The #1 Mistake 90% Of People in IM Will Ignore/Never Know When It Comes To SEO.

24 replies
  • SEO
  • |
My case studies have been all successful.. Never had a site get penalized, etc. All of them have ranked incredibly easy regardless of competition. Why? Read below..

So your running GA (in my case AdS), and one way or another G is tracking your site. Now lets think, how natural is it if they see your site is getting 30 visits a day, and all of the sudden 1,000+ backlinks are built.. That just wouldn't happen in real life. What I've been doing that has been working incredibly well is visits per day = backlinks. So if I'm getting 300 visits per day, I'll build around 25% of that, so 75 backlinks per day... Mix up this # to keep it diverse, ie 75, 50, 60, 150, 25, 30, 85, etc, don't show a pattern.

I strongly believe if you hitting #'s outside of your traffic count, it's unrealistic and a red flag that might hinder your growth in the SERPs.
#90% #ignore or never #mistake #people #seo
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Originally Posted by Weedy92 View Post

    I strongly believe if you hitting #'s outside of your traffic count, it's unrealistic and a red flag that might hinder your growth in the SERPs.
    I strongly believe that you are wrong.

    I'm working on a marketing campaign right now for a new restaurant opening up next week. We have newspaper ads running, flyers, postcards, radio, tv, a huge Facebook campaign, we have been fortunate and picked up some great press. There are a ton more links coming in than visitors for the site. The restaurant isn't even open yet.

    It's ranking great.

    Sorry, but Google is not this stupid. They realize that businesses could be using tons of other offline marketing methods to generate traffic and buzz.

    Someone does not have to visit the site to link to it.
    Signature

    For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108214].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Weedy92
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      I strongly believe that you are wrong.

      I'm working on a marketing campaign right now for a new restaurant opening up next week. We have newspaper ads running, flyers, postcards, radio, tv, a huge Facebook campaign, we have been fortunate and picked up some great press. There are a ton more links coming in than visitors for the site. The restaurant isn't even open yet.

      It's ranking great.

      Sorry, but Google is not this stupid. They realize that businesses could be using tons of other offline marketing methods to generate traffic and buzz.

      Someone does not have to visit the site to link to it.
      ?

      Also I'm going to disagree. As your site goes viral/gets more press, your traffic is going to go up. Thus your link are going to go up accordingly. You can't be getting backlinks for a resturant that's not even open, that's promoting hard, yet see little traffic. That doesn't make sense. So 1,000 places are going to backlink to your site, yet only 20 are going to be visits to your site? (per example) Sorry, it doesn't happen like that.

      If you are seriously promoting, visitors are going to check out your site before they link to it.

      Also it won't make sense to 90% of the people on here.. Because 90% of the people on here aren't making any moves, and aren't propely educated/expirenced. Posted this on another forum, and everyone agreed with this concept. I mean I know this is WF, but come on you all are smarter than this.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108408].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by Weedy92 View Post

        ?

        Also I'm going to disagree. As your site goes viral/gets more press, your traffic is going to go up. Thus your link are going to go up accordingly. You can't be getting backlinks for a resturant that's not even open, that's promoting hard, yet see little traffic. That doesn't make sense. So 1,000 places are going to backlink to your site, yet only 20 are going to visits your site? (per example) Sorry, it doesn't happen like that.

        If you are seriously promoting, visitors are going to check out your site before they link to it.

        Also it won't make sense to 90% of the people on here.. Because 90% of the people on here aren't making any moves. Posted this on another forum, and everyone agreed with this concept. I mean I know this is WF, but come on you all are smarter than this.

        Yeah, I'm lying. I'm just making this crap up. Whatever.
        Signature

        For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108419].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Weedy92
          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          Yeah, I'm lying. I'm just making this crap up. Whatever.
          No you are foolish.. My advice is solid. I've done plenty of case studies, I've expirenced it first hand, and I know plenty of people who will and have backed me up on this. I'm preaching to WF here, I expect people like you to be idiots.. Sorry for giving out legit advice.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108447].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
            Originally Posted by Weedy92 View Post

            No you are foolish.. My advice is solid. I've done plenty of case studies, I've expirenced it first hand, and I know plenty of who will and have backed me up on this. I'm preaching to WF here, I expect people like you to be idiots.. Sorry for giving out legit advice.
            Ok, now I'm an idiot because I have seen proof of what you are saying to not be true.

            Maybe the sites you saw tank with more links than visitors were just building really spammy backlinks.
            Signature

            For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108459].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Weedy92
              Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

              Ok, now I'm an idiot because I have seen proof of what you are saying to not be true.

              Maybe the sites you saw tank with more links than visitors were just building really spammy backlinks.
              No, when I test things I eliminate variables and create control groups. Have done both varied volumes of backlinks with quality links and spam links in relation to traffic volumes.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108499].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author satrap
    I am sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me.

