Matt Cutts of Google Using a Big Stick to Teach an Important Lesson about Traffic Diversity

by tpw
92 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Matt Cutts of Google Using a Big Stick to Teach
an Important Lesson about Traffic Diversity


Important: DO NOT skim this thread!! If you do, you are bound to miss some important pieces of information.



On Jan 21st, Matt Cutts of Google announced a new round of high profile algorithm changes around the next bend. He announced changes to Google's Search Algorithms to combat search engine spam and changes that were coming soon.

Of course, those who reported this news tended to only focus on one small part of the overall announcement where Cutts said Google was "evaluating": " 'Content Farms,' which are sites with spammy, shallow or low-quality content."

Earlier today, I reported the items left out of most news stories, in a post in the SEO Forum.



Surprisingly, on Friday Jan 28th, Cutts announced that the Content Farm Algorithm had been made live the previous day -- one week after announcing that Google would be evaluating what could be done about Content Farms.

He stated that these changes would only affect 2% of all Google search queries, but fewer than 0.5% of changes would be obvious to Google's users.



On the same day, in a story at Search Engine Roundtable, Barry Schwartz reported on the fallout from this latest Google Algorithm change: "Confirmed: Google's Content Farm Algorithm Live! Sites Are Dropping!"

Authority websites that have always done things by the "book" for years, are dropping like flies!! LOL

Schwartz reported that "Webmasters who have had stable rankings in Google and stable traffic from Google for years" are reporting 40-60% drops in traffic.

Those most painfully affected by Google's Content Farm Algorithm Change are webmasters who are suggesting that they "have unique and useful content on their site!"



To understand how this has come to pass, one must understand how Google defines "Content Farms". Simply put, "Content Farms" are websites that create content.

In his Jan 21st announcement, Matt Cutts said, "We hear the feedback from the web loud and clear: people are asking for even stronger action on content farms".

Of course, anyone who follows my posts here at the Warrior Forum should not be surprised. In Dec 2010, I reported a rumor about the anticipated launch of Google's new "Unique Content Penalty". Others in that thread were also able to confirm an anticipated Jan 2011 roll-out of this new Google penalty.



So, it would seem that the rumor I reported in December had some legs to it after all... The Unique Content Penalty, also known as the Original Content Penalty, seems to have been implemented along with the Content Farm Algorithm Change.

It seems that Google really is targeting Content Farms -- those websites that create "Unique and Original Content"!!!

Remember how Matt Cutts said that the Content Farm Algorithm Change would only affect 2% of all Google search queries?

When you stop to realize that 98% of all online content is unoriginal, rehashed content, then the 2% number takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it?



There is a very large lesson in this story, for all of those folks who have always relied on Google for their traffic!!

Matt Cutts and Google have made a statement this month that they are tired of those Internet Marketers who try to manipulate Google's search engine results to get better rankings!!

While Cutts and company may have not come right out and said it, in effect, Google has shown us in a very bold way that Internet Marketers should seek traffic from more sources than just Google...

So long as we try to play to the whims of Google, at any time it suits them to do so, Google will change their search algorithms and deal webmasters a 40%-60% drop in traffic... Even if the webmaster has done his best to follow Google's webmaster guidelines...



The Lesson to be learned from this past month? Diversify your traffic sources...

What is your opinion about these new developments?
#algorithm #big #content farms #cutts #diversity #google #important #lesson #matt #matt cutts #stick #teach #traffic #unique content
  • Profile picture of the author BloggingPro
    What is my opinion?

    That I need to be ramping up my Facebook and Forum Marketing for my niches/sites to start driving the traffic I know they are capable of but have been lazily relying on Google for my bread and butter.

    Guess its times to dust off some reports and get my strategy re-implemented.
    Signature
    You're going to fail. If you're afraid of failure then you do not belong in the Internet Marketing Business. Period.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284732].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author celente
    great post. Never put your eggs in one basket, that is like the first rule of IM and investing also.

    Thanks for the timely post!!!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284750].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Ten
    interesting post.. thanks.

    i guess this posts sort of says... have a plan B!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284825].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CMCarlin
    You think you're so clever don't you :p
    Signature
    I can help your business grow. Spend less time backlinking and more time focusing on your clients. Skype me anytime for more details. Custom packages available.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284866].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AnitaCross

      You go, Bill... LMAO

      -Anita
      Signature
      Looking For A Short Cut To Online Retail Profits?
      OSOA on Facebook -- SimplySilk on Facebook

      Anita
      is one of several Moderators at "Live Marketing Chat"
      LMC, mixing work and fun on Saturday nights -- Google it
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284921].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author George Sepich
        Bill, it is hard to take you seriously about Google when you make jokes about it. I know you have insights that we all want to here about, but i just don't have the time to take when i don't know you are kidding around or are really being serious. I'm sure everybody else understands you.

        Just a thought. Maybe it's just me.

        George
        Signature

        Need Help? GeorgeSepich.com Digital Marketing Solutions From George Sepich.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284954].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by George Sepich View Post

          Bill, it is hard to take you seriously about Google when you make jokes about it. I know you have insights that we all want to here about, but i just don't have the time to take when you are kidding around or are really being serious.

          Just a thought. Maybe it's just me.

