35 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
35 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

[Need Feedback] Car Services Website

by windrider07
30 replies
  • SEO
    • |
Need some actionable tips from veterans in the field.

Please don't answer with "you need better content" or "check your backlinks. need more dofollow". Some real tips like "if you remove this, this, and this, then add this, and this, then wait a few days, check your ranking" that would be awesome. I always love learning details explanations on how and why things work in SEO.

Site: New Jersey Car Service | Hamilton's Car Service

It ranks #1 for its brand name but its not ranking at all for its money terms such as "new jersey car service" or "summit car service". My guess is the content needs more optimization or the backlinks need to be checked some more.
#car #feedback #services #website
  • Profile picture of the author HuiBang
    It's not necessary to include so many internal links on home page.For better SEO optimization, 1 or 2 internal links are enough.Having so many internal links on your home page decrease your reputation in front of Google. So it's wise to limit the number of links on any given page.According to this by Matt Cutts, you don’t need to worry about over-optimized internal linking causing penalties

    Best Practice for SEO Internal Linking by Moz
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10330126].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Why do i feel like you took on a client for some consulting and/or direct SEO work and are now trying to get answers from the forum on how to do the work? I hope for the business's sake, I am wrong.

    Anyhow, the shit-ton of duplicate content would be a good place to start.
    Signature

    For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10330152].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Why do i feel like you took on a client for some consulting and/or direct SEO work and are now trying to get answers from the forum on how to do the work? I hope for the business's sake, I am wrong.

      Anyhow, the shit-ton of duplicate content would be a good place to start.
      Ha, ha, I just noticed OP is selling SEO.

      Never mind on my previous comment, odds are Mike is right, it's a client website.

      I should have expected this from WF.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10330289].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DABK
        It's a site with 10,000 backlinks to the homepage from 121 sites. That's 82 links per site, average. Most of them created between March and September 2013. The few I looked at, from crappy pages on crappy sites.

        No links to inner pages.

        Anchor texts not so hot.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10330350].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sconer
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Why do i feel like you took on a client for some consulting and/or direct SEO work and are now trying to get answers from the forum on how to do the work? I hope for the business's sake, I am wrong.

      Anyhow, the shit-ton of duplicate content would be a good place to start.
      What duplicate content? Has he copied from other websites? Or are you talking about the content on the various city landing pages?

      ETA: I see you later said this:

      There is duplicate content location pages, which is something Google said they were targeting this year in the local SEO space.
      That's what I would like to talk about. I was just reading an article by a member here who spoke about doing well ranking pages with dozens of location landing pages all with the same content. So that was my plan going forward.

      But now I am getting worried, you say that Google said it will be stopping that?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10342027].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author windrider07
        Originally Posted by sconer View Post

        What duplicate content? Has he copied from other websites? Or are you talking about the content on the various city landing pages?

        ETA: I see you later said this:



        That's what I would like to talk about. I was just reading an article by a member here who spoke about doing well ranking pages with dozens of location landing pages all with the same content. So that was my plan going forward.

        But now I am getting worried, you say that Google said it will be stopping that?

        Duplicate content is a very DEBATABLE topic. Unless you can show a VISUAL case study PROVING that duplicate content in ANY scenario will be PENALIZED and bring your RANKING down, then yea....in certain cases duplicate content may still survive. There are ares that rank with duplicate content because they use PBNs or Private/Public Blog Networks in which they purchase and have full control over 5-8 high PR domains (many SEOs still debate on whether PR actually exists or not) and they put their website's links on those domains using different targeted anchor terms and they rank for those terms.

        So it depends on your situation. Yes, Google will say that certain things are risky. Even Matt Cutts will say stuff. But unless you can prove that it works or doesn't work in certain situations, only take certain things with a gain of salt. At least that's what I've learned.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10351355].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
          Originally Posted by windrider07 View Post

          many SEOs still debate on whether PR actually exists or not

          Lol... There are exactly zero qualified SEOs that debate whether or not PR exists. Zero.

          We all know it exists. It is in large part the foundation of Google's algorithm.