    How about when a post goes viral and thousands of people link to it without even actually visiting the original post?...

    Some posts are more likely than others to get links to, so a post with only 100 visits can get all 100 people linking to it somewhere, but another post with 100 visits could only get 1 person linking to it. How is Google going to know what happened there?...

    There are so many scenarios and different variations there (as mike pointed out above one of them) that I would think would make it impossible for Google to base the amount of links you get on the amount of visitors you get.
    Signature
    60 Awesome Ways to Make Money Without a Job
    .................................
    Check out my blog Survey Satrap featuring honest reviews of paid survey sites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108235].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Weedy92
      Originally Posted by satrap View Post

      I am sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me.

      How about when a post goes viral and thousands of people link to it without even actually visiting the original post?...

      Some posts are more likely than others to get links to, so a post with only 100 visits can get all 100 people linking to it somewhere, but another post with 100 visits could only get 1 person linking to it. How is Google going to know what happened there?...

      There are so many scenarios and different variations there (as mike pointed out above one of them) that I would think would make it impossible for Google to base the amount of links you get on the amount of visitors you get.
      1,000 people are going to link to something they've never seen before? Yeah I seriously doubt that, it's not natural. If it's viral the traffic #'s are going to coordinate with the backlink #'s. Ie if you go viral you'll see more traffic one way or another.

      Also reffering to the post.. I'm talking about the main url, not the indivudal post. Too many people today are building massive #'s of links to their homepage without the traffic count to back it up. Posts and inner pages are another thing. For that Google can use bounce rate and time spent on that page/site to judge the quality of those posts.

      It's really not all that complicated people just don't seem to understand it or want to actually go out and do a case study on it.

      Let me show you this: Both sites use GA, Google can see all the data. If a site with 30 visits per day builds 1,000 backlinks overnight vs. a site with 3000 visits per day building 1,000 backlinks, which one do you think will do better in terms of ranking and being stable?

      Obv the one with 3000 visitors. There is no comparison here.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108441].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by Weedy92 View Post

        Let show you this: Both sites use GA, Google can see all the data. If a site with 30 visits per day builds 1,000 backlinks overnight vs. a site with 3000 visits per day building 1,000 backlinks, which one do you think will do better in terms of ranking and being stable?

        Obv the one with 3000 visitors. There is no comparison here.
        No, all other things being equal, the one with the better backlinks will rank better.
        Signature

        For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108450].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Weedy92
          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          No, all other things being equal, the one with the better backlinks will rank better.
          Nope, not in all cases. I've built plenty of "quality" sites with extremely spammy link profiles, and matched their traffic volumes to it by promoting them in a legit manner for real visitors. Sites ranking fine and stable. I don't do that for my own sites, but for those case studies it's worked extremely well and extremely fast. In the end you can rank fine with a damn near perfect site and spammy link profile. Does quality work better in smaller amounts, does it work too? Yes, but you can't discredit spammy links all together, because they will work when done correctly.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108486].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SEO Haven
          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          No, all other things being equal, the one with the better backlinks will rank better.
          Agree with Mike here 100%. As it stands right now, that's just how it is, plain and simple.
          Signature
          All-In-One SEO & Marketing Service
          If you want the upper hand over your competitors, here's your chance.
          SEO, SMM, Google Local Optimization & Professional Internet Marketing done-for-you.
          Never worry about Traffic & Lead Generation again! Click Here for more info.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108624].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author goindeep
            I totally disagree...

            ...nah Im just stirring the pot...

            Seems logical and practical to me.

            I think the biggest key with links above any and all else is that search engines want to see natural links. Anything that looks spammy, blackhat or whatever wont get those votes.

            On the contrary you can just pay for backlinks from big wig companies and Google doesn't seem to mind which is a bit unfair...
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108663].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Grossman
    Nice theory, but there's no such relationship.



    ^ PR7, excellent ranks, tens of thousands of links show up at a time, no penalties because they're not showing up because of any kind of spam. I'm not creating these links.

    The #1 thing 90% of people in IM will ignore about SEO is that you're not supposed to "build backlinks" yourself at all. You're supposed to be building and marketing something people will talk about and link to on their own. Good SEO is about making sure your site effectively leverages the traffic, social media and links it acquires. That's all.

    Backlink building, content spinning, forum posting, blog commenting, directory submissions, dofollow, keyword stuffing, anchor text diversity, class C hosting -- if any of these things are in your vocabulary, you're not doing SEO, you're attempting to cheat. You're wearing a black hat. You might not realize it, but you're wearing a black hat. Everything you're doing is something Google is actively trying to identify and ignore so that you can't tamper with their search results.
    Signature
    Improvely: Built to track, test and optimize your marketing.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108432].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Weedy92
      Originally Posted by Dan Grossman View Post

      Nice theory, but there's no such relationship.



