Matt Cutts on Penguin, Penalties, and Upcoming Changes

by IM Ash
29 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Hey guyz,

I'm not one to live and breathe by what Matt Cutts has to say but I found the latest SMX conference QnA to be really informative with a number of gems. Hopefully people will now see that SEO is far from dead.

Danny Sullivan(DS): What’s the deal with Penguin. Is it a penalty?
Matt Cutts(MC): We look at it something designed to tackle low-quality content. It started out with Panda, and then we noticed that there was still a lot of spam and Penguin was designed to tackle that. It’s an algorithmic change, but when we use a word like “penalty,” we’re talking about a manual action taken by the web spam team — it wasn’t that.
We don’t think of it as a penalty. We think of it as, “We have over 200 signals, and this is one of the signals.”

DS: So from now, does “penalty” mean it’s a human thing?
MC: That’s pretty much how we look at it. In fact, we don’t use the word “penalty” much, we refer to things as a “manual action.” Part of the reason why we do that breakdown is, how transparent can we be? We do monthly updates where we talk about changes, and in the past year, we’ve been more transparent about times when we take manual action. We send out alerts via Google Webmaster Tools.

DS: Did you just do another Penguin update?
MC: No.


(Danny references the WPMU story and Matt says that the site recovered due to the data refreshes and algorithmic tweaks.)


DS: Now we hear a lot of people talking about “negative SEO.”
MC: The story of this year has been more transparency, but we’re also trying to be better about enforcing our quality guidelines. People have asked questions about negative SEO for a long time. Our guidelines used to say it’s nearly impossible to do that, but there have been cases where that’s happened, so we changed the wording on that part of our guidelines.


Some have suggested that Google could disavow links. Even though we put in a lot of protection against negative SEO, there’s been so much talk about that that we’re talking about being able to enable that, maybe in a month or two or three.


DC: asks about different types of links
MC: We’ve done a good job of ignoring boilerplate, site wide links. In the last few months, we’ve been trying to make the point that not only is link buying like that not doing any good, we’re turning the dial up to let people know that certain link spam techniques are a waste of money.


DC: Danny asks about messaging.
MC: If you roll out a new algorithm, it can affect millions of sites. It’s not practical to notify website owners when you have 500 algo changes every year, but we can notify when there’s been manual action against a specific site.


One thing I’d like to clear up — the news earlier this year about 700,000 warnings. The vast majority of those were because we started sending out messages even for cases of very obvious black hat techniques. So now we’re completely transparent with the warnings we send. Typically your website ranking will drop if you don’t take action after you get one of those warnings.


DC: Anything new related to paid links?
MC: We’re always working on improving our tools. Some of the tools that we built, for example, to spot blog networks, can also be used to spot link buying. People sometimes think they can buy links without a footprint, but you don’t know about the person on the other side. People need to realize that, as we build up new tools, paid links becomes a higher risk endeavor. We’ve said it for years, but we’re starting to enforce it more.


I believe, if you ask any SEO, is SEO harder now than 5-6 years ago, I think they’d say it’s a little more challenging. You can expect that to increase. Google is getting more serious about buying and selling links. Penguin showed that some stuff that may work short term won’t work in the long term.


DS: Affiliate links. Do people need to run around and nofollow all that?
MC: If it’s a large enough affiliate network, we know about it and recognize it. But yes, I would recommend no following affiliate links. (That’s a paraphrase! Not an exact quote – sorry.)


DS: Do links still work, or are social signals gonna replace them?
MC: Douglas Adams wrote “Space is big. You have no idea how big space is.” The web is like that. Library of Congress, the biggest library in the world, has 235 terabytes of data. That’s not very big compared to the way the web grows.
The actual percentage of nofollow links on the web is a single digit percentage, and it’s a pretty small percentage. To say that links are a dead signal his wrong. I wouldn’t write the epitaph for links just yet.


DS: You do these 30-day challenges, like “I’m gonna use Bing for 30 days.”
MC: I have not done that one, and I’m afraid to try! (huge laughter from audience – Matt then says he’s joking and compliments Bing team)
Danny challenges Matt and Google to do something to see the web from an SEOs shoes, and says that SEOs should try to see things from Matt’s perspective, too.

DS: What’s up with your war on SEOs? (laughter) Or is it a war on spam?
MC: It’s a war on spam. If you go on the black hat forums, there’s a lot of people asking, How do I fake sincerity? How do I fake being awesome? Why not just be sincere and be awesome? We’re trying to stop spam so people can compete on a level playing field. I think our philosophy has been relatively consistent.