          We just have no idea what the PageRank is for any page on the internet anymore because Google stopped sharing the data publicly. Internally, it is still updated and used all the time by them.
          Signature

          For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10351362].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sconer
          Originally Posted by windrider07 View Post

          Duplicate content is a very DEBATABLE topic. Unless you can show a VISUAL case study PROVING that duplicate content in ANY scenario will be PENALIZED and bring your RANKING down, then yea....in certain cases duplicate content may still survive. There are ares that rank with duplicate content because they use PBNs or Private/Public Blog Networks in which they purchase and have full control over 5-8 high PR domains (many SEOs still debate on whether PR actually exists or not) and they put their website's links on those domains using different targeted anchor terms and they rank for those terms.

          So it depends on your situation. Yes, Google will say that certain things are risky. Even Matt Cutts will say stuff. But unless you can prove that it works or doesn't work in certain situations, only take certain things with a gain of salt. At least that's what I've learned.
          FWIW, I already spoke with Mike about this topic privately.

          To answer your question about duplicate content I will tell a story. Many years ago when I first put up my website I had a friend who was also a contractor who I recommended my web designer to. So my friend told the web designer to use all of my content and that he would change it afterwards.

          I didn't know that at the time or else I would have told him not to do it. But anyway, a month later when searching for keywords from my website, HIS came up in google while mine wasn't there. In order to see results from my website on those keywords, you had to click the link at the bottom of the results that said "Click here to see similar websites".

          Now I don't know if you can say that I was "penalized" or not. But the end result was that my friend duplicating my content caused me to lose my rankings even though his website was published well after mine was up and indexed.

          So back to the location based landing pages, if they are duplicated, can Google give authority to one of the pages (or a few of them) while keeping the rest far down in the rankings?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10351365].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author windrider07
            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

            Lol... There are exactly zero qualified SEOs that debate whether or not PR exists. Zero.

            We all know it exists. It is in large part the foundation of Google's algorithm.

            We just have no idea what the PageRank is for any page on the internet anymore because Google stopped sharing the data publicly. Internally, it is still updated and used all the time by them.
            As one of my mentors once said "if they say PR doesn't exist, they are not an SEO". You can guess what a PageRank is depending on how fast a website gets indexed. Websites with higher PR gets indexed faster.

            Originally Posted by sconer View Post

            FWIW, I already spoke with Mike about this topic privately.

            To answer your question about duplicate content I will tell a story. Many years ago when I first put up my website I had a friend who was also a contractor who I recommended my web designer to. So my friend told the web designer to use all of my content and that he would change it afterwards.

            I didn't know that at the time or else I would have told him not to do it. But anyway, a month later when searching for keywords from my website, HIS came up in google while mine wasn't there. In order to see results from my website on those keywords, you had to click the link at the bottom of the results that said "Click here to see similar websites".

            Now I don't know if you can say that I was "penalized" or not. But the end result was that my friend duplicating my content caused me to lose my rankings even though his website was published well after mine was up and indexed.

            So back to the location based landing pages, if they are duplicated, can Google give authority to one of the pages (or a few of them) while keeping the rest far down in the rankings?
            Not sure I am the best one to answer that one. Usually if you have the original content but the person who copied you is ranking higher, it could be because they have more value on their page or they are getting better backlinks.

            I belive it can be possible a webpage to have authority while other pages are not ranking. I've seen websites where some pages rank while other pages do not show up at all. But it can be due to multiple reasons.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10352220].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author yukon
          Banned
          Originally Posted by windrider07 View Post

          Duplicate content is a very DEBATABLE topic.
          Duplicate content isn't debatable.

          The domain/page with better SEO (links) wins. End of story.

          Now you know why folks start crying on this forum when competition scrapes their original content & out ranks them on Google SERPs. The domain that created the original content sucks at SEO. The scraper domain is smart enough to know SEO trumps two unique domains/pages with the same content.

          Live & learn.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10352606].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
          Originally Posted by windrider07 View Post

          Duplicate content is a very DEBATABLE topic. Unless you can show a VISUAL case study PROVING that duplicate content in ANY scenario will be PENALIZED and bring your RANKING down, then yea....in certain cases duplicate content may still survive.
          You're phrasing that question so that the scenario becomes very restricted. Google doesn't necessarily penalize sites for these kinds of problems, they just filter their results. If you're demanding penalization as the outcome you certainly won't have much to look at.