          George

          George follow the links in the post. It should have been obvious from the words chosen, but the links will reveal even more.
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284964].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author George Sepich
            Sorry that i posted. I am a busy guy, and don't have time to follow a bunch of links. I was just going by what was posted in the thread. My mistake. I apologize.

            George
            Signature

            Need Help? GeorgeSepich.com Digital Marketing Solutions From George Sepich.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284983].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author tpw
              Originally Posted by George Sepich View Post

              Sorry that i posted. I am a busy guy, and don't have time to follow a bunch of links. I was just going by what was posted in the thread. My mistake. I apologize.

              George

              If you are that busy, why are you sitting here reading my threads and taking pot shots?
              Signature
              Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
              Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284995].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
        One of the big reasons I've never released PLR articles (though I have considered it) is that, by the time I finish writing the content, you know, it's pretty good. And, I want to keep it for myself and not let anyone else have it.

        The benefit has been that I can fill my site with unique content and rank better for it.

        But, after this latest change, I might have to look at releasing PLR materials. Because, once I get all those copies floating out there, getting rehashed and spun and whatnot, that'll only help my site in the new rankings because I won't have so much unique content anymore.

        Thanks for the heads up, Bill.
        Signature

        Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

        Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284958].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
    Very true and an amazing post. One of the best I have seen here in my short time here.

    I agree 100%, diversify your traffic. Think of traffic like you do internet marketing. If there is one niche that has a lot of money in it, but very competitive, it doesn't mean to give up on it, but you should also get into other niches. Why not treat the search engines like that? Plenty of searches are done in yahoo and bing. In fact I get about 20% of my visitors through bing!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284912].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author timpears
    So last year, unique content was king. Now, lots of unique content will get you dropped from the SERP like a hot rock?????

    WTF. I am throughly confused. What the hell am I supposed to put on my site then? I guess PLR is all that is left.
    Signature

    Tim Pears

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284913].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonmorgan
    Grabbing the popcorn. It's gonna get good.

    At least my signature ranks #5 in google. WF got juice.
    Signature

    I'm all about that bass.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284950].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by jasonmorgan View Post

      At least my signature ranks #5 in google. WF got juice.
      Try logging out of Google, and then searching.

      If the results are the same, go to a buddy's house and try.

      I am not seeing you in the first 10 pages for your keyword.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285342].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Zeus66
    My advice to you...



    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3284953].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alfred Shelver
    You will not get me again Mr Platt, Having said that I read it knowing where you have placed your tongue (in cheek) while writing it, and I still want to believe it is true, Brilliant writing as usual.
    Signature

    Help me give my children a better future gofund.me/xge53k8

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285007].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mikemcmillan
    Hey Bill,
    I'm not an SEO expert and am not claiming to be one here. My comments are more questions than answers.

    I preface everything I say about Google with the idea that Google's main objective is to return relevant, high quality pages to it's users. If Google fails to do that, the money machines--AdWords and AdSense crumble. Google has to be able to look at a page and be able to determine its meaning in order to align the AdWords and AnSense ads it delivers effectively to the pages and the searches done for those pages.

    My take, and I'm asking for clarification on this, on content farms is that they create massive amounts of content, but not all of it good. What I see Google doing is trying to better judge pages insofar as how well they align with the information searchers are looking for when they search.

    My perception is that Google is not looking to penalize original content, but to better separate it from content that is spammier and less useful to the people searching for information. It seems to me they are trying to reward content that is original, informative, and free from scrapped, stolen and spun low-octane material associated with "farm cultivated" text.

    It seems to me that creators of informative, original content would benefit from their changes, not be penalized by them.

    Again, I am no expert in the SEO arena, so I'm really asking you--what do you think the reasoning behind the algorithm change really is? Help me understand the whole thing better! --Mike
    Signature

    I'll help you create a reputation-building evergreen product in any niche and launch it successfully!
    Check it out here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285035].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by mikemcmillan View Post

      My perception is that Google is not looking to penalize original content

      Hey Mike. Great to see you.

      To understand the Unique Content Penalty / Original Content Penalty, you really should read the post I made about it in December:
      http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...e-penalty.html

      After you take a look at that thread and the first few responses, it will all begin to make more sense to you. Seriously...



      Originally Posted by mikemcmillan View Post

      My perception is that Google is not looking to penalize original content, but to better separate it from content that is spammier and less useful to the people searching for information. It seems to me they are trying to reward content that is original, informative, and free from scrapped, stolen and spun low-octane material associated with "farm cultivated" text.

      It seems to me that creators of informative, original content would benefit from their changes, not be penalized by them.

      Again, I am no expert in the SEO arena, so I'm really asking you--what do you think the reasoning behind the algorithm change really is? Help me understand the whole thing better! --Mike

      I am an expert in SEO, but I am also expert in myth making.

      This thread is as much about human nature as it is about SEO.

      If you read the story from the Search Engine Roundtable, all of the quotes I used are accurate, but without the qualifiers given in the original story.

      Barry Schwartz is a smart guy. He is definitely worth reading.

      It is just like he said in the original story, "They mostly all claim they have unique and useful content on their site, but as you know, with any Google change, there are always examples of collateral damage. "

      No new algorithm change is ever implemented without some "unintended consequences".

      Google is not deliberately penalizing "original content", but "low-quality content".

