SEO TIP -You can't go to a nudist colony and complain about taking off your clothes

54 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Recovering from some dental work (delaying some extra training videos - sorry guys you know who you are) so I've been doing more reading this week.

and......... its been a whole lot of whining on blogs and forums about sites getting deindexed and Google this and that and coming algo changes and how Google is unfairly messing with marketers yad yada yada!

Despite what people think I don't really do a lot that Google is thrilled with. I just don't do a whole lot of link spamming people's sites that are not my own. But heres my tip for a more relaxing SEO life

IF you are going to take the attitude that Google is your enemy and its you against Google then get out of SEO altogether. YOU WILL NOT WIN long term.

So we are at the point where even more than before Google might be going after sites with no good content and ESPECIALLY spun content with links in it ala networks that got deindexed.

So what? Change adapt. Give em some of what they want instead of whining - just read a fairly well known IM SEO literally cursing Matt Cutts - Yeah that'll help. :rolleyes:

Some people reading this right now are cranking out a few hundred dollars a month on software. Some buy WSOs every other day. Some ten fifteen fiver "gigs". IF content is now what is required, is an extra ten dollars (that you could recoup by canceling one of those subscriptions or buying to less gigs) for some decent content going to kill you? Taking more than ten minutes to figure out what kind of site you are going to put together rather than a one page blog is that going to kill you?

Again change and adapt.

and if you are going to do things that Google doesn't like and told you they don't like then be prepared - not angry and bitter when you are caught. You should have taken that into account.

Change - adapt work a little harder. Give them some of the content they want.

Complaining about Google demanding what it always said it wanted for their search engine is like going into a nudist camp and getting all indignant because they insist that you take off your clothes. IF thats where you want to be then you are going to have to blend in and give up some clothes at some time. Their property their rules.

Get better content and demand better links from your service providers - it aint that hard.

and for goodness sake stop claiming SEO is dead or dying because you have to put some content into what you do
#clothes #colony #complain #nudist #seo #taking #tip
  • Profile picture of the author mosthost
    I think everyone is beyond the point where 'better content' will help. Google's changes have much more to do with business capacity than anything else, IMHO.

    Their business is slowing down and maturing and now they need to squeeze more money out of everyone. There's going to be less and less upside for 'straight SEO' going forward.

    Of course some people will still be able to work hard enough and keep going, but the average person is better off making their online business better and not focusing on Google alone. They're announcing 480+ algo changes a year already, and most of them are aimed at Warrior Forum members
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841366].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by mosthost View Post

      I think everyone is beyond the point where 'better content' will help. Google's changes have much more to do with business capacity than anything else, IMHO.

      Their business is slowing down and maturing and now they need to squeeze more money out of everyone. There's going to be less and less upside for 'straight SEO' going forward.
      Thats pretty much the internet marketer's rant I have been reading. I haven't seen any other group pronouncing SEO is dead as much. Of course better content helps. There are networks that passed right through the radar because they have decent content and the new changes they say are coming are all based on LSI which a well written and researched article on a subject usually nails. I don't know about you but I don't see 300 changes a year that make much impact on me or my customer's sites but I do hear people crying about their adsense sites and after they used a public rental network for links.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841700].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author theverysmartguy
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Thats pretty much the internet marketer's rant I have been reading. I haven't seen any other group pronouncing SEO is dead as much. Of course better content helps. There are networks that passed right through the radar because they have decent content and the new changes they say are coming are all based on LSI which a well written and researched article on a subject usually nails. I don't know about you but I don't see 300 changes a year that make much impact on me or my customer's sites but I do hear people crying about their adsense sites and after they used a public rental network for links.
        I am very glad I got out of one of those rental networks when I did. Just before the doors closed and all hell broke loose I got out. And yes, the sites that used that network in question did lose rankings, because I saw all the links from that network go bye bye. Did I cry and complain? Nope, I picked myself up, put my big boy pants on and got to work to fix it.

        I am currently, and very slowly, creating my own personal network that I will be very careful with. Will I let other people use it?

        BAHAHAHAHAHAHA ~cough cough ahem~ No.

        Why? I just don't see the point, the cost of a network is quite high yes, but I will be building and expanding on it as I see fit and can afford to maintain without the need to create a subscription based platform.

