well. It makes things a little harder, but that's good in that it weeds out a lot of the competition - the people who need things to be spoon fed to them in order to have any success. Just like several years ago you could rank a site with just lots of crappy blog comments. It was quantity of backlinks that mostly mattered. Those days are long gone, and the emphasis on quality (PageRank) and relevancy of backlinks over simple quantity of backlinks took out a lot of amateur SEOs.

Of course at times I've found myself longing for the good old days of (non-outdated) public PR display, because, hey, who doesn't enjoy having their work made a little easier? But if you've been paying attention to PR for years, you should have a pretty good "sense" of what represents a good or mediocre or bad backlink. Nowhere near to being perfect, but you should be able to at least roughly categorize the worth of a backlink. And for that reason I think more backlinks are needed to rank than before. Not because quantity has become more important again, but because it is harder to judge a backlink's quality and thus you need more to make up for the backlinks that you overestimated the quality of.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10612285].message }}

Backlink is not the King of the Hill

Trending Topics

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Boat and Jet Ski Rentals...... Door Hangers Effective?

A Very Strange Internet Problem