Rank Sites And Get Traffic Without Links - Does It Still Work?

by TheLoadUser 39 replies
Hello,

so I have been out of the game for a couple of years, used to make bank with the usual blackhat stuff. Unfortunately checking the SERPS a bit and simply bombing the site with some link service doesn't work anymore... bummer.

Now, I'm in a pretty bad situation. Depressed and more or less unable to work too much or focus, I need a way to make some bank with what I do best: Writing content and publishing it on a site, mostly in the form of an HONEST and real review, and making some bucks from affiliate commissions.

Unfortunately making an "authority" site hasn't worked for me too well... wrote a website with very detailed reviews and content in my old niche and it actually earns less than the old write-500-words-and-get-traffic strategy. In terms of earnings per click.

Kinda unsettling. I got a niche in which the top-ranking sites have not-too-many links and only a few articles, and they rank just fine, while not looking as if the creators have too much SEO knowledge or an expert on their site. Wrote my own article with a lot more content, and it doesn't rank. At all. Not even for some long tails.

What would you suggest? What is the game these days, what gets people ranked - I mean for real, not the usual "create good content and people will come" which we all know usually doesn't work, especially not if you have a very special opinion about the niche you write for and don't like creating "content" which doesn't suit you just to get some links.

What I'm looking for is a way to get traffic and rankings without investing more than my time, with my own content, and make some $$$. No matter how much, a few hundred after 2-3 months of work would be more than fine.

Any way to achieve that? How does Google work these days anyway?
#search engine optimization #links #rank #sites #traffic #work
Avatar of Unregistered
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Your content doesn't seem to generate much links on their own or you would have done better.

    For a lot of affiliate type sites PBNs are the way to go but they don't meet your requirement of spending no money. Google has to a large degree gotten what they wanted out of their changes. They have raised the bar so you either have to spend some money besides link spam tools or have great content AND the ability to market it.

    If you are looking for some secret to make the "good ole days" (of mass linking to rank) return - it doesn't exist.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11269759].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dsimms
      Amen, SEO can be somewhat costly, and spealized SEO can be even more expensive. He also has the wrong mindset, he is expecting to create an authority site without working his way through the ranks. It can take a multitude of years to build an "authority" site....

      he has been out of the game too long, and I expect him to take every cheap shortcut he can find, then he will end up getting a penalty, then whatever money, and time he did put in will be flushed down the toilet.

      sorry, short cuts are dead...
      Even if you get by for a while....
      google will find you, and kill your site....
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271786].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheLoadUser
    Hello,

    I'm more thinking about low-hanging fruit, meaning going into a niche with very low competition and getting some traffic to make a few bucks. Problem is I don't quite get it - sites get ranked with only a very low amount of links.

    Does this game even work with ZERO links anymore? Not talking about making much money here, just a bit to avoid getting broke.

    Surely there is a surefire way to make loads of cash with blackhat, but I'm not part of the guys that have access to that... so screw it for the moment.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11269764].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by TheLoadUser View Post


      Surely there is a surefire way to make loads of cash with blackhat, but I'm not part of the guys that have access to that...
      You must have been doing SEO in the 80s or 90s. In no time in recent history was there been a surefire way of ranking without links.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11269786].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TheLoadUser
    Ah yeah, I was referring to the 2009-ish time when a few Xrumer links ranked you top 10. However I saw a few people talking about just writing content to target long-tails.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11269788].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dave_hermansen
    Actually, I was of the same mindset that you could not get a website to rank well in a moderately competitive niche without having a decent link profile. One of our students, who we also now use to write for us, proved that wrong. He built a website in a niche we know is pretty competitive, has ZERO backlinks and ranks on page one for more than 150 different search phrases - some of them pretty tough ones.

    That said, his content is SICK! I've never seen so much content on product pages, category pages and buyer's guides. His site truly is the best one in his niche and offers the most detailed information and buyer's guides I have ever seen on a niche store.

    Now, this did not happen overnight. The site is six years old and has inched its way up the search engine listings gradually. This is one of the reasons we now truly believe that user engagement signals play a very big part in the Google algorithm now. He's likely got more time on site and page views than most sites in the niche. He tells us that every time he adds a new product, it shoots up to page one very quickly now, his site has gained that much overall authority in the niche.

    Bottom Line: It can be done if you have stellar content and the ability to make your site the very best information site on the web for your niche. It isn't going to happen overnight and if you don't have years to wait, backlinks still play a vital role in speeding up the process of organic search visibility.
    Signature
    FREE ONLINE COURSE- Learn How to Dropship the Right Way!
    My PROVEN ecommerce process, as seen on: Fox News, the NY Times & Flippa
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11269852].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by dave_hermansen View Post

      . He built a website in a niche we know is pretty competitive, has ZERO backlinks and ranks on page one for more than 150 different search phrases - some of them pretty tough ones.

      .
      Total and utter nonsense. Competitive means that there are people trying to rank for a term with strong on page and with links. You tried floating this untruth about a year ago by saying he built no backlinks - which is fine since you can get links without building them. But you do not rank for competitive terms without links against sites going for the same terms with them. Thats SEO 101.


      People need to understand how modern Search Engines work and at least try to understand what the term "competitive" means

      It isn't going to happen overnight and if you don't have years to wait,
      You wait years because over the years the site may get links to it not because any algo in Google's arsenal ranks Good sites in competitive niches without link votes over good sites with them.

