The #1 Mistake 90% Of People in IM Will Ignore/Never Know When It Comes To SEO.

?

Also I'm going to disagree. As your site goes viral/gets more press, your traffic is going to go up. Thus your link are going to go up accordingly. You can't be getting backlinks for a resturant that's not even open, that's promoting hard, yet see little traffic. That doesn't make sense. So 1,000 places are going to backlink to your site, yet only 20 are going to be visits to your site? (per example) Sorry, it doesn't happen like that.

If you are seriously promoting, visitors are going to check out your site before they link to it.

Also it won't make sense to 90% of the people on here.. Because 90% of the people on here aren't making any moves, and aren't propely educated/expirenced. Posted this on another forum, and everyone agreed with this concept. I mean I know this is WF, but come on you all are smarter than this.

1,000 people are going to link to something they've never seen before? Yeah I seriously doubt that, it's not natural. If it's viral the traffic #'s are going to coordinate with the backlink #'s. Ie if you go viral you'll see more traffic one way or another.

Also reffering to the post.. I'm talking about the main url, not the indivudal post. Too many people today are building massive #'s of links to their homepage without the traffic count to back it up. Posts and inner pages are another thing. For that Google can use bounce rate and time spent on that page/site to judge the quality of those posts.

It's really not all that complicated people just don't seem to understand it or want to actually go out and do a case study on it.

Let me show you this: Both sites use GA, Google can see all the data. If a site with 30 visits per day builds 1,000 backlinks overnight vs. a site with 3000 visits per day building 1,000 backlinks, which one do you think will do better in terms of ranking and being stable?

Obv the one with 3000 visitors. There is no comparison here.

? This is totally un related to this thread...

I'm talking about backlinks in relation to traffic volume. Not quality/natural/blackhat method backlinks, etc. Also wow.. Cheating? No you are doing SEO, and you are making money. Stop trying to be an internet marketing "saint". Also your sig: "cloak affiliate links", yeah that's really user and SEO friendly, not.

Respectfully I have to call you on that and since I have called others statements baloney I must now in deference to fairness also call that baloney. Why?

even the market leader doesn't get to define an entire industry and if we went by that and your other statement of what is not doing SEO then it would redefine what the entire industry is. The truth is although I agree with much of what you say the entire SEO industry IS built on manipulation because frankly ALL PR (public relations) is based on some form of manipulation.


SEO is about optimization of on page and off page assets and if we used your definition of the linker doing it on their own there would be nothing left. and No SEO industry at all. The widely held whitehat practice of contacting a webmaster for a link would be toast as well since contacting them asking for exposure is the very opposite of them linking "on their own". Its a deliberate attempt to manipulate the webmaster into a link they would not even have thought of doing "on their own". The key difference to all the other techniques you listed is that presumedly if the webmaster agrees there is something worthy of being linked to

Press releases could be considered manipulation and those with more power. prestige and money routinely manipulate links by using their public relations connections to ensure that blogs and newsoutlets cover their product launch and link to their websites. Frankly alot of television advertising, radio spots television campaigns are now done in part to get both traffic,exposure and better positioning across EVERY medium including search

So to me the only question is who gets to manipulate. right now it seems to be that money can and since our society equates black with shady then power, prestige and money should be called black hat.

Lets face it the "if you build it they will come" technique has not worked in any business on or offline. Exposure is always needed and its the business of SEOs to make sure the exposure in the serps is maximized by direct intervention not by people linking completely on their own.

Google will try and claim they are all about the non manipulation but in no logical world should they even as the market leader be allowed to define what that is particularly in light of the fact that they directly sell the right to manipulate the top 3 positions of their results by claiming that the pastel color and the tiny notice of an ad does not serve as manipulation of its users (total poppycock because it it didn't manipulate searchers to click those ads up top no one would pay to get those top spots. )

So like it or not some amount of manipulation is doing real SEO and yes even good SEO. Now if the only thing your site can get is links that YOU put then there is a greater problem but will I allow anyone to define SEO as not doing any manipulation.

Of course not - thats absurd.
Google is fine to set the rules on its own site but not to define an entire industries morality.

Will I bow to the idea that if I link from one class C IP to another one as a Seo I am not doing real SEO?

Sure.

Right after Disney doesn't link to its sister site ABC and Adobe doesn't link to its partners and Google doesn't do the same from Youtube and Microsoft doesn't link to MSNBC and Apple doesn't link to its partner sites and ....well you get the picture when I don't see every major corporation linking to other class c Ips with followed links that are bought by a financial partnership.

I see no virtue in money manipulating the serps without any chance of the small guy surviving. If google wants to call for total non manipulation then they can put something on the table that allows the small guy not just the corporation to leverage top results and exposure in their search engines.

They and others have corrupted what the internet was originally about. I don't buy that doing exactly what Adobe does, microsoft does and countless corporations do is "black" just because not being a multimillion dollar corporation I spend less money and have financial interests that are not spelled out by lawyers.

Please just test it out, and do your own case study. I can 100% for sure say you will be pleased with the results you find.. That's all I'm trying to get at here, not trying to step on any toes or make anyone upset.

Just one question Weedy. We will try to understand it although we are most all uneducated :rolleyes:

How does google build an algo based on traffic/link ratio shown in GA when not every site ranking uses GA?

This a grade double A Baloney. According to your premise every white hat reputable site would be building links in the same organic way (because their links come from real sites that find value and suggest and steer traffic with the link to them) so competition would come into play. That signals to me that you are ranking for some weak stuff and drawing all kinds of erroneous conclusions for ranking for small time traffic/serps.

the idea that you can rank without regard to competition is as dubious as the claims in your sig