        -- Jeff
        Signature

        "Doing nothing is worse than doing it wrong."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841767].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dellco
          Originally Posted by theverysmartguy View Post

          I am very glad I got out of one of those rental networks when I did. Just before the doors closed and all hell broke loose I got out. And yes, the sites that used that network in question did lose rankings, because I saw all the links from that network go bye bye. Did I cry and complain? Nope, I picked myself up, put my big boy pants on and got to work to fix it.

          I am currently, and very slowly, creating my own personal network that I will be very careful with. Will I let other people use it?

          BAHAHAHAHAHAHA ~cough cough ahem~ No.

          Why? I just don't see the point, the cost of a network is quite high yes, but I will be building and expanding on it as I see fit and can afford to maintain without the need to create a subscription based platform.

          -- Jeff
          And would that rental network by any chance, happen to be BMR?

          I know it was all the rage just last year, and you for one, were claiming to be able to spit out BMR posts like a machine/ every day (and raging about BMR too)......

          As for creating your own network, which seems to be the way to go now, well, that's for people with the money to be able to do that.

          Those who claim SEO is dead don't really know how to rephrase their question....

          There is no question in my mind that it now requires A LOT more money and effort to gain any sort of success on the internet - The new algorithim is called stepping up the plate.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842820].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author nik0
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Dellco View Post

            And would that rental network by any chance, happen to be BMR?

            I know it was all the rage just last year, and you for one, were claiming to be able to spit out BMR posts like a machine/ every day......

            As for creating your own network, which seems to be the way to go now, well, that's for people with the money to be able to do that.

            Those who claim SEO is dead don't really know how to rephrase their question....

            There is no question in my mind that it now requires A LOT more money and effort to gain any sort of success on the internet - The new algorithim is called stepping up the plate.
            Which would mean that it's game over for all affiliates and Adsense publishers in the future. You can't compete in a market where people make 40% margins opposed to us who make 5% affiliate commision or $1 a click (thats in reality worth much more when you sell the real product/service yourself).

            Luckily there will always be cheap ways to game the system.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842839].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Dellco
              Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

              Which would mean that it's game over for all affiliates and Adsense publishers in the future. You can't compete in a market where people make 40% margins opposed to us who make 5% affiliate commision or $1 a click (thats in reality worth much more when you sell the real product/service yourself).

              Luckily there will always be cheap ways to game the system.
              I hope so. The optimistic part of me wants to think so too.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842850].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author nik0
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Dellco View Post

                I hope so. The optimistic part of me wants to think so too.
                You know what I find strange, that it's overall harder to rank in Bing/Yahoo then in Google. Makes me think that Yahoo/Bing have a much better grab on fake backlinks then Google does.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842871].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author hellow0rld
                  Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

                  You know what I find strange, that it's overall harder to rank in Bing/Yahoo then in Google. Makes me think that Yahoo/Bing have a much better grab on fake backlinks then Google does.

                  ...or exactly the opposite
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842912].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author nik0
                    Banned
                    Originally Posted by hellow0rld View Post

                    ...or exactly the opposite
                    No really not, maybe on a small sample.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842965].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author 4morereferrals
                    Originally Posted by hellow0rld View Post

                    ...or exactly the opposite
                    Correct answer there ...

                    Bing and Yahoo seem to follow GOOGLEs lead. rank there long enough then Bing and Yahoo seem willing to rank you after a while.

                    Whats odd is ... if google slaps ya ... Bing and Yahoo almost always stay where they were ....

                    From Rank Tracker

                    Mr toads wild ride

                    2012-03-16_2343 - sputnikkk13's library

                    The sire / kw in question had been solid in hte serps until panda 1.0 @ #3 / 4 for 2 years. Site was created circa 2007

                    2012-03-16_2341 - sputnikkk13's library

                    Thing hasnt budged in Bing or Yahoo in ages either - ONLY google ... clearly google is playing some games... and its JUST that KW phrase which is an interesting "insurance" KW phrase.
                    Signature
                    Rank Ascend Network - High PR Links / Guaranteed Rankings Increase
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5843451].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                      Originally Posted by 4morereferrals View Post

                      Correct answer there ...

                      Bing and Yahoo seem to follow GOOGLEs lead. rank there long enough then Bing and Yahoo seem willing to rank you after a while.

                      Whats odd is ... if google slaps ya ... Bing and Yahoo almost always stay where they were ....
                      It's funny you mention that. I'm working with a client right now that used a horrible, but popular, WSO here and saw their rankings tank. However, Bing is holding strong.