      Please stop misleading people based on one alleged case you can present no link data on when so many have tried that approach and gotten nowhere just like the OP stated. its not competent at best and dishonest at worse.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11269925].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dave_hermansen
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Total and utter nonsense. Competitive means that there are people trying to rank for a term with strong on page and with links. You tried floating this untruth about a year ago by saying he built no backlinks - which is fine since you can get links without building them. But you do not rank for competitive terms without links against sites going for the same terms with them. Thats SEO 101.


        People need to understand how modern Search Engines work and at least try to understand what the term "competitive" means

        You wait years because over the years the site may get links to it not because any algo in Google's arsenal ranks Good sites in competitive niches without link votes over good sites with them.

        Please stop misleading people based on one alleged case you can present no link data on when so many have tried that approach and gotten nowhere just like the OP stated. its not competent at best and dishonest at worse.
        The site now has exactly ONE followed link and that is no longer showing up in tools after he switched the site to HTTPS. You can claim it is nonsense since you are so close-minded to the possibility that you could be wrong. As I said in the beginning of my statement, I was highly skeptical, too. You can doubt it until the day you die, but don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about and misleading people. It's ignorant (literally), offensive and you should have better manners than that. Just because YOU do not have the talent to do something does not mean that everyone suffers from the same limitations.

        It is definitely a competitive niche where many other sites are vying for organic search real estate because the average sale is $1,200 and average profit per sale after all expenses is over $200. We know, because we have had sites in the niche and they were extremely hard to rank with a plethora of solid backlinks.

        One could just as easily claim that you have no data to show that it is impossible and that YOU are misleading people. The difference is, this dude can write and the information he presents blows away all of his competitors. That's very different from the drivel I see on most websites "who have tried and failed" (there is trying, there is really trying and there is really trying and having a superior skill set).

        Sorry, but I will not reveal the URL because sensible people do not reveal niches where they are making a lot of money and I'm definitely not going to "out" somebody else's website. Believe whatever you want, but just because you have never seen it doesn't mean it isn't happening. That's what they said before the microscope was invented.

        Does the O.P. have the talent, determination and time to wait for his site to very slowly climb the rankings based on vastly superior content and user signals alone? Probably not. I know I don't!
        Signature
        FREE ONLINE COURSE- Learn How to Dropship the Right Way!
        My PROVEN ecommerce process, as seen on: Fox News, the NY Times & Flippa
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11270638].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by dave_hermansen View Post

          The site now has exactly ONE followed link and that is no longer showing up in tools after he switched the site to HTTPS. You can claim it is nonsense since you are so close-minded to the possibility that you could be wrong.
          No I just don't make my brain fall out of my head because someone on the internets is making a claim with absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up

          literally millions of sites rank and are shown to rank every day with LINKS - ABSOLUTE PROVEN FACT than any SEO knows.

          If you want to claim that on a clear day the sky over Phoenix is green when everywhere else it is blue it is YOU that needs to provide some evidence - more than your own claim.

          Thats not anyone being close minded thats everyone with common sense exercising their brain cells. You have floated this more than once over the last year and every time - Evidence? NADA

          if the content is so stellar and the site is so awesome it ranks for "competitive" terms with no back links then put up the link or send it to a SEO mod here like MikeF and a few others. They can run it through a backlink check and report on the alleged competition
          (that can't outrank your site even with links).

          until then no need accept your word for it - balls in your court . Can we not hear crickets again when we ask for evidence?

          but don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about and misleading people. It's ignorant (literally), offensive
          Its the very definition of ignorant to accept facts with ZERO evidence. I think its offensive to mislead people OR ask people to accept things that may affect their business, time and livelihood without any evidence. You can post what you like but you can't give directions that others ought to immediately accept it without concrete evidence

          again are you prepared to offer any evidence? As long as I am on this forum I will ask for evidence when it contradicts BASIC SEO knowledge. If you are offended then you will just have to be offended. People often rely on this forum for information. Its not about your individual feelings.

          One could just as easily claim that you have no data to show that it is impossible and that YOU are misleading people.
          Not even close. Check my "the sky is green on a clear day in Phoenix" example. No one is misleading people by saying the sky is blue on a clear day - it what all the evidence says

          If you don't know links is the KEY factor in a competitive serp then thats not my fault . Thats you not knowing what all the rest of the SEO world knows.

          At any point you can share the url with a few SEOs trusted here (not necessarily me). If you refuse then frankly my recommendation to anyone reading this thread is that they should ignore your advice because its counter to all the SEO rankings that are not hidden and not just alleged but proven.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11270660].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by dave_hermansen View Post


          It is definitely a competitive niche where many other sites are vying for organic search real estate because the average sale is $1,200 and average profit per sale after all expenses is over $200.
          !
          Dave...Dave.....Dave.....How much profit per sale has nothing to do with whats competitive. You can win a race because no good competition shows up. It doesn't matter if it pays 1 cent or $4,000. Doesn't make it competitive. and that goes for you being unable to outrank for a term without backlinks.

          I know for darn sure I would rank that. Why?

          Simple - onpage factors are the easiest and the most controllable factors in SEO. If you ever saw a page without links ranking you would analyze it for its relevance , perhaps keyword placement etc and emulate it (not copy it).

          Simple. Everyone knows getting links is the harder factor.

          Competition is how many people who know SEO are trying to rank for a term by applying that knowledge.

          again nothing to do with the conversion payout. Thats why keyword competition analysis is so great. Every now and again you CAN find some gems with weak competition that makes some money - but no making money is NOT the indicator a serp is competitive.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11270685].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
          Originally Posted by dave_hermansen View Post

          It is definitely a competitive niche where many other sites are vying for organic search real estate because the average sale is $1,200 and average profit per sale after all expenses is over $200. We know, because we have had sites in the niche and they were extremely hard to rank with a plethora of solid backlinks.