      ^ PR7, excellent ranks, tens of thousands of links show up at a time, no penalties because they're not showing up because of any kind of spam.

      The #1 thing 90% of people in IM will ignore about SEO is that you're not supposed to "build backlinks" yourself at all. You're supposed to be building and marketing something people will talk about and link to on their own. Good SEO is about making sure your site effectively leverages the traffic, social media and links it acquires. That's all.

      Backlink building, content spinning, forum posting, blog commenting, directory submissions, dofollow, keyword stuffing, anchor text diversity, class C hosting -- if any of these things are in your vocabulary, you're not doing SEO, you're attempting to cheat. You're wearing a black hat. You might not realize it, but you're wearing a black hat.
      ? This is totally un related to this thread...

      I'm talking about backlinks in relation to traffic volume. Not quality/natural/blackhat method backlinks, etc. Also wow.. Cheating? No you are doing SEO, and you are making money. Stop trying to be an internet marketing "saint". Also your sig: "cloak affiliate links", yeah that's really user and SEO friendly, not.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108456].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Dan Grossman View Post

      The #1 thing 90% of people in IM will ignore about SEO is that you're not supposed to "build backlinks" yourself at all. You're supposed to be building and marketing something people will talk about and link to on their own. Good SEO is about making sure your site effectively leverages the traffic, social media and links it acquires. That's all.
      Respectfully I have to call you on that and since I have called others statements baloney I must now in deference to fairness also call that baloney. Why?

      even the market leader doesn't get to define an entire industry and if we went by that and your other statement of what is not doing SEO then it would redefine what the entire industry is. The truth is although I agree with much of what you say the entire SEO industry IS built on manipulation because frankly ALL PR (public relations) is based on some form of manipulation.


      SEO is about optimization of on page and off page assets and if we used your definition of the linker doing it on their own there would be nothing left. and No SEO industry at all. The widely held whitehat practice of contacting a webmaster for a link would be toast as well since contacting them asking for exposure is the very opposite of them linking "on their own". Its a deliberate attempt to manipulate the webmaster into a link they would not even have thought of doing "on their own". The key difference to all the other techniques you listed is that presumedly if the webmaster agrees there is something worthy of being linked to

      Press releases could be considered manipulation and those with more power. prestige and money routinely manipulate links by using their public relations connections to ensure that blogs and newsoutlets cover their product launch and link to their websites. Frankly alot of television advertising, radio spots television campaigns are now done in part to get both traffic,exposure and better positioning across EVERY medium including search

      So to me the only question is who gets to manipulate. right now it seems to be that money can and since our society equates black with shady then power, prestige and money should be called black hat.

      Lets face it the "if you build it they will come" technique has not worked in any business on or offline. Exposure is always needed and its the business of SEOs to make sure the exposure in the serps is maximized by direct intervention not by people linking completely on their own.

      Google will try and claim they are all about the non manipulation but in no logical world should they even as the market leader be allowed to define what that is particularly in light of the fact that they directly sell the right to manipulate the top 3 positions of their results by claiming that the pastel color and the tiny notice of an ad does not serve as manipulation of its users (total poppycock because it it didn't manipulate searchers to click those ads up top no one would pay to get those top spots. )

      So like it or not some amount of manipulation is doing real SEO and yes even good SEO. Now if the only thing your site can get is links that YOU put then there is a greater problem but will I allow anyone to define SEO as not doing any manipulation.

      Of course not - thats absurd.
      Google is fine to set the rules on its own site but not to define an entire industries morality.

      Will I bow to the idea that if I link from one class C IP to another one as a Seo I am not doing real SEO?

      Sure.

      Right after Disney doesn't link to its sister site ABC and Adobe doesn't link to its partners and Google doesn't do the same from Youtube and Microsoft doesn't link to MSNBC and Apple doesn't link to its partner sites and ....well you get the picture when I don't see every major corporation linking to other class c Ips with followed links that are bought by a financial partnership.

      I see no virtue in money manipulating the serps without any chance of the small guy surviving. If google wants to call for total non manipulation then they can put something on the table that allows the small guy not just the corporation to leverage top results and exposure in their search engines.

      They and others have corrupted what the internet was originally about. I don't buy that doing exactly what Adobe does, microsoft does and countless corporations do is "black" just because not being a multimillion dollar corporation I spend less money and have financial interests that are not spelled out by lawyers.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108957].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Look, I understand what you are saying, and logically it does make a lot of sense.

    In practice though, I have not seen it make a difference.

    That's all I'll say.
    Signature

    For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108471].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Weedy92
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Look, I understand what you are saying, and logically it does make a lot of sense.

      In practice though, I have not seen it make a difference.