                      I don't think they have as strong of an ability or the resources to evaluate poor links as effectively as Google. At least, not yet.
                      Signature
                      SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
                      Get a FREE Quote.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5844538].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author theverysmartguy
            Originally Posted by Dellco View Post

            And would that rental network by any chance, happen to be BMR?

            I know it was all the rage just last year, and you for one, were claiming to be able to spit out BMR posts like a machine/ every day (and raging about BMR too)......

            As for creating your own network, which seems to be the way to go now, well, that's for people with the money to be able to do that.

            Those who claim SEO is dead don't really know how to rephrase their question....

            There is no question in my mind that it now requires A LOT more money and effort to gain any sort of success on the internet - The new algorithim is called stepping up the plate.
            Yup I will admit I used BMR like a w*ore. It was pretty top notch. But the higher they are the harder they will fall as well. And quite a few of my sites did fall. Some of the pages on a lot of my sites lost a good 50 - 60% of their links.

            But, instead of whining about it, I am just changing my tactics. I am going to slowly build up a network of my own. I am just going to make sure that I keep it sustainable with my income and not have to "pimp" it out to keep it going.

            -- Jeff
            Signature

            "Doing nothing is worse than doing it wrong."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5843792].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      Originally Posted by mosthost View Post

      I
      Their business is slowing down and maturing and now they need to squeeze more money out of everyone.
      That would be news to google.

      Paul
      Signature

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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841934].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by mosthost View Post

      Their business is slowing down and maturing and now they need to squeeze more money out of everyone.
      Um, didn't they post record profits last quarter? :confused:
      Signature
      SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
      Get a FREE Quote.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5844507].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mosthost
        Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

        Um, didn't they post record profits last quarter? :confused:
        Every other indication is that there ad revenue is flatlining. Do you think they bought Motorola because the future of AdWords is so bright?

        Do you think that they invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Google+ because they're so friendly and just love being social.

        Their business is selling your personal data to corporations, just like Facebook. Their ad model is in decline. Every move they've made in the last few years has been targeted at having more people use their properties and less on sending referrals to external websites.

        Worse, they've take DIRECT AIM at active SEOs and they have even announced plans to ratchet up the quality on low quality.

        I honestly can't imagine how anyone at this forum still sees a lot of upside for 'Google SEO' only. This isn't 2006 anymore.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5844719].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author paulgl
          Flatlining? Man do you people actually really know
          what is going on in the tech world?

          Seemingly, a big fat no.

          Android is the only competition with apple as far
          as smartphones go. The market share of google
          and apple is roughly even. People forget google
          owns a big fat slice of the cellphone biz.

          Also, in spite of all the hype, it is predicted that
          android will power more tablets in the very
          near future than apple.

          Now you wanna talk online profits that stink?
          How about MS? They make nothing. In fact,
          they lose billions to google every year. Bing
          has never turned one cent of profit. None.

          They ruined yahoo. Turned it into junk. Who predicted
          that? My hand is raised.

          Google is not just search. People forget that google owns
          tons of other businesses.

          I just wonder why nobody here ever makes fun of MS and
          their lousy online business? Everything they touch turns to
          trash. They are a great software company. They should
          stick with that.

          Paul
          Signature

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

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5844901].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author penpoint
            Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

            Flatlining? Man do you people actually really know
            what is going on in the tech world?
            Take note that the responder specified "ad revenue". And if it is flattening out, does it make sense for Google to be to pushing the publishers out the door that are promoting their ads?

            I agree with the idea of insisting on better quality sites but if they eliminate most of the sites that carry adsense ads, they are eliminating a portion of their ad revenue, as well. Where will the breaking point be?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5845452].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by penpoint View Post


              I agree with the idea of insisting on better quality sites but if they eliminate most of the sites that carry adsense ads, they are eliminating a portion of their ad revenue, as well. Where will the breaking point be?
              This is a common misconception of adsense. Google did not create adsense to pay publishers who were getting traffic from Google. They were trying to capture traffic from other sites that was NOT coming through google

              This is why a lot of adsense marketers can't believe it and get all upset because they think Google should see them as partners getting them money. If your traffic is coming from Google to begin with they couldn't care less about you. Why would they? If the traffic is first on Google before coming to your site they make more money if the user clicks on the advertising right there on the search result page - not on your site. Now if you have return traffic coming to you then thats another matter but unfortunately too many adsense marketers don't have anything that people would want to come back to a second time so they end up bringing no traffic of their own to the "partnership".