          I don't want to get into a pissing match about this, but this is the part that makes me highly skeptical.

          If your experience is true, what you are saying is that content is stronger than links, and every SERP I have looked at for the past 12+ years says otherwise.

          My guess would be if it really looks like there are no links, they are doing something with redirects or masking the links that is not being picked up by traditional link checkers.
          Signature
          SEO Myths
          SEO, PPC, Geo-Fencing, and Social Media Marketing Services - Get a Free Quote
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11270753].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

            My guess would be if it really looks like there are no links, they are doing something with redirects or masking the links that is not being picked up by traditional link checkers.
            or if he had said pages I would have bought internal links from pages that received external links but he insists it ranked with no links to the entire site and multiple competitive keywords which I am not buying at all.

            The explanation makes no sense either. If the site were ranking on user experience and has no other links (hence no other traffic) then there would be no users to have a superior experience. People have to find it to use it.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11270763].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              The explanation makes no sense either. If the site were ranking on user experience and has no other links (hence no other traffic) then there would be no users to have a superior experience. People have to find it to use it.
              Well, technically, they could find it from other sources. Offline ads, Facebook, Youtube, Pinterest, etc.

              But yeah, I get what you are saying.
              Signature
              SEO Myths
              SEO, PPC, Geo-Fencing, and Social Media Marketing Services - Get a Free Quote
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11270766].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                Well, technically, they could find it from other sources. Offline ads, Facebook, Youtube, Pinterest, etc.
                .
                perhaps, but still links and google would have to spend billions to double, triple their capacity to use Chrome alone to monitor, process and store all traffic from Chrome users signed in.

                I can see Google recording click through times in comparison to other links being clicked afterwards because thats data already there but the UI experience by Chrome is is a whole other thing

                So it still makes zero sense to me and no evidence in sight.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11270783].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  perhaps, but still links and google would have to spend billions to double, triple their capacity to use Chrome alone to monitor, process and store all traffic from Chrome users signed in.

                  I can see Google recording click through times in comparison to other links being clicked afterwards because thats data already there but the UI experience by Chrome is is a whole other thing

                  So it still makes zero sense to me and no evidence in sight.

                  Well they can get some data from Google Analytics, but I have never been a big believer in that.

                  Only a small percentage of all the websites on the internet use Google Analytics, so how do you go about using something like time on a page as a ranking factor when you do not have the data for most sites?

                  And if they are using it for sites that they have the data for, then it is an uneven footing when compared to the sites they don't have the data for. That approach wouldn't make sense either.

                  Anyhow, I'm with you. If the story is true, there is something more to the page ranking than just great content. It may not be visible to any of us, such as a 301 redirect with strong links.
                  Signature
                  SEO Myths
                  SEO, PPC, Geo-Fencing, and Social Media Marketing Services - Get a Free Quote
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11270794].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post


                    Anyhow, I'm with you. If the story is true, there is something more to the page ranking than just great content. It may not be visible to any of us, such as a 301 redirect with strong links.
                    Or not really competitive. If you have a high payout on conversions long tail can be had from content alone. I am not denying that. Its just not true to say that translates to high competition.

                    Doesn't make any sense long term though. If you do rank and you do finally get some competition its totally within their control to reverse engineer your content (without copying), stick some links on and blow you out of profitability.
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11270836].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Aaron Aguilar
    Simple answer...NO.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11270269].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author savidge4
    I don't think there is any disputing the fact that done properly backlinks work. Whats being discussed here is weather or not there are other factors that can produce results.

    When the talk of bounce and ctr and all of these things that get brought up, in general the #1 counter point that is made is that Google cant see everything.. how do they know? and I think the answer is with what, 3.5 billion searches made every day from Google properties, there is more than enough data within the realm of Google itself to understand based on these factors what is "Good" content, and what is "bad".

    Googles primary concern is the listings on Google. So how exactly does google determine bounce rate and time on page and blah blah blah? Since they are measuring based on user engagement on their site IE google... they simply have to identify a user.. what they click, and what happens after that.. do they come back to search? do they refne their search, do they click on another serp listing? do they dig 8 pages back looking at multiple listings.. do they click on a link, and then return and search for something totally different? Do they click on a link and not return to Google?

    If you do a quick search for "Google MAC address Patents" or "Google IP address Patents" you very quickly get an idea of the scale that they are trying to identify single users across their properties. Have a look here: http://www.seobythesea.com/2010/07/h...an-ip-address/ And Bill does a very good job at explain the whys and whats for all of this.

    So now the argument of they cant do this and they cant do that are negated.. the simple fact is they ( Google ) do.

    So how does a site with low to no backlinks compete? I think there are a number of answers here. Using Daves example... a page pumping content for 6 years starts getting results.. as soon as they put new content out it ranks well... Doesn't that sound like DA? and honestly I don't want to hear.. Oh DA is some made up number blah blah.. we all know it to be true... we know its there.. we just are not allowed to know what the score is, or how it is derived - like most everything else with Google.

    Same with page rank.. sure we cant see it... but we know its there.. how else could links affect a page and its rank.. they are boosting the pages score no?

    I am a practitioner of Content marketing... I am also a believer in the ideals that you really don't have to wait 6 years to see results. The whole write quality.. write for the reader - concepts and ideas derived from someone that was failing at practical SEO, and needing an excuse for it.

