EMD specialists, comment on this please

by Jensha
121 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Can EMD still work this way?

keyword1keyword2info . com

I mean to say the point of getting exact match domains is that even if you do not have backlinks or just have a few as long as people search the search engine with the exact keyword the same as your domain, they'd see your site.

(situation, someone already got .com for the same keywords)

But what if say we add a word not related to the keywords?

For example:

bestpencil . com

but that is not available in the . com anymore and to still have the keywords, we register it like this instead:

bestpencilinfo . com

If they search for best pencil, will it still have the same effect too as if there's no word "info" in it??

Will my site bestpencilinfo . com also be on the same page as bestpencil . com?

Or perhaps make my domain name amazingbestpencil . com or amazingbestpencilinfo . com

(Just to clarify, the word may not necessarily be info but anything else as long as the keywords are there in the domain name.)
#comment #emd #specialists
  • Profile picture of the author merezza
    When you add another word to an EMD it's no longer an EMD. The idea of an EMD is that it has the exact same words in the same order as the main search term that you're trying to rank for.

    Also, keyword1keyword2.com would not be an EMD.

    They would both still be pretty good domains but would not get the same type of expected bonus that an EMD would.
    Signature

    Tired of recieiving copy from writers that sound like Engrish is their fifth language? Get serious about your content. Hire the best

    Simply Solid Writing

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938017].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jensha
      Originally Posted by merezza View Post

      When you add another word to an EMD it's no longer an EMD. The idea of an EMD is that it has the exact same words in the same order as the main search term that you're trying to rank for.

      Also, keyword1keyword2.com would not be an EMD.

      They would both still be pretty good domains but would not get the same type of expected bonus that an EMD would.
      Ouch.

      So you mean for it to be an EMD, from my example:

      pencil is an EMD

      and

      bestpencil is not considered EMD anymore?

      because I've seen a lot of website sellers suggesting keywords as EMD the way I pointed it out like keyword1keyword2 . com

      Then that means those are not really working?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938039].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Jensha View Post

        pencil is an EMD

        and

        bestpencil is not considered EMD anymore?
        What matters here is the extent to which "bestpencil" helps you to rank the site. Not an academic discussion about whether or not it's technically an "EMD", per se. The important thing to know is that if "pencil" is your keyword, "bestpencil" was and is a comparatively poor choice of domain-name, because if you're going to get any benefit from the URL (and in my opinion, you might, still), it's much better to have the "added letters/word" after the keyword than before it, in a URL. You need the keyword to be at the start of the domain-name.

        We can all see for ourselves that countless EMD's are still top-ranked on Google. Even if it may be because of their content.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938428].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andyhenry
    Just remember though - Google is not stupid.

    Don't expect doing things like this to help you forever - you also need a robust marketing plan and good content.
    Signature

    nothing to see here.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938062].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jensha
      Originally Posted by Andyhenry View Post

      Just remember though - Google is not stupid.

      Don't expect doing things like this to help you forever - you also need a robust marketing plan and good content.
      I get that.

      There are many websites I know that have generic domain that are not related to their niche but ranks first because of their unique quality content that contains targeted keyword plus their backlinks.

      I'm curious because this means that those selling websites claiming their EMD research will be enough doesn't work after all.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938092].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    EMD as a way to rise in serps has been dead for some months now. People seem to keep ignoring that Google did an EMD algo update that pretty much scraps EMDs with low quality content. Content. That is the key, not the domain. The domains I buy now are brandable domains.

    Google: EMD Update | Search Engine Land

    Deconstructing The Google EMD Update

    Your Guide to Google

    Website Traffic Down? Might Be Google EMD Update, Might Be New Panda Update - Search Engine Watch (#SEW)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938101].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author marketinguk
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      EMD as a way to rise in serps has been dead for some months now. People seem to keep ignoring that Google did an EMD algo update that pretty much scraps EMDs with low quality content. Content. That is the key, not the domain. The domains I buy now are brandable domains.

      Google: EMD Update | Search Engine Land

      Deconstructing The Google EMD Update

      Your Guide to Google

      Website Traffic Down? Might Be Google EMD Update, Might Be New Panda Update - Search Engine Watch (#SEW)
      Agreed to an extent. I'm with you that EMD's with junk content has seen it's ranking edge taken away. However, there are countless examples in different niches some of which are very high competition where EMD's with good content or a decent site at least still gives a ranking boost.

      Just check some of the high competition niches and it's easy to see what I mean. Nonetheless your basic point is definitely valid especially where junk sites are concerned.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938114].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Joel Ross View Post

        Agreed to an extent. I'm with you that EMD's with junk content has seen it's ranking edge taken away. However, there are countless examples in different niches some of which are very high competition where EMD's with good content or a decent site at least still gives a ranking boost.

        Just check some of the high competition niches and it's easy to see what I mean. Nonetheless your basic point is definitely valid especially where junk sites are concerned.
        It is only referring to junk, shallow content sites, but I've seen plenty of sites with absolutely nonsense domain names that mean nothing outranking sites with EMDs due to their content, so I don't bother beating my head against a wall trying to find EMDs when a good brandable domain with dynamite content will rank fine. There's an interesting chart/article on Google's preference for brands.

        Google Brand Promotion: Why Brands Rank #1 in Google
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938164].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author marketinguk
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          It is only referring to junk, shallow content sites, but I've seen plenty of sites with absolutely nonsense domain names that mean nothing outranking sites with EMDs due to their content, so I don't bother beating my head against a wall trying to find EMDs when a good brandable domain with dynamite content will rank fine. There's an interesting chart/article on Google's preference for brands.

          Google Brand Promotion: Why Brands Rank #1 in Google
          Well I don't read too many external sites where SEO is concerned to be honest as my eyes can work fortunately (plus much of what is written is pure speculation IMO) and i've been checking this for some time and decent (not spectacular) EMD's are still ranking very well.

          For example, in lots of local businesses I see time and again EMD's are still doing it just as much as ever and some sites I know are average at best. This applies to areas such as plumbing, estate agency, boiler installation etc. as well as generic high competition niches.

          However, I know what you mean about going for brands and ranking okay with them. Certainly if I was in the plumbing business I wouldn't bother trying to buy LondonPlumber.co.uk for that slight ranking boost the domain may get. I'm not going to dish out that money unless it meant a lot to me in terms of branding my business
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938229].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by Joel Ross View Post

        However, there are countless examples in different niches some of which are very high competition where EMD's with good content or a decent site at least still gives a ranking boost.

        Can we get even one example?

        Just check some of the high competition niches and it's easy to see what I mean.
        Checked and have not been able to confirm this opinion. Theres a big difference between can an EMD rank and the EMD giving a ranking boost. Huge.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7939141].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author marketinguk
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Can we get even one example?
          Sure, type in the keyword games for example and games.com and games.co.uk (and game.co.uk as well although they're a well known company here) are both on page 1. That's a start!
          I haven't really tried to check out the USA rankings too much though, more the UK especially for local businesses.
          I even have been in touch with one guy in the estate agency business here in London and he has a pile of trash wp site and he's definitely seen a ranking boost from his EMD site, just from having an EMD, there's no way he would be ranking for a certain keyword without it.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7939182].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by Joel Ross View Post

            Sure, type in the keyword games for example and games.com and games.co.uk (and game.co.uk as well although they're a well known company here) are both on page 1. That's a start!
            No its not a start.

            Those sites have gotten lots of links (over 12.000 in a quick check for the first) and are ranking on authority not because they have an EMD. Pointing to a site ranking that is an EMD does not even begin to prove that their ranking is based on there being an EMD or is related to the rankings in any way. I could rank Ilovemattcutts.com for an unrelated term with good links and contextual content but it would not prove that Google gives me a boost for complimenting cutts. Again no one here has stated that EMDS cannot rank. What we need to see is evidence of the claim that "EMD's are still doing it just as much as ever"

            any actual examples of this?
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7939244].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Talent
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              What we need to see is evidence of the claim that "EMD's are still doing it just as much as ever"

              any actual examples of this?
              As someone who puts up over 10 sites a month (5 EMDs and 5 non EMDs for branding - one of each targeting the same keyword), I have undeniable proof that EMDs still get a boost for that specific keyword. Both types of sites are filled with the same (not duplicate), quality, keyword placed content.

              Every single one of the EMDs start out significantly higher in ranking then the non EMDs - every. single. one.

              For anyone to preach that EMDs do not get a boost in the SERPSs is doing a dis-service to this community.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945863].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by Talent View Post

                I have undeniable proof that EMDs still get a boost for that specific keyword.
                More nonsense - undeniable means someone can look at the evidence and not deny it. Where is this evidence? You cited nothing but sites that no one can verify one way or the other. that being the case yes. I deny it. See how easy that was? present some real evidence. Thats all I have asked for in this thread. You need not show your own. The few times I have seen a benefit is because of anchor text benefit. Its easier to get keywords into a site that gives you only URL links. However thats an issue of link building not EMDs bonus.

                For anyone to preach that EMDs do not get a boost in the SERPSs is doing a dis-service to this community.
                Why? because without EMds they coudn't build a site that ranks? That makes money long term? This is the same kind of easy. fast junk tht messes up this board. Your position is doing a disservice to this community. People like you who advocate churning out ten garbage sites every month as the same old tired way of filling the internet with garbage hoping it will all stay afloat through the updates has caused many people to fall flat on their face and wasted years of their life. You have no basis to lecture on a community you have added little to.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945892].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  More nonsense - undeniable means someone can look at the evidence and not deny it. Where is this evidence? You cited nothing but sites that no one can verify one way or the other. that being the case yes. I deny it. present some real evidence. Thats all I have asked for in this thread. You need not show your own

                  For anyone to preach that EMDs do not get a boost in the SERPSs is doing a dis-service to this community.

                  Why? because without EMds they coudn't build a site that ranks? That makes money long term? Your position is doing a disservice to this community. People like you who advocate churning out ten garbage sites every month as the same old tired way of filling the internet with garbage hoping it will all stay afloat through the updates has caused many people to fall flat on their face and wasted years of their life. You have no basis to lecture on a community you have added little to.
                  And a lot more vitriol.

                  Point, Mike - address the point. 0.6% of queries affected, that leaves 99.4% queries not affected.

                  Address the point, Mike.

                  One simple point, that you've have gone through 7 or 8 posts ignoring entirely because you know you are wrong. You could have addressed it at any time - it's about as conclusive evidence as you can get. But yet you continue to ignore it, dancing circles around the argument in the belief that in doing so, you can present the illusion that you actually have a point.

                  You don't.

                  So, once again, the point Mike - address the SINGLE point of this thread, which I have raised, for about the 10th time.
                  Signature
                  FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945904].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                    So, once again, the point Mike - address the SINGLE point of this thread, which I have raised, for about the 10th time.
                    Just answered it yet another way Gareth. Your Point was pure crap based on you not understanding how Google works. And its not vitriol to call you out on your lying about me. You said I brought Matt Cutts into this thread and its sitting there clear as day in post 6 I did not and who did.

                    Are you going to show any integrity and withdraw the statement as a lie? or can we just expect the usual continue on with fabricating some more?
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945962].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                      Just answered it yet another way Gareth. Your Point was pure crap based on you not understanding how Google works. And its not vitriol to call you out on your lying about me. You said I brought Matt Cutts into this thread and its sitting there clear as day in post 6 I did not and who did.

                      Are you going to show any integrity and withdraw the statement as a lie? or can we just expect the usual continue on with fabricating some more?
                      "crap", "liar", "dishonest", "misleading" - who is the one using this language, Mike? It's not me.

                      Uh-huh, more conjecture - address the point, Mike.
                      Signature
                      FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946012].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                      You said I brought Matt Cutts into this thread and its sitting there clear as day in post 6 I did not and who did.
                      That's again, not a coherent sentence, Mike.

                      Think before you type - or is it now just at the stage of typing something, anything, to further dance around the central issue? i.e. You still haven't addressed the point.

                      You are full of it - you can't address a simple point, a simple point which contradicts absolutely everything you've said and has been made by the leading SEO spokesperson at Google, the world's most popular search engine.

                      You're nothing more than a mouth, talking around everything, thinking you have the right answer to everything - it's pitiful.

                      No-one has the right answer to everything but at the very least I can admit when I'm wrong, or when I get it wrong - you are wrong, there's indisputable evidence right there (presented to you about 20 times), and you still can't admit it or even bother reading half of what I type, such is your arrogance. Instead, you'd rather bring a new point up in each post, or dance around the issue. It's sad but you know what? I will let you off the hook.

                      The thread is now pointless, I'm debating with an ego not a man. I'm done
                      Signature
                      FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946018].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                        Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                        That's again, not a coherent sentence, Mike.
                        Its perfectly coherent and grammatically correct as well. Its not my fault you cannot read a compound sentence. In post 6 sbucariel brings Matt Cutts into this thread and you respond to her. I did not bring Cutts into this thread and I have never based my points merely on Cutts. You lied about both those things.

                        Now again are you going to withdraw your lies or just continue pretending like you never made them. If you refuse to answer then we know what the answer is
                        Signature

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946040].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                          ltimately, you've again danced around the issue - 99.4% of queries remain unaffected i.e. pretty much everything.
                          Wow you are being dense. I can't explain it to you any simpler. the percentage does not give you how many EMDs were affected if gives you only SEARCH QUERIES affected. QUERIES DOES NOT EQUAL PERCENTAGE OF EMDS. lol

                          There is no way to look at that number and tell how many EMDs there were or are . There is no way of looking at the number and even telling what percentage of EMDS went up or down. Theres no way of looking at that number and determining how many EMDs stayed put and are not even in that .6%. IT is a percentage of QUERIES CHANGED not Not percentage of EMDs affected

                          Your whole POINT isn babbling nonsense.
                          Signature

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946089].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                            Wow you are being dense. I can't explain it to you any simpler. the percentage does not give you how many EMDs were affected if gives you only SEARCH QUERIES affected. QUERIES DOES NOT EQUAL PERCENTAGE OF EMDS. lol

                            There is no way to look at that number and tell how many EMDs there were or are . There is no way of looking at the number and even telling what percentage of EMDS went up or down. Theres no way of looking at that number and determining how many EMDs stayed put and are not even in that .6%. IT is a percentage of QUERIES CHANGED not Not percentage of EMDs affected

                            Your whole POINT isn babbling nonsense.
                            Nooooooo, really? Your never-ending quest to avoid being proven wrong is now bordering on absolutely moronic.

                            99.4% of queries remain, some of them will contain EMDs, it stands to reason - but what does that matter, when you won't actually address the point Mike, that 99.4% of queries, SOME OF WHICH MUST CONTAIN EMDs, have not been affected?

                            I know that in life some things needn't be said, I really didn't think that needed to be said, I thought it would be simply enough logic for ANYONE to pick up - but then again, I am dealing with someone dancing around the subject like there's no tomorrow.

                            The simple fact remains, you still haven't addressed the point.
                            Signature
                            FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946118].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author pdrs
                              Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post


                              The simple fact remains, you still haven't addressed the point.
                              Just curious as to what you think the point is exactly Gareth?
                              Signature
                              RemoteControlHelicopterReviews.(com/net) - Up for sale! No reasonable offer refused. Great branding for a super hot niche!
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946138].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                              99.4% of queries remain, some of them will contain EMDs, it stands to reason - but what does that matter, when you won't actually address the point Mike, that 99.4% of queries, SOME OF WHICH MUST CONTAIN EMDs, have not been affected?
                              ROFL. Plenty of them. I just finished saying that there are TON loads of EMDs that would not be affected because they maintain rank for other reasons. It sailed right over your head.

                              Btw are we supposed to miss that you continue to maintain the LIE that I brought Matt cutss into this thread after failing to withdraw it post after post?
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946159].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                ROFL. Plenty of them. I just finished saying that there are TON loads of EMDs that would not be affected because they maintain rank for other reasons. It sailed right over your head.