      We all know that their intended target is low-quality, spammy content -- the kind that $5 writers and article spinners spit out every day. When Google was talking about "Content Farms", they were talking about websites whose stated goal is to sell cheap content to other webmasters to help them spam Google's search index.

      Google will be making alterations to their new algorithm over the coming weeks to enable the latest set of changes to have the intended outcome, instead of what it is currently doing. They will be looking to repair the algorithm to continue to penalize the crappy content they were targeting, and to restore the credibility of those websites that are credible.

      The Original Post documents facts from beginning to end, except in its conclusions about Google's intent.

      However, its final point about "not relying on Google" and "getting traffic from a variety of sources" are legitimate recommendations for any person serious about doing business online.

      If anyone relies solely on Google for traffic, they are always ONE algorithm change away from complete business failure.

      This post like many of my posts is written for two audiences:

      * Those who read what I write will get a more accurate understanding of the message.

      * Those who skim the bold and underlines will get a totally different, overly negative perception of the matter.

      While the powers-that-be at Google might read this thread, they are not going to debunk it. They won't debunk it, because anyone who follows the advice in it, will be helping themselves by pursuing traffic from many sources, AND they will be helping Google by creating less Internet pollution -- or as Google likes to call it, webspam.

      Those who skimmed this post, after being told not to do so, will leave this thread with a state of mind that will enable them to improve their business, even if they didn't understand the big picture.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285201].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author suemax
      Originally Posted by mikemcmillan View Post

      Hey Bill,
      I'm not an SEO expert and am not claiming to be one here. My comments are more questions than answers.

      I preface everything I say about Google with the idea that Google's main objective is to return relevant, high quality pages to it's users. If Google fails to do that, the money machines--AdWords and AdSense crumble. Google has to be able to look at a page and be able to determine its meaning in order to align the AdWords and AnSense ads it delivers effectively to the pages and the searches done for those pages.

      My take, and I'm asking for clarification on this, on content farms is that they create massive amounts of content, but not all of it good. What I see Google doing is trying to better judge pages insofar as how well they align with the information searchers are looking for when they search.

      My perception is that Google is not looking to penalize original content, but to better separate it from content that is spammier and less useful to the people searching for information. It seems to me they are trying to reward content that is original, informative, and free from scrapped, stolen and spun low-octane material associated with "farm cultivated" text.

      It seems to me that creators of informative, original content would benefit from their changes, not be penalized by them.

      Again, I am no expert in the SEO arena, so I'm really asking you--what do you think the reasoning behind the algorithm change really is? Help me understand the whole thing better! --Mike
      To my mind, Mike is writing a much more easy-to-run with post here. There is NO logical sense in Google "dumbing down" results.

      I am wondering whether I have got hold of the right end of the proverbial stick here. When I first read about "Google cracking down on content farms", I had thought that Google was REWARDING unique content as opposed to, for instance, sites with neat PLR (ie unchanged, published elsewhere), or "ReviewAzon sites" (rehashed from Amazon, again verbatim). That made sense to me - content might be well SELECTED, but NOT unique.

      Now what has been written in this string has confused the heck out of me! Surely Google is NOT going to penalise unique fresh content?
      Signature

      Master Resale Rights are so versatile, and these are educational, too. All kinds of IM material. Read, sell, break up into articles, combine into bundles, and there are 250 of them, complete with MRR, here for a bargain price! I'm even throwing in the sales page. Only £37 for Warriors. http://www.250mrrproducts.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285306].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
        Originally Posted by suemax View Post

        I am wondering whether I have got hold of the right end of the proverbial stick here.
        That would be accurate.

        Sue I'm a Watford man. In Bushey working today. Nice to meet you.

        Edit. Just saw your signature video, your obviously not Sue! Apologies.
        Signature

        Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285326].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    This is not difficult people. You can't have original content. You can't have unique content. You can't have duplicate content. You can't have have low quality content. You can't have scraped content.

    Don't you see?

    Google is just trying to confuse the executives over at Bing.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285040].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mikemcmillan
      Now I understand :confused: :confused: :confused:.
      Signature

      I'll help you create a reputation-building evergreen product in any niche and launch it successfully!
      Check it out here.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285071].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mark Hess
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      This is not difficult people. You can't have original content. You can't have unique content. You can't have duplicate content. You can't have have low quality content. You can't have scraped content.
      Dennis, Looks like blind sales copy...
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285099].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by Mark Hess View Post

        Dennis, Looks like blind sales copy...
        Genius! Why didn't I think of that?

        Ah well, it is getting late. I might have thought of that tomorrow, or next year, or maybe last week.



        Edit: It looks like that guy directly below me has been copying and pasting from his blog comments again.
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285120].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author scottsheen
          You've a significant good point of view and that i that can compare with it. You enjoying a positive feedback with this. Your site has solved the problem a lot to restore more confidence in myself. Thanks! Ive recommended it to my buddies too.