    The concept is you have to build DA... one of the telling qualities of a decent DA score is pretty consistent and quick ranking of pages. But how do you get Google to "trust" your site, and more specifically the content you are producing? #1 you do exactly what the content marketers suggest, write good quality content with the reader in mind... But the SEO side of this is, target terms with low comp, that you can rank pretty easily.

    Building a base of Wins - pages that rank in the top 10, makes ranking as you continue easier and easier. The more you write, and gain ranking success the higher up the comp ladder you can climb. Understanding how you can identify in say GA what terms you may want to target a bit harder helps a whole lot.

    Understanding that as important as backlinks are.. there are a kick ton of other variables at play... and the more even you are with these variables it can actually start negating the need to pile on the links.

    Something we can all relate to... The google dance - page 1, gone, page 6, page 1 page 10 , page 2.. we have all seen it, I think its Google A/B testing content. Allowing the interaction with the end user - the searcher to give them an idea of where that content belongs.

    So as we all know at this point.. it comes down to proof... I have shared proof a time or 2 on other forums... it generally gets ugly.. regardless of how overwelming the proof is.... People locked into the Link strategy state of mind, just dont get it. The concepts are justto crazy and outlandish. Links work, and thats the only way. And yes, they work, but no, its not the only way.
    Signature
    Tools, Content, and Strategies to Develop Your Online Commerce Business - Coming Soon
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271067].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

      I don't think there is any disputing the fact that done properly backlinks work. Whats being discussed here is weather or not there are other factors that can produce results.
      No Savidge thats not what being discussed. no one is claiming there are not other factors. Whats being discussed is can you out rank a site with links and which is competing for a spot with this alleged user experience claim only. There is ZERO evidence for that

      3.5 billion searches made every day from Google properties, there is more than enough data within the realm of Google itself to understand based on these factors what is "Good" content, and what is "bad".
      No...people who do not understand programming make this argument a lot because they do not know programming. AI is NOT anywhere near to achieving that kind of feat. So for Google to come along and determine a page is good for humans based on an AI using search data? - that does not exist - its mythical.

      A computer can have all the data in the world about past movies that does not mean that it can predict what each new movie will make at the box office and how it will be received. You would have to develop a program that understands all the reasons WHY the human mind likes a movie and thats still too vast and nuanced for any fleet of computers to calculate. Computers don't even understand what a movie is or what creativity is (computers have no creativity).

      Plus: Google has absolutely nothing in any patent that says it uses user experience over links. In fact they have stated NUMEROUS times that they use links from authority sites as an indicator of quality and relevance predicting superior user experience fro the content linked to

      they simply have to identify a user.. what they click, and what happens after that.. do they come back to search? do they refine their search, do they click on another serp listing? do they dig 8 pages back looking at multiple listings.. do they click on a link, and then return and search for something totally different? Do they click on a link and not return to Google?
      this has already been discussed and was my point. A site that has nothing to rank but user engagement of content will not have any click throughs at google since it does not rank.

      If you do a quick search for "Google MAC address Patents" or "Google IP address Patents" you very quickly get an idea of the scale that they are trying to......So now the argument of they cant do this and they cant do that are negated.. the simple fact is they ( Google ) do.
      WRONG. Matt cuts when he worked for Google had a video that partially covered this. patents are filed to protect against future success and the process by which success one day MAY be achieved. You can file a patent for a machine that you have not even created yet and even a process which turns out not to work in real life . Just because google files a patent about looking at user engagement does NOT mean they are using it int he way you describe. Google themselves have admitted that patents do NOT indicate what is actually being used in their products so that negates no argument

      No one has ever said links are the only factor or the only way as you falsely claim. Thats a strawman. Dave and now you have to argue this when you could just show us in the millions of serps that are sitting at Google how sites with no links are ranking against good competition (and according to you quickly) .

      That you argue it rather than show us these alleged very competitive serps with sites with no backlinks ranking at the top when you claim google uses user engagement over links speaks VOLUMES

      Until you can post such a highly competitive serp ranking without backlinsk any rational person should ignore your claims and arguments.

      You offer arguments without evidence because so far - you have no proof when proof should be all over the serps.

      Either that or you are scared when you put up these serps for others to see they will expose the competition as weak .
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271494].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Anabel
    Hello,
    I'm more thinking about low-hanging fruit (meaning going into a niche with very low competition and getting some traffic to make a few bucks)
    Problem is I don't quite get it - sites get ranked with only a very low amount of links.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271198].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dave_hermansen
    Well, if nothing else, I invoked a lively, if not abusive, torrent of discussion here. I'm not sure which part of "it is not my site" is unclear. If it was my own site, I'd be happy to share it. The owner of the site would not like it shared with anyone for the purposes of this kind of discussion; therefore, it will not be shared with anyone - even "trusted" people here (as if such a thing exists).

    I don't really have to prove anything to anyone. I simply answered the OP's question and later added that is highly unlikely that anyone is going to have the time, put in the effort or have the talent to write as well as this person does. The OP certainly doesn't seem to be interested in waiting years for results. I honestly do not care if anyone believes it.

    And, of course, I never told anyone NOT to get backlinks. Contrary to opinions voiced here, backlinks are FAR easier to get than creating a virtual encyclopedia of superior knowledge around any given niche. I would much rather get backlinks than do the interviews, research and ridiculous amount of writing involved here. Nor do I have the time to wait half a decade for something to rank well.