DS: What about tweets earlier today about using bounce rate? You don’t look at how quickly someone bounces from a search result and back to Google?
MC: Webspam doesn’t use Google Analytics. I asked again before this conference and was told, No, Google does not use analytics in its rankings.
And now we’re going to audience questions.


DS: What percent of organic queries are now secure?
MC: The launch was a little backwards, because we didn’t want to talk about being able to search over different corpi/corpuses. It was a single percentage of traffic in the US, and then we rolled it out internationally.


I think it’s still a minority of the traffic now, but there’s things like Firefox adding SSL search in the browser. There’s a lot of things aimed at helping users with privacy. I recognize that’s not good for marketers, but we have to put users first. We feel like moving toward SSL, moving toward encrypted, is the right long-term plan.


DS: (reading audience question) How come WordPress didn’t get penalized with all the blogs that have WordPress links in their footer?
MC: If you look at the volume of those links, most of them are from quality sites. WPMU had a pretty good number of links from lower quality sites.


DS: How come AdWords isn’t being blocked from keyword referrals?
MC: If we did that, every advertiser would do an exact match for every phrase and then the ad database would grow exponentially. He adds that he wishes Google might have reconsidered that decision, though.


???(I missed the next question.)
Matt explains that web spam team has been working together with search quality people and other groups. He’s using it to further explain different between penalty and algorithm adjustment.


DS: So we have positive ranking factors and negative ranking factors?
MC: Yes.


DS: asks question about rich snippet spam
MC: Used to be that people wondered why it was so hard to get rich snippets, now it’s the other way around. We’re looking at ways to handle the abuse … missed the exact quote, but he said something about maybe removing ability for a domain to have rich snippets if there’s abuse.


DS: asks question about link removing after getting an alert in Webmaster Tools
MC: We want to see an earnest effort to remove the links. When you do a reconsideration request, we’ll look at some of the links and see “how much progress have they made?” We’ve talked about the idea of adding a disavow-this-link tool.


DS: What if you can’t get rid of bad links pointing to a page, should we get rid of the page?
MC: If it’s not an important page, you could. Or you could at least document the effort to remove the links and share it with us.


DS: What percent of spam reports does your team take action on?
MC: We have a good list of leads ourself. We’ve shut down tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of domains involved in link buying. When you get a spam report, you want to take action, but it may not be as high impact as doing something about one of our own leads. We use a factor of four — we measure the potential impact by four and if it still shows up near the bottom of the list, we may not take action on it.


DS: asks question about Google+ and SEO
MC: When we look at +1, we’ve found it’s not necessarily the best quality signal right now.


DS: You have to be on Google+ if you want to rank well in Google.
MC: No!!!! It’s still early days on how valuable the Google+ data will be.


DS: Why’d you call it Penguin, by the way?
MC: For Panda, there’s an engineer named Panda. For Penguin, we thought the codename might give away too much about how it works, so we let the engineer pick a name.


DS: If you were hit by Panda and Penguin, should we just give up? (audience roars with laughter)
MC: Sometimes you should. It’s possible to recover, but if you’re a fly-by-night spammer, it might be better to start over.


DS: What’s the deal on paid inclusion? Is it coming to web search?
MC: You call it paid inclusion, but it’s a separately labeled box and it’s not in web ranking. Google’s take on paid inclusion is when you take money and don’t disclose it. Google’s web rankings remain just as pure as they were 10 years ago. We have more stuff around the edges, that’s true, but that stuff is helpful. Matt mentions using Google Flight Search to book his trip here to Seattle. “You can’t buy higher rankings. That hasn’t changed. I don’t expect it to change.”


DS: Mentions that some people have been really mean to Matt recently.
MC: I’ve had a lot of people yell at me over the years. I’ve developed a thick skin. People aren’t striking out because they’re vicious, they’re striking out because they’re hurt or they believe Google isn’t doing the right thing. You want to listen to that. Some of our best launches have come from some of the most passionate criticism.