                                Btw are we supposed to miss that you continue to maintain the LIE that I brought Matt cutss into this thread after failing to withdraw it post after post?
                                Oh, so close - you actually NEARLY managed to stay on point!

                                So, back to the point Mike, see the post I've just made...come on, you're nearly there.
                                Signature
                                FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946166].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


                            There is no way to look at that number and tell how many EMDs there were or are . There is no way of looking at the number and even telling what percentage of EMDS went up or down. Theres no way of looking at that number and determining how many EMDs stayed put and are not even in that .6%. IT is a percentage of QUERIES CHANGED not Not percentage of EMDs affected

                            Your whole POINT isn babbling nonsense.
                            Ah, wait, we may actually be getting somewhere, actually addressing the point.

                            True, there's not - however, all of the EMDs can't be confined to 0.6%, otherwise Matt Cutts would simply have said: "all EMDs have been targeted".

                            No shit it's a percentage of queries changed Mike, do you really think that even needs to be stated when I've done nothing but say "queries"? Don't answer that, you'll go off on a major tangent again.

                            Come on, stay on point - you can do it. So, 99.4% of queries, some of which MUST contain EMDs, right?

                            Come on Mike, you can do it.
                            Signature
                            FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946150].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post


                              True, there's not - however, all of the EMDs can't be confined to 0.6%,
                              I give up. Perhaps someone else can explain to you that emds are not confined to the .6% because there are many Emds that continued to rank and would not be represented in that change stat. I tried man but you just won't get it (or admit yu haven;t already got it).

                              otherwise Matt Cutts would simply have said: "all EMDs have been targeted".
                              So if algo changes last year had been targeting Bookmark links, forum links and blog comments they would have come out and said it? So since they diodn't that proves they are still cool :rolleyes:

                              Now who is being Moronic. When has google ever come out and said this and this are all being targeted. They report almost all recent algos changes by talking about queries affected.

                              are we still supposed to ignore that you have not withdrawn the lie about me bringing Matt cutts into this thread?
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946198].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Talent
                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  More nonsense - undeniable means someone can look at the evidence and not deny it. Where is this evidence?
                  Props to you that you know and understand the definition of undeniable. Talk about having to spell everything out for someone. Next time, I will say to you... "I have had people look at the evidence and they are unable to deny it", instead of saying undeniable.

                  As far as where is the evidence? That's for me to know and your lazy mentality to find out.

                  You are obviously someone who does not have experience with EMDs and can only come to conclusions based on reading articles about others blogging about what they read about others.

                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  Why? because without EMds they coudn't build a site that ranks? That makes money long term?
                  All I can say is WOW. My post was in regards to EMDs getting a boost. Not about the inability to rank a site that is not an EMD. You need to stay focused... FOCUS Mike, FOCUS.

                  *Please don't reply back with what the definition of focus is.

                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  People like you who advocate churning out ten garbage sites every month as the same old tired way of filling the internet with garbage hoping it will all stay afloat through the updates has caused many people to fall flat on their face and wasted years of their life.
                  Ok, I give up. Mike, you apparently do not know how to read and think about what you are reading at the same time. Because, if you did, you would have read that I said my sites are of quality (both the EMDs and non EMDs). But, you have it in your head that EMDs are all garbage. And, that my friend shows your true colors.

                  Now, I can see why quite a bit of the truly successful marketers hardly ever post here.

                  Mike, I will never get involved in another conversation with you again. EVER.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946189].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                    Originally Posted by Talent View Post

                    Ok, I give up. Mike, you apparently do not know how to read and think about what you are reading at the same time. Because, if you did, you would have read that I said my sites are of quality (both the EMDs and non EMDs). But, you have it in your head that EMDs are all garbage. And, that my friend shows your true colors.

                    Mike, I will never get involved in another conversation with you again. EVER.
                    No, you will never get through to him - he's on planet Mike, even when he's wrong, he's right. Nothing sticks to him. He doesn't read anything, he doesn't even admit he's wrong when concrete evidence is presented to him. He'd rather redirect, squirm and argue semantics. You could tell him the sky is blue and he'd find a way to argue against it.

                    You got the message quicker than I did though, fair play - then again, you did have a distinct advantage reading my endless posts trying to get through to him i.e. 10-odd posts just trying to get him to address a SINGLE point, a single point which contradicts every OPINION he's put forward, directly.

                    Either way, it's Monday tomorrow and I'm out.
                    Signature
                    FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946214].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                      he doesn't even admit he's wrong
                      Oh the irony? and i bet you typed that with a straight face. You did didn't you?

                      Is this supposed to cause people to ignore that you have not withdrawn the lie about me bringing Matt cutts into this thread though given multiple times to withdraw it?
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946235].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by Talent View Post

                    Props to you that you know and understand the definition of undeniable. Talk about having to spell everything out for someone. Next time, I will say to you... "I have had people look at the evidence and they are unable to deny it", instead of saying undeniable.
                    Your Mom does not count (lighten up Talent just a joke. You da man). We get it. You have no evidence to share. As usual we are just supposed to take the word of a poster just because he says so and because he uses the word "undeniable". My point is might be true might not be. Can't tell.

                    You are obviously someone who does not have experience with EMDs and can only come to conclusions based on reading articles about others blogging about what they read about others
                    LOL sure. I've owned over a thousand domains over the years and none was an EMD. You know it all my friend. I sure as rain in London will not buy one now just to rank. I don't use Hotbot like I used to in the 90s either.


                    Because, if you did, you would have read that I said my sites are of quality (both the EMDs and non EMDs). But, you have it in your head that EMDs are all garbage. And, that my friend shows your true colors.
                    Pure crap my friend. Sell it in a WSO. Has nothing to do with EMDS being all garbage. It has to do with your numbers. 10 sites a month is one site every three days. You can howl at the moon for all I care. NO one turns out one high quality site every three days. We have a good idea what kind of sites are pushed out every three days and it aint quality sites.

                    Now, I can see why quite a bit of the truly successful marketers hardly ever post here.
                    because too many people post stuff and have no evidence anyone can look at to back it up? fair point.
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946228].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author paulgl
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Theres a big difference between can an EMD rank and the EMD giving a ranking boost. Huge.
          I think that has been one of the most ignored statements since I've been
          a member of the WF.

          The problem has always been people trying to come up with a domain
          to shmooze google, instead of something like ebay, amazon, zillow, wikipedia,
          even warriorforum, and build content, trust, and authority. Have I always said
          to imitate the big boys (and girls)? But people went ape $#@! the last
          few years on EMDs...hey I rank #1 for best-wii-games-for-left-handers.com!

          Yippeeeee!

          This only bottled themselves into a false sense of security. Like they could
          keep momentum on that "thing," and build some sort of authoritative
          content...of course the house of cards had to fall.

          Big difference between wanting a decent "keyword" in a domain and an EMD.

          Paul
          Signature

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

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7944165].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by paulgl View Post


            This only bottled themselves into a false sense of security. Like they could
            keep momentum on that "thing," and build some sort of authoritative
            content...of course the house of cards had to fall.
            Thats the thing though Paul. Last year was actually a good one for newbies. the updates came out. Panda, Penguin the EMD update and for a fleeting moment you thought..."Okay its so obvious now that these shortcuts dont work. Theres a real opportunity to get some real techniques going. Maybe even say goodbye to all the crap WSOs."

            but what happens over and over again?

            just like in this thread there are always people popping up either through ignorance, irresponsibility or deception (although in this thread I don;t see deception) saying

            "hold on there....(take your pick)

            "Forum profile links still work newbies try em out"
            "Crappy link blasts and fiverr gigs stillwork newbs so try em out"
            "Just buy an EMD and ignore all the facts they still have great power"
            "thin microniche sites still work go for it"
            "blast links to your content"

            in every case some example serp is used which upon examination fails close scrutiny but the newbs get hooked on the crack all over again. Plays right into the WSOs being offered. I mean seriously . I took a look in there and sure enough there are STILL people selling link blasts of thousands of crappy links and some are even calling them "white hat" "Penguin proof" etc.

            All just like this thread pretending and even self hypnotizing themselves into believing the changes that took place never took place. Business as usual.

            Well I don't know what to tell you Mike, I'm using multiple proxies through Advanced Web Ranking as well as AdPreview, and it is there. QuickHouseSale.net.

            More on the Geo, IT'S NOT A GEO-RANKING, MIKE.
            Missed this before Gareth. I don't give a rip about your proxies mate. I used a VPS in europe and RDPed into it and searched natively on Google. Thats like sitting there where the server physically is. You can't get better than that and your site does not rank there. Now that might change in other parts of europe but it does show its not global and a Geo based result. same thing from multiple servers in the US - nowhere to be found.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7944322].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Backlinko
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              Thats the thing though Paul. Last year was actually a good one for newbies. the updates came out. Panda, Penguin the EMD update and for a fleeting moment you thought..."Okay its so obvious now that these shortcuts dont work.
              Penguin was a wake up call for me.

              Even though I survived it, I realized that I could have been a victim with one more bad link/one less good link. You never can tell how close you are to the edge until you're over it.

              The thing is, since Penguin, I've noticed a lot less competition for certain keywords. Before Penguin, I'd felt like I was in a dog fight with the other top 5 results (with new people coming in everyday).

              Since then, it's pretty much me and a few brands duking it out.

              There's so few people that have adapted that it's made SEO easier to do now than ever.
              Signature
              Find Awesome Keywords...Without ANY Tools
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7944911].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              Missed this before Gareth.
              I'm just astounded you actually got my name right - it did obviously take me pointing it out to you, but baby steps and all that.
              Signature
              FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945036].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                I'm just astounded you actually got my name right - it did obviously take me pointing it out to you, but baby steps and all that.
                Never you mind Garth. You help me out with your name and we'll help you out with your SEO.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945220].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author smodha
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      EMD as a way to rise in serps has been dead for some months now. People seem to keep ignoring that Google did an EMD algo update that pretty much scraps EMDs with low quality content. Content. That is the key, not the domain. The domains I buy now are brandable domains.

      Google: EMD Update | Search Engine Land

      Deconstructing The Google EMD Update

      Your Guide to Google

      Website Traffic Down? Might Be Google EMD Update, Might Be New Panda Update - Search Engine Watch (#SEW)
      I have to disagree to some extent. Google didn't target EMDs per se. It targeted thin (one or two post sites) with rubbish or duplicate content and crappy link profiles, often attributed to EMDs.

      I have several EMDs that are still ranking top #10 (some haven't moved from top #1 for months). They are just as easy to rank now as they have ever been. But like you I concentrate on brandable domain names. It's less work and better in the long run.

      Google can't target EMDs directly as all brands are EMDs by definition. eBay.com isn't going to change it's domain name to "bestinternetauctionsite.com" anytime soon I reckon.
      Signature
      I Sell What People Want. The Money Is A Bonus..
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938249].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author marketinguk
        Originally Posted by smodha View Post

        I have to disagree to some extent. Google didn't target EMDs per se. It targeted thin (one or two post sites) with rubbish or duplicate content and crappy link profiles, often attributed to EMDs.

        I have several EMDs that are still ranking top #10 (some haven't moved from top #1 for months). They are just as easy to rank now as they have ever been. But like you I concentrate on brandable domain names. It's less work and better in the long run.

        Google can't target EMDs directly as all brands are EMDs by definition. eBay.com isn't going to change it's domain name to "bestinternetauctionsite.com" anytime soon I reckon.
        Yep, 100% correct.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938413].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938912].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          Google's Matt Cutts specifically said that EMDs would no longer have an advantage just based on the EMD. They removed the advantage that EMDs had, regardless of content.
          Matt Cutts says a lot of things, however are you honestly saying if you follow his advice to the letter you would have the perfectly optimised site with tons of visibility in search?

          Matt Cutts is trying to police how webmasters markup links - he has no right, ultimately. Matt Cutts goes on about paid links until he's blue in the face, however search for ANY generic query with commercial intent and I guarantee that there will be at least a modicum of manipulation/paid linking taking place.

          He's the master of misinformation - nothing he says is incorrect, however the vast majority of it isn't particularly helpful, either. He's also the perfect front for Google; some slightly naive people hang off his every word like it's gospel when in reality, he's just one man, and Google is just, at heart, an algorithm; as frail, vulnerable and imperfect as ANY algorithm.

          Google isn't all-seeing, Matt Cutts certainly isn't all-seeing - 95% of their "analysis" is, and has to be, mechanical. They can see and pass value through links, however they are a long way from understanding the relationships between links.
          Signature
          FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7942969].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by smodha View Post

        I have several EMDs that are still ranking top #10 (some haven't moved from top #1 for months).
        This means the sum total of ZERO. People rank everyday for weak terms and it does not prove that any factor is good for SEO. Again people need to see some examples in the serps before they buy into this. This is the second thread I have seen you pushing this in defiance of the EMD update and neither time have you offered any evidence

        Google can't target EMDs directly as all brands are EMDs by definition. eBay.com isn't going to change it's domain name to "bestinternetauctionsite.com" anytime soon I reckon.
        You miss the point entirely. It has nothing to do with targeting EMDs. It merely has to do with taking away the extra benefit of them. Turning down the extra value that an EMD used to have is not "Targeting" its merely removing the extra benefit. Ebay.com will continue to rank for Ebay because it gets mad anchor text links for that term and because of contextual juice for that term.

        The EMD had nothing in it saying that EMDs cannot rank but it turned down the worth of the EMD to rank just because it was an EMD.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7939174].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      EMD as a way to rise in serps has been dead for some months now. People seem to keep ignoring that Google did an EMD algo update that pretty much scraps EMDs with low quality content. Content. That is the key, not the domain. The domains I buy now are brandable domains.

      Google: EMD Update | Search Engine Land

      Deconstructing The Google EMD Update

      Your Guide to Google

      Website Traffic Down? Might Be Google EMD Update, Might Be New Panda Update - Search Engine Watch (#SEW)
      Maybe in a theoretical context/a "this is the way the world should be" context, but in a practical context absolutely not - again, it's the primary difference between believing what you read, and believing what you see/implement.

      Exact match domains are just as effective as they always have been - I think they've been clamped down on in certain affiliate plagued industries, however I've got circa 6 exact match microsite domains ranking for keywords above 720 exact searches per month, and they have all achieved first page visibility in next to no time and with fewer backlinks than would otherwise be required for a non-EMD (these are ALL tester websites, as an Agency we launch about 30 such sites every year). A simple search and relative backlinks comparison for the term "SEO Liverpool" will show you everything you need to know about this generalised "EMDs are dead" theory.

      Similarly, I recently transferred an entire clients site over to an EMD, his position for his main term skyrocketed from page six to the middle of page two; we've only been link building for three months (on a fresh domain), and the search term is easily medium-high competitiveness (9,900 exact match searches in the UK).

      I have yet to see a case study provided by someone to indicate that any exact match domain which has plummeted in search is a result in de-weighting of exact match domains, rather than the more obvious but less appealing explanation: AN ALGORITHMIC PENALTY.

      It doesn't make ANY sense for Google to devalue EMDs, the main reason they weight them so highly is to allow Company's to rank for their brand terms with little to no reliance on the more traditional weighted factors which are analysed by the search engine e.g. LINKS.

      That said, if people want to believe EMDs are dead suits me, makes them cheaper.
      Signature
      FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7942933].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author FakeItTilYouMakeIt
        Banned
        Garanthony is already over??? Thought for sure it would last another week at least Great debate but I agree with Mike on this one. Something that I wanted to point out...

        Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

        It doesn't make ANY sense for Google to devalue EMDs, the main reason they weight them so highly is to allow Company's to rank for their brand terms with little to no reliance on the more traditional weighted factors which are analysed by the search engine e.g. LINKS.
        Google doesn't worry about penalizing brands by devaluing EMDs if you have a legitimate brand site, you also have a trademark. Let me go launch pepsi.info or nike.biz and see how long before I get sued. If you google "pepsi" you'll see pepsi's site at the top not because it's an EMD, but because Google is not entirely stupid, pepsi will enforce it's trademark and good luck trying to outrank "pepsi" for "pepsi" and that's not mentioning the links... which like it or not are still the driving force behind a number one spot.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7944044].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
          Originally Posted by FakeItTilYouMakeIt View Post

          Garanthony is already over??? Thought for sure it would last another week at least Great debate but I agree with Mike on this one. Something that I wanted to point out...

          Google doesn't worry about penalizing brands by devaluing EMDs if you have a legitimate brand site, you also have a trademark. Let me go launch pepsi.info or nike.biz and see how long before I get sued. If you google "pepsi" you'll see pepsi's site at the top not because it's an EMD, but because Google is not entirely stupid, pepsi will enforce it's trademark and good luck trying to outrank "pepsi" for "pepsi" and that's not mentioning the links... which like it or not are still the driving force behind a number one spot.
          Cheers And I very much doubt it's over

          I wouldn't have ever classified .biz or .info as EMDs, only .net, .com or .org.

          EMDs provide a boost, they obviously aren't the sole determining factor behind rankings where an EMD appears prominently - the ironic fact is, I don't even use them for commercial purposes anymore, other than for tester websites.

          And nah, I'm not buying that. There was an affiliate a long time ago who registered a TM domain, something along the lines of butlinsholidayhomes.co.uk, or something like that. He very briefly ranked above the main Butlin's site (major tour operator in the UK). It's on the Google webmaster forums; nothing they could do about it.

          There was a case of a French Company which escapes my mind trying to do something similar in-front of the EU courts, needless to say, as far as I remember, nothing came of it. There are also numerous instances of brands losing their main brand ranking for employing "manipulative practices" i.e. I think interflora lost visibility for their brand term (they obviously lost visibility generically, albeit it for just 11-odd days).

          There are also billions of brands out there, some generic in nature, some less so. Obviously you'd not outrank Pepsi, however two domains, with similar link profiles, and then add an EMD into the equation i.e. all things considered equal i.e. relevance, authority, trust and importance (PR) - sure.
          Signature
          FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7944094].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author FakeItTilYouMakeIt
            Banned
            Wow this thread got very heated, fun reading.
            Anyways...
            Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post


            And nah, I'm not buying that. There was an affiliate a long time ago who registered a TM domain, something along the lines of butlinsholidayhomes.co.uk, or something like that. He very briefly ranked above the main Butlin's site (major tour operator in the UK). It's on the Google webmaster forums; nothing they could do about it.

            There was a case of a French Company which escapes my mind trying to do something similar in-front of the EU courts, needless to say, as far as I remember, nothing came of it. There are also numerous instances of brands losing their main brand ranking for employing "manipulative practices" i.e. I think interflora lost visibility for their brand term (they obviously lost visibility generically, albeit it for just 11-odd days).
            Now we are talking about something completely different I think.. My point is that Google doesn't have to do brands a favor with an EMD boost because for an EMD to even be an EMD it by definition has to be the exact match of the keyword being searched and If I'm searching for a brand I'm searching for a company name or a product name. That company/product probably has trademarks in place to protect it's brand, unless they are tiny in which case nobody probably wants to piggy back off their brand anyways.

            I didn't understand what kind of court cases you were describing, maybe people trying to get trademark infringing sites deindexed? Because Google won't do that. However, trademarks are owner enforced and they are enforced all the time, it's a very common lawsuit. It's true that Google's trademark policy does not cover search results (does cover Adwords) but I think an offline lawsuit fixes that up pretty well. Unless we want to go the full spam pirate route and raise up a site anonymously just to spite Google and the world... could be pepsisucks.com
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946220].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
              Originally Posted by FakeItTilYouMakeIt View Post

              Wow this thread got very heated, fun reading.
              Anyways...

              Now we are talking about something completely different I think.. My point is that Google doesn't have to do brands a favor with an EMD boost because for an EMD to even be an EMD it by definition has to be the exact match of the keyword being searched and If I'm searching for a brand I'm searching for a company name or a product name. That company/product probably has trademarks in place to protect it's brand, unless they are tiny in which case nobody probably wants to piggy back off their brand anyways.

              I didn't understand what kind of court cases you were describing, maybe people trying to get trademark infringing sites deindexed? Because Google won't do that. However, trademarks are owner enforced and they are enforced all the time, it's a very common lawsuit. It's true that Google's trademark policy does not cover search results (does cover Adwords) but I think an offline lawsuit fixes that up pretty well. Unless we want to go the full spam pirate route and raise up a site anonymously just to spite Google and the world... could be pepsisucks.com
              Ah, fair play - yeah, if they registered a TM domain then obviously the TM could be enforced.

              Sorry, didn't realise that's what you meant.
              Signature
              FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946230].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by FakeItTilYouMakeIt View Post

              Wow this thread got very heated, fun reading.
              Yeah right . You are just waiting to make another video message cussing me out. You aint fooling me Fakeit.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946249].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author nightrider85
                I'm not an EMD specialist anyway but EMD still work..

                Drawer Dishwasher Reviews 2012-2013

                one of my little site with basic onpage optimization..and rank at page #1 now for that keyword...

                Any EMD specialist here !!! I'm also looking for more info bout this..
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7954353].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by nightrider85 View Post

                  I'm not an EMD specialist anyway but EMD still work..

                  Drawer Dishwasher Reviews 2012-2013

                  one of my little site with basic onpage optimization..and rank at page #1 now for that keyword...

                  Any EMD specialist here !!! I'm also looking for more info bout this..
                  ROFL.. PUUURFECT EXAMPLE

                  NIghtrider has proven EMDs rank because he ranks for a term that gets 260 searches a month and NO ONE is competing for (and what makes his example perfect for my point is you can look at the result and see that no one else has a page optimized for that term its so worthless).

                  Just because you see an EMD ranks doesn't mean it has anything to do with the EMD.
                  They will never get that point. It goes right over their heads.

                  Originally Posted by Jensha View Post

                  So what's the link that I'm talking about besides drawerdishwasherreviews.com?

                  I figure you won't just believe me so check out the keywords "bleach episode guide" on how will it rank in your keyword research tools then go to bleachepisodeguide.net
                  More hilarity The first page is filled with PR zero and Pr1 sites because its not a commercial Keyword phrase. NO ONE IS COMPETING FOR it. The only site on the front page that is even vaguely optimized for the term and has a higher PR (As measurement of link strength) is at 10


                  Do you guys know ANYTHING about evaluating a serp?

                  Who else wants to play "oooh oooh I see an EMD ranking so that PROVES BOOOOOM (rofl) that EMDs still have ranking power"?

                  WF is so funny but I got to run for now
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7957596].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WeavingThoughts
    Adding a word reduces the effect of the emd to a huge extent but it is still better than not having the keyword at all, all other things constant.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938175].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jensha
    Thanks for all your answers and the links sbucciarel. I haven't finished reading all but this really gives me an idea.

    I'll just register an exact match domain if there's an available one but if there isn't I'd just make up a brand name for it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938416].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MrMonetize
    Brands are better for me, and you can include a keyword in a branded name to show relevance not only to Google, but for when people are scanning the results.

    PencilBlog.com

    PencilTalk.com

    PencilChoice.com

    I don't think 'BestPencilInfo.com' has quite the same ring to it, and certainly isn't as easy on the eye. I just came up with those, but append some other words to 'Pencil' and come up with something unique yourself, and make sure you get the .com domain to go with it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7938459].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Earl Gray
    You can add some neutral prefix like my,the..

    myBestPencilInfo.com,
    theBestPencilInfo.com.

    or use plural

    BestPencilIsInfo.com

    Google knows that 'my' and 'the' aren't keywords, so you'll get what you want.
    Cheers.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7939129].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Backlinko
    EMDs might be the most misunderstood part of SEO.

    Here's my take:

    Because it was hard for search engines to figure out relevancy back in the day, they gave EMDs and partial EMDs a boost in the SERPs. A site called blackcats.com was PROBABLY about black cats. It made their job easier.

    Over time, search engines got better at figuring out relevancy and didn't need the domain to tell them what's up. Also, branded authority sites popped up that didn't have any keyword in their title that would give them a clue of what they're site was about (YouTube, Google etc.).

    That's when you stopped getting a significant boost from an EMD.

    The EMD update was simply this:

    -Google Penguin targeted keyword-rich anchor text
    - In the case of EMDs, it was hard for them to distinguish between branded and keyword anchor text (because the keyword WAS the brand name).
    -Therefore many EMDs slipped through the cracks during Penguin filters
    -The EMD update closed the loophole and was essentially a modified Penguin refresh (that's why you never heard of an EMD refresh...it was build into Penguin).

    In my opinion and experience, EMDs don't do anything for you.

    In fact, they can hurt you because it's hard to build a brand around them...and Google is big on brands signals right now.
    Signature
    Find Awesome Keywords...Without ANY Tools
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7939273].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Backlinko to add to that -

      Quick question to all - How often has Google did an update and never followed it up?

      If Google even left some influence in EMDs (and theres no evidence in this thread they have) why would you even want to rank based on an EMD when at any moment Google could follow the update up and tank you to siberia.

      Sheesh will people ever learn? No they will just come crying in a few weeks or months about how unfair it all is.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7939323].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mmsearch
    Quick question. I am kind of confused about all this EMD stuff.
    I am currently interested in the directory model.

    So for instance, lets say I want to build on for dentists in my city.
    I checked for citydentst.com but was not available.

    Any suggestions as far as a good domain for something like this would be?
    I was thinking citydentistdirectory.com.

    Would this do the trick?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7939622].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WeavingThoughts
    I agree that EMDs still rank, thin sites don't.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7939685].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jensha
    Wow I didn't think this would attract lots of answers.

    Thank you all for sharing your thoughts on this matter, I've read them all and thanked everyone who contributed.

    Since there's still no solid answer that EMD sites doesn't work anymore because of those existing EMD sites in google that doesn't have any quality content at all, I guess those EMD turnkey websites being offered by website sellers may still work after all given that proper keyword research for EMD has been done.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7941156].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Jensha View Post

      Since there's still no solid answer that EMD sites doesn't work anymore because of those existing EMD sites in google that doesn't have any quality content at all, I guess those EMD turnkey websites being offered by website sellers may still work after all given that proper keyword research for EMD has been done.
      There's actually no solid evidence that EMDs have ANY advantage now. Content ranks. Domains don't matter. Just because you find a low quality EMD ranking in Google does not mean that low quality EMDs are AOK with Google. It means that they just haven't gotten around to them yet.

      The solution is simple. Build a better site. Have plenty of high quality content and then it doesn't matter what domain you use.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7941512].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Chris Silvey
        EMD's don't have the weight they once had. Point attributes were adjusted from domains to Alt and H tags.
        Signature
        WP Animate - Increases Conversions & Clicks!
        Create Amazing CSS3 Animations in just a few Clicks - New!

        WPHeadline.net - Create Blazing Headlines in just a few clicks. Updated to WordPress 4.1.1
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7942179].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
        Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

        There's actually no solid evidence that EMDs have ANY advantage now. Content ranks. Domains don't matter. Just because you find a low quality EMD ranking in Google does not mean that low quality EMDs are AOK with Google.
        Again though, you could say the same with anything and everything (paid links, widgets etc) - Google, quite frankly, doesn't have the time or anything like the resources, to police every single conceivable generic web query. They've also been getting round to it for about the last 4 years now, and every year passes we still see tons of EMDs all over the SERPs.

        EMDs serve a purpose, the weighting is there for a reason i.e. to give a brand boost.

        I could produce solid evidence in a few steps, simply isolate all variables - whether or not I have the inclination is another matter, that and the burden of proof rests on the prosecution But then, someone else would always argue the case i.e. the term isn't competitive enough etc.

        The proof is there - exact match domains with small backlink profiles ranking alongside sites with significantly larger page level and domain level profiles.
        Signature
        FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7942987].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Jensha View Post

      Since there's still no solid answer that EMD sites doesn't work anymore because of those existing EMD sites in google that doesn't have any quality content at all, I guess those EMD turnkey websites being offered by website sellers may still work after all given that proper keyword research for EMD has been done.
      So lack of any evidence that they do work has made you hopeful that they will? Whatever logic floats your boat I guess.

      As for the keyword research part -not really. Unless you buy what you don't see then you don't need to buy to get their keyword research for free. Since EMDS have no discernable ranking factor its easy to outrank them.

      As a matter of fact when I see an EMD with poor content its usually a dead give away that I can outrank it. It pretty much indicates there is little to no competition (which is the real reason its ranking).
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7942340].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Danny Shaw
    How about using EMD's as keyword targeted buffers for a branded money site? I have not tried this yet but in my experience this would work very well. Almost like a mini niche targeted personal blog network.
    Signature
    **5 DAY FREE TRIAL** - The ultimate social media bot (FB, Instagram, Pinterest & G+).........
    Grab it >> HERE
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7942398].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BigDim
    Most of the webmasters and SEO experts say that EMD does not work for good anymore.
    Well,I gotta tell you EMD is still working for men for all my micro niche adsense webistes and for all of my clients websites.What's more,it is working in the adult niche too.
    I can give so many examples of EMD websites on 1st page above so many "brand" websites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7942423].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by BigDim View Post

      I can give so many examples of EMD websites on 1st page above so many "brand" websites.

      Then give one

      What is it with logic, common sense and proper reasoning on this board?

      How does an EMD ranking prove that EMDs are a ranking factor?

      Do the words Warrior and Forum have ranking power in the serps just because WF ranks highly for internet marketing forum or I dunno could it be because of the links, the content on it or the authority of the site?

      Again no one is stating that EMDs can't rank especially in weak serps and for all of those trying to push the idea in defiance of the EMD updates stop telling us about all the sites you can point to and point to one that makes your point.

      One person has tried and it turned out to be nothing to do with EMDs.

      Newbs read this board and go with things stated. People claiming that nothing much changed in the EMD update is one of the silliest, misleading and irresponsible things being pushed on this board right now.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7942653].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

        Then give one

        What is it with logic, common sense and proper reasoning on this board?

        How does an EMD ranking prove that EMDs are a ranking factor?

        Do the words Warrior and Forum have ranking power in the serps just because WF ranks highly for internet marketing forum or I dunno could it be because of the links, the content on it or the authority of the site?

        Again no one is stating that EMDs can't rank especially in weak serps and for all of those trying to push the idea in defiance of the EMD updates stop telling us about all the sites you can point to and point to one that makes your point.

        One person has tried and it turned out to be nothing to do with EMDs.

        Newbs read this board and go with things stated. People claiming that nothing much changed in the EMD update is one of the silliest, misleading and irresponsible things being pushed on this board right now.
        I haven't seen much of a change though. All of my microsites are in the same position, all have had minimal link building applied - I guess it depends on what you define as "weak SERPs", however the examples are there e.g. "SEO wales", "SEO Norwich", "SEO Liverpool" (three domains in top 10 with few backlinks surrounded by brand-led sites), "SEO outsourcing", "SEO training" (top spot SEOTraining.org.uk for a LONG time, he's the only one of the bunch to have an authoritative backlink profile though, so probably a poor example)...these are just off the top of my head i.e. queries we've looked at ranking for, but haven't bothered much with.

        I appreciate some may point out "well, they are all SEO keywords" - well, unfortunately, it the best basis for comparison for me, what with me being in it and owning an Agency...however, I could quite easily track down tons more in different industries i.e. "IT support london" was one I spotted the other day.