    Savidge4 came closest to nailing the tactics that were employed to do this. It involved what we call "2 for 1" or "3 for 1" keyword phrases. The longest form of the phrase was very easy to rank (think something like "discount widgets for sale online") but it contained shorter pieces on the front and the back of the phrase that were a little more difficult and even harder ones in the middle along with the various permutations of all of them. Pages ranked for the longest, less searched for thing first and gradually started ranking for the various other combinations that were a little more difficult and eventually, even more difficult phrases/words contained within. Little by little, as you rank better for more and more things, the authority of the site creeps up, which boosts the rankings for the harder things. Multiply that by several hundred pages all doing the same thing (the vast majority of which contain thousands of words of content - yes, even product pages), and the impossible suddenly seems possible (if not probable).

    I think enough time has been wasted on this. I say it can be done if you put in a ridiculous amount of effort, have a profound talent for writing and have all the time in the world to wait for it to happen. Others say it cannot, apparently because they have tried putting in a ridiculous amount of effort, have a profound talent for writing and the patience to wait half a decade for results and after all that, it didn't work. I also say that if you do all of the above AND get backlinks, it will happen ten times faster.
    Signature
    FREE ONLINE COURSE- Learn How to Dropship the Right Way!
    My PROVEN ecommerce process, as seen on: Fox News, the NY Times & Flippa
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271680].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    I'll agree enough time has been wasted with these unsubstantiated claims. Rather than write long arguments as to how its possible (now even claiming its probable with still no evidence) it would have been much better for you or savidge to show it in the millions of serps literally at your finger tips.

    Savidge even claims he has but in other forums and its part of Gogole's workings because of his reading on a patent....sigh

    the only reason I even bothered piping in is because everyone knows how these things go and how urban myths of SEO are maintained FOR YEARS. Some guy on a forum writes it can be done and others say I read that it can be done

    and its off to the races wasting many peoples time and effort. You know how many years we had posts on this forum about nofollowed links actually ranking sites? chances are there will be someone in this thread claiming ...yeah thats true.

    Once that unsubstantiated claim got going no matter how many people reported it did not work the urban myth continued.

    On the web its part of being responsible to not put up things up as fact without evidence.

    I can buy that you truly believe there are no backlinks and the competition is strong but with no evidence to verify such posts are part of the problem of SEO urban myths not part of trying to solve them or not perpetuate them.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271749].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dsimms
    These days you need content that provides the wow factor, then you will need superior backlinks that have high quality. I have heard similar stories before, I been working hard on this, been working hard on that, etc, then come to find out the person really has not done anything, or their site is 1-3 months old; You certainly are out of time, google no longer will ranking you because you throw some content here, backlinks there. These days, if you have done everything right, and you are in a good niche, it may take your site 1-5 years to get off the ground, and this depends on competition. You need a main product, and scores of supporting articles, internal linking aka on page seo, bla, bla, bla...unless you create some lucky product that the world really needs, then it may take work, and alot of money to get your site to the next level, it will not happen in days, or months, and in some cases, it may take years. If you cant battle through google's process of working your way to the top, then this may not be for you.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271776].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author samsonsteve
    New stories about SEO, Rank top google, always make people cry
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271788].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author savidge4
    Let me clarify a few things... there are portions or should I say segments of Google Algorithm that are AI.. but for the most part.. not all.. I DO understand this because I AM a programmer.. I am also a mathematician. you can discount the IP and Mac address Patents all you want.. but have you actually read the 20 - 30 some patents? Google back in 2010 and there abouts were very clearly trying to understand and identify single users across multi user platforms - IE a network.... a whole office could have the same IP address, but they wanted deeper tracking. Not just for Search engine ranking but a whole host of other things like advertising as an example.

    Yes I have shared examples in the past on other forums.... I am not going to run through that again and get my sites blasted and have to deal with all of that... even tho the first time around I was prepared for that.. I'm not willing to do that again.

    I believe the evidence I pointed to is pushing to the side of plausible... and to those that understand it.. it goes beyond plausible. I am in no way saying using these methods are going to get you to rank for say "xbox" or "Las Vegas Hotels"... but niched down... I will be the 2nd here to say yeah it works. But again... its not a slap something together and they will come type of thing.. there is a method to it all, and a wrong step can cause considerable delays if you are not paying attention.

    You sit there and tell people I have a conscience and I cant let this slip by.. and in the next breath you will talk about PBN's or some nonsense.... Aside from me, you and a few others.... how many have reported positive benefit from PBN's? its usually flaming failures more than anything. Again there is a method, and one missed step and its all for nothing. - more so with PBN's

    SEO is flat out fragile... you learn how to handle it with care.. or you write till your blue in the face and cant figure out what went wrong.

    I think we can agree to disagree... but in the same sense that you felt the need to speak out... I was driven to do the same. Link building is not the only avenue to success. and I think its wrong that seo is overly portrayed that way.
    Signature
    Tools, Content, and Strategies to Develop Your Online Commerce Business - Coming Soon
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271799].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      At this point its obvious you will never present any evidence because you have none. You are even claiming to have provided some when you provided nothing but a theory. Saying you showed them on some other forum is just more of the same.

      I am officially bored and you just revealed you have not a clue about what goes on in seo with this - to use your word - "nonsense".

      Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

      You sit there and tell people I have a conscience and I cant let this slip by.. and in the next breath you will talk about PBN's or some nonsense.... Aside from me, you and a few others.... how many have reported positive benefit from PBN's? its usually flaming failures more than anything. Again there is a method, and one missed step and its all for nothing. - more so with PBN's
      Unfortunately you are talking to someone one who taught hundreds of people to build PBNs the vast majority never reported any deindexing. Anyone can go back when PBN strategies were new and this forum was far more active and see MANY people using them and it working out great. They still do (although getting organic links is better because you get traffic with the links as well and its less initial outlay)

      Thats right this very forum - right here if you search - not some secret forum where the evidence alleged was presented. See the difference there???


      People like you that do not know whats going on only see reports of deindexing but don't figure out that you hear only about the sites that get deindexed (usually because they were renting out links to the public) not the hundreds that never are.

      That you think it worked only for a few says it all.


      but in the same sense that you felt the need to speak out... I was driven to do the same.
      Nope we agree on nothing and we are not in the same boat. I stopped forward with the overwhelming evidence in every serp that links rank sites and you can present ZERO evidence that you can rank competitive terms with none.

      I encourage people to do SEO they can see evidence of in the serps. You tell them to take your says so

      VAST difference

      Carry on.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271837].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

      Let me clarify a few things... there are portions or should I say segments of Google Algorithm that are AI.. but for the most part.. not all.. I DO understand this because I AM a programmer..
      Sorry I am not obliged to believe you are one or a good one either . Any alleged programmer that cannot see the herculean amount of programming resources it would take to analyze data of searches in order to determine what humans consider good content isn't thinking well

      It does involve AI beyond what is now possible to apply that to new pages and determine their quality to human beings.

      as for the patent argument again - Google filed for a patent to sync data from your TV to your search recently. Its not in the algo but a patent for future consideration

      Confirming my point. References to user experience in Patents is not proof that Google presently has either perfected User experience or included it in the way you claim in their search algo today

      Just figured I'd clear that up one last time and leave you to making more claims as alleged evidence.

      See ya around.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271838].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author savidge4
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        as for the patent argument again - Google filed for a patent to sync data from your TV to your search recently. Its not in the algo but a patent for future consideration

        Confirming my point. References to user experience in Patents is not proof that Google presently has either perfected User experience or included it in the way you claim in their search algo today
        I would say this is confirming my point actually... Yes Google just went for a few patents to sync data to and from your tv... some point in the future.. that will happen.... the patents I have been refering to were done in 2010.. at some point in the future from then.. Google will use that patented concept.... I would say the future was oh 5 6 years ago.

        With regards to AI... the only implication of AI within Googles Algo that I am aware of would be RankBrain. On a scale of 1 to whatever the numbere of variables is.. Google says THIS is #3. I might also point out that in no particular order #1 and #2 are indedd links but also CONTENT.

        If the ideals of rankbrain are to better understand the question asked by a end user does it not make sense that Google is looking at the content so that it may provide a list of answers? Sure links are an "indicator" but real time data such as bounce and time spent on page and things like that make far more sense. Think of it as a content score.. or page rank if you like

        Try "Virtue Custom CSS" again never built links.. especially not pointed at a youtube video.

        Try looking at "Mystile Custom CSS" I havent looked in a while.. 4 5 or 6 pages ranked for uploadwp I never built links to any of them. ( We control 50% of page 1 by the way on this one )

        A side note on this one... back when I wrote this stuff... There was clearly some holes in the niche... this theme in particular had over 1 million dloads, and little to no content.. over time there has been heavy hitters that have tried to go after the rank, but pretty much all have failed. Even the Virtue pages... Kadence themes hit pretty hard, but we kept most of the rank.. and here it is a few years later
        Signature
        Tools, Content, and Strategies to Develop Your Online Commerce Business - Coming Soon
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11272195].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
          Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

          If the ideals of rankbrain are to better understand the question asked by a end user does it not make sense that Google is looking at the content so that it may provide a list of answers? Sure links are an "indicator" but real time data such as bounce and time spent on page and things like that make far more sense. Think of it as a content score.. or page rank if you like
          But why is a longer time on a page a positive indicator or little time on a page a negative indicator? Why would Google use those? In many, many cases they are not a good indicator if a page is useful or not.

          Same thing with bounces.

          Let's say I search for something like "is L-tyrosine a stimulant". I find a page. I see the answer right away, and I leave the page, not spending more than 10 seconds on it. I do not visit any other page on that site.

          I spent only a few seconds on the page, and I registered as a bounce. However, I found exactly what I was looking for. Should Google ding that page for such activity?

          I think things get muddy between what is good for a webmaster and what is good for search. For search, that was an ideal result. I searched for something and was provided with a page that gave me the answer I was looking for.

          For the owner of that page, it was not an ideal result. I did not browse around. I never clicked on an ad or any affiliate links. I didn't become a lead for anything. They got nothing out of my visit. If they are getting a lot of those results, it is something for them to be concerned with, but I really do not believe (or have seen any evidence) that it is something Google would frown upon.



          Try "Virtue Custom CSS" again never built links.. especially not pointed at a youtube video.

          Try looking at "Mystile Custom CSS" I havent looked in a while.. 4 5 or 6 pages ranked for uploadwp I never built links to any of them. ( We control 50% of page 1 by the way on this one )
          These are perfect examples of keywords with extremely weak competition. In fact, there really is no competition for these search terms.
          Signature
          SEO Myths
          SEO, PPC, Geo-Fencing, and Social Media Marketing Services - Get a Free Quote
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11272245].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author savidge4
            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

            But why is a longer time on a page a positive indicator or little time on a page a negative indicator? Why would Google use those? In many, many cases they are not a good indicator if a page is useful or not.
            and here is were variables such as word count and if there is a video.. how long the video is... Google through math would and does understand what 100% time on page is vs say 5% So yes a REAL strong indicator

            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

            Let's say I search for something like "is L-tyrosine a stimulant". I find a page. I see the answer right away, and I leave the page, not spending more than 10 seconds on it. I do not visit any other page on that site.