              and that right there is why Google will never care about a lot of adsense marketers. IF you don't provide traffic then they have no incentive to see you stick around and certainly not at the top of their search results.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5845599].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author penpoint
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                This is a common misconception of adsense. Google did not create adsense to pay publishers who were getting traffic from Google. They were trying to capture traffic from other sites that was NOT coming through google

                This is why a lot of adsense marketers can't believe it and get all upset because they think Google should see them as partners getting them money. If your traffic is coming from Google to begin with they couldn't care less about you. Why would they? If the traffic is first on Google before coming to your site they make more money if the user clicks on the advertising right there on the search result page - not on your site. Now if you have return traffic coming to you then thats another matter but unfortunately too many adsense marketers don't have anything that people would want to come back to a second time so they end up bringing no traffic of their own to the "partnership".

                and that right there is why Google will never care about a lot of adsense marketers. IF you don't provide traffic then they have no incentive to see you stick around and certainly not at the top of their search results.
                Your points are certainly valid but I can't say that I totally agree. First, I don't expect Google to see me as a partner. But, I'm trying to use a mechanism that Google created and promoted. Therefore, I don't feel that Google should see me as an enemy, either.

                As for search, I understand your assertion that Google was attempting to draw more traffic that they didn't have and the Adsense publisher not bringing any new traffic to the table. Good point. Perhaps, as you indicate, Google would make more money if the user clicked on the ads right there on the search page instead of on my site. But there is no guarantee that the user will do so. It would be interesting to know the percentage of searchers who click on a Google ad on the side of the search page or at the top of the SERPs as opposed to clicking on one of the sites in the search results.

                That being said, if a user clicks on a site in the search results and bypasses the ads, Google has forfeited an opportunity for revenue by eliminating Adsense sites from the results.

                Additionally, I understand that, as you point out, "Google did not create adsense to pay publishers who were getting traffic from Google." They created Adsense as a very good revenue model for the purpose of furthering their profits. Nothing wrong with that, either. But, now they seem to have let it get out of control by not having quality standards in place from the beginning.

                I'm not opposed to Google weeding out low-quality, spammy sites. As a searcher, I appreciate that effort. But there has to be a balance to it that allows site owners who offer quality content and value to the searcher to leverage the Adsense program.

                Having said all that, I realize that Google search is proprietary to Google and they can do as they wish. And, they certainly don't have to care about Adsense marketers. But, Adsense does account for a percentage of their revenue. To not care about those marketers is to not care about the revenue.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5853809].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by penpoint View Post

                  Having said all that, I realize that Google search is proprietary to Google and they can do as they wish. And, they certainly don't have to care about Adsense marketers. But, Adsense does account for a percentage of their revenue. To not care about those marketers is to not care about the revenue.
                  well I know this is how adsense marketers like to think about it but look the only thing that matters is How Google sees it. Don't know if you have participated in this section of the forum for long but Every few months there are adsense marketers complaining about Google cleaning out tons of adsense accounts - banning left and right. Does that give you the impression their bottm line is hurt by not having some adsense marketers?

                  The truth is Google has ton loads of adsense marketers they do not care about and yes they are the ones that either do not have their own traffic or very little repeat traffic. IF you have ever contemplated using adwords (the flip side of adsense) and used their interface to search for pages to place your adwords ad on you know that their are LOTS of site with real independent traffic which they give you the traffic volumes for. Real sites with real independent visitors. Those are the adsense marketers they care about.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5856144].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

            Now you wanna talk online profits that stink?
            How about MS? They make nothing. In fact,
            they lose billions to google every year. Bing
            has never turned one cent of profit. None.

            They ruined yahoo. Turned it into junk. Who predicted
            that? My hand is raised.l
            Why do people have this fanatical rant mentality against MS? this thread isn;t even about them but its pops up. lol. Fact is there are alot of similarities between the two. Google has tried moving into the social area a few times now and fell short of the entrenched competitors. Bing is attempting the same thing - going up against an entrenched competitor. Same difference

            People said the same thing about Xbox when MS decided they were going into that market. Took a few years but the console they MAKE is right up there at the top and their ONLINE service XBOX live is very profitable.

            Lots of people think that only matters to gamers but it puts MS right alongside TVs all across the world as an entertainment device just waiting as televisions fuse together with PCs

            Anyway remember - Microsoft was seen as the big bad beast that could muscle its way and dominate ANY market but one thing stopped it - an antitrust case.

            Notice any other company now being investigated for antritust violations?
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5845508].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author looking4adsense
            Google has ONE hugely profitable business, that is adwords, every single other business is a money losing business, and is probably just another way to show adword ads, like gmail/map/search/youtube/android.

