49 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
49 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Matt Cutts New Tweet: Which Small Sites Should Rank Better

by shanrocks1985
41 replies
  • SEO
    • |
Hey Warrior,

Matt tweeted it last night:



What is your Reaction?
If you like to participate in this survey , Use below link

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Czw...VxVS4/viewform

Regards
Shan
#cutts #matt #rank #sites #small #tweet
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    Absolute waste of time. States directly its not going to affect your ranking and since I have seen