            I spent only a few seconds on the page, and I registered as a bounce. However, I found exactly what I was looking for. Should Google ding that page for such activity?
            Bounce as we know it... and I believe bounce as Google "understands it" are 2 different things.. we understand it as you have described.. and you are correct not fair. I don't think they thought it was fair. Enter the 20 something patents to identify IP and even further MAC address.

            So with this they can track a user to a serp... to a link to a page... They spend time on the page.... 10% of value 50% of value 100% of value, but they return to the serp and select another link .... this is what I would think they consider a bounce.

            If they however refine their search, or search something totally different, this is when there would be the probability of getting the answer they were looking for.

            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

            I think things get muddy between what is good for a webmaster and what is good for search. For search, that was an ideal result. I searched for something and was provided with a page that gave me the answer I was looking for.
            and with this I absolutely agree

            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

            For the owner of that page, it was not an ideal result. I did not browse around. I never clicked on an ad or any affiliate links. I didn't become a lead for anything. They got nothing out of my visit. If they are getting a lot of those results, it is something for them to be concerned with, but I really do not believe (or have seen any evidence) that it is something Google would frown upon.
            And this would be why CRO is becoming more and more mainstream... but I do get what you are saying.. but I would say that there are so many other variables that can place things within a balance. thatthe effect for a webmaster that is producing good content and providing answers that gets good onpage times, probably wont be effected, but the pages filled with ads, and short content and long load times.. you just dont see much of those in the serps regardless of comp. ( unless its link driven )

            I will say that there is a caveat to short content pages.. and that is those that create intent based linking. Search term "Weddings" as an example... Its either you, Yukon or the other Mike that use this great example... the content presented is usually intent based.. a bunch of links in a more pointed direction... From my perspective, this is a real strong contnent structure that anyone developing pages should impliment.. they tend to rank pretty well.

            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

            These are perfect examples of keywords with extremely weak competition. In fact, there really is no competition for these search terms.
            I sold that site off last year or the year before, so in terms of solid content such as those articles.. there has not been much added since. But at the time, I was ranking page 2 for terms like "wordpress" and "woocommerce" and those rankings were slowly moving up.. and again no linking that I was responsible for.

            The way I impliment SEO.. I do a kick ton of research in a niche.. i find the holes when possible, and thats where I start.. get the W's in terms of ranking.. build DA ( for a lack of a better term ) and as time progesses your content falls into that "Google Dance" and it starts rankinig decently if not pretty good for more difficult terms. there is no question in my mind that the "Google Dance" is literally the Google Serp A/B testing your content vs whats already there.
            Signature
            Tools, Content, and Strategies to Develop Your Online Commerce Business - Coming Soon
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11272273].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post


            These are perfect examples of keywords with extremely weak competition. In fact, there really is no competition for these search terms.

            Yep you hit th nail on the head - perfect example.

            Not getting back in this discussion with savidge or dave- just quick scanning the thread in case anyone ever finally tries to offer any evidence. I think we both knew it would end up being something like this -

            Virtue Custom CSS AND Mystile Custom CSS

            has no competitors and no one is searching for the terms. You can see it on the page. No one is gunning for it. To call that a competitive term or characterize page 2 listings as ranking is just deceptive or ignorance (which goes for pointing at youtube videos since we all know Youtube has strong link juice flowing through internal links from all the links it gets - being a google property doesn't hurt either).

            The problem with this part of the forum is it is filled with people who don't have the slightest grasp of SEO terms or business concepts but are still presenting their ideas as fact. Patents even fifty years later go unused in real life and every year patents are filed that never EVER end up being used because a patent does not force its way into practical viability. Some people will never get that fact.

            The other laugher is that no patent ever filed shows how the features in it will be implemented with other patented features. Google implementing one new factor in a patent says NOTHING about using that factor to rank sites without backlinks much less over other sites that have them.

            its all just a wasteland and it shows its not just the new people that junk up the forums as a place that has next to no valuable SEO advice anymore.

            Plus I sense a presell going on
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11272322].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author savidge4
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              Google implementing one new factor in a patent says NOTHING about using that factor to rank sites without backlinks much less over other sites that have them.
              There are patents that do speak about ranking and mention not once anything about links.

              But here lets get modern.. lets look at Patent US 2016/0371385 A1

              Here is whats real funny with this one... can you believe Keyword Density AND Keyword Proxity are actually variables in ranking? could it be? ( section 41 )

              Cant say that it says that there are variables more important than others... but section 41 pretty much says one of the first pieces of data looked at is density and proximity... At the very least... it is these variables that put you in the running to be indexed and ranked...
              Signature
              Tools, Content, and Strategies to Develop Your Online Commerce Business - Coming Soon
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11272671].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author shyanz
    actually, you dont need to spend too much time building links to your website to rank high on website. All you need to do is to ensure links that you built are of high authority, highly diversified and highly relevant.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271856].message }}
    • I agree with you. You need High-Quality links, not much, like forum links, blog comments or any other Low-Quality link. You could achieve good links from guest posting, infographics and similar.