        *all of this aside, I actually think in a lot of instances EMDs are a bad idea for your main website - I would be very unlikely to ever brand an EMD, unless I won the lottery and managed to snatch carinsurance.co.uk on a backorder. They do have applications, they are useful in instances, but going after the microsite network-led approach is foolish; anyone considering this, my advice would just be to build everything on one domain, don't dilute authority/value, you just create more work for yourself.
        Signature
        FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7943061].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

          I haven't seen much of a change though. All of my microsites are in the same position, all have had minimal link building applied - I guess it depends on what you define as "weak SERPs", however the examples are there e.g. "SEO wales", "SEO Norwich", "SEO Liverpool" (three domains in top 10 with few backlinks surrounded by brand-led sites), "SEO outsourcing"
          Garth none of your examples pan out. all of them are as weak as water (one with less than 300 exact matches) with the possible exclusion of SEO liverpool that at least gets a a thousand exacts (all the rest are sad both in terms of searches per month and the number of PR N/A and PR0s on the front page which is a sure sign of weak competition)

          the seoliverpool.net site is however the best optimized on page (including both the keywords and LSI) plus there are some indications of links that are hidden (which I certainly would do if I was a big SEO company which their parent site is).

          IF that were not enough when you pull up the same search out of London. The two NON EMDS outrank the two top EMDs indicating to me very clearly that there is a STRONG component of Geo location (and Seoliverpool.net has a registered office in Liverpool) in that result.

          So still no evidence of EMDs giving anywhere near the strong factor you claim. Thats the very point I was making. The algo is multilayered. You cannot just look at an EMD that ranks and say AHA! EMDs still have great power. You are ignoring all the other factors and leading people to draw bad conclusions.

          The forums here and elsewhere were filled with people with EMDs claiming they got slapped. I had two customers effected at that time and again only they had EMDs. Sorry but you guys are just living in denial and I got to say switching your customer over to an EMD if it was for SEO purposes was some really bad SEO. Tomorrow GOogle could make another tweak and bye bye clients site.

          Finally your claim that it makes no sense for Google to touch EMDs is to me just nonsensical in and of itself. When in the last two years has google ever indicated anywhere that they want to help the little guy rank easily? Thats dream world right there. That being the case why wouldn't Google turn down the EMD factor to tank marketers. Pepsi, Best Buy, Amazon, Disney, IBM, Wikipedia, Microsoft, Apple and on and on will still rank BASED ON THE MAD LINKS they get for their brand name.

          SO that argument makes no sense. The EMD update was an EMD update. Theres more than enough proof . If there is some conspiracy theory that says it was just Google lying then thats on you guys to present the evidence for not ask others to disprove.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7943520].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
            Respect your opinion as always Mike, but I'm in complete disagreement with you on this one.

            Firstly, as I'm sure you will agree, search volume totals I would say are broadly irrelevant in this - needless to say you can't define "weak SERPs" based on SV, but rather commercial potential/potential ROI; I appreciate you have factored links into the equation too, but SV is probably the wrong thing for us to be looking at.

            I'm needless to say well acquainted with isolating variables and testing - I also agree that you can't simply place every EMD ranking down to the power of an EMD; however, likewise, it's not possible to make claims to the contrary without providing sufficient evidence; I wasn't willing to accept the above poster's claim that "Matt Cutts said so", hence the challenge.

            From practical experience, we still used EMDs for some tester sites, even one we've launched recently with next to no backlink profile has found it's way onto the first page for a reasonably generic term in a very short timeframe (circa. 60 days) "quick house sale", for reference purposes 1,600 exacts per month last time I looked.

            EMDs obviously still require link building behind them, perhaps I'm willing to concede more so nowadays than of yesteryear, however I'm also fully confident in the fact that all things considered equal i.e. take two websites, one an EMD and one not, apply the same link building behind both, the EMD would still rank above the non-EMD in a low-medium competitive SERP.

            I'm also finding the argument a bit difficult to swallow - EVEN in weak SERPs, all things have to be equal. I consistently see EMDs with next to no link profiles ranking prominently, and in among more authoritative-based domains.

            Looking at SEOLiverpool.net, and even if the ranking can be explained with geo in mind, the fact remains - the site is still in the top 5 with a non-existent link profile i.e. barely any trust behind it in Majestic, and it's playing among sites which have larger amounts of trust.

            Because there are so MANY variables at play, and because we're merely observing rather than participating, it's impossible to isolate - however, we also have to be able to make educated guesswork out of this (unless we are willing to go to the extremities of testing); it's far too coincidental that so many EMDs rank prominently, even in weak SERPs where everything is still, in essence, equal, for it to be explained away as a coincidence (or as a previous poster has stipulated, something Google hasn't gotten round to yet).

            n.b. is there also a tacit acceptance on your part that EMDs work in "weak SERPs"? I think our definition of what a weak SERPs is differs, I've held 1-3 rankings in SERPs under 1,000 searches and with I would guesstimate an avg. domain trust of 20-30, which have been lucrative i.e. "SEO courses" (we're circa. 2 or 3 in the UK for this at the mo.) or "SEO training" (I think we're no. 2 in the UK for this at the mo.).

            To be honest, without a test I feel we are both too well versed in this - we will go round in circles debating the semantics and the what ifs, but the only result will be an inconclusive one without an actual test, or five, or ten.

            Like I say, I respect your opinion, but I completely disagree.
            Signature
            FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7943581].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author xdarata
              Apparently, EMD is only one factor to assess the site's ranking. If you are using EMD but the contains on your site are good quality with a strong support of backlinks, your site will still be in the top position. So, not all sites using EMD are straight drop. In fact, the drop site for EMD can still be repaired. Thank you.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7943620].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                Another note on this, see below.





                1st example, provides search results from #7 to #3 for "SEO Liverpool". Right, it could be classed by some as a weak SERP, however I don't agree with that - it gets 1,000 searches per month, my AOV is £199 per month on a 3 month contract, top spot CTR would be circa 20-25%, avg conversion rate of 3% = 7.5 enquiries per month. NOT a weak SERP for me i.e. relative to the amount of time and effort, and recurring income it could generate.

                All lower placed domains massively outweigh EMDs in terms of referring domains, trust etc. Beyond massively.

                Second example, results #10 to #6 - again, EMD is massively outweighed in terms of ref. domains and trust.

                I could provide these all day i.e. we could isolate link profiles for more queries where EMDs feature in top 10; providing we are all willing to agree that links are the most weighted factor in search, I can't really see how the stats above can be contested.
                Signature
                FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7943677].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                  Again, the same could be said with ANYTHING, Mike - probability of risk, sure, but the client isn't necessarily going to be penalised through virtue of having an EMD, THAT would be mental and nonsensical.
                  Yes it would be but the mental part would be your own since I never said penalized. It is not my position that the the EMD change was a penalty. its very simple if you think it is ranking based on the the EMD value and that value is turned down (not penalized) the site will go bye bye. and no it is NOT the same "with ANYTHING" . Like I asked before - when has google made a change to the algo and not followed it up with additional tweaks? they always do. Ranking and encouraging people to rank based on the alleged power of the EMD that google has already tweaked sorry is just one of the stupidest most irresponsible things I have seen here recently. We are supposed to pretend that because some sites didn't dive that all the sites that did it had nothing to do with the value of the EMD being turned down

                  Denial much?


                  I also don't take the idea that EMDs are bad SEO advice, ok so Google may decide one day to remove the weighting and the client drops back to a non-EMD position, what's lost? By that point I've probably done enough brilliant work to cement strong visibility across hundreds of queries, anyway, with an ROI long since established
                  Like the brilliant work of moving them over to an EMD just to rank them? LOL. You got to be kidding. You transfer an entire clients site over to a EMD to rank them for a particular term and it doesn't matter if you at any moment no longer rank for that term? Thats ridiculous.

                  The forums may well be filled with EMD owners crying into their pillows, however the forums are also full of non-EMD owners crying into their pillows. ;
                  Yes and the EMD owners just happened to be the ones crying at the time of the EMD update right? Just a coincidence :rolleyes: (conspiracy theorist will take any leap over evidence necessary).

                  1st example, provides search results from #7 to #3 for "SEO Liverpool". Right, it could be classed by some as a weak SERP, however I don't agree with that - it gets 1,000 searches per month, my AOV is £199 per month on a 3 month contract, top spot CTR would be circa 20-25%, avg conversion rate of 3% = 7.5 enquiries per month. NOT a weak SERP for me i.e. relative to the amount of time and effort, and recurring income it could generate.
                  OKay I get you now. Basically you don't have a clue what a weak serp is. It has nothing AT ALL to do with profitability it has to do with competition. Your stats are worthless to this debate. Trust is not keyword specific. the question is are the sites ranking trying hard to rank for THAT TERM. Thats what competition is Garth. OF course with good keyword research you can make some bucks/pounds on weak terms. Thats the holy grail of doing keyword research to begin with. However being a weak serp means its EASY to rank for so looking at an EMD in a weak serp and saying look here is the power of the EMD makes no strong statement of proof. I just finished showing you NON EMD ranking ABOVE your EMD with the same PR AND LESS.

                  IF EMDs still have this great power then why is that Garth?

                  I could provide these all day i.e. we could isolate link profiles for more queries where EMDs feature in top 10; providing we are all willing to agree that links are the most weighted factor in search, I can't really see how the stats above can be contested.
                  You are probably right about not arguing this further. Its completely ridiculous for you to claim that your stats cannot be contested when they have nothing to offer by way of anchor text and optimization for a particular keyword that a site is ranking or for that matter stick your head in the sand when a geo location serp directly counters your position. To hear you tell it trust of the sites involved in a serp is all there is to finding out whether a serp is competitive. Thats like something out of a bad WSO.

                  I only argue this for the newbs you guys will fool with this nonsense but this being WF some people will buy into this for the simple reason that they want it to be true. less work easy money just buy a EMD.

                  Bonehead silly in 2013 but some people will never learn.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7943933].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    Yes it would be but the mental part would be your own since I never said penalized. It is not my position that the the EMD change was a penalty. its very simple if you think it is ranking based on the the EMD value and that value is turned down (not penalized) the site will go bye bye. and no it is NOT the same "with ANYTHING" . Like I asked before - when has google made a change to the algo and not followed it up with additional tweaks? they always do. Ranking and encouraging people to rank based on the alleged power of the EMD that google has already tweaked sorry is just one of the stupidest most irresponsible things I have seen here recently. We are supposed to pretend that because some sites didn't dive that all the sites that did it had nothing to do with the value of the EMD being turned down

                    Denial much?
                    Why would I be in denial? I can actually get them to work. The tone of your post is getting more than a little "attack-mode", I have no reason to be in denial about anything - if EMDs no longer work, I would bin them. Fine by me, no problem.

                    The site won't go "bye-bye", the ranking will go bye-bye. The point is, it's not turned down - as I've pointed out with the backlinks stats for EMDs posted above, which you haven't really addressed directly.

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    We are supposed to pretend that because some sites didn't dive that all the sites that did it had nothing to do with the value of the EMD being turned down

                    Denial much?
                    But yet on the other hand we're supposed to believe that because some sites did dive that that's exclusively down to the EMD? Please - you haven't presented ANY correlating evidence, or even anything that could be used for educated guesswork. Nada.

                    And I'm supposed to be the one in denial - you've seen certain sites dive, those sites may have been exact match domain names; have you seen the other hundreds of thousands of sites dive this last year too? I suppose we'll just segment them off an call it down to an algorithmic update, whereas anything with an EMD must be down to the "EMD update". :rolleyes:

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    Like the brilliant work of moving them over to an EMD just to rank them? LOL. You got to be kidding. You transfer an entire clients site over to a EMD to rank them for a particular term and it doesn't matter if you at any moment no longer rank for that term? Thats ridiculous.
                    More than a smidgen condescending.

                    No, but much like other areas, it seems like presumptions are your forte - the client wanted to rank for a vanity keyword, they spotted and EMD, I'd advised them on the advantages and disadvantages i.e. brandability, they choose to go with it. It worked.

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    Yes and the EMD owners just happened to be the ones crying at the time of the EMD update right? Just a coincidence :rolleyes: (conspiracy theorist will take any leap over evidence necessary).
                    Mike, were you awake in 2012? Hundreds of thousands of webmasters lost visibility in 2012, it's nice to know that we can just put a blanket explanation on it for anyone who owned an EMD though. Ridiculous.

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    the question is are the sites ranking trying hard to rank for THAT TERM. Thats what competition is Garth. OF course with good keyword research you can make some bucks/pounds on weak terms. Thats the holy grail of doing keyword research to begin with.
                    Awwwww, see, now I get it - damn, I wish I had managed to figure that out on my own in the last eight years I've been in this industry :rolleyes:

                    Ok, Mike, what is you definition of "trying to rank for that term"? It would be easier to interpret if you explained, rather than typing in soundbites. My interpretation of that is you're saying that the other sites aren't competing for that term simply because they are not using anchor text in the links? Or is it because they don't have a relevant page title?

                    I presume Amazon.co.uk are TRYING THEIR DAMNDEST to rank for "cutlery sets" and it doesn't have anything to do with the fact they are there based on domain authority alone?

                    Sites appear for terms based on domain authority alone, Wikipedia being the obvious example - just because a Company hasn't done specific work trying to rank for a term doesn't make them any less of a competitor there if their domain authority merits their position. What you're going on about in this portion of your loosely formed argument I don't know.

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    "However being a weak serp means its EASY to rank for so looking at an EMD in a weak serp and saying look here is the power of the EMD makes no strong statement of proof"
                    Yes, but you have a massively skewed perception of what a weak SERP is, Mike. We're not arguing about whether it's easy to rank for, so I've no idea why you keep laboring on this - we are debating the relative weight of EMDs to non-EMDs, weak SERP or not. Or are you saying something else that I have to read between the lines on again?

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    You are probably right about not arguing this further.
                    About the only thing I agree with you on - to be honest, it could have been a reasoned debate if it weren't for the condescension. Fair enough though.
                    Signature
                    FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7944060].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                      But yet on the other hand we're supposed to believe that because some sites did dive that that's exclusively down to the EMD? Please - you haven't presented ANY correlating evidence, or even anything that could be used for educated guesswork. Nada.
                      Yes we know its all a vast conspiracy. LOL. all the sites with EMDs just suffered a penalty at the same time. It wasn't that EMDs were turned down it was the the second and third gunman on the grassy knoll (JFK assasination conspiracy reference). NO evidence whatsoever.

                      [
                      No, but much like other areas, it seems like presumptions are your forte -
                      and not reading might be yours? I specifically stated if the change was for SEO then it was not good SEO. I still hold to it. If you suggested it on the basis of SEo it was bad SEO. IF you didn't then its not applicable as the word "if" implies. We don't know if it worked. Your public examples so far have all been wanting so its neither here nor there.

                      Mike, were you awake in 2012? Hundreds of thousands of webmasters lost visibility in 2012, it's nice to know that we can just put a blanket explanation on it for anyone who owned an EMD though. Ridiculous.
                      Oh good grief what total and absolute strawman silliness. Who in this thread EVER stated that sites tanked in 2012 therefore it was EMD? THATS totally ridiculous. No Garth. If you did a lick of research you would know that the Fall of EMDs came not year specific but within a day of the EMD update and the overwhelming sites that saw drops WERE EMDS. Whatever happened to your common denominator argument? You are for it when it doesn't work and off it when it does even specific to the very day.


                      Awwwww, see, now I get it - damn, I wish I had managed to figure that out on my own in the last eight years I've been in this industry

                      Aren't you glad you joined WF a month ago though? From the looks of it you might have gone on another eight (if true) not knowing how to do competition research. Long live WF!


                      I presume Amazon.co.uk are TRYING THEIR DAMNDEST to rank for "cutlery sets" and it doesn't have anything to do with the fact they are there based on domain authority alone?
                      LOL. You must be right. I mean even though it would take forever to check all of amazon's backlinks in a backlink checker (and no service covers all of the backlinks anyway) we should take it on your word that people interested in cutlery sets would not link anywhere in the world to the number one online retailer for that purchase thereby optimizing it for that term.