          Simply want to say your article is as amazing. The clearness in your post is simply cool and i can assume you're an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the gratifying work.
          :confused::confused::confused:
          Signature
          Nostalgia - a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time.
          Web Hosting Plans - Get started here.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285150].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kevin Riley
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      This is not difficult people. You can't have original content. You can't have unique content. You can't have duplicate content. You can't have have low quality content. You can't have scraped content.
      Yep. I've been putting up blank websites and they're all grabbing number one positions. Soon, when you use Google you'll come up with nothing but blank websites. That will get rid of information overload.
      Signature
      Kevin Riley, Kevin Riley Publishing, Osaka, Japan


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3286851].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
        Originally Posted by Kevin Riley View Post

        Yep. I've been putting up blank websites and they're all grabbing number one positions. Soon, when you use Google you'll come up with nothing but blank websites. That will get rid of information overload.
        Kevin,
        You should consider at least placing a Buy Now button on the page.
        Just make sure you leave the "alt tag" empty.

        Have a Great Day!
        Michael
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3286889].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author rts2271
          Google is irrelevant to search. You will get more accurate results from Bing Yahoo or Ask. Google has spent so much energy in diversifying it forgot where it came from.

          From what I've heard from a couple of friends at the company the upper execs are running scared that the public will find out just how broke adwords/adsense and search is in the same quarter.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287004].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Brandon Tanner
            Bill, once again... nice blend of truths, half-truths, un-truths, humor, and craziness.

            Seriously though, I used to pay a lot more attention to what Google and M.C. used to say regarding SEO and how they rank websites, but I've found over the years that doing so is often just a waste of time.

            Far more more beneficial for SEO'ers to concern themselves with what Google actually does (by constantly experimenting, testing, and tracking), which can be a lot different than what they say they do.

            I can't blame them for a certain amount of "smokescreening" though... if they didn't do that, it would be much easier for the "lazy" SEO'ers (the ones who don't actually experiment, test, and track) to game the system.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287301].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author tpw
              Originally Posted by Brandon Tanner View Post

              Bill, once again... nice blend of truths, half-truths, un-truths, humor, and craziness.

              Thank you...


              Originally Posted by Brandon Tanner View Post

              I can't blame them for a certain amount of "smokescreening" though... if they didn't do that, it would be much easier for the "lazy" SEO'ers (the ones who don't actually experiment, test, and track) to game the system.

              Many good points you have made. And yes, I cannot blame them for smokescreening either...

              If they gave us "all" keys to the kingdom, there would be no kingdom...
              Signature
              Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
              Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287400].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author pavionjsl
              Originally Posted by Brandon Tanner View Post

              Bill, once again... nice blend of truths, half-truths, un-truths, humor, and craziness.

              Seriously though, I used to pay a lot more attention to what Google and M.C. used to say regarding SEO and how they rank websites, but I've found over the years that doing so is often just a waste of time.

              Far more more beneficial for SEO'ers to concern themselves with what Google actually does (by constantly experimenting, testing, and tracking), which can be a lot different than what they say they do.

              I can't blame them for a certain amount of "smokescreening" though... if they didn't do that, it would be much easier for the "lazy" SEO'ers (the ones who don't actually experiment, test, and track) to game the system.

              Agree completely. They want to be all that, and in turn create more crappy ebooks and software opportunity's for the merchants of seo...........but the truth is scary simple.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287445].message }}
              • So, I guess... "the money really is in the list"
                Signature



                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287509].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                  Originally Posted by Kevin Riley View Post

                  Yep. I've been putting up blank websites and they're all grabbing number one positions. Soon, when you use Google you'll come up with nothing but blank websites. That will get rid of information overload.
                  Genius!

                  Originally Posted by Michael Mayo View Post

                  Kevin,
                  You should consider at least placing a Buy Now button on the page.
                  Just make sure you leave the "alt tag" empty.

                  Have a Great Day!
                  Michael
                  More genius!

                  You guys are amazing. I'm thinking we could outsource the blank pages really cheaply.
                  Signature

                  Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287663].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author tpw
                    Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                    Originally Posted by Michael Mayo View Post

                    Kevin,
                    You should consider at least placing a Buy Now button on the page.
                    Just make sure you leave the "alt tag" empty.

                    Have a Great Day!
                    Michael

                    More genius!

                    You guys are amazing. I'm thinking we could outsource the blank pages really cheaply.

                    This kind of service could definitely elevate some web designers to icon status!!
                    Signature
                    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287681].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                    Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                    You guys are amazing. I'm thinking we could outsource the blank pages really cheaply.
                    Dennis,

                    I've just realeased a WSO, I can do a 500 page site for $0.01 a page.

                    The orders are flying in, thanks Bill.

                    Anyone fancy leaving a review?

                    I'll pay you.

                    I'm serious.
                    Signature

                    Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287908].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                      Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

                      Dennis,

                      I've just realeased a WSO, I can do a 500 page site for $0.01 a page.

                      The orders are flying in, thanks Bill.

                      Anyone fancy leaving a review?

                      I'll pay you.

                      I'm serious.
                      Seems fair enough, but I need to see a review copy of several of your blank pages to make sure there isn't any hidden content.
                      Signature

                      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287946].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                        Seems fair enough, but I need to see a review copy of several of your blank pages to make sure there isn't any hidden content.
                        Oh naturally Dennis, yes.

                        I shall PM a copy of the latest one I did for "dog training", it's fantastic, I've had nothing but praise for it.

                        You'll love it, absolutely nothing there at all, 400 blank pages indexed, #1 in Google for hundreds of keywords.

                        I'll only do this offer for the first ten people though.