            Google doesn't make one penny from android, since it's provided free of charge. Google built android so they can show adword ads to your mobile phone, because android comes with gmail, gmap, gsearch etc... if google didn't build android, it would be at the mercy of apple/microsoft in the mobile world.

            Google revenue is flatlining, they just had their first ever revenue miss in Q4 2011, and their stock plummeted. Google's culture has changed, from innovation, to chasing numbers, and doing anything to get those numbers.

            Originally Posted by paulgl View Post

            Flatlining? Man do you people actually really know
            what is going on in the tech world?

            Seemingly, a big fat no.

            Android is the only competition with apple as far
            as smartphones go. The market share of google
            and apple is roughly even. People forget google
            owns a big fat slice of the cellphone biz.

            Also, in spite of all the hype, it is predicted that
            android will power more tablets in the very
            near future than apple.

            Now you wanna talk online profits that stink?
            How about MS? They make nothing. In fact,
            they lose billions to google every year. Bing
            has never turned one cent of profit. None.

            They ruined yahoo. Turned it into junk. Who predicted
            that? My hand is raised.

            Google is not just search. People forget that google owns
            tons of other businesses.

            I just wonder why nobody here ever makes fun of MS and
            their lousy online business? Everything they touch turns to
            trash. They are a great software company. They should
            stick with that.

            Paul
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5860847].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jinx1221
    I know, its like, people are basically saying "Hey google, stop improving so I can keep delivering my crappy content all over the place!".. In the mid 90's, when states started to create laws against pollution and emissions, did car companies whine and complain? No, they created cleaner, ecologically friendlier cars. Put another way, if all they did was complain, they would go out of business really quick!
    Signature

    The Ultimate Private Network Management,
    Visualization and Automation Tool




    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841367].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Legit SEO
      Originally Posted by jinx1221 View Post

      I know, its like, people are basically saying "Hey google, stop improving so I can keep delivering my crappy content all over the place!".. In the mid 90's, when states started to create laws against pollution and emissions, did car companies whine and complain? No, they created cleaner, ecologically friendlier cars. Put another way, if all they did was complain, they would go out of business really quick!
      Google improving? Was that a typo? All I see are more ads and everyday a new rotation of crappy sites are at the top of the SERPs.
      Everything Google touches fails, they had beginners luck with their search engine but obviously they are determined to screw that up too.
      Black hatters are upset with google, white hatters are upset with google, only person that is winning here is google, because they force ads in your face, but then send emails saying you will be penalized if you do the same!
      Great business ethic. :rolleyes:
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841542].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ThatAblaze
    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

    Their property their rules.
    lolwat?

    Since when did the internet become Google's property?? From a legal perspective if Google was the owner of the internet then every time they changed their algorithm and someone lost money from it Google would be liable.

    .. as I shout loudly into the darkness "Google doesn't own me!" and hear only an echo of my own words in response..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841644].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by ThatAblaze View Post

      lolwat?

      Since when did the internet become Google's property?? From a legal perspective if Google was the owner of the internet then every time they changed their algorithm and someone lost money from it Google would be liable.

      .. as I shout loudly into the darkness "Google doesn't own me!" and hear only an echo of my own words in response..
      I have no idea what you are talking about but last time I checked people don't cry out at their computer monitor to do searches looking to get an echo back. they do a search at Google.com on a search engine that yes GOOGLE OWNS and last time I checked its there people want to be ranked at the top of the page - their property. If you have somewhere on the internets in general where the search results are displayed then please enlighten all of us.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841690].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author theverysmartguy
      Originally Posted by ThatAblaze View Post

      lolwat?

      Since when did the internet become Google's property?? From a legal perspective if Google was the owner of the internet then every time they changed their algorithm and someone lost money from it Google would be liable.

      .. as I shout loudly into the darkness "Google doesn't own me!" and hear only an echo of my own words in response..
      Google would be liable? HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA. Sorry, there are tons of companies out there that know how to protect themselves against liability. Google is one of them.

      All companies that you can either use their platform, or partner up with will always have a clause saying that they can not be held liable for any loss of money using their platform. Then you agree to these terms before you are able to use them.

      As an example, if something happens to your web hosting and it goes down for an hour. That is an hour that you lost money. Is your web hosting liable? NO.

      Google might not "own" the internet, but it does own the most widely used search engine platform in the world. This is a platform where people try to put their site in front of the people who use it, and then of course make money off of it.