                      BTW if its just based on domain authority alone why doesn't amazon rank for number one for EVERY product. Who has more domain authority?



                      Sites appear for terms based on domain authority alone, Wikipedia being the obvious example
                      Well A) I don't know that they rank all the time we see them rank based solely on authority B) To me its obvious that wikipedia and a few other sites are among the base sites that google start out with as a an designated trusted site. Trying to make a point off such a site for every other site doesn't work. No one here and no company we work for is going to be wikipedia. You can't find a single other site that ranks for so many terms or even a tenth so trying to make your point stand be referring to wikipedia fails. Whats obvious is that Wikipedia has a special unique place with Google.

                      About the only thing I agree with you on - to be honest, it could have been a reasoned debate if it weren't for the condescension. Fair enough though.
                      Yeah Agreed once you labeled one of my arguments as "mental" it was not going to be all sugar and spice and everything nice to all the ways your own arguments were failing the logical test.
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7944170].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

              Firstly, as I'm sure you will agree, search volume totals I would say are broadly irrelevant in this - needless to say you can't define "weak SERPs" based on SV,
              No I would not agree with you and neither would ANY professional SEO I know. Search volume IS a broadly relevant way of determining the kind of competition you might get. Are there exclusions and does profitability play no role. Of course but you cannot with just a wave of you hand claim search volume has no connection with the competition that will be attracted to a term. Thats nonsense. Like in anything in business - where more potential customers are involved the competition will generally be greater.

              likewise, it's not possible to make claims to the contrary without providing sufficient evidence; I wasn't willing to accept the above poster's claim that "Matt Cutts said so", hence the challenge.
              Sorry my man...no. burying your head in the sand and claiming that all the people with EMDS that lost ranking after the EMD update doesn't provide sufficient evidence that Google made good on their claims is not going to work here. No one in this thread has said Matt Cutts said so and thats all the evidence needed. Does it count that Google said they were going to make a change and people with EMDs saw their sites tank? Of course.

              From practical experience, we still used EMDs for some tester sites, even one we've launched recently with next to no backlink profile has found it's way onto the first page for a reasonably generic term in a very short timeframe (circa. 60 days) "quick house sale", for reference purposes 1,600 exacts per month last time I looked.
              no emd is ranking for the term quick house sale when I looked. Not from the US and not from Europe. I see where there is one at position eight in the UK (way down on the page due to local results). This is you idea of the great power of emds. Local rankings? and even locally

              http://www.open4offers.com/ (so none EMD) is way above it and is a measly PR 1 with a bunch of Bookmark links ( A few PR2s which they have mostly already lost) . Why doesn't these things tell you what they tell every other SEO? weak serp.

              I'm also fully confident in the fact that all things considered equal ....
              appreciate that you are confident but confidence is not evidence

              Looking at SEOLiverpool.net, and even if the ranking can be explained with geo in mind, the fact remains - the site is still in the top 5 with a non-existent link profile i.e. barely any trust behind it in Majestic, and it's playing among sites which have larger amounts of trust.
              Good night man do some research. look down the page. you will notice pages ranking that are not even optimized in title for the term. I Just did a backlink check for one of the sites with a "large amounts of trust" and they at not targeting that keyword at all in over a thousand links I looked at. Site with trust don't matter if they are not going after a term. Its a weeak serp. thats just a fact.

              How in the world do you explain that EMDs have this great affect but once we change the geo locations they disappear? Different algo for each geo location? That would be grasping at straws. Its simple. The result you are looking at is based on other factors beyond the EMD.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7943866].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                Sorry my man...no. burying your head in the sand and claiming that all the people with EMDS that lost ranking after the EMD update doesn't provide sufficient evidence that Google made good on their claims is not going to work here. No one in this thread has said Matt Cutts said so and thats all the evidence needed. Does it count that Google said they were going to make a change and people with EMDs saw their sites tank? Of course.
                Mike, you've provided ZERO evidence, though - "all of the people", where? At least I've backed up my arguments with stats and links, where are "these people"? On one hand you are claiming that it's impossible to isolate EMDs as one of the main factors behind the rankings I've demonstrated, whereas on the other you are making a sweeping generalisation that EMDs are the sole determining factor behind all of these "tanked" sites...

                Even disregarding the collection of people supposedly adamant that EMDs have fallen completely and no longer work, tell me otherwise why so consistently we see EMDs ranking in SERPs with next to no link profiles behind them? << and alongside far more authoritative domains. Again, I could add about another 100 examples in here, all of which will broadly replicate the stats already posted.

                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                no emd is ranking for the term quick house sale when I looked. Not from the US and not from Europe. I see where there is one at position eight in the UK (way down on the page due to local results). This is you idea of the great power of emds. Local rankings? and even locally
                Really? I presume UK isn't in Europe anymore? AdPreview >> select UK >> type "quick house sale". You are making an assertion on something you haven't spotted; it's NOT a local result, it's a national result, in the UK.

                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                http://www.open4offers.com/ (so none EMD) is way above it and is a measly PR 1 with a bunch of Bookmark links ( A few PR2s which they have mostly already lost) . Why doesn't these things tell you what they tell every other SEO? weak serp.
                This is from what query exactly?

                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                Good night man do some research. look down the page. you will notice pages ranking that are not even optimized in title for the term. I Just did a backlink check for one of the sites with a "large amounts of trust" and they at not targeting that keyword at all in over a thousand links I looked at. Site with trust don't matter if they are not going after a term. Its a weeak serp. thats just a fact.
                And? PLEASE tell me you are not now trying to push this argument further to suggest a page title, a meager page title, is more powerful than links? The facts speak - weak SERP (*by YOUR definition, although I'm not sure how 1,000 searches per month could be interpreted as "weak) or not, the facts and stats are there (at least I've provided some).

                Page title diddly squat, it's easily possible to get pages to rank without providing a page title, keyword insertion in the content (which demonstrates just how weighted they are) etc.

                The fact is, the common denominator is the exact match domain - when you actually analyse the referring domains/trust, and see broadly in line stats across all domains, and then you see a massive dip i.e. next to no referring domains, and that domain is an exact match domain name, SURELY you can see that means pretty much one thing?!

                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                How in the world do you explain that EMDs have this great affect but once we change the geo locations they disappear? Different algo for each geo location? That would be grasping at straws. Its simple. The result you are looking at is based on other factors beyond the EMD.
                I think you may be grasping at geo-straws - Quick House Sale is NOT a geo-ranking (Geo according to my definition is a city based in the UK i.e. a localised result specific to the UK - I've searched London, Manchester and Birmingham through AdPreview, all in the same position). The UK may be considered by you to be a geo, but as far as everyone else is concerned it's a country of 60,000,000+ people and one of the world's biggest economies.

                EMDs may only have a sizable impact on less competitive queries, but the fact of the matter is they do have an impact - saying that may go by the wayside sooner or later is irrelevant, the point is it exists now. If you refuse to acknowledge stats which only presume one thing (that links are the predominantly weighted factor in SEO, which almost all on these boards will accept), there's not much more I can do with that really.
                Signature
                FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7943983].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                  Mike, you've provided ZERO evidence, though - "all of the people", where?
                  DO a search. You are new to this forum so me referring to what everyone who has been around knows isn't fact? Give me a break but here you could even Google it and you would find references (even though clearly you do not want to)

                  https://www.google.com/search?q=quic...w=1360&bih=643

                  Do some reading

                  At least I've backed up my arguments with stats and links, where are "these people"?
                  You've backed up nothing. None of your links show what you claimed and you have demonstrated that you have no understanding of how trust factors and doesn't factor into competitive research in a serp. I might as well link to a stat of Google search share - it would have the same relevance to what is being discussed.

                  whereas on the other you are making a sweeping generalisation that EMDs are the sole determining factor behind all of these "tanked" sites
                  LOL immediately after an EMD update algo change? Yes how ridiculous of me? Penguin was just coincidence too right?

                  we see EMDs ranking in SERPs with next to no link profiles behind them? << and alongside far more authoritative domains. Again, I could add about another 100 examples in here, all of which will broadly replicate the stats already posted.
                  I'm sorry Garth but you are clueless. let me see if I can spell this out for you in another way because it didnt get through before

                  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AUTHORITATIVE DOMAIN SPECIFIC TO ALL KEYWORDS.

                  Citing trust without reference to anchor text of that domain's links and what the domain is targeting is TOTAL NONSENSE competitive research


                  Really? I presume UK isn't in Europe anymore? AdPreview >> select UK >> type "quick house sale". You are making an assertion on something you haven't spotted; it's NOT a local result, it's a national result, in the UK.
                  Give me a break.. UK is one country. Europe consists of several and I logged in through VPS and VPNS in europe outside the uk and the results are not there. Trying to claim I am not seeing what I am seeing isn't going to work. Trying to divert to a semantic arguments doesn't work. You are citing global search numbers when the site is not showing up globally. I use geo in this sense to refer to GEOGRAPHICAL differences not necessarily local as in Google local search. Spare me the offense based on some silly sense of slighting the UK. THE US is in a different Geography as well. Case closed.

                  Now please tell us again how if EMDS are so powerful they don't have that effect outside of the UK for that result.

                  And? PLEASE tell me you are not now trying to push this argument further to suggest a page title, a meager page title, is more powerful than links? The facts speak - weak SERP (*by YOUR definition, although I'm not sure how 1,000 searches per month could be interpreted as "weak) or not
                  Stick to what I did say and stop trying to force things I didn't as a distraction. Do I KNOW that Good optimization includes on page as well as off - YES I do. Do I know that a good SEO will optimize his page title? Why Yes I do. Its SEO 101. Nine times out of ten if you see someone not do that for a page they either don't know good SEO or they are not trying to rank for that term very hard. I already referenced on page and LSI so trying to break it all down to that one line is a failure.

                  The fact is, the common denominator is the exact match domain - when you actually analyse the referring domains/trust, and see broadly in line stats across all domains, and then you see a massive dip i.e. next to no referring domains, and that domain is an exact match domain name, SURELY you can see that means pretty much one thing?!
                  Yes that you start with a premise and your own selective base in order to get where you want to and ignore everything in between. There are ton loads of EMDs that do not rank. the common denominator in almost everyone you have mentioned is the geographic location. This is about the fourth time this has been pointed out to you and the CLEAR difference in the rankings outside of the locations you are looking at.

                  SO again (try answering this time) why is the power of the EMD fluctuating based on geography. That alone would tell any unbiased person that there are things going on WAAAAY beyond the EMD. Google weights site based on geo datacenter data . that includes where a site is and where the links are coming from in reference to where the searcher is. IN MANY SERPS this is the key factor and it is in yur best example the Liverpool SEO one. SO much so that you change the CITY you log in from and the sites that are lower show above the emds just based on the city.



                  EMDs may only have a sizable impact on less competitive queries
                  Some Progress at last!!!

                  , but the fact of the matter is they do have an impact - saying that may go by the wayside sooner or later is irrelevant, the point is it exists now.
                  Rhetoric does not make anything a fact. There was an EMD update and you have been arguing against all reason that there was one. From implying Google conspiracy to claiming to know everyone was just magically penalized at the same time without reference to EMDs.. You have not shown a single serp that has held up under scrutiny that EMDs have the power that you claim. I have even shown you in your very own serp a NON EMD site that has the same and even lesser metrics than your hallowed EMDs AND IS RANKING ABOVE IT.

                  TO any othere objective SEO this would be a sure sign of a weak serp but you will deny the obvious at all costs.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7944101].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    You've backed up nothing. None of your links show what you claimed and you have demonstrated that you have no understanding of how trust factors and doesn't factor into competitive research in a serp. I might as well link to a stat of Google search share - it would have the same relevance to what is being discussed.
                    I have backed up plenty, but you're so blocked off from hearing any dissenting opinion (clearly not used to it), it's pointless.

                    What I have failed to pick up on is one solid example coming from your account, Mike.

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    LOL immediately after an EMD update algo change? Yes how ridiculous of me? Penguin was just coincidence too right?
                    An EMD update which impacted a whole circa. 0.5% of queries, and as far as I remember US queries. Wow, wide-sweeping reform. Where I come from, they call that public relations - it's as much an attack on EMDs as "not provided" was on privacy.

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    I'm sorry Garth but you are clueless. let me see if I can spell this out for you in another way because it didnt get through before

                    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN AUTHORITATIVE DOMAIN SPECIFIC TO ALL KEYWORDS.

                    Citing trust without reference to anchor text of that domain's links and what the domain is targeting is TOTAL NONSENSE competitive research
                    Yes, because that's clearly not a twist on what I said. The simple point is Mike, there are TONS of websites which rank prominently for target search terms based predominantly on domain authority; Amazon.co.uk ranking no. 1 on Google UK for 'cutlery sets'. External page level anchor text? Nada.

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    Give me a break.. UK is one country. Europe consists of several and I logged in through VPS and VPNS in europe outside the uk and the results are not there. Trying to claim I am not seeing what I am seeing isn't going to work. Trying to divert to a semantic arguments doesn't work. You are citing global search numbers when the site is not showing up globally. I use geo in this sense to refer to GEOGRAPHICAL differences not necessarily local as in Google local search. Spare me the offense based on some silly sense of slighting the UK. THE US is in a different Geography as well. Case closed.

                    Now please tell us again how if EMDS are so powerful they don't have that effect outside of the UK for that result.
                    Well I don't know what to tell you Mike, I'm using multiple proxies through Advanced Web Ranking as well as AdPreview, and it is there. QuickHouseSale.net.

                    More on the Geo, IT'S NOT A GEO-RANKING, MIKE.

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    Stick to what I did say and stop trying to force things I didn't as a distraction. Do I KNOW that Good optimization includes on page as well as off - YES I do. Do I know that a good SEO will optimize his page title? Why Yes I do. Its SEO 101. Nine times out of ten if you see someone not do that for a page they either don't know good SEO or they are not trying to rank for that term very hard. I already referenced on page and LSI so trying to break it all down to that one line is a failure.
                    Mike, you are the one who is consistently speaking in soundbites and half-formed sentences throughout this thread.

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    Yes that you start with a premise and your own selective base in order to get where you want to and ignore everything in between. There are ton loads of EMDs that do not rank. the common denominator in almost everyone you have mentioned is the geographic location. This is about the fourth time this has been pointed out to you and the CLEAR difference in the rankings outside of the locations you are looking at.
                    Why, in any mode of research, would you want to research something that isn't there?! IT'S NOT A GEOGRAPHIC RANKING, MIKE! FFS.

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    Rhetoric does not make anything a fact. There was an EMD update and you have been arguing against all reason that there was one. From implying Google conspiracy to claiming to know everyone was just magically penalized at the same time without reference to EMDs.. You have not shown a single serp that has held up under scrutiny that EMDs have the power that you claim. I have even shown you in your very own serp a NON EMD site that has the same and even lesser metrics than your hallowed EMDs AND IS RANKING ABOVE IT.
                    Metric, singular - PageRank. Every other metric was better, Mike.

                    Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                    TO any othere objective SEO this would be a sure sign of a weak serp but you will deny the obvious at all costs.
                    Whereas you have clearly responded to all points in an articulate and calm manner - uh-huh. You claim I'm not reading, you haven't even gone to the effort to read my name (it's Gareth, not Garth). At least we can agree that it's clearly pointless debating further.
                    Signature
                    FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7944172].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                      I have backed up plenty, but you're so blocked off from hearing any dissenting opinion (clearly not used to it), it's pointless.
                      Yes oh mighty Gareth (dropped the e is your great proof of not reading?). You know all. NO one has ever dissented or argued with me before on these forums so i am not used to it.. ROFL.

                      anyway I am bored now. Its just the same denial. the EMD update didn't happen theres no evidence for it it yada yada yada.