                        Supply and demand and all that.
                        Signature

                        Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3288685].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Cosmit
              Originally Posted by Brandon Tanner View Post

              Bill, once again... nice blend of truths, half-truths, un-truths, humor, and craziness.

              Seriously though, I used to pay a lot more attention to what Google and M.C. used to say regarding SEO and how they rank websites, but I've found over the years that doing so is often just a waste of time.

              Far more more beneficial for SEO'ers to concern themselves with what Google actually does (by constantly experimenting, testing, and tracking), which can be a lot different than what they say they do.

              I can't blame them for a certain amount of "smokescreening" though... if they didn't do that, it would be much easier for the "lazy" SEO'ers (the ones who don't actually experiment, test, and track) to game the system.
              someone who finally makes some sense. spend a little less time worrying about how many eggs and baskets you got and a little more time building your business
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5047176].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rukshan
          Originally Posted by Michael Mayo View Post

          Kevin,
          You should consider at least placing a Buy Now button on the page.
          Just make sure you leave the "alt tag" empty.

          Have a Great Day!
          Michael
          ah ha nice technique
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287476].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Martin Luxton
          Originally Posted by Michael Mayo View Post

          Kevin,
          You should consider at least placing a Buy Now button on the page.
          Just make sure you leave the "alt tag" empty.

          Have a Great Day!
          Michael
          Monetizing strategy already in place.


          web design


          Martin
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287748].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Hill
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      This is not difficult people. You can't have original content. You can't have unique content. You can't have duplicate content. You can't have have low quality content. You can't have scraped content.

      Don't you see?

      Google is just trying to confuse the executives over at Bing.

      So in other words put up a blank site about nothing except a buy now button and some keywords.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3289398].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Barry Unruh
    Hey Bill,

    Just to make sure I get the highest rankings. Which of your blogs should I be scraping and spinning the content from?

    If I read all that content you referred us to properly it seems like the perfect answer. It puts us right in the middle of unique, scraped, and duplicate content so the Google Algorithm will have no idea what to do with my site. Should result in #1 rankings....right?



    Barry
    Signature
    Brain Drained...Signature Coming Soon!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285234].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by Barry Unruh View Post

      Hey Bill,

      Just to make sure I get the highest rankings. Which of your blogs should I be scraping and spinning the content from?

      If I read all that content you referred us to properly it seems like the perfect answer. It puts us right in the middle of unique, scraped, and duplicate content so the Google Algorithm will have no idea what to do with my site. Should result in #1 rankings....right?



      Barry
      Barry,

      The idea ia to not put your eggs in one basket.

      Have a nice mix.

      Some unique sites, some PLR, some scraped, some duplicate, some keyword stuffed, some legal, some illegal etc. I've just been making a 500 page site with exactly the same content on every page, Indexed yesterday, #1 for all my keywords this morning.

      Also, start spamming more. I've heard this is going to be favoured soon.

      Aweber I heard were removing the double opt in and will be closing accounts not engaging in spam.

      By the way, you have an Uncle in Nigeria that passed away, he left his Estate with me, can you send me.....

      EDIT. For those with a sense of humour bypass this, this post is an attempt at humour, it is sarcasm. Good grief.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285252].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author wanna-succeed
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        By the way, you have an Uncle in Nigeria that passed away, he left his Estate with me, can you send me.....

        I have some relatives there as well
        It seems as if my uncle was a minister there....who knew!
        He has a few million sitting there, waiting for me. All I need to do is surrender all my credit cards, my paypal account, and pretty much my identity to get that money.
        What do you guys think, should I fly over there and get the money?:rolleyes:
        Signature

        No sig, good day m8...

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285420].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mikemcmillan
          <<* Those who skim the bold and underlines will get a totally different, overly negative perception of the matter.>>

          Bill, I think the problem was I read the fine print and skimmed your bold and italicized text :p. --Mike
          Signature

          I'll help you create a reputation-building evergreen product in any niche and launch it successfully!
          Check it out here.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285445].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
            Originally Posted by mikemcmillan View Post

            <<* Those who skim the bold and underlines will get a totally different, overly negative perception of the matter.>>

            Bill, I think the problem was I read the fine print and skimmed your bold and italicized text :p. --Mike
            I knew as soon as it said "don't skim" it was one of Bills funny ones, when you didn't fall in, I started questioning myself and went back and re-read it all.

            It was just too Bill and as as soon as he mentioned the unique bit again, it was game over
            Signature

            Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3286659].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Oggyoi
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        Barry,

        The idea ia to not put your eggs in one basket.

        Have a nice mix.
        .
        I have advised this to offline companies, not to rely on just having 1 major client.
        If you lose that client you are well and truly stuffed, it's better to have several eggs in various baskets.
        Signature

        SEO Agency spending $1k a month? PM for details.
        Best PBN Hosting www.tiptopcrew.com
        https://www.warriorforum.com/warrior...king-bank.html

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285708].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Barry Unruh View Post

      Hey Bill,

      Just to make sure I get the highest rankings. Which of your blogs should I be scraping and spinning the content from?

      If I read all that content you referred us to properly it seems like the perfect answer. It puts us right in the middle of unique, scraped, and duplicate content so the Google Algorithm will have no idea what to do with my site. Should result in #1 rankings....right?