DS: What are you most excited about right now in search?
MC: I like some of the stuff we’re doing that hasn’t launched yet. I do like the Knowledge Graph a lot. I’m really excited that we’re pushing for more transparency. If you’d told me 10 years ago that we’re going to tell every spammer when we catch them, I would’ve said you were crazy.
And with that, we’re done. Thanks for tuning in!
Source: Matt Cutts On Penalties Vs. Algorithm Changes, A Disavow-This-Link Tool & More
#cutts #matt #penalties #penguin #upcoming
  • Profile picture of the author samwatson
    Thanks for sharing..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384364].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jewelraz
    Thanks for your share. Checking what Matt said.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384374].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
    I hate these interviews, mostly because he has to avoid giving any informative, useful answers. I understand why, but it still frustrates me. Especially when SERPs tell a completely different story, lol.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384477].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author IM Ash
      Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

      I hate these interviews, mostly because he has to avoid giving any informative, useful answers. I understand why, but it still frustrates me. Especially when SERPs tell a completely different story, lol.
      He sure is a master at avoidance, but this particular interview I found to be interesting and revealing. Those of us who test already knew that g+1's were worthless and I'm glad he made that public, now people can stop wasting money on fabricating that aspect.

      Interesting that he mentioned a tool that was used to detect blog networks. Is this the truth? Maybe, but I know many network owners are still claiming that G infiltrated their network manually.

      Interesting points about SSL as well, I thought.

      The other aspect is the "disavow link tool" which means no one can get hit by an unnatural link penalty and have no course of action especially if they were going spam crazy... they just have to "disavow the links" now!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384532].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by IM Ash View Post

        He sure is a master at avoidance, but this particular interview I found to be interesting and revealing. Those of us who test already knew that g+1's were worthless and I'm glad he made that public, now people can stop wasting money on fabricating that aspect.
        Amen to that. The +1 people will still argue against it and say Matt is a liar. Often times he is, but I have seen no solid evidence of +1's mattering. They are far easier to manipulate than links.

        Originally Posted by IM Ash View Post

        Interesting that he mentioned a tool that was used to detect blog networks. Is this the truth? Maybe, but I know many network owners are still claiming that G infiltrated their network manually.
        I would bet that the truth is somewhere in the middle. They might have created a tool that has a way to identify potential blog network sites. That would not be too hard if you think about it. Run on Wordpress, have 10 posts on the homepage, each post has at least one link to another site, few to none of the posts have any relation to eachother, etc. From there they can inspect the sites manually that their tool pulls up as possible offenders. When they spot one, it is pretty easy to manually unravel most of the network from there. You just pull backlinks from all the sites being linked to. Check out those sites. Rinse and repeat.

        Originally Posted by IM Ash View Post

        Interesting points about SSL as well, I thought.
        Marketers are going to love that if it ever happens. I can hear the screaming now.

        Originally Posted by IM Ash View Post

        The other aspect is the "disavow link tool" which means no one can get hit by an unnatural link penalty and have no course of action especially if they were going spam crazy... they just have to "disavow the links" now!
        I had heard rumors about such a thing about a month ago. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense when you consider it in association with Penguin. Penguin has scared the beejesus out of many IM'ers. You smash rankings of sites that were using spammy backlinks. Then you give the site owners the power to identify their own spammy links to you and ignore them. More importantly, it eliminates the possibility of negative SEO that has many people concerned since Penguin launched.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384842].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          I had heard rumors about such a thing about a month ago. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense when you consider it in association with Penguin. Penguin has scared the beejesus out of many IM'ers. You smash rankings of sites that were using spammy backlinks. Then you give the site owners the power to identify their own spammy links to you and ignore them. More importantly, it eliminates the possibility of negative SEO that has many people concerned since Penguin launched.
          I just don't see this one happening. It'd make for a perfect feedback system to test link building techniques. "We don't like these links, but feel free to build more of those" kinda thing. Exactly what they've been trying to avoid since Google first launched.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384873].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author IM Ash
          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          Amen to that. The +1 people will still argue against it and say Matt is a liar.
          LMFAO... "the +1 people"

          It's a bit like the .edu gang


          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          I would bet that the truth is somewhere in the middle. They might have created a tool that has a way to identify potential blog network sites. That would not be too hard if you think about it. Run on Wordpress, have 10 posts on the homepage, each post has at least one link to another site, few to none of the posts have any relation to eachother, etc. From there they can inspect the sites manually that their tool pulls up as possible offenders. When they spot one, it is pretty easy to manually unravel most of the network from there. You just pull backlinks from all the sites being linked to. Check out those sites. Rinse and repeat.
          You probably right on this! But I suspect his entire comment on the subject was meant to scare people off from buying links.