                      You've demonstrated

                      You don't know how to do competitive research on a serp (As if trust of a site and not keyword specific intent is key)
                      You are willing to ignore all evidence of EMD sites dropping like flies in order to hold on to your fantasy
                      You don't understand that other factors can come into play and the evidence of that being so when you see different geographies showing different results.
                      That you don't know PR is a measure of link quality (or you wouldn't brush of PR when it was you who said ranking was based on links coming in.

                      oh yes and volume of traffic for a keyword has no connection to the competition you will get for it. Who knew? So might as well go for those high traffic keyword terms as being just as easy to rank for as the low ones.

                      Pure nonsense. When you do start offering services (if you haven't yet) or a WSO you will fit right in.
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7944254].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        Yes oh mighty Gareth (dropped the e is your great proof of not reading?). You know all. NO one has ever dissented or argued with me before on these forums so i am not used to it.. ROFL.

                        anyway I am bored now. Its just the same denial. the EMD update didn't happen theres no evidence for it it yada yada yada.
                        Of course it's proof, my name has an 'e' in it, you didn't even go to the effort of reading my name yet stupidly on my part, I'm expecting you to address my points in a coherent and grown-up manner and most importantly, actually read them.

                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        You don't know how to do competitive research on a serp (As if trust of a site and not keyword specific intent is key)
                        No, you've demonstrated you are very well versed at shouting people down on an internet forum - nothing of the sort has been established. Then again, that'll probably come with thousands of posts worth of practice in this place.

                        Your burden of proof in SEO terms is simply because Mike says so. Everyone else seems to follow along.

                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        You are willing to ignore all evidence of EMD sites dropping like flies in order to hold on to your fantasy
                        Mike, son, you haven't actually provided any evidence. All you keep saying is "all the evidence!" and bless your cotton socks, but you haven't even provided any I thought that you were the kinda SEO who implemented things in a practical context, rather than relying solely on the regurgitated everyone else relies on, or the latest coverage on Search Engine Land/SEOmoz.

                        EMD sites dropping like flies? Ok, let's look at the coverage:

                        Matt Cutts states this affected 0.6% of web queries - WOW. That itself should tell you something, Mike. Think about it: 100% - 0.6% = ???? SHOCKING! :rolleyes:

                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        You don't understand that other factors can come into play and the evidence of that being so when you see different geographies showing different results.
                        That you don't know PR is a measure of link quality (or you wouldn't brush of PR when it was you who said ranking was based on links coming in.
                        You are really getting so angry about this you're feeling the need to twist my words and misquote me? Mike, I didn't say that - you referred to a PageRank 1 domain ranking above my EMD, the ONLY isolated example in the top 10 results for that SERP, you used the word metrics when referring to all "metrics were better" or something of the sort, I responded with "metric, singular".

                        But I supposed in Warrior Internet forum language, that's win for you - WELL DONE. :rolleyes: It's PageRank, it's obviously one of many weighted signals.

                        The simple point is, in among all the vitriol and anger, you still haven't actually:

                        1. Provided any evidence about WHY QHS.net is ranking in that position. Ok, it's a weak SERP (I've argued the point that's not what we're discussing though, it's about the relative value of EMDs to non-EMDs - I know you will go in a loop again with this, you can't seem to help yourself), according to you; but explain why there are circa 5 referring domains behind it, and well into double figures for every other domain?

                        The only reason I haven't provided more stats for more domains is because you will go into geo-rant mode again, but I'm still waiting for any explanation of why, according to you, this site ranks. Fairy dust?

                        2. You haven't even addressed the fact I've stated the update only affected 0.6 of web queries, and US queries - according to SEOmoz, it impacted 41 SERPs out of 1,000. That doesn't sound like mass-reform Mike. It's a bit like saying the page speed update had a massive impact when again, Matt Cutts himself came out and stated it affected 1-2% of queries when it was being rolled out. It's a bit like saying Panda is an all-sweeping algorithmic update, when again it didn't target every single query, over successive roll outs circa 13%. What, are you under the impression that an algorithm is like a single entity, and someone just sits there with a can of Coke and a copy of penthouse, pressing keys and making alterations on the fly? Slightly simplistic basing your ENTIRE argument around this on:

                        1. Because Mike said so.
                        2. There was an EMD update that affected 0.6% of queries.
                        3. Google is getting round to it.

                        Interestingly, you've just worked around ALL OF THE CENTRAL POINTS OF THE ENTIRE DEBATE, without actually addressing anything.
                        Signature
                        FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7944992].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                          Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                          Of course it's proof,
                          Your right. I forgot what you call proof. I've been responding to all your posts but I left an E out of your name in favor of the more popular Garth so it proves I wasn't reading. Come to think of it that IS the best evidence you offered for anything.


                          Your burden of proof in SEO terms is simply because Mike says so. Everyone else seems to follow along.
                          Yep Mike's got real power baby

                          https://www.google.com/search?client...w=1360&bih=577

                          I generated all that content for an update that never happened. We are just waiting for integration with GSA and SenukeXcr and we will be releasing our content creation tool for $77 a month. I'd announce the name but we are still buying all the EMDS for any content related keywords, Few hundred so we can rank for anything. Affiliate link to follow. JVs will not be entertained this product is too hot.

                          I thought that you were the kinda SEO who implemented things in a practical context, rather than relying solely on the regurgitated everyone else relies on, or the latest coverage on Search Engine Land/SEOmoz.
                          I actually thought you were a decent SEO so we both were mistaken and yeah I'll take search engine land reporting on the effects of an update any day over a poster who nobody knew a month ago. I just roll like that. Of course you are just conveniently ignoring my reference to sites I was working on but we can see here how you like to pick and choose -

                          Matt Cutts states this affected 0.6% of web queries - WOW
                          Didn't I read somewhere that you can't trust Matt Cutts on anything? See people this is how the conspiracy mind works . Reject a source entirely but then accept it when it suits. Now apparently Matt Cutts is so reliable he knows the exact decimal but wait he's totally unreliable as to what the update was really about Pick and choose . Shake and shimmy.

                          That itself should tell you something, Mike. Think about it: 100% - 0.6% = ???? SHOCKING!
                          I'll grant that it must have been a great shock to you that everyone was not using EMDS to rank but most of the world does some form of branding and the rest of it was never taught by WSOs that just buying a domain name gets you ranking. Go figure. Next you might be shocked to find out how low the decimal is for people who have bought a WSO. Your point is just utterly silly. In order for an update to be real it must affect all serps. Under a particular threshhold (hypocritically referencing Cutts as reliable now)means it wasn't real. Where do you come up with these leaps of logic?

                          No...Go learn something about the industry and percentages .6 or 1 or 2% (when you decide which figure suits you) still affects MILLIONS of serps.

                          The simple point is, in among all the vitriol and anger, you still haven't actually:

                          1. Provided any evidence about WHY QHS.net is ranking in that position. Ok, it's a weak SERP
                          Now you are just lying. I've said repeatedly that it isn't ranking in the US or in parts of Europe and you have dodged non stop answering as to why the alleged effects change so dramatically. EMD effect turned off in some data centers? :rolleyes: In fact ALL your attempts have shown serps that are affected dramatically by Geo location. You just want to ignore or diminish it as something to look at.

                          The best you have done is claim that using AWR with proxies trumps me accessing Google through a server in the actual location through RDP - to which Mike just shakes his head and smiles.


                          The only reason I haven't provided more stats for more domains is because you will go into geo-rant mode again,
                          No you haven't done it again because you know how thoroughly ridiculous you were shown to be by trying to determine a serp by site trust without reference to the keyword being targeted. If I were you I would not want to repeat that error either.
                          Signature

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945202].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


                            Didn't I read somewhere that you can't trust Matt Cutts on anything? See people this is how the conspiracy mind works . Reject a source entirely but then accept it when it suits. Now apparently Matt Cutts is so reliable he knows the exact decimal but wait he's totally unreliable as to what the update was really about Pick and choose . Shake and shimmy.
                            No, you didn't, but behind all the vitriol and thinly disguised insults against my character for being a supposed newb, YOU STILL HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE CENTRAL POINT (what a surprise).

                            The central tenet of this thread is as follows, Mike: "exact match domains don't work". Now, you are basing this on what Matt Cutts has said, so I'm basing my argument on what Matt Cutts has said (or what, you just want me to ignore it, would that be easier for you?). Matt Cutts has claimed a 0.6% impact, which while it may be a sizable number of web queries, still doesn't lay claim to the fact EMDs don't work anymore (as you have been so passionately and emotionally claiming for the entirety of this thread), or they "only work in weak SERPs".

                            Further stats, SEOmoz has identified 41 queries out of 1,000 queries impacted - note Mike, basic arithmetic, that's NOT 1,000 out of 1,000 queries, it's 41 out of 1,000

                            Do you need me to draw that in crayon for you, or is it starting to sink in?

                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                            I'll grant that it must have been a great shock to you that everyone was not using EMDS to rank but most of the world does some form of branding and the rest of it was never taught by WSOs that just buying a domain name gets you ranking. Go figure. Next you might be shocked to find out how low the decimal is for people who have bought a WSO. Your point is just utterly silly. In order for an update to be real it must affect all serps. Under a particular threshhold (hypocritically referencing Cutts as reliable now)means it wasn't real. Where do you come up with these leaps of logic?
                            Now I use WSOs? A minute ago you were having a go at the fact I've only been a member for a month and through virtue of that, implying I'm some sort of newb; we do know after all, that anyone with anything to do with SEO posts on the Warrior Forum on a regular basis :rolleyes:

                            Now I do nothing but exclusively use EMDs? What planet are you living on? Where did I say that? More twisting. I actually said I barely even use them anymore - yet another instance of NOT READING. Winning the argument is clearly more important than the actual facts to you - you've clearly been a victim of your own self-asserted SEO superstardom selling a PBN guide, while in fairness, I know actual SEOs, who base things on facts and evidence, rather than conjecture and speculation i.e. that there are still EMDs in existence and that this update didn't even impact 1% of queries. THOSE are the facts.

                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                            Now you are just lying. I've said repeatedly that it isn't ranking in the US or in parts of Europe and you have dodged non stop answering as to why the alleged effects change so dramatically. In fact ALL your attempts have shown serps that are affected dramatically by Geo location. You just want to ignore or diminish it as something to look at.

                            The best you have done is claim that using AWR with proxies trumps me accessing Google through a server in the actual location through RDP - to which Mike just shakes his head and smiles.
                            What's next Mike, my Dad is bigger than your dad? Laughable that a "reputable WF member" would stoop to these levels. Proxies via AWR is a perfectly legitimate way to perform queries and retrieve non-personalised results (much like AdPreview) - there are hundreds of ways to ensure non-personalised results are returned. I'm actually sat here in the UK, typing queries too - you're clearly not seeing it (or rather more importantly choosing not to see it).

                            Would you like me to prepare a video for you, you know to show you visually, the ranking in place?

                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                            No you haven't done it again because you know how thoroughly ridiculous you were shown to be by trying to determine a serp by site trust without reference to the keyword being targeted. If I were you I would not want to repeat that error either.
                            Ah, because telling someone they've been made to look "thoroughly ridiculous" makes it the case - please, where do you get these debating tactics? How to lose friends and alienate people? Or are you selling it as a guide on your website? You are a REALLY defensive person, I would employ your tact of twisting things but ultimately, there's no point in being lowered to your level - you'd just wear me down and beat me with experience (there, something else for you to misquote).

                            The keyword was referenced (keyword(s) actually, most of which were just marked off by you as having low search volume and ergo irrelevant, WOW, GREAT competitive analysis, Mike) you CHOSE to ignore it and hide behind the "I can't see it" excuse - nonsense.

                            The simple point is, and to save any further animosity, I'm happy to let you have the last word (you're clearly dying to have it) - providing you leave it at that. From there, we will just have to agree to disagree.
                            Signature
                            FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945275].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                              The central tenet of this thread is as follows, Mike: "exact match domains don't work". Now, you are basing this on what Matt Cutts has said, so I'm basing my argument on what Matt Cutts has said
                              Sigh...lies..lies and more lies. I never "based" my argument on what Matt said, I based it on the countless people who sites dropped. I've said so countless times. You are just descending into total dishonesty now. sad.

                              spin on a dime. You are trying to make a point on Cutts percentage after claiming he is not to be trusted on anything. Its totally logically incoherent

                              Now I use WSOs? A minute ago you were having a go at the fact I've only been a member for a month and through virtue of that, implying I'm some sort of newb
                              I made a point that I trust Search engine land and SEOmoz over a poster that I don't know when you implied they were not to be trusted. I stand by it. I'll say it again if you like. No apologies. As a matter of fact Search Engine Land does a pretty good job at reporting on SEO and the effects of algo updates.

                              Yes we do get people now and again rolling in here claiming their testing trumps all but for a reasonable SEO its a mix of self testing and listening to whats happening in the world. Because once you sit down and think the whole "I do my own testing" and going off solely that is totally flawed. No SEo no matter how he brags has enough sites to make up a statistically significant sample of something as large as the web. So as in your case factors affect self testing but you just don;t wish to see it. Besides your argument was selective anyway . you ignored that I recounted my own experience as well.

                              So do I think I am so great in my testing I don't listen to reports from trusted sites like SEL. No I'll leave that to people so brilliant they do competition analysis without reference to keywords targeted. Sorry its all just crappy SEO masquerading in self importance because of an arrogant assumption that self testing trumps what is happening to the rest of the world.


                              Now I do nothing but exclusively use EMDs? What planet are you living on? Where did I say that? More twisting. [B]I actually said I barely even use them anymore - yet another instance of NOT READING.
                              I probably should do less since what I am reading is gibberish. You were the one that expressed shock,. why would someone be surprised at an EMD update affecting .6-2% unless they felt far more people used them to rank than actually do? Your whole "it was this major update as you claim is just more lying. I made no point based on how Major it was. Just another case of manufacturing straw.

                              incidentally for someone crying about condescension your posts now are almost fully half nothing but personal attacks, bare faced, straight and consistent. You can hardly complain at tone or implication when you are in full vitriol mode
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945571].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                Sigh...lies..lies and more lies. I never "based" my argument on what Matt said, I based it on the countless people who sites dropped. I've said so countless times. You are just descending into total dishonesty now. sad.

                                spin on a dime. You are trying to make a point on Cutts percentage after claiming he is not to be trusted on anything. Its totally logically incoherent
                                Again, which sites, Mike? A war happened between 1939 and 1945 Mike - don't you think that sentence could do with a little, em, context? See what I'm saying? Great, sites have dropped but what does that mean, that suddenly because sites have dropped all EMDs have ceased to work? All EMDs have ceased to work despite your hero Matt Cutts stating it only affected 0.6% of queries and "low-quality" EMDs?

                                NEXT.

                                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                I made a point that I trust Search engine land and SEOmoz over a poster that I don't know when you implied they were not to be trusted. I stand by it. I'll say it again if you like. No apologies. As a matter of fact Search Engine Land does a pretty good job at reporting on SEO and the effects of algo updates.
                                Ok.

                                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                Yes we do get people now and again rolling in here claiming their testing trumps all but for a reasonable SEO its a mix of self testing and listening to whats happening in the world. Because once you sit down and think the whole "I do my own testing" and going off solely that is totally flawed. No SEo no matter how he brags has enough sites to make up a statistically significant sample of something as large as the web. So as in your case factors affect self testing but you just don;t wish to see it. Besides your argument was selective anyway . you ignored that I recounted my own experience as well.
                                Uh-huh what experience are you referring to, Mike? Again, talking with no specific detail to anything, just talking a whole lot without actually saying anything.

                                Ok, so now the data you rely on to judge the whole EMD experiment is fatally flawed? Or is this just a matter of you basing this alleged shift on your own opinion?

                                Point: it impacted 0.6% of queries, Mike. That's an ACTUAL point. Contest it. All your doing is talking in circles and going of on vitriolic rants.