      Barry

      Barry: Anything of mine is scrape-worthy. And you will be in good company, when you scrape it, take it, and spin it. All of those people at the top of the search engines are already doing it... And I am sure they will be flattered that you have the same taste in content that they do.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285279].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonmorgan
    More popcorn please. My funny bone has been tickled.
    Signature

    I'm all about that bass.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285314].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by jasonmorgan View Post

      More popcorn please. My funny bone has been tickled.
      The humour is so much in the comments.

      My popcorns all over the floor now and I've coffee coming out of my nose.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285321].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonmorgan
    Try logging out of Google, and then searching.

    If the results are the same, go to a buddy's house and try.

    I am not seeing you in the first 10 pages for your keyword.
    I meant the venomous fumes song quote, not my little test link. A WF thread pops up at #5 for it.

    That little quote test does kinda kill a lot of duplicate / syndicated content myths. I added that little quote last night and it hit #5 pretty quickly despite all of the other preexisting sites with the exact same quote. Lesson learned, authority of site means everything when ranking duplicate / syndicated content.

    While the results for the PLR link were non-existent, no test is ever a failure.

    I did learn that a WF backlink alone isn't enough to get an empty, slightly SEO'd site on the map for a competitive keyword. I need to repeat the test with a less competitive keyword to see how that does. I wanted to see how much weight and authority 1,000+ signature backlinks from WF has.

    I've neglected moving on to Step 2 which is adding some text content to the site to see what difference, if any, that makes.

    After that, Step 3 is to add a couple of additional backlinks via commenting at a couple of power blogs.

    So, it's a slow, step by step test to see what makes google happy from a backlinking perspective for a brand new site.

    The only problem is these tests take so long to do correctly. It's would be much faster to just blast away with backlinks from various sources which I know works but I want to narrow down not only what works but what works more efficiently.

    The science and mad methodology behind the sock puppets schenanigans.
    Signature

    I'm all about that bass.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285422].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jazbo
    My original content has been nudged up a lot of its searches in the past week, so I'm happy.

    But, but, one of my content farms is also up and away.

    So its another load of google-bobbins.
    Signature
    CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
    Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285461].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LetsGoViral
    Well...since content on the internet is ever increasing this is only logical. I mean, day by day we get more websites, articles, videos up and running all over the net. Eventually, the offer (sites) will be larger than the demand (users). If search engines don't start filtering the content now, it will eventually become one big mess.
    Signature
    Time of thinking is over.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285706].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alex Barboza
    My opinion: I will write more articles and post them to Ezines and I will create videos and send them to Youtube. I will probably try forum marketing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285713].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
    My Google traffic and rankings are up. I also have original content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3285966].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cashcow
    WTF. I am throughly confused. What the hell am I supposed to put on my site then? I guess PLR is all that is left.
    Well, if you didn't depend on the search engines for getting traffic it really wouldn't matter what you put on your site. What would matter is that whatever it is (unique, PLR, spun, whatever...) got the visitor to perform the desired action.

    Lee
    Signature
    Gone Fishing
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3286057].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
    Script created! Posting the WSO now!
    Oh, and it also creates blank auto blogs really fast!


    Have a Great Day!
    Michael
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3287709].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author clever7
    As a daily content producer, I'm very glad with this change. Perhaps this is why my websites are getting more traffic lately. However, I'm doing so many things at the same time to increase website traffic that I don't know what is really helping them. Of course, statcounter keeps showing me that my ezinearticles' articles keep being my best traffic generating method, and a few new links, besides other sources of regular traffic.

    I think that this change really had to happen some day. However, let's see if it will really eliminate all websites and blogs that simply repeat other people's words. I don't think so...

    Three years ago I saw shocked that someone had copied one of my articles and had changed a few words, which didn't fit at all with the text!! My wonderful article became a very poor document after the changes made by this content thief. However, he/she had enough incoming links and this is why his blog appeared in the first page and paragraph of Google, with my article completely distorted. My original article, published at ezinearticles, appeared immediately after this blog. I tried to complain, but nothing happened.

    This article was about writing, which is not my main field. My main field is psychology and mental health. I simply wrote 2 articles about writing because I'm a writer too and I wanted to give a few basic lessons to the public. Writing is very important online. So, this blog was about writing and it had many incoming links from various sites/blogs, and this is why this thief's blog was appearing first of all when someone would type the main keywords of my article's title.

    I stopped opening Google alerts and seeing how many people distort my articles when they republish them in their websites, even when they keep my resource box. Many times the distortions they make are so horrible, while they keep my name under the article, that I wish I could at least delete my name under their horrible distortions.

    Now I don't care. I cannot prevent the entire internet from copying my words. Never mind, my readers know my style and they can recognize my articles.

    I don't think that Google will ever be able to prevent content repetitions, distortions, etc. And mainly, I don't believe that Google represents justice online. They are only marketers. They care more about a website's link popularity than for the originality (or utility) of the content it presents to the public.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3288039].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tishwash
    I heard about this, but is it only for Internet Marketing? Many of the alternative media websites have been complaining that their traffic has dropped too? I'm just curious if anyone knows are they only targeting marketers?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3288272].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author roley
    Google can suck my right titty. They think they are GOD determining what is what LOL.. about time someone knocked them off their high horse
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3288288].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JackPowers
    Are you serious this time or this a wind up like last time?