          There are currently enough of ALN type of networks that are running without been touched. I know because I use them to mass backlink my articles on revenue sharing sites (not a long-term thing though)

          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          I had heard rumors about such a thing about a month ago. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense when you consider it in association with Penguin. Penguin has scared the beejesus out of many IM'ers. You smash rankings of sites that were using spammy backlinks. Then you give the site owners the power to identify their own spammy links to you and ignore them. More importantly, it eliminates the possibility of negative SEO that has many people concerned since Penguin launched.
          Agreed, but how the tool will work leaves a lot of room for speculation. I also feel that the fact that they are even considering a tool of this nature is because they screwed things up so much in making negative SEO an easy task for anyone.

          Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

          See above... They're not that stupid. It won't be nearly as easy or useful as many people hope. Having a way to just disavow backlinks would make black hat testing a blast, lulz. It would be the best thing to happen to BH SEO since I don't even know what.
          I would like to think that it wouldn't be easy but hell... gaming the system with backlinks is a breeze.

          I dunno... will have to wait and see how easily this tool is to manipulate before I form any ideas about it, that is if it is ever introduced!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6385015].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dmtaylor247
      Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

      I hate these interviews, mostly because he has to avoid giving any informative, useful answers. I understand why, but it still frustrates me. Especially when SERPs tell a completely different story, lol.
      I think he gives alot of information away, it depends how you interpret it..
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384552].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mosthost
    Now if you cheat you can just 'disavow' the links and try again? Sounds too easy
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384579].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Originally Posted by dmtaylor247 View Post

      I think he gives alot of information away, it depends how you interpret it..
      Actionable information?

      Originally Posted by mosthost View Post

      Now if you cheat you can just 'disavow' the links and try again? Sounds too easy
      It won't happen. Well, it probably will, but it won't be anywhere near as simple. So no good news there, sadly.


      Originally Posted by IM Ash View Post

      Those of us who test already knew that g+1's were worthless and I'm glad he made that public, now people can stop wasting money on fabricating that aspect.
      Yea, I've always used +1's to give my sites a bit of social proof. Real users are much more likely to +1 pages that already have some activity on them, even if it's fake. This is pretty pointless though as far as SEO goes.

      Interesting that he mentioned a tool that was used to detect blog networks. Is this the truth?
      See this is exactly what I mean. A tool, but of what kind? A way for manual reviewers to find patterns? Or a fully automated find & destroy system? Or something else perhaps...


      The other aspect is the "disavow link tool" which means no one can get hit by an unnatural link penalty and have no course of action especially if they were going spam crazy... they just have to "disavow the links" now!
      See above... They're not that stupid. It won't be nearly as easy or useful as many people hope. Having a way to just disavow backlinks would make black hat testing a blast, lulz. It would be the best thing to happen to BH SEO since I don't even know what.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384716].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mosthost
        Originally Posted by bnetwork View Post

        Actionable information?



        It won't happen. Well, it probably will, but it won't be anywhere near as simple. So no good news there, sadly.
        For sure. Otherwise you could just experiment, find out what links are bad etc. For a company that is always trying to hide that kind of info I can't imagine this is their plan.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384739].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
    Also where he mentions content quality... he doesn't mean article quality - but that's what most will take away from that interview. It just helps spread misinformation among inexperienced webmasters, which is great for Google.

    Machine learning algorithms look for patterns, and most of those patterns aren't obvious, even after a "good enough" result is achieved (SERPs). Engineers feed in variables and get a result. They look at the result and tweak variables until they like what they see. It's NEVER perfect and I bet that most of the time it's mostly trial and error.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384789].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dmtaylor247
      I think there is alot more going on with the search quality team than he wants us to believe, such as checking backlinks as well as content and filing a spam report if they find too many dodgy links, also adding spam reports on mass into a penalty.

      He said he doesn't like to call it that but it doesn't mean that isn't what it is. If they pump 10,000 sites for a spam report and only 50 of them complain then they've wiped out 9950 spam sites.

      Also giving the search quality team the power to de-index sites or file lists of sites ready for de-indexing, probably explains why there are loads of people turning up here with their sites removed from the index every other day.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6384844].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Black Hat Cat
    Banned
    It’s a war on spam. If you go on the black hat forums, there’s a lot of people asking, How do I fake sincerity? How do I fake being awesome? Why not just be sincere and be awesome?
    I don't think I've ever seen anyone anywhere asking those questions. What they have said is being sincere and being awesome(to use Matt's words, because I don't think anyone else frames it that way) alone will not get you to the top. And they are right.