      What Mike is trying to say is that instead of "fighting" against Google, work WITHIN its system to YOUR advantage. I mean seriously, who is going to win a fight, You? or an 800LB Gorilla?

      -- Jeff
      Signature

      "Doing nothing is worse than doing it wrong."

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841736].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThatAblaze
        Originally Posted by theverysmartguy View Post

        Google would be liable? HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA. Sorry, there are tons of companies out there that know how to protect themselves against liability. Google is one of them.

        All companies that you can either use their platform, or partner up with will always have a clause saying that they can not be held liable for any loss of money using their platform. Then you agree to these terms before you are able to use them.

        As an example, if something happens to your web hosting and it goes down for an hour. That is an hour that you lost money. Is your web hosting liable? NO.

        Google might not "own" the internet, but it does own the most widely used search engine platform in the world. This is a platform where people try to put their site in front of the people who use it, and then of course make money off of it.

        What Mike is trying to say is that instead of "fighting" against Google, work WITHIN its system to YOUR advantage. I mean seriously, who is going to win a fight, You? or an 800LB Gorilla?

        -- Jeff
        Thank you for making my point by attempting to argue against me.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841790].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author theverysmartguy
          Originally Posted by ThatAblaze View Post

          Thank you for making my point by attempting to argue against me.
          The only thing I was arguing against was the Liability part. Even if Google did OWN the internet it wouldn't be Liable for loss of money. That was my point.

          -- Jeff
          Signature

          "Doing nothing is worse than doing it wrong."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841809].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThatAblaze
            Originally Posted by theverysmartguy View Post

            The only thing I was arguing against was the Liability part. Even if Google did OWN the internet it wouldn't be Liable for loss of money. That was my point.

            -- Jeff
            You, sir, are obviously not a lawyer. It makes no difference, you've already made my point.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841830].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by ThatAblaze View Post

              You, sir, are obviously not a lawyer. It makes no difference, you've already made my point.
              Sorry but the whole argument was baseless since no one ever claimed Google owned the internet just their own search engine
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841880].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by ThatAblaze View Post


      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

      Their property their rules.
      lolwat?

      Since when did the internet become Google's property?? From a legal perspective if Google was the owner of the internet then every time they changed their algorithm and someone lost money from it Google would be liable.

      .. as I shout loudly into the darkness "Google doesn't own me!" and hear only an echo of my own words in response..


      Who exactly do you think owns the domain google.com?

      Google does own the internet If you think the internet is google.com.
      Signature
      Hi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842018].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jinx1221
    I think the problem lies in people's misguided belief that they have an absolute 'right' to have their site, and whatever they put on it, ranked -highly, and/or even at all- on Google. No one ever said Google owns the internet, Google never claimed to, and they can rank or flush whatever the hell site they want to. Thats why its your responsibility to play nice in their playground if you indeed want to play there.

    If I own an authority site, and you post comments that I think devalues my site, do you have a right to have the comment there? Or do I have the right to delete it? Hmm.. lemme think...
    Signature

    The Ultimate Private Network Management,
    Visualization and Automation Tool




    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5841936].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dp40oz
    If only it just took good content to rank. Then gaming the system would be who could afford the Harvard grad to write content.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842000].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by dp40oz View Post

      If only it just took good content to rank. Then gaming the system would be who could afford the Harvard grad to write content.
      Agreed, I have a site with 100 unique pages, (not perfect content but good enough) targetting incredibly easy keywords and enough internal linking but only very few backlinks.

      What's my reward for all this unique content (talking about 30.000 words)? 2 unique visitors a day. Got to love those people who say content is king. I've ranked pages at page 1 where the keyword that I targetted wasn't even mentioned at the page once, in fact it was pretty irrelevant. Wasn't on purpose btw.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842007].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by dp40oz View Post

      If only it just took good content to rank. Then gaming the system would be who could afford the Harvard grad to write content.

      Thats 100% true and right on DP. Great content guarantees you nothing although Google claims otherwise. However what they are clearly targeting now is lousy content and links coming from lousy content so marketers in my opinion have to start trying to address that rather than think they can always game it.

      Anyway you guys have a great weekend.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842040].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author penpoint
        If Google wants it to all come down to content, then the question I have is "what is content".

        I have a site that provides information about a product (I'll call the product red widgets). I have multiple unique, well written articles on various aspects of red widgets (types, sizes, styles, uses of, safety issues, etc). I can't get this site past page 2 of Google.