    No, I am not worried in the least about Google's recent changes. They're after autoblogs and scrapers and I don't have any of those, except for a few article directories. My sites have all skyrocketed since the new year and they are all heavily monetized affiliate sites.

    Google has no way of determining mass produced MFA content unless they do a manual review.

    Again, if you know anything about Google's actual algorithm, there is nothing to be worried about. Just don't scrape or autogenerate content and you'll be fine. Article syndication may become less effective as a backlinking method.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3288409].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by JackPowers View Post

      Are you serious this time or this a wind up like last time?

      I am serious that the smart folks will seek traffic from many sources.

      Everything else is a wind up like last time....
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3288546].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by Richard Odell View Post

        So... are you crying wolf... or sticking your finger in the dyke?


        The last time I stuck my finger in a dyke, I got slapped !!
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3288911].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steadyon
          Originally Posted by Kevin Riley View Post

          Yep. I've been putting up blank websites and they're all grabbing number one positions. Soon, when you use Google you'll come up with nothing but blank websites. That will get rid of information overload.

          If you are really concerned about google then putting up blank sites isn't the answer.

          For optimum results, completely unaffected by anything google does, I suggest you implement the "Don't put up any sites" strategy.

          Without doubt it is the single best way to avoid any kind of google penalty. It really works a treat.

          I am even thinking of creating a WSO for it with a secret non-existent domain name that no one can find just to be on the safe side.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3288953].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
            Originally Posted by Steadyon View Post

            If you are really concerned about google then putting up blank sites isn't the answer.

            For optimum results, completely unaffected by anything google does, I suggest you implement the "Don't put up any sites" strategy.

            Without doubt it is the single best way to avoid any kind of google penalty. It really works a treat.

            I am even thinking of creating a WSO for it with a secret non-existent domain name that no one can find just to be on the safe side.
            Now that, is the future.

            Think of it now, on Flippa if it's sold.

            www.bugg*rall.com - nothing to see here, no earnings, BID $20,000

            I can't believe I've been so naive.

            I love this world.
            Signature

            Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3288989].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
    The 40-60% drop has nothing to do with the preceding Christmas peak and post Christmas lull?

    For some reason I have always found a link between Google algo changes, whinging, and ecommerce sites.

    I guess there should be a 40% drop in traffic across sites such as:

    Ezinearticles.com Site Info
    About.com Site Info
    Ehow.com Site Info
    ...etc

    The goal should obviously be to have a traffic source that is reasonably secure and predictably, but I'm not going to stop any time soon using content smartly to build that secure traffic source - even if it goes on 'content farms'. Someone has to be on top so it might as well be me.

    Has anyone been directly affected by these latest changes? Do you dare show the rest of us an example of what a bad content farm 'looks like'?

    I have no doubt Google is working hard to cull the auto-generated keyword stuffed rot that appears for certain types of searchers BUT as a user of Google I rarely come across them.

    I wonder when Google is going to turn to a Wiki format with their very own army of user-based moderators protecting the searchers from themselves?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3289243].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    I saw a 25% surge in traffic the day after the Content Farm Algo was introduced. Then my traffic settled back to normal.

    I am not seeing myself at all hurt by the new changes, and I have seen hints of improvement, but it is still too early to call from my point of view.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3289271].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonmorgan
    I'm not sure what the fuss is over.

    After all, internet marketing IS dead. Didn't you get the memo or read the posts?

    I hear clickbank is no longer accepting new affiliates, Allen is closing down the Warrior Forum next week and Google is letting adwords run through the first quarter before it is shut down as well. I also heard a rumor that digital point is switching over to a sports and porn forum.

    It's been a fun ride while it lasted.
    Signature

    I'm all about that bass.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3289318].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author genietoast
      3 syllables: sin-duh-k8
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3289354].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
        Originally Posted by genietoast View Post

        3 syllables: sin-duh-k8
        O.I.C. "Syndicate" - What did I win? :rolleyes:

        Have a Great Day!
        Michael
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3289370].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Shazia Mirza
    Wow, just wow.

    The whole invention of Google was based on making it easier to find information.

    Now this?

    I wish there were cold hard facts behind this info.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3289378].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by IMReview View Post

      I wish there were cold hard facts behind this info.

      The entire OP (original post) included a wealth of verifiable facts. Click the links and read the cited resources.

      The only part of the entire post that was without merit was the assumptions and leaps of faith that were taken, based on the facts given.



      Originally Posted by splitstud View Post

      I'm brand new to this forum, and to internet marketing in general. As such I don't have any expertise to share other than technical advice. Not a big deal really as that fits in well with my general lurking style on forums.

      That said, I can share something in this thread. While new to this forum, even I can tell that the OP was speaking tongue in cheek.

      I am thrilled to hear that I was able to pluck you out of the nether-worlds, even if but for a few minutes.

      Please don't wait so long next time before you come back in to play...

      I am also thrilled to learn that there are others who understand and appreciate posts like these.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3289491].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author splitstud
    I'm brand new to this forum, and to internet marketing in general. As such I don't have any expertise to share other than technical advice. Not a big deal really as that fits in well with my general lurking style on forums.