                                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                So do I think I am so great in my testing I don't listen to reports from trusted sites like SEL. No I'll leave that to people so brilliant they do competition analysis without reference to keywords targeted. Sorry its all just crappy SEO masquerading in self importance because of an arrogant assumption that self testing trumps what is happening to the rest of the world.
                                Uh-huh, more insults and half-baked opinion - great way to prove your opinions. Again, try addressing the actual points, Mike?

                                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                I probably should do less since what I am reading is gibberish. You were the one that expressed shock,. why would someone be surprised at an EMD update affecting .6-2% unless they felt far more people used them to rank than actually do? Your whole "it was this major update as you claim is just more lying. I made no point based on how Major it was. Just another case of manufacturing straw.
                                Uh-huh, I didn't actually claim it was lies Mike, it's pretty clear if you actually did read ANYTHING I've posted (which time and time again it's been proven that you haven't), my single point is that this is far from being an update which has affected all web queries, and that EMDs still work.

                                You still haven't addressed this, or even bothered making a point.

                                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                incidentally for someone crying about condescension your posts now are almost fully half nothing but personal attacks, bare faced, straight and consistent. You can hardly complain at tone or implication when you are in full vitriol mode
                                I'm not even going to bother addressing that.

                                So, another great contribution that has entirely missed the same point I've been making for the last two posts (nay, the entire thread), which again, YOU HAVEN'T READ.

                                Try again.
                                Signature
                                FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945619].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                              What's next Mike, my Dad is bigger than your dad? Laughable that a "reputable WF member" would stoop to these levels. Proxies via AWR is a perfectly legitimate way to perform queries and retrieve non-personalised results (much like AdPreview) - there are hundreds of ways to ensure non-personalised results are returned. I'm actually sat here in the UK, typing queries too - you're clearly not seeing it (or rather more importantly choosing not to see it).
                              Seriously are you daft? How can an intelligent human being stoop to the level of claiming a software package doing reporting on results is as reliable as Accessing Google straight from a windows server sitting in europe being accessed by RDP?

                              I have checked it from europe,
                              I have checked it in Florida where I live
                              I have checked it form another server in Chicago

                              You ARE NOT RANKED in those locations. Deal with it and stop trying to intentionally or through ignorance deceive people. We will never agree to disagree on that.

                              Would you like me to prepare a video for you, you know to show you visually, the ranking in place?
                              Would you like me to prepare a video showing you how RDP to a server works? or do you not know what RDP is?

                              Ah, because telling someone they've been made to look "thoroughly ridiculous" makes it the case
                              ugh......You must think everyone here is a newb that you can fool. Me saying that assessing competition without reference to Keywords targeted on sites with trust is ridiculous is not what makes it ridiculous. Its the fact that everyone reading this who knows a lick of SEO already knows in order to assess competition you MUST look at the keywords that are being targeted by the sites not just look at their trust.

                              Sheesh debating tactic? lol... even on this board i seriously doubt you will find ANYONE that will join you in claiming that stats about trust that don't reference targeted keywords "cannot be contested"

                              Its total garbage and would be better for you to just distance yourself from rather than trying to defend. All I can think at this point is that you are hoping to fool newbs that because you put up some stats and graphs that say nothing of what you claim they will buy it. But no Gareth they are not all that stupid here. the graphs you put up must actually be sensible and relate to how competition analysis in a serp is done.
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945688].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                Point: it impacted 0.6% of queries, Mike. That's an ACTUAL point. Contest it. All your doing is talking in circles and going of on vitriolic rants.

                                This is some hilarious stuff . You still cite what Matt Cutts states as fact (and even now all Cap it as ACTUAL point) while still holding that what Matt cutts says cannot be trusted.

                                Why would I ever contest that bit of duplicitous logic? You can't make this comedy up. Nothing new in your last post that has not already been answered several times so I'll leave it there.
                                Signature

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945728].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                  This is some hilarious stuff . You still cite what Matt Cutts states as fact (and even now all Cap it as ACTUAL point) while still holding that what Matt cutts says cannot be trusted.

                                  Why would I ever contest that bit of duplicitous logic? You can't make this comedy up. Nothing new in your last post that has not already been answered several times so I'll leave it there.
                                  And still you haven't addressed the point Mike, you treat Matt Cutts as the credible source, what else am I supposed to do? You brought him into the thread.

                                  So, once again, address the point.
                                  Signature
                                  FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945752].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                    Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                                    And still you haven't addressed the point Mike, you treat Matt Cutts as the credible source, what else am I supposed to do? You brought him into the thread.
                                    You are back to bare faced lying (I would say that its a reading problem but I have corrected you on this before as to what my "base" was) - sbucciarel in post 6 brought Matt Cutts into the thread not me. Stop trying to fabricate things to escape you being nailed on the duplicity of relying on MC for your point while claiming MC is to be trusted on nothing.

                                    I have never made any point and said Matt Cutts said so it s a fact. I have said that COMBINED with real life EMDs falling like flies on the day of the update its strong evidence that Google followed through on what they said.
                                    Signature

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945781].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                                      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                      You are back to bare faced lying (I would say that its a reading problem but I have corrected you on this before as to what my "base" was) - sbucciarel in post 6 brought Matt Cutts into the thread not me. Stop trying to fabricate things to escape you being nailed on the duplicity of relying on MC for your point while claiming MC is to be trusted on nothing.

                                      I have never made any point and said Matt Cutts said so it s a fact. I have said that COMBINED with real life EMDs falling like flies on the day of the update its strong evidence that Google followed through on what they said.
                                      Again, not addressing the point, Mike.

                                      It affected 0.6% of queries. Your claim is that EMDs don't work, the basis for this belief is that you've seen "tons of website falling like flies". Great conjecture.

                                      SEOmoz has seen this update impact 41 our of 1,000 queries, great; that's not 1,000 queries.

                                      Matt Cutts states it affected 0.6% of queries and LOW QUALITY EMDs. Great, that leaves 99.4%.

                                      So, once again, address the point Mike - do you still claim that all EMDs are dead or that they only work in "weak SERPs"?
                                      Signature
                                      FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945808].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                        Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

                                        Again, not addressing the point, Mike.
                                        You don't get to determine any point that must be answered (even though it has been over and over again) - not when you are making up lies about me bringing Matt cutts into this thread, resort to duplicitious logic of holding Matt Cutts as an authority only when it suits you and repeatedly lying about the questions asked not being answered.

                                        Character is a bigger issue at all time in life much so more than disagreements. You mentioned the last word. I sense you want it. say the word. I draw the line at debating with people who hold on to their dishonesty rather than admitting when they fabricated the truth anyway.

                                        Matt Cutts states it affected 0.6% of queries and LOW QUALITY EMDs. Great, that leaves 99.4%.
                                        Good night. You do have logic issues. 99.4 is of QUERIES not EMDS

                                        do you still claim that all EMDs are dead
                                        Do you do anything but lie at this point? Where did I say all EMDS are dead. I'm on record that they can rank but not because they are EMDs. That where you came in post 33 making the grand claim

                                        Exact match domains are just as effective as they always have been
                                        which is pure crapola which you have failed in every instance to prove. Its that pronouncement that is the point of this thread. I could even live with the idea that Google missed some EMDs as I stated very early that another update would wipe out a site but that wasn't enough for the EMDs stillwork crowd. It had to be "just as effective as they have always been" which is total garbage.
                                        Signature

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945832].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                                          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                          You don't get to determine any point that must be answered (even though it has been over and over again) - not when you are making up lies about me bringing Matt cutts into this thread, resort to duplicitious logic of holding Matt Cutts as an authority only when it suits you and repeatedly lying about the questions asked not being answered.

                                          Character is a bigger issue at all time in life much so more than disagreements. You mentioned the last word. I sense you want it. say the word. I draw the line at debating with people who hold on to their dishonesty rather than admitting when they fabricated the truth anyway.
                                          Once again, not addressing the point, Mike.

                                          You mean I don't get to determine that the entire central point of the entire thread is addressed? Uh-huh.

                                          JEEZ, once again, NOT addressing this point - you are worse than a politician.

                                          Again Mike, address the actual point of the debate, address it.
                                          Signature
                                          FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945845].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                                          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                          You don't get to determine any point that must be answered (even though it has been over and over again) - not when you are making up lies about me bringing Matt cutts into this thread, resort to duplicitious logic of holding Matt Cutts as an authority only when it suits you and repeatedly lying about the questions asked not being answered.

                                          Character is a bigger issue at all time in life much so more than disagreements. You mentioned the last word. I sense you want it. say the word. I draw the line at debating with people who hold on to their dishonesty rather than admitting when they fabricated the truth anyway.



                                          Good night. You do have logic issues. 99.4 is of QUERIES not EMDS
                                          LOL. Mike, please, you can't escape actual stats released by Google's lead SEO spokeperson and Head of webspam.

                                          The EMD update addressed 0.6% of queries - that leaves 99.4% of queries, many of which will, it stands to reason, contain EMDs. Or are you saying only 0.6% of queries contain EMDs, if so why would Matt Cutts even say it? Because that would kind of be completely contrary to the point Cutts made.

                                          So, once again, Matt Cutts has stated the EMD update affected 0.6% of queries, that leaves 99.4% of queries which may or may not contain EMDs, which remain unaffected.

                                          So, once again, address the point, Mike.
                                          Signature
                                          FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945851].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                                            Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post


                                            The EMD update addressed 0.6% of queries - that leaves 99.4% of queries, many of which will, it stands to reason, contain EMDs. Or are you saying only 0.6% of queries contain EMDs, if so why would Matt Cutts even say it? Because that would kind of be completely contrary to the point Cutts made.
                                            WOW! you are showing how little you know about the SEO industry. I can confidently say your claim of eight years in this business is just bluster. WHENEVER (regardless of the kind) google does an update it generally reports on the amount of queries the update affects. In other words they compare the results before the change to after the change.

                                            Ebay.com ranks number one for Ebay before the EMD change and it ranks number one after (because it has other factors that keep it there) THERE IS NO CHANGE. For every single EMD serp that retains its position based on other factors THERE IS NO CHANGE and it does not fall under that .6 (and cutts has never said these projections were always accurate to the last decimal point)

                                            thats the whole point of Google stating low quality sites. Quality is relative to the position. Sites used to rank that didn't have the other signals to rank so you turn that down and sites rank where they should. it does NOT mean that every EMD changed or lost position. The ones with the quality - factors that still allow them to rank STAY put.

                                            so this subtraction nonsense you have going of it representing all EMDS is just that - nonsense. the changes in query measures changes in the serps not any percentage of EMDS many of them which would not move because their webmasters were not even aware in many cases of EMD. they chose the name to brand just like say - Best Buy.

                                            EZ peazy.
                                            Signature

                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945957].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
                                              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                              WOW! you are showing how little you know about the SEO industry. I can confidently say your claim of eight years in this business is just bluster. WHENEVER (regardless of the kind) google does an update it generally reports on the amount of queries the update affects. In other words they compare the results before the change to after the change.

                                              Ebay.com ranks number one for Ebay before the EMD change and it ranks number one after (because it has other factors that keep it there) THERE IS NO CHANGE. For every single EMD serp that retains its position based on other factors THERE IS NO CHANGE and it does not fall under that .6 (and cutts has never said these projections were always accurate to the last decimal point)

                                              thats the whole point of Google stating low quality sites. Quality is relative to the position. Sites used to rank that didn't have the other signals to rank so you turn that down and sites rank where they should. it does NOT mean that every EMD changed or lost position. The ones with the quality - factors that still allow them to rank STAY put.

                                              so this subtraction nonsense you have going of it representing all EMDS is just that - nonsense. the changes in query measures changes in the serps not any percentage of EMDS many of them which would not move because their webmasters were not even aware in many cases of EMD. they chose the name to brand just like say - Best Buy.

                                              EZ peazy.
                                              Are you now using eBay as an example of an exact match domain, Mike? Why? Quality is relative to the position? That's a great statement which is obviously true but entirely out of context - ADDRESS THE POINT, MIKE. THE CENTRAL POINT OF THE THREAD.

                                              Granted, the quality domains have stayed put, that's implicit acknowledgement, good, getting somewhere.

                                              "they chose the name to brand just like say - Best Buy." That's not a coherent sentence, much like the rest of your post, which is made up of loosely formed fragments and no actual central point.

                                              Ultimately, you've again danced around the issue - 99.4% of queries remain unaffected i.e. pretty much everything.

                                              You say it's not to the decimal point, ok I'm sorry, 99% of queries remain unaffected, is that better for you?

                                              What an ego. You're wrong, just admit it.
                                              Signature
                                              FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945999].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            The forums here and elsewhere were filled with people with EMDs claiming they got slapped. I had two customers effected at that time and again only they had EMDs. Sorry but you guys are just living in denial and I got to say switching your customer over to an EMD if it was for SEO purposes was some really bad SEO. Tomorrow GOogle could make another tweak and bye bye clients site.
            Again, the same could be said with ANYTHING, Mike - probability of risk, sure, but the client isn't necessarily going to be penalised through virtue of having an EMD, THAT would be mental and nonsensical. I also don't take the idea that EMDs are bad SEO advice, ok so Google may decide one day to remove the weighting and the client drops back to a non-EMD position, what's lost? By that point I've probably done enough brilliant work to cement strong visibility across hundreds of queries, anyway, with an ROI long since established

            The forums may well be filled with EMD owners crying into their pillows, however the forums are also full of non-EMD owners crying into their pillows. There was a lot of crying, forum-wide, in 2012, I'm sure

            As noted above, I can't let this one go as a mere matter of coincidence i.e. EMDs still ranking prominently (even if we're looking at weak SERP, though for me 1,000 high value searches per month couldn't be construed as a weak SERP) so we can either argue in a circle or agree to disagree...
            Signature
            FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7943610].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PaulBaker
    Originally Posted by FakeItTilYouMakeIt View Post

    Garanthony is already over???
    LMAO

    Anyway, carry on gentlemen.
    Signature

    Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is: CLICK HERE

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945286].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
      Originally Posted by PaulBaker View Post

      LMAO

      Anyway, carry on gentlemen.
      To be honest, at this stage the only thing this "debate" is achieving is increasing the number of LT variations around "do EMDs still work" hitting this page.

      Facts and stats from official sources (which were used to back up the initial argument, I didn't bring them in) are irrelevant when there's a gigantic warrior-ego in the way.
      Signature
      FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945295].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author PaulBaker
        Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

        To be honest, at this stage the only thing this "debate" is achieving is increasing the number of LT variations around "do EMDs still work" hitting this page.
        Personally, I don't come here for facts. I come because I enjoy a good mass debate.
        Signature

        Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is: CLICK HERE

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945317].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jensha
          Originally Posted by PaulBaker View Post

          Personally, I don't come here for facts. I come because I enjoy a good mass debate.
          Hear hear!
          As the OP I just want to say I've been following this thread and WOW!
          What a sparked up debate huh?
          Been reading all posts from Mike and Gar... Gareth and I sure love taking notes for the points made by both parties.

          I just want to add that I made a simple experiment too.
          I don't know if this will work how it should or if I'll have enough time for this but I registered an EMD and a branded domain name.
          Waiting for both to be indexed and I'm putting contents to both.
          They are in the same niche.

          Any by the way, does everything here we talked about still works if we are talking about EMD and branded names in free hosting sites?

          i.e. bestpencil.blogger.com or branded.com

          I saw a free WSO and it seems that's the point it's trying to make.

          It's not going to work the same right?
          Because it's a different story now if we put EMD in . blogger . com right?
          Or maybe not a story worth talking about at all.
          Anyway, just curious about it really.
          I'm still following this thread, I think that's just right I started this whole funny intellectual mess of internet marketing information for newbies like me.

          P.S. I really wanted to thank everyone that participated but I can't click the thank you button anymore, I guess.