      Get ranked without spending money these days? Hmmm... very hard.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271927].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Well, if nothing else, this is a more interesting conversation than 99% of the threads started in this section these days.
    Signature
    SEO Myths
    SEO, PPC, Geo-Fencing, and Social Media Marketing Services - Get a Free Quote
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11271956].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author junaidgesawat
    Backlinking used to be pretty much the only way to secure domain authority (DA). Nowadays, your site can rank quite high without this resource, although backlinks as a ranking factor contribute about 40% to the SERPs.

    In order to increase your rank without backlinking, explore other ways to create metadata on your site. There are a couple of basic ways to accomplish this:

    SEO keyphrasing:

    Spend some time researching how users find sites like yours. Are their any particular words or phrases that make your brand unique? In which specific field are you operating? Include these long-tail keywords in the actual title of the page or blog post, the body copy, the url (or slugs), alt text, title tags, meta descriptions.

    Social media linking:

    Using social media effectively involves more than just sharing your content. Explore social media platforms outside of Facebook and Twitter. Share your content on Pinterest, Blogger, YouTube, Twitch, Snapchat, Instagram, and other high-volume sites.

    Moreover, if you use a platform site (like WiX or WordPress) be sure that:

    You have these social media accounts connected to your account.
    You're actively sharing your content on the social side of these platforms themselves (see WordPress Reader view).

    The more connections and community engagement your brand has, the more metadata you will generate.

    However, it's important to remember: the best sites have authoritative content . Sites with NO content are not tracked by Google. Sites without content also cause users to hit the back button (which negatively affects your DA).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11272016].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dwiplomatic
    .YES I DID THAT.. I Install two software one is for automated Traffic and another is for complete internet marketing, automation & site building.. both are automaticaly do their job..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11272088].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author EdwardRohr
    Yes, sometimes it works. but not good practice.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11272122].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author savidge4
    So now we are saying.. there are patents that are 50 yrs old and have never been used.. so there is no reason to look at these at all.... and to add to that unless they are written in black and white for you to understand, there again is no reason for consideration.

    The reality Mike, is yes Google pumps out a kick ton of patents.. some are more black and white than others. The pagerank patents would be an example of this... However mixed in with those related to linking are some more ambiguous works about measuring the content on the page.

    When we look at the ones for IP and MAC address identification... we know they use this technology.... I personally have a laptop... I goto work with it, I go home with it, I use it at coffee shops... and each and every time I change locations, I don't always have to log onto "Google" ( check emails or what have you ) Why? because they are tracking my Mac address. So any reasonable person then begins to wonder where else are they using this?

    Same with Local search - citations.. linkless links right? Again a reasonable person wonders.. where else may they be using this? Google has in the past mentioned context based linking.

    I am pretty sold on the idea that if GA is giving you data.. for say Bounce or Time on page... I will bet that is not just some matrix they are measuring there alone.. it is being measured system wide. - and then you get into the HOW - MAC address identification becomes a stand out concept.

    Ever read the Patents on Rank Brain? some of it is pretty straight forward.. some of it not so much. To this day... I read over that material quite a bit.... it is the #3 most important variable in search results... but all that it appears to do is look at what an end user is typing and making sense of it. So HOW does this become a variable for ranking? I have my theories Some of them work a bit better than others, some of the ideas I have tried actually worked against me. ( which for me, is a good thing of sorts... testing with negative results gives indicators of possibility for positive ones )

    There are specific reasons Google - Bing - Yahoo ( when they were around ) filed for Patents.. it was to block the other from using the concepts.. Googles pagerank was the game changer for Google... As much as link based page rank is a good thing, there are its down sides... we all know you can manipulate the crap out of it... and over time they have made the ability to spam links harder and harder ( there are no patents by the way how they are doing this )

    So understanding Why Google and others apply for Patents you have to understand there are technologies in place that simply are not run through the same process. ( the patent process )

    A GREAT example of this... Geography. How does Google know where you are? There is not a single patent on the subject ( That I have been able to find ). based on your reasoning we are to assume they don't actually do this.

    I look through this stuff to get a better understanding of what is already in place.. and to see what will be in place in the future. The Hummingbird patents... there are hundreds of them, and a good many of them have not been used to my knowledge... but it gives you a scope of what they were thinking and what the abilities could be... without question they left themselve plenty of room for growth.

    As to the low comp pages.... I have been consistant for YEARS over this practice... I have agreed over and over this will not on day 1 rank you for Xbox or Las Vegas hotels... I have said that in this very thread. READ what I am writing, and stop trying to bash me for something I actually agree with you on. The idea is to get the wins in the lower comp terms, and build your DA and over time, you will rank for the more competitive terms.. it simply works.

    Remember this guy: https://www.warriorforum.com/search-...niche-seo.html he has content and no traffic... why? because he doesnt understand the concepts I have been talking about.... He is probably written about some keyword that has stupid high comp, and will never rank for. Id rather have 10 highly target visitor a month vs 0. Hes broke, and I make money. I don't understand SEO or Business? this right here, would say otherwise
    Signature
    Tools, Content, and Strategies to Develop Your Online Commerce Business - Coming Soon
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11272664].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kamanasis Mandal
    Traffic Titan Is A Fresh NEW Way To Look At Free Traffic, eCommerce & Affiliate Marketing
    7 Software Tools - Huge Commissions:::
    SEVEN Automated Softwares... Changes Amazon, eCommerce, YouTube, Google, ClickBank & JVZoo.. Affiliate Marketing & Free Traffic... Forever!
    Click here >>
    http://bit.ly/2DzoQ2J
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11276909].message }}
Avatar of Unregistered

Trending Topics