    We’re trying to stop spam so people can compete on a level playing field.
    Spam does not make the playing field unlevel.

    Matt Cutts(MC): We look at it something designed to tackle low-quality content.
    Penguin had nothing to do with tackling low-quality content.

    People need to realize that, as we build up new tools, paid links becomes a higher risk endeavor. We’ve said it for years, but we’re starting to enforce it more.
    And there you go....negative seo is or will indeed be real. And the funny thing is he said earlier in the post that paid links and site wide links don't work anyway. If they don't work, why do you need to turn up the heat and penalize people for doing it?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6385046].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mosthost
    Cutts has the wrong questions there. Most people on forums these days are asking questions like 'how do I feed my family?' and 'how can I stay alive?' after the last few updates
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6385279].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    DC: Anything new related to paid links?
    MC: We're always working on improving our tools. Some of the tools that we built, for example, to spot blog networks, can also be used to spot link buying. People sometimes think they can buy links without a footprint, but you don't know about the person on the other side. People need to realize that, as we build up new tools, paid links becomes a higher risk endeavor. We've said it for years, but we're starting to enforce it more.


    I believe, if you ask any SEO, is SEO harder now than 5-6 years ago, I think they'd say it's a little more challenging. You can expect that to increase. Google is getting more serious about buying and selling links. Penguin showed that some stuff that may work short term won't work in the long term.
    What they haven't figured out is, the more they devalue low quality links, the higher the price gets for buying quality links, which in turn lets link brokers earn even more money.

    Supply & demand = $$.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6385621].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author rafiseo
      Banned
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      What they haven't figured out is, the more they devalue low quality links, the higher the price gets for buying quality links, which in turn lets link brokers earn even more money.

      Supply & demand = $$.

      Khekz... Man I am thinking this too so that I am trying to get into this business asap...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6387653].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author markowe
    Gah, whenever Matt makes some new pronouncement, it's like those women's magazines in the dentist's waiting room - I don't WANT to read them, but I just can't resist a little peek in case I learn something new..!

    I think there is a lot of truth mixed up in what he says, it's just figuring out what he is really saying or what he wants us to think he is saying.

    BTW, the thing about SSL searches: Mike Friedman said, "Marketers are going to love that if it ever happens. I can hear the screaming now."

    Are you kidding?? If we are talking about hiding the search term in the referrer for logged in searchers, that is really BIG, I can't believe people aren't talking about this, that is a reality NOW!

    I wrote about this back in March and then updated in April (see here: What’s this “&esrc=s” in my Google referrer strings? You may be shocked! | The Word Bay) - on that blog MORE THAN 52% of my search keywords in Google traffic are HIDDEN! Yes, over half!! (I just looked for May, it's now 56%)

    Yes, this is for an IM-related site, so more people are logged into Google than in many other niches. But it's on the way - can you imagine what that does for your SEO efforts when you can't even see what people were searching for when they came to your site?
    Signature

    Who says you can't earn money as an eBay affiliate any more? My stats say otherwise

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6385918].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by markowe View Post

      BTW, the thing about SSL searches: Mike Friedman said, "Marketers are going to love that if it ever happens. I can hear the screaming now."

      Are you kidding?? If we are talking about hiding the search term in the referrer for logged in searchers, that is really BIG, I can't believe people aren't talking about this, that is a reality NOW!

      I wrote about this back in March and then updated in April (see here: What's this "&esrc=s" in my Google referrer strings? You may be shocked! | The Word Bay) - on that blog MORE THAN 52% of my search keywords in Google traffic are HIDDEN! Yes, over half!! (I just looked for May, it's now 56%)

      Yes, this is for an IM-related site, so more people are logged into Google than in many other niches. But it's on the way - can you imagine what that does for your SEO efforts when you can't even see what people were searching for when they came to your site?
      I just meant on a larger scale where literally every search term would be hidden.

      An IM-related niche like yours, I can see it having a big impact already. For most of my clients, less than 10% of their visitors are logged into any kind of Google account, so it really has not made a difference in what I do.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386141].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author markowe
        Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

        I just meant on a larger scale where literally every search term would be hidden.