        The results on page 1 are all sites that sell red widgets but offer no information regarding any aspect of the product. In most cases, the sites simply have row after row of red widgets listed for sale.

        So, which is "content". Now, I realize that many people search with the primary purpose of purchasing. But, there are others who seek to be informed before purchasing. Apparently, Google places a higher premium on listing of the product itself rather than content about the product. (Though all other factors are certainly not equal, in this case. The other pages may have advantages such as higher PR or better SEO)

        I'd be interested in reading your views on this, particularly Mike Anthony and Yukon.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842145].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          As mentioned in another thread, recently a business associate of mine that I haven't talked for a long while up until recently went into business with some seo company, he wasnt' ranking anywhere for a certain competitive keyword, now he ranks at page 2 and the keyword density on that page is around 10% (also a product page same like you mention with the red widgets).

          Makes me thing, should I just take all articles from Ezines and referring to the source to make it legal instead of outsourcing semi-crap content for $5 a pop. And just doing the same kind of linkbuilding. I bet I would almost rank the same.

          Maybe that's also why auto-blogging died, simply cause content doesn't rank on it own, it needs link nowadays more then ever. (before people understand me wrong, not talking about more links like quantity but higher backlnks/unique content ratio)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5842187].message }}
        • Originally Posted by penpoint View Post

          I have a site that provides information about a product (I'll call the product red widgets). I have multiple unique, well written articles on various aspects of red widgets .. [but] the results on page 1 are all sites that sell red widgets but offer no information regarding any aspect of the product. In most cases, the sites simply have row after row of red widgets listed for sale.
          The search engine is giving the customer exactly what they want. Imagine that you're hungry and out looking for a place to eat. Do you want to read a "content" article about the history of diners, or would you rather go to a restaurant and order off a menu?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5884021].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author nik0
            Banned
            Originally Posted by ThousandDollarDays View Post

            The search engine is giving the customer exactly what they want. Imagine that you're hungry and out looking for a place to eat. Do you want to read a "content" article about the history of diners, or would you rather go to a restaurant and order off a menu?
            Personally I am always very hungry for a good read. Don't you find it interesting what they ate in the past?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5884287].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author n0tr3v3
    The truth is we all contributed to google's success and we made them into the monster that we see today.
    Google treating us unfair is just part of the deal.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5843056].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author theziners
    wow very informative post for me thanks buddy's thanks for sharing your ideas
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5855391].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PriceMaster
    Great guide! Following this will surely take out all the 'Pain' from SEO and slowly but surely get you where you want to be!
    Signature
    DoFollow Backlinking, SEO and Internet Marketing Forum - Discuss SEO, IM and everything else!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5855748].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AnnaSEO
    The problem is Poorly spun content always causes the problem.If you spin a article and it is readable,google is not going to find it out.People make errors in spintags and make their article look spammy.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5856668].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kbs
    IF you don't provide traffic then they have no incentive to see you stick around and certainly not at the top of their search results
    Dear Google:

    If you place me at the number 1 postion for my keywords, I'll bring you traffic and lots of revenue. If you don't then I can't.

    comment dripping w/ sarcasm
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5859060].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by kbs View Post

      Dear Google:

      If you place me at the number 1 postion for my keywords, I'll bring you traffic and lots of revenue. If you don't then I can't.

      comment dripping w/ sarcasm
      Then you have nothing to offer them but their own traffic. total fail. They'd rather the searcher click on their ads on their own site and pay you nada.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5859536].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Then you have nothing to offer them but their own traffic. total fail. They'd rather the searcher click on their ads on their own site and pay you nada.
        Their own traffic that they've already lost. If the searcher is on his site, that means they didn't click on an ad on Google's own site. Having adsense on his site offers them another opportunity to get the click from that searcher that they've already lost.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5884978].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dminorfmajor
    Great tips Mike, as usual.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5859087].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author joetheseo
    Last month I ranked a client #1 over a competitor that had 500 backlinks in only 2 weeks. My total backlink count when we hit rank #1 was... 7.

    That was just on 1 keyword however, it did require more backlinks to rank #1 on everything in the market. Right now we have 384 backlinks and control the market 100%.

    Point is that on this campaign I tested something different... Start out using ONLY high quality relevant links, and copying the competitors backlinks. Needless to say it worked out quite well.

    Also I have another site that I tested this theory on... I built my own super relevant Tier 1 links slowly over a few weeks (and juiced them with PR links), and this site is sitting at #2 below a Youtube video right now in the SERPS.