          Actually one of the local SEO companies recently did a small study on duplicate content on e-commerce websites. They completely rewrote some content and left some unchanged. The results were pretty predictable.

          Google Translate usually does ok, but here's some of the words in the pics:
          sijoituksen keskiarvo = ranking average
          sijoituksen mediaani = ranking median
          vanha tuoteteksti = old product text
          uusi tuoteteksti = new product text
          toimenpiteet = actions
          ei mitään = none

          Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this company, I just read their newsletter.
          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[10353927].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Wants free detailed SEO advice while selling car services.

    How many free rides have you given in New Jersey?

    Anyways...

    You're dealing with mostly mobile traffic (JFK, LaGuardia, etc...) yet your site isn't responsive for mobile. I only took a quick look since I'm not getting a free ride, I guess you don't also have a dedicated mobile site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10330262].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeMizOne
    How to do SEO:

    1. Don't know anything about SEO

    2. Live in 3rd world country

    3. Offer SEO services promising way too much

    4. Ask for SEO help on this forum

    5. ????

    6. Profit
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10330377].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author windrider07
      Originally Posted by HuiBang View Post

      It's not necessary to include so many internal links on home page.For better SEO optimization, 1 or 2 internal links are enough.Having so many internal links on your home page decrease your reputation in front of Google. So it's wise to limit the number of links on any given page.According to this by Matt Cutts, you don’t need to worry about over-optimized internal linking causing penalties

      Best Practice for SEO Internal Linking by Moz
      I've heard opposing arguments on this so without testing this theory out, I'm not 100% on it. Not saying I don't believe it because it is a good point.

      This site which was given to me as an example by a friend of mine who is an expert in the field (ranked hundreds of sites): Denver Auto Accident Law Firm - Colorado Truck Accident, Workers Compensation Attorneys | Levine Law It contains a lot of links to its internal pages.

      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Why do i feel like you took on a client for some consulting and/or direct SEO work and are now trying to get answers from the forum on how to do the work? I hope for the business's sake, I am wrong.

      Anyhow, the shit-ton of duplicate content would be a good place to start.
      I always get advice. I believe 2 brains is better than 1. Duplicate content is a bit of a debatable matter. Some sites with location pages have ranked even with duplicate content. Know any good strategies for content with location pages?

      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      Wants free detailed SEO advice while selling car services.

      How many free rides have you given in New Jersey?

      Anyways...

      You're dealing with mostly mobile traffic (JFK, LaGuardia, etc...) yet your site isn't responsive for mobile. I only took a quick look since I'm not getting a free ride, I guess you don't also have a dedicated mobile site.
      Good catch. I actually took a look at our analytics and mobile traffic was not our hottest source of traffic and Google Mobile says the site is not mobile optimized. Making a site mobile optimized is something that really depends on where your biggest source of traffic is coming from, not where you are assuming it is coming from. But yes, as I am running through the list of possible factors that could be impacting the site's ranking, I'm considering working on the mobile site.

      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      Ha, ha, I just noticed OP is selling SEO.

      Never mind on my previous comment, odds are Mike is right, it's a client website.

      I should have expected this from WF.
      And your post helps me how? Yes, I do offer SEO. I will admit there are better SEOs out there than me.

      Originally Posted by DABK View Post

      It's a site with 10,000 backlinks to the homepage from 121 sites. That's 82 links per site, average. Most of them created between March and September 2013. The few I looked at, from crappy pages on crappy sites.

      No links to inner pages.

      Anchor texts not so hot.
      Last time I checked, there wasn't 10k backlinks....unless you are overexaggerating.

      You sure about no links to the inner pages??

      Anchor texts on website or on external sites linking to this site?

      Originally Posted by MikeMizOne View Post

      How to do SEO:

      1. Don't know anything about SEO

      2. Live in 3rd world country

      3. Offer SEO services promising way too much

      4. Ask for SEO help on this forum

      5. ????