        An IM-related niche like yours, I can see it having a big impact already. For most of my clients, less than 10% of their visitors are logged into any kind of Google account, so it really has not made a difference in what I do.
        Oh sure, the IM and probably various tech niches are feeling this most right now. I agree, 10-15% is typical for me in other niches, but Matt seemed to make it clear that they see this as the shape of things to come... Best have a game plan now, I reckon.

        I suppose as long as you have at least a 10-20% sample of your search keywords you can extrapolate what the "hidden" ones are, but if they ever shut it down completely it's definitely going to raise a stink.
        Signature

        Who says you can't earn money as an eBay affiliate any more? My stats say otherwise

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386192].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author replicontimesheet
    What is the future of SEO, anyways?
    I guess, one day, Google is going to avoid backlinks from all SEO sources, such as blogs, forums, articles, Pr's, directories, etc.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386266].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    DS: What percent of organic queries are now secure?
    MC: The launch was a little backwards, because we didn't want to talk about being able to search over different corpi/corpuses. It was a single percentage of traffic in the US, and then we rolled it out internationally.


    I think it's still a minority of the traffic now, but there's things like Firefox adding SSL search in the browser. There's a lot of things aimed at helping users with privacy. I recognize that's not good for marketers, but we have to put users first. We feel like moving toward SSL, moving toward encrypted, is the right long-term plan.

    After 14 years of showing the referrer keyword, Matt wants to do the right thing?

    Lol,
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386420].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    I've got an SEO technique that would have Matt saying, wth?!?! :confused:

    He can have all the algo. updates he wants, but until he's ready to do full site crawls in a single site visit, he'll never touch this. The only reason I'm so sure of myself is, full site crawls per visit for every site on the net would destroy their earnings & earnings are what keeps Google investors interested in Google stock.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386539].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author markowe
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      I've got an SEO technique that would have Matt saying, wth?!?! :confused:

      He can have all the algo. updates he wants, but until he's ready to do full site crawls in a single site visit, he'll never touch this. The only reason I'm so sure of myself is, full site crawls per visit for every site on the net would destroy their earnings & earnings are what keeps Google investors interested in Google stock.
      Ha, Yukon, you got me intrigued before with that little teaser - it's something to do with rotating internal linking around but I am definitely missing a piece of the puzzle! I am going to have to think of a suitable bribe to wangle the details out of you, but what do you offer the man who has it all?
      Signature

      Who says you can't earn money as an eBay affiliate any more? My stats say otherwise

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386623].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tylerherman
        He's does give some little nuggets of info if you just pay attention and read between the lines.

        The fact that they are asking to remove the links shows that said links are still providing value. Probably even deindexed sites still provide value as they are still actively crawled.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386791].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by markowe View Post

        Ha, Yukon, you got me intrigued before with that little teaser - it's something to do with rotating internal linking around but I am definitely missing a piece of the puzzle! I am going to have to think of a suitable bribe to wangle the details out of you, but what do you offer the man who has it all?
        Let's just say I don't do a whole lot of static SEO.

        The end result is 100% white hat & traffic is looking at the same things Google will see.

        I know that's vague, but that's all I can give you right now.

        If I ever let this out it will defiantly be a paid product & none of that Paypal refund crap, I'm going old school (money orders).

        I don't have time to package this up & it has nothing to do with my silo project. I know If I made this public there would 10 other guys with WSOs by tomorrow morning, I don't need that.
        Signature
        Hi
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6388611].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author plsearch
    I don't get how he can say that there isn't a penalty if you haven't received a message in WMT. You can take an entire paragraph from my home page and google it and you wont see it anywhere in the top 10 pages. Now if Google just discounted 90% of my links, I'm sure that would harm big keywords.

    But I still have some super high quality valuable links. So my paragraph or entire title tag should still show positions if this isn't a real penalty.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386786].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
      Originally Posted by plsearch View Post

      I don't get how he can say that there isn't a penalty if you haven't received a message in WMT. You can take an entire paragraph from my home page and google it and you wont see it anywhere in the top 10 pages. Now if Google just discounted 90% of my links, I'm sure that would harm big keywords.

      But I still have some super high quality valuable links. So my paragraph or entire title tag should still show positions if this isn't a real penalty.
      *Algorithmic action*

      Same ****ing thing though.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6386951].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alex The Lion
    Kind of useful, thanks for the share
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6388775].message }}

Trending Topics