      That's all I'll say.
      Please just test it out, and do your own case study. I can 100% for sure say you will be pleased with the results you find.. That's all I'm trying to get at here, not trying to step on any toes or make anyone upset.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108503].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Just one question Weedy. We will try to understand it although we are most all uneducated :rolleyes:

      How does google build an algo based on traffic/link ratio shown in GA when not every site ranking uses GA?

      All of them have ranked incredibly easy regardless of competition.
      This a grade double A Baloney. According to your premise every white hat reputable site would be building links in the same organic way (because their links come from real sites that find value and suggest and steer traffic with the link to them) so competition would come into play. That signals to me that you are ranking for some weak stuff and drawing all kinds of erroneous conclusions for ranking for small time traffic/serps.

      the idea that you can rank without regard to competition is as dubious as the claims in your sig
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108556].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Weedy92
    Have to leave the house for a bit, will answer any questions later when I get back.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108509].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zeus66
    What Dan Grossman posted is the obvious trend at Google. You can hate it. You can fight it. You can bury your head in the sand and ignore it. But Google has never deviated from their desire for all "backlinks" to be granted by the link giver - not manufactured by the link recipient.

    The frustrating factor here is time, of course. Nobody really wants or can afford to wait for it, so we all chase shortcuts. Any proactive link building is technically an attempt to game the system (unless you're building them just to get the direct traffic, in which case you may fall victim to an unintended effect, sadly).

    What it all comes back to is one of the oldest sayings among IM'ers. I remember hearing this way back in the mid-90s...

    Content is king. Give people something to link to on their own because they are impressed and want to share. This is all we were ever intended to do and it's the one thing Google has never deviated from in terms of basic webmaster advice.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108715].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Silvey
    So more or less you are talking about natural and unnatural link building. I don't think there is any correlation between links and traffic post Penguin, but rather the type of links built in x amount of time.

    For instance I could build 1000 links easily through article syndication as well as through rss directories. 1000 links coming from 1000 forum profiles or sigs might raise the flag though.
    Signature
    WP Animate - Increases Conversions & Clicks!
    Create Amazing CSS3 Animations in just a few Clicks - New!

    WPHeadline.net - Create Blazing Headlines in just a few clicks. Updated to WordPress 4.1.1
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108751].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author howto
    A site could easily have more backlinks than visitors naturally. I will give you an example:

    Pintrest.

    People pin a pic which includes a backlink to your website. They may repin the picture however they may have never visited your site. The backlink is given on each pin to credit you as the source of the image.

    Also OP you are assuming the website gets 100% of its views from Google. If a site doesn't have Google analytic or any Google scripts on the page how is Google to know that a site doesn't get a million views in referral traffic and other search engines like Bing etc? There is no way for them to know the traffic to 100% accuracy.

    I think you going around calling other people in this forum stupid for not agreeing with you is incredibly ignorant and arrogant. I think my counter argument to your initial theory makes a lot more sense however do you see me resorting to childish name calling? No. That is because this is a place of learning and debate and not a school playground.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7108799].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author howto
    @Mike Anthony

    I loved the part about Google manipulating the first 3 results with their paid results. Made me chuckle.

    I totally agree with your thoughts on how Google is pushing the internet in the direction of the rich. It is something I have been saying for a long time now. If Google have their way the internet will end up like TV is. A bunch of overpaid celebrities kissing each others asses with advertisements you are forced to watch with lies and propaganda spoon fed by the rich and powerful. Google have bigger and more sinister plans than I think most people realise.


    Posted from Warrior Forum Reader for Android
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7109031].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author paulgl
    Originally Posted by Weedy92 View Post

    Now lets think, how natural is it if they see your site is getting 30 visits a day, and all of the sudden 1,000+ backlinks are built.. That just wouldn't happen in real life.
    Anyone who has been doing this for any length of time, and
    doing it right, has and is experiencing that.

    Google could care less about doing the same numbers daily.
    That would be crazy.

    Sorry, I'm motivated by Bernie Madoff's $65 billion bank statements.

    Diverse, natural. I hate those words. They make no sense in
    the real world of any SEO.

    You fail to mention that after those 30 visitors, your 1,000
    new links are now bringing in much more visitors. You make
    it sound that you can't go from 30 to 10,000 visitors in
    one day. And that's done all the time, backlinks aside.

    Seriously. It would mean the opposite is true as well.
    That if you have only 1 backlink, and get 10,000 visitors,
    then somehow that's unnatural. One fantastic backlink
    by itself could do that. I got mentioned on the radio one
    day locally. So, with no new backlinks, I shot up in
    traffic like a dog.

    Funny how I remember reading everything on adsense that
    google put out when I joined. And I know they said do
    not worry about a spike in traffic. It happens and they
    WANT it to happen. I can only assume links are the same
    way. They want people to google+ their crap all over the
    place!

    Paul
    Signature

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

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7109061].message }}

Trending Topics