      6. Profit
      I never promise too much.
      So what if I live in the Philippines?
      I always ask for help. Is that bad?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10331045].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DABK
        Majestic SEO insists that this URL New Jersey Car Service | Hamilton's Car Service has 10063 backlinks from 121 domains.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10331233].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author windrider07
          Originally Posted by DABK View Post

          Majestic SEO insists that this URL New Jersey Car Service | Hamilton's Car Service has 10063 backlinks from 121 domains.
          Using the optimised URL: New Jersey Car Service | Hamilton's Car Service

          Majestic gives me:

          External
          Backlinks
          86

          Referring
          Domains
          18

          Referring
          IPs
          17

          Referring
          Subnets
          17


          What are you putting down? URL? Root domain? Subdomain? Path?
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10332312].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Oziboomer
            Originally Posted by windrider07 View Post

            What are you putting down? URL? Root domain? Subdomain? Path?
            Sorry...not wanting to distract from any good advice from people who do SEO for real but what does...

            Lets discuss. Low-budget and flexible.
            mean in your sig?

            I'm asking because Low budget is one thing....

            ...is flexible...lower than LOW?...or more expensive?

            thanks.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10332338].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author DABK
            You're looking at the recent activity. I'm looking at the historic activity. You see what happened in the last few months, I see what happened in the last 5 years.

            Originally Posted by windrider07 View Post

            Using the optimised URL: New Jersey Car Service | Hamilton's Car Service

            Majestic gives me:

            External
            Backlinks
            86

            Referring
            Domains
            18

            Referring
            IPs
            17

            Referring
            Subnets
            17


            What are you putting down? URL? Root domain? Subdomain? Path?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10332444].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author windrider07
              Originally Posted by DABK View Post

              You're looking at the recent activity. I'm looking at the historic activity. You see what happened in the last few months, I see what happened in the last 5 years.
              ok, backlinks is controlled by the Penguin algorithm and so far I haven't see any penalties against the site unless I am missing something.

              Also, the removal or disavowal or backlinks is something sites to do improve ranking. So how does gong from 100k backlinks to 100 make a site look bad? Unless the drop happened over a period of time of 3 days....Google gets suspicious of sudden spikes. I didn't manage any of the backlinks.

              According to GA, the site got hit in Sept/October of 2012 where traffic just dropped. During this time, Panda was floating around and the site's content was not that good. SO my guess is it is a content problem. I'm not sure how recent the removal of backlinks was but since there are no penalties listed, the removal of backlinks should not have been a problem.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10333096].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                Google is not suspicious of spikes in links. That is total horseshit. Spikes are actually much more natural.
                Signature

                For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10333179].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author windrider07
                  Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                  Google is not suspicious of spikes in links. That is total horseshit. Spikes are actually much more natural.
                  Not that I don't believe you but I've heard different things from people who also rank websites. I've learned that the "grow your backlinks organically gradually over time" works best. I think the important aspect is how natural are those backlinks. If you saw a clown being supported by 500 zombies in less than 3 hours vs a well-dressed man being supported by 20 fast-food workers in 2 hours, who would you trust more?

                  So either the site lost some good backlinks over time or it removed all of its poor backlinks. Either way, I have another site ranking for some good terms and its got like 1 or 2 dofollow backlinks. I'm thinking this car services site has an issue that is hiding somewhere.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10333535].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                    Originally Posted by windrider07 View Post

                    Not that I don't believe you but I've heard different things from people who also rank websites. I've learned that the "grow your backlinks organically gradually over time" works best. I think the important aspect is how natural are those backlinks. If you saw a clown being supported by 500 zombies in less than 3 hours vs a well-dressed man being supported by 20 fast-food workers in 2 hours, who would you trust more?

                    So either the site lost some good backlinks over time or it removed all of its poor backlinks. Either way, I have another site ranking for some good terms and its got like 1 or 2 dofollow backlinks. I'm thinking this car services site has an issue that is hiding somewhere.
                    Yes, there are many noobs out there talking about how you should get links slowly or that you need to get a consistent amount of links daily, weekly, or monthly to look "natural".

                    All of that is just total nonsense. It is pretty obvious to see when you study sites ranking well in very competitive niches. Spikes are natural. Spikes are how sites get most of their links.

                    The idea of creating a steady stream of links on a consistent basis... There is nothing more unnatural than that.