    Quality is gaining traction. Now to find a way to streamline it... :rolleyes:

    Take it as you will,
    Joe

    P.s. Thanks for the tips
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5859271].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kengperapol
    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

    Recovering from some dental work (delaying some extra training videos - sorry guys you know who you are) so I've been doing more reading this week.

    and......... its been a whole lot of whining on blogs and forums about sites getting deindexed and Google this and that and coming algo changes and how Google is unfairly messing with marketers yad yada yada!

    Despite what people think I don't really do a lot that Google is thrilled with. I just don't do a whole lot of link spamming people's sites that are not my own. But heres my tip for a more relaxing SEO life

    IF you are going to take the attitude that Google is your enemy and its you against Google then get out of SEO altogether. YOU WILL NOT WIN long term.

    So we are at the point where even more than before Google might be going after sites with no good content and ESPECIALLY spun content with links in it ala networks that got deindexed.

    So what? Change adapt. Give em some of what they want instead of whining - just read a fairly well known IM SEO literally cursing Matt Cutts - Yeah that'll help. :rolleyes:

    Some people reading this right now are cranking out a few hundred dollars a month on software. Some buy WSOs every other day. Some ten fifteen fiver "gigs". IF content is now what is required, is an extra ten dollars (that you could recoup by canceling one of those subscriptions or buying to less gigs) for some decent content going to kill you? Taking more than ten minutes to figure out what kind of site you are going to put together rather than a one page blog is that going to kill you?

    Again change and adapt.

    and if you are going to do things that Google doesn't like and told you they don't like then be prepared - not angry and bitter when you are caught. You should have taken that into account.

    Change - adapt work a little harder. Give them some of the content they want.

    Complaining about Google demanding what it always said it wanted for their search engine is like going into a nudist camp and getting all indignant because they insist that you take off your clothes. IF thats where you want to be then you are going to have to blend in and give up some clothes at some time. Their property their rules.

    Get better content and demand better links from your service providers - it aint that hard.

    and for goodness sake stop claiming SEO is dead or dying because you have to put some content into what you do
    Hi Mike,

    You suggest us to create better contents but what about off page seo? Many people seem to have problems with unnatural links lately. What's the solution you suggest to solve that problem?

    Thanks,

    Keng
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5860888].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author orpaz191
    You are tight, it's part of the game. cat and mouse. If youcan't handle it, find another way to make money online or hand the job to someone who is already know what his doing.
    Signature

    Karma is sweet :)
    The only way to succeed is to make others successful.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5884426].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jord2n
    I think it should be mentioned since it has not been already - GREAT headline for the thread!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5884672].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NFN8
    Problem is... the whole reason I started resorting to automated tools was because what Google asked for -- "white hat" -- wasn't working.

    Picture this -- you have a prominent business leader, who produces three full sites worth of content, plus a YouTube channel, plus active on Twitter (200k followers) and Facebook. He has a New York Times bestseller, that has its own site. He has press releases, he does interviews, he has true fans blogging about him, doing book reviews, etc.

    And yet, a dinky little hater site that hasn't even been posted to in over a year and doesn't have his name in the domain, is still on page one for a search on his name. Before I went to work on it, so were two other negative sites.

    Google has it wrong. The results don't reflect that what they advocate actually works.

    So what then? This isn't "black hat" to try to artificially boost a site that really doesn't "deserve" a high ranking. This is a matter of fighting Google misinformation and quirky algorithms.

    What would you do in this situation?
    Signature
    Social media is my middle name. Well, at least it used to be. New middle name coming soon.
    Linked Intelligence - The unofficial source for all things LinkedIn.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5941050].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      You do what is ethical NOT what Google wants. Frankly Google would probably be happy if it were all big companies, universities and Wikipedia on the front page of every result.

      My point is that marketers - not you - are taking the other extreme. They don't want to work with Google on anything. I might not take the position that Google takes on all their ideas of linkbuilding but I don't consider them the enemy.

      To use my analogy I will go to the nudist colony and try my best to get away without taking off all my clothes. I might even find a way to leave without doing it but I knew coming in it was a nudist colony so theres no sense in complaining. Shucks if I can find a flesh colored boxers I'll do it if it keep them happy.

      So when they come looking at my sites I'll give them great content and I'll use at least some of the links they want but because we are not enemies it doesn't mean I agree with them on everything
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5941169].message }}

Trending Topics