          Cheers!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7955430].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Jensha
            Originally Posted by FakeItTilYouMakeIt View Post

            Hey I'm building a collection to sell as a DVD here on WF. Need you to bully a few more newbs and I'll be ready to debut. Going to call it: "Diary of a WF Newb: Trial by Mike"
            Ha ha ha! lol. Hope this really comes out for real Peace out y'all!

            Originally Posted by nightrider85 View Post

            I'm not an EMD specialist anyway but EMD still work..

            Drawer Dishwasher Reviews 2012-2013

            one of my little site with basic onpage optimization..and rank at page #1 now for that keyword...

            Any EMD specialist here !!! I'm also looking for more info bout this..
            And another WOW mate. I typed drawer dishwasher reviews (review works too) and your site is in the 1st page ranked 4th!

            The hell!

            Garanthony works! And I'm saying this in a good way.
            Mike's points for EMD not working anymore are legit and you can tell easily why if you read all their posts when both of them are debating.

            I don't know why Mike's arguments with EMD doesn't work with drawer dishwasher review.

            And that's not all why as so far I'm with Garanthony on EMD.

            You will notice that drawerdishwasher review has content and that can be a reason why it's at the first page and not because of the EMD.

            Why I'm saying this?

            Because I found another EMD site THAT HAS NO FRIGGING USEFUL CONTENT AT ALL!!! AND IS STILL RANKED 3RD ON GOOLE ON PAGE 1!!!

            Waaa!!! For me that's a solid evidence that Garanthony wins the debate because the EMDs works!

            So what's the link that I'm talking about besides drawerdishwasherreviews.com?

            I figure you won't just believe me so check out the keywords "bleach episode guide" on how will it rank in your keyword research tools then go to bleachepisodeguide.net

            bleachepisodeguide.net is in 1st page of Googe, ranked 3rd and unlike drawer that has good article content too, bleach only has a picture of a gorgeous lady. I think it's Taylor Swift but I dunno.

            The point is here we have two EMD.
            One with good useful content (drawerdishwasher) and the other without useful content (beachepisodeguide).
            Yet both are on the 1st page of Google.

            This is insane after all those debate!

            Talk about defying laws on Google's EMD update. BOOM!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7955513].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
    Mike, you have still not addressed the point.

    Still.

    I'm clearly giving you too much information to process at once, so lets just ignore all of your other opinions and get to the actual point. Once again, go.

    Point: it impacted 0.6% of queries, Mike. That's an ACTUAL point. Contest it. All your doing is talking in circles and going off on vitriolic rants.
    Signature
    FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7945702].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WeavingThoughts
    Most of the searches I get on page 1 are some variation of an emd.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946063].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pdrs
    I have no proof one way or another really, but in my experience, especially if I'm doing a bit of churn n' burn, i'll take an EMD over a branded any day...
    Signature
    RemoteControlHelicopterReviews.(com/net) - Up for sale! No reasonable offer refused. Great branding for a super hot niche!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946086].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by pdrs View Post

      I have no proof one way or another really, but in my experience, especially if I'm doing a bit of churn n' burn, i'll take an EMD over a branded any day...
      Depends on how you do link building. I can tell you one way in which people here do link building where it may make it look like the EMD has a bonus effect and that is there are a lot of backlink sites where you cannot drop anchor text. but you can drop URL. If the anchor text is in the URL then that is a plus but its not based on the EMD but the link building

      Other thing is people tend to do extensive keyword research when using an EMDs and go for very weak terms to begin with so theres that correlation as well.

      I've had non emds with good keyword research that hit front page just as well.

      Third as I said at the beginning its likely that Google will do an update ( that is if they feel they didn't get all emds they wanted to or depending on how they do it whether its something refreshed from time to time for new domains).they have never done just one update to fix an issue.

      So to me its just a losing proposition all around. One of the example serps listed here has a non emd ranking above the EMds with just some scuzzy links on one. The other Emd being outranked is a PR2 it has even better links.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946143].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


        Third as I said at the beginning its likely that Google will do an update ( that is if they feel they didn't get all emds they wanted to or depending on how they do it whether its something refreshed from time to time for new domains).they have never done just one update to fix an issue.
        Right, but that's hypothetical Mike (i.e. they may do something), stay on point.

        The simple point is, at this present moment in time, NOT all EMDs have been targeted, and a very significant portion of queries haven't been targeted, and it stands to reason that within those queries there's a significant portion of EMDs which haven't been targeted.

        So, in the here and now i.e. the present day, and ignoring hypotheticals, there are EMDs in among the 99.4% of queries that still work and still capitalise on an EMD boost.
        Signature
        FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946160].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author FakeItTilYouMakeIt
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946503].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Nice sensible post Makeit. You understand the difference between percentage of queries and EMDs. Heres the thing. the Percentage is iffy in so many ways.

      Right of the bat as your report indicates Cutts actually said

      "affects .6% of English US queries to a NOTICEABLE degree"

      What Google means by noticeable is not even clear. Is google including long tails that the average user would not be searching for or is this a metric of a set of "noticeable" queries that google considers public facing as in more popular searches. Then theres what noticeable means for even popular searches. Only position six disappearing may not be "noticeable"

      Then is this a comparison immediately before or after or as is often the case data from months ago. You raise the legitimate issue of seasonal searches. More product searches leading up to Christmas and the holidays included or not?

      Finally despite the BARE FACED lying in this thread by a certain poster (sorry Liars really tick me off. Confirmed and unrepentant ones even more) NO ONE in this thread has ever said they believe everything that Matt Cutts says or believes anything just because Matt says it. I've been here three years and no one will ever find me stating such a ridiculous thing. Am I a Google conpsiracy buff that claims everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. No to that too.

      So as it turns out I trust Google the least when it comes to numbers affected. we have all seen google claim a small percentage will be affected and it turns out to be like 40% of marketers or even more if you judge by the screaming from almost every marketer. I don't think Google will ever come out and claim this affects most of the serps because it would be an admission to the world of how badly their serps had to be fixed. Not that that has any role in the EMD issue because frankly outside of internet marketers there wasn't much use for using EMDs to rank anyway. Most companies even small business make sites around their company name not a keyword. SO the numebers affected were always going to be small (but loom large for marketers).

      Finally like I have said about four times now. When has Google ever did an update once. SO first I sure would like to see some serps where the EMD doesn't disappear from datacenter to datacenter (that tells me other things are affecting ranking) and then It would be nice for people to be a little more responsible, honest and realistic before claiming That EMDs work "just as well as they always have"

      This is just wishful thinking for some and pre sales for others. I can buy the possibility (if someone gave some good evidence) that Google missed some EMDs. It would hardly be the first time an algo didn't correct all the problems in one go but to claim that this is a viable way to rank and even claim status quo when tomorrow Google can throw the switch on a tweak to an update they already have used is just totally irresponsible to me and totally unecessary to put people at risk with.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946672].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by FakeItTilYouMakeIt View Post


        @Mike Not this time, because I happen to agree with you. You might get one from Gareth though if you keep badgering him. Fingers crossed!
        Yeah like you won't be holding the camera and writing the script. lol
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7946754].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author FakeItTilYouMakeIt
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          Yeah like you won't be holding the camera and writing the script. lol
          Hey I'm building a collection to sell as a DVD here on WF. Need you to bully a few more newbs and I'll be ready to debut. Going to call it: "Diary of a WF Newb: Trial by Mike"
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7949513].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Backlinko
        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post


        Right of the bat as your report indicates Cutts actually said

        "affects .6% of English US queries to a NOTICEABLE degree"
        When interpreting numbers like that we also have to take into account the number of commercial queries that .6% represents....

        It's always funny how when Cuts says that "3.1% of searches affected" it always seems that translate to "80% of WarriorForum sites affected".

        Part of that has to do with the fact that we're SEOs and push the envelope more than your average webmaster.

        But it's also because the site we run target commercial terms.

        No one is registering EMDs like "howcanimakemyseatbeltmorecomfortable.net".... even if lots of people search for that.

        So that .6% may actually be more significant than it looks as it might target a disproportionate amount of commercial terms.
        Signature
        Find Awesome Keywords...Without ANY Tools
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7949379].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
          Originally Posted by Backlinko View Post

          When interpreting numbers like that we also have to take into account the number of commercial queries that .6% represents....

          It's always funny how when Cuts says that "3.1% of searches affected" it always seems that translate to "80% of WarriorForum sites affected".

          Part of that has to do with the fact that we're SEOs and push the envelope more than your average webmaster.

          But it's also because the site we run target commercial terms.

          No one is registering EMDs like "howcanimakemyseatbeltmorecomfortable.net".... even if lots of people search for that.

          So that .6% may actually be more significant than it looks as it might target a disproportionate amount of commercial terms.
          It's hypothetical though - what frustrates me, is everyone is making a justification that EMDs are 'dead' and in spite of the fact that the .6 stat has been quoted by THE authoritative figurehead, when in reality, if that stat were to have been applied in any other industry or sector, or in any other context, people would say: "0.6%, who cares?".

          However, for whatever reason, the witch hunt against EMDs is permeating on this forum; like I've said numerous times, I barely even use EMDs any more, other than for testing purposes i.e. to check specific link building mechanisms or sites. That said, based on the data available, and the relatively small number of queries being targeted, it stands to reason that the questions I've raised in this thread should be at the very least asked, not shot down. It's by no means as clear cut as some would believe/put across, if it were it wouldn't have provoked anything like as much debate.

          To be honest, I'm finding it hard not to comment further on this, I've addressed these points earlier and Mike and I will go into loggerhead mode about this again, which is ultimately pointless - we're never going to agree.
          Signature
          FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7949502].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by Gareth Mailer View Post

            It's hypothetical though
            Whats hypothetical? The word "Noticeable". DO you wish to pretend that you gave a complete and accurate quote of what Matt said? You clean left out the rest of the quote.

            what frustrates me, is everyone is making a justification that EMDs are 'dead'
            Gareth I will tell you the truth. If people even said EMDs had some use and left it there I wouldn't oppose it the way I do but people like you and others were not content to say that. You come in and make ridiculous claims that EMDS work just as well as they always have. Its just misleading and fooling people. Here we are on page three and you still have not pointed to a good EMD that makes your case. Instead in every instance when we change the locations the ranking of the EMD you point out in the UK vanishes. Why is that important? Because there is no way the EMD benefit should disappear if its in the algo. We have one where the non Emds outrank the emds you point at - just by changing the city we access Google from.

            However, for whatever reason, the witch hunt against EMDs is permeating on this forum;
            There is no witch hunt. Heres the wider issue Gareth, You are just another one in a long line of promoters of "nothings happened. nothings changed"

            There are people running around on this forum saying

            spamming links still works
            Spinning garbage still works
            Forum profiles still works
            Angela backlinks still work
            spamming keywords still work

            Shucks stick around and we will see together someone claiming meta tags and invisible text works. Good thing BMR closed down otherwise there would be people saying that BMR still works and deindexed domain links have ranking power.

            and I tell you what is so silly about all of this?

            Somewhere on these internets THERE IS A SITE RANKING THAT HAS A GOOD PROPORTION OF DEINDEXED SITE LINKS and is ranking. Its just the nature of dealing with billions of pages with an almost infinite number of possible queries from humans. GARBAGE WILL RANK IN SOME SERP FOR SOME KEYWORDS.

            Does that prove that deindexed sites have ranking power? :rolleyes:

            Don't believe me? Rewind to last year and there were people weeks and months after their favorite blog network service got deindexed that were claiming the services still worked

            So that example isn't even a hypothetical. Dude what you are doing is just one in a long line of people who trash up this forum and its part of a culture that allows and fools people into buying into garbage. Your not selling a WSO but you are promoting the same kind of thinking that has launched a thousand crappy SEO WSOs. They all point to some serp and claim that this result here or there PROVES their garbage works.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7957570].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Gareth Mailer
              Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

              Whats hypothetical? The word "Noticeable". DO you wish to pretend that you gave a complete and accurate quote of what Matt said? You clean left out the rest of the quote.
              No, Mike - there isn't a conspiracy, you don't need to pick holes in absolutely EVERYTHING and there isn't always a need to see the worst in everything and everyone (you choose to do that), all that we're left with is a very accurate reflection on reality: you could start an argument in an empty room.

              The conversation is OVER - I know your opinion, you know mine, I disagree completely with you, you disagree completely with me. Or is this more a case that you just can't stand the fact that someone won't come round to your way of thinking? Because I won't, not in a million years; not if hell freezes over. So on that basis, you're wasting your time, and your wasting mine - do something productive; haven't you got clients to look after or something?

              LET IT GO *or are you now going to argue that I haven't let it go? Or maybe you want to argue that you let it go first?

              It's done. #peace.
              Signature
              FREE SEO E-BOOK: 20,000 words, 5 hours of video. To be delivered 22nd May, 2013 - click here to get it now.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7957837].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Seriously Gareth. totally worthless post. A totally argumentative post claiming that you are done arguing? Really?

                I've said it before Gareth . Somehow you missed it. I post for others particularly new people - Has nothing to do with convincing you.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7958010].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CleanSEO
    Banned
    Run Jensha, run now! lmao

    No but seriously... these are keyword phrases with basically no competition. I could probably rank a blank wordpress site for "purple speckled camel saddles" and that could be the only text on the page because no one is searching for that and no one cares to rank for it. Google sees that combination of words and since I'm the only site in town (planet earth) that has them then I auto-rank. Google doesn't like to just shrug at people and say "sorry can't help you"... they want to match the searchers query if possible and if the only option is my crappy emd then they'll serve that up.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7955528].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jensha
      Originally Posted by CleanSEO View Post

      Run Jensha, run now! lmao

      No but seriously... these are keyword phrases with basically no competition. I could probably rank a blank wordpress site for "purple speckled camel saddles" and that could be the only text on the page because no one is searching for that and no one cares to rank for it. Google sees that combination of words and since I'm the only site in town (planet earth) that has them then I auto-rank. Google doesn't like to just shrug at people and say "sorry can't help you"... they want to match the searchers query if possible and if the only option is my crappy emd then they'll serve that up.
      lmao!

      Hi, okay. thanks for telling me that I appreciate it.

      But if that site that has a crappy EMD then doesn't that mean EMD works? can you enlighten me more upon that matter please?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7957295].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Which one of you guys is the EMD specialists?





















    [j/k]
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7958240].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      Which one of you guys is the EMD specialists
      You want the title you can take it

      Or Gareth can if he wants it. He's a good guy. You'd never know it but we agree on a great deal from what I see of his other posts.
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7960031].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author webrankingservices
    Banned
    EMD would work if you do it right. Do not stuff EMD all over the place. You need to have more and more LSI stuffed to make it work
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7978889].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author goodfella22
    emd still works for commercial keywords I ranked a site 1st just last month, just because its emd doesn't mean google penalizes the site.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8143517].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Hansons
      Originally Posted by goodfella22 View Post

      emd still works for commercial keywords I ranked a site 1st just last month, just because its emd doesn't mean google penalizes the site.
      Of course, EMD still ranks, the thing is you need to do quality work.
      Signature

      Is your website Hacked? Try -> www.sitebeak.com
      Is Google Analytics installed Properly? Test -> www.GAtective.com
      Impersonal Google search? Check -> www.impersonal.me

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8143990].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author smodha
    My EMDs are still ranking. As long as you build the right backlinks they still rank well. Gone are the days of Google Sniper when 2/3 posts and a social bookmarking gig got you to number #1
    Signature
    I Sell What People Want. The Money Is A Bonus..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8144454].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Diffusr
    As a random observer, here's my take-away from this rather epic thread:

    EMD's may or may not provide an automatic advantage in G's ranking algo, but even if you consider them to be neutral in that regard, there are still benefits in making use of them.

    For example, if you are pencilsharpener.com and you are ranked one below smithsupplies.com, the user's eye might very well be caught by the relevance of your domain name, causing a higher ctr even though you are ranked lower.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8187380].message }}

Trending Topics