                    Really, it comes down to the quality of links though. If a site has shitty links, it does not matter what kind of pacing it uses.

                    There are definitely some issues with the site, but I would not say any of them are hiding.

                    It's on a server where about half of the domains are de-indexed. There are 1,000 domains on the same server which is unusually high. I would imagine the server experiences lots of slow periods and periods where it is virtually unresponsive. There is duplicate content location pages, which is something Google said they were targeting this year in the local SEO space. The site layout is total crap. If anyone does find the site, I would imagine they click the back button pretty fast and click on a competitor. It is a very amateur looking website.
                    Signature

                    For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10333947].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author DABK
                Read Mike's post where he's telling you the reasons are not hidden.

                Somebody not good at this built this website, keyword-stuffed, built a bunch of useless links, etc.

                It's not ranking because of all of these reasons taken together.

                Without a penalty. You don't need a penalty to lose rankings and stay down.



                Every time you do something, you get a response from Google....
                Originally Posted by windrider07 View Post

                ok, backlinks is controlled by the Penguin algorithm and so far I haven't see any penalties against the site unless I am missing something.

                Also, the removal or disavowal or backlinks is something sites to do improve ranking. So how does gong from 100k backlinks to 100 make a site look bad? Unless the drop happened over a period of time of 3 days....Google gets suspicious of sudden spikes. I didn't manage any of the backlinks.

                According to GA, the site got hit in Sept/October of 2012 where traffic just dropped. During this time, Panda was floating around and the site's content was not that good. SO my guess is it is a content problem. I'm not sure how recent the removal of backlinks was but since there are no penalties listed, the removal of backlinks should not have been a problem.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10334403].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author DABK
                  I have to add this:
                  Spikes is the natural way.

                  Think about it.

                  You post some great content. People find it a day later and link to it... They don't say, Let me link to it in week because some people have already linked to it today.


                  After a few days, most of the people who were going to link to it are done and you stop getting backlinks for a while.

                  Then you post something on some other site, mentioning your great content. A bunch of people visit your great content in the next few days. If they like it, they link, without thinking about link velocity.

                  A year later, every now and again, someone finds your great content and links to it... But they don't do it with link velocity in mind. They don't space themselves to match your linking efforts any more than the first linkers did.

                  Random timing and spikes is the natural way sites acquire links.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10334531].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author windrider07
                    Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                    Yes, there are many noobs out there talking about how you should get links slowly or that you need to get a consistent amount of links daily, weekly, or monthly to look "natural".

                    All of that is just total nonsense. It is pretty obvious to see when you study sites ranking well in very competitive niches. Spikes are natural. Spikes are how sites get most of their links.

                    The idea of creating a steady stream of links on a consistent basis... There is nothing more unnatural than that.

                    Really, it comes down to the quality of links though. If a site has shitty links, it does not matter what kind of pacing it uses.

                    There are definitely some issues with the site, but I would not say any of them are hiding.

                    It's on a server where about half of the domains are de-indexed. There are 1,000 domains on the same server which is unusually high. I would imagine the server experiences lots of slow periods and periods where it is virtually unresponsive. There is duplicate content location pages, which is something Google said they were targeting this year in the local SEO space. The site layout is total crap. If anyone does find the site, I would imagine they click the back button pretty fast and click on a competitor. It is a very amateur looking website.
                    These "noobs" have also done their research. But what you say is also true. Seo is an opinionated game. Some prefer a paced link velocity. Others like it fast. Would you agree in saying all of the best SEO experts in the world do SEO in the same way? Craigslist is crap as well but still does well. I've seen many sites that are crap. I'm not gonna defend them but as long as the site has what I want it to have and gives me what I want, great. The guy who owns the site is actually in the process of getting a new design though. As for the server, any suggestions for a good web hosting server?

                    Originally Posted by uday11 View Post

                    Why have you mentioned "Our Tags" at the end of the website, just above footer?

                    Clear your cache. It's been removed.

                    Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                    The website was clearly designed by someone who has no idea what they are doing. I'm guessing it was their first attempt at web design.
                    You're entitled to your own opinion I've seen crappier websites that ranked well. I'm not saying it's the best-looking website.