    That said, I can share something in this thread. While new to this forum, even I can tell that the OP was speaking tongue in cheek. In case anyone else is confused, however, I thought I'd provide a little inside information as to what Google's new push is all about. Not super super inside information, just a little inside information.

    The push is for one thing only, and that's Quality. The penalty will be for low quality articles. Contractors who are tasked with rating content for Google are being asked to pay attention to article quality as well as topicality re the query, etc. Poorly written, poorly researched, poorly or non-attributed articles with no information other than typical knowledge have little utility in Google's view and are to be rated accordingly. Duplicate content should as always be rated as having little utility (no change there).

    Going to quietly slink back into the bushes to lurk now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3289384].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author clever7
    Thanks for this post, tpw. I read a lot more about this very interesting matter after reading this thread.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3291588].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      I'll tell you what I have noticed, at least on my biggest adsense site.
      I am getting super-targeted visitors like I have never got before.
      Which in turn, has actually gotten me much better ads on that site.
      And it's rocking. I don't know if that's coincidence, but it does coincide
      around that date.

      Paul
      Signature

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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3293386].message }}
      • I love Google algo changes, keeps SEOs in business!!

        Haven't noticed a huge change in my own affiliate site traffic with this latest change, but I don't scrape or use auto.

        What I have heard from some sources that I trust is that a mixture or unique and scraped content is still beneficial for traffic and rankings.

        Which would make sense to me because a lot of the big news sites "scrape"...as it were.

        Pure autoblogs seem to be the target, but they will just change their modus operandi and morph in 2011. Google is a machine, and machines will always be there to counter and manipulate Google.

        My two cents.

        GM
        Signature



        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3293505].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by Garage Media View Post

          Pure autoblogs seem to be the target, but they will just change their modus operandi and morph in 2011. Google is a machine, and machines will always be there to counter and manipulate Google.

          Interesting point.

          It kind of reminds me of the third installment of Matrix, where the machines were doing battle with the human-operated machines.
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3293525].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rukshan
    I don't see any changes for my auto blogs and other sites. But I'm improving the uniqueness of blogs and create more quality backlinks.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3293526].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Duncan
    The Lesson to be learned from this past month? Diversify your traffic sources...
    I think that's absolutely a good lesson to "take away" from this change...and you can take it one step further by saying, "Diversify your income sources..."

    Google's going to do what they want to do, when they want to do it...so if they are your only source of income, it's going to be a bit bumpy.

    All the best,
    Jack Duncan
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3293537].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sam Streubel
    When my website started to take off 65% of the traffic came from Google. Thirty five years of offline business experience taught me this is not healthy so I resolved to reduce my exposure to Google. Now, a few years later, Google accounts for around 43% of total traffic. This is still too high but I imagine over time I'll keep discovering ways to increase market share without Google's help.
    Signature
    See my recommendations for safe, energy efficient electric space heaters.

    Protect your new car investment with free online quotes for gap auto insurance.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3295401].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by Sam Streubel View Post

      When my website started to take off 65% of the traffic came from Google. Thirty five years of offline business experience taught me this is not healthy so I resolved to reduce my exposure to Google. Now, a few years later, Google accounts for around 43% of total traffic. This is still too high but I imagine over time I'll keep discovering ways to increase market share without Google's help.

      You should not try to block Google, but rather seek traffic from outside of Google.

      My main website gets nearly 4k visitors per month from Google, but that is only 35% of my traffic.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3295419].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ReportKing
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3295443].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by ReportKing View Post

      The bottom line is that if you do things right, don't cut corners and engage in Black Hat practices, you'll have no problem with Google.

      I've always used traditional methods for backlinks like article marketing, forums, blog comments, etc., and have always had good luck.

      However, the Barry Schwartz story linked in the original post was talking about authority websites that got hit by the Google hammer, even though they were doing everything right too...
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3295454].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author clickstrength
    Unique content penalty... hilarious.

    Seriously though, I think the problem Google's combating here relates to sites that live exclusively off their domain authority. Particularly sites with UGC. Should eHow really outrank a smaller site that is exclusively devoted to its content area and likely has more expertise? Not really. Domain authority can be a great ranking signal only after a certain initial quality barrier is achieved for the individual piece of content.
    Signature
    WSO: Get more AdSense Clicks with CTR Theme -- the WSO people are RAVING about
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3295462].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author classdancer
      Hi matt was really enjoying your course
      what is this crap ?internet marketing uk
      Programs - Symantec Corp.


      Dont sell snake oil to conuntries that just got rid of snakes

      Ireland will back me up you YOU BETTER BEIELIVE IT!

      Whats your game ?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3804432].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author syahbiz
    great thread
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3805239].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SledgeHammer
    And, as always don't forget Bing.
    Signature
    Mithun on the Web
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3906242].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author boxoun
    Or you can just keep building content farms. 60% drop from a million page views is still profitable lol.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5047574].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lovboa
    Banned
    Just create sites where you act as if the content is the main priority and making money from it second. Not the other way around. Then you wouldn't have to panic everytime you hear of a Google algorithm update.

    If you are in the #1 spot, your site should deserve to be there, or sooner later, Google updates will catch up with you and place your content where it really belongs.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5047694].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author summerfranken
    Oh really nice technique. thanks you give me a chance to read this. Hope for the same next.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5047928].message }}

Trending Topics