                    Originally Posted by uday11 View Post

                    I think OP has to remove those tags which are not necessary.
                    Clear your cache.

                    Originally Posted by DABK View Post

                    Read Mike's post where he's telling you the reasons are not hidden.

                    Somebody not good at this built this website, keyword-stuffed, built a bunch of useless links, etc.

                    It's not ranking because of all of these reasons taken together.

                    Without a penalty. You don't need a penalty to lose rankings and stay down.



                    Every time you do something, you get a response from Google....
                    I've seen crappier-looking websites that were ranking up. But again, I'm not defending the site's design. I've seen better but it does what it is supposed to do. We're working on getting a new design. Please elaborate on "keyword stuffed". I'm still trying to find out where all of the backlinks are. Gotta go over to ahrefs and check it out. Majestic is only showing me 88 backlinks based on its Fresh Index.

                    Originally Posted by DABK View Post

                    I have to add this:
                    Spikes is the natural way.

                    Think about it.

                    You post some great content. People find it a day later and link to it... They don't say, Let me link to it in week because some people have already linked to it today.


                    After a few days, most of the people who were going to link to it are done and you stop getting backlinks for a while.

                    Then you post something on some other site, mentioning your great content. A bunch of people visit your great content in the next few days. If they like it, they link, without thinking about link velocity.

                    A year later, every now and again, someone finds your great content and links to it... But they don't do it with link velocity in mind. They don't space themselves to match your linking efforts any more than the first linkers did.

                    Random timing and spikes is the natural way sites acquire links.
                    I agree, but again....it really depends on your approach. Some like to build links fast. Others prefer it gradually.
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10335141].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                      Originally Posted by windrider07 View Post

                      These "noobs" have also done their research. But what you say is also true. Seo is an opinionated game. Some prefer a paced link velocity. Others like it fast. Would you agree in saying all of the best SEO experts in the world do SEO in the same way? Craigslist is crap as well but still does well. I've seen many sites that are crap. I'm not gonna defend them but as long as the site has what I want it to have and gives me what I want, great. The guy who owns the site is actually in the process of getting a new design though. As for the server, any suggestions for a good web hosting server?

                      I really wish you would stop saying that SEO is basically just guesswork. It's not true at all.

                      If anyone is suggesting you should build links at a certain pace, they are not SEOs. They are idiots pretending to be SEOs. There is no valid argument for creating links at any certain pace. Link spikes are "natural". Creating XXX number of links per day, week, or month is NOT natural. That is artificial.

                      I would argue that Craiglist is not at all crap. It is perfectly suited for its audience. It is easy to use and does not contain fluff.
                      Signature

                      For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10341426].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author windrider07
                        Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                        I really wish you would stop saying that SEO is basically just guesswork. It's not true at all.

                        If anyone is suggesting you should build links at a certain pace, they are not SEOs. They are idiots pretending to be SEOs. There is no valid argument for creating links at any certain pace. Link spikes are "natural". Creating XXX number of links per day, week, or month is NOT natural. That is artificial.

                        I would argue that Craiglist is not at all crap. It is perfectly suited for its audience. It is easy to use and does not contain fluff.
                        Craiglist is indeed suited for its audience, but still....the website looks like crap.

                        Link building depends on what you are building links for and where you building the links at.

                        To say that you could take a site and say EXACTLY what is wrong with it and give it a 100% accurate diagnosis is quite delusional. Even the best doctors in the world are sometimes wrong. Unless you are Google, you can probably make a solid diagnosis on a website and be around 95% right. It's not guessing. It's just....you can never tell if your audit is accurate or not.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10341982].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author uday11
    Why have you mentioned "Our Tags" at the end of the website, just above footer?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10334001].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by uday11 View Post

      Why have you mentioned "Our Tags" at the end of the website, just above footer?
      The website was clearly designed by someone who has no idea what they are doing. I'm guessing it was their first attempt at web design.
      Signature

      For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10334013].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author uday11
        Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

        The website was clearly designed by someone who has no idea what they are doing. I'm guessing it was their first attempt at web design.
        I think OP has to remove those tags which are not necessary.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10334077].message }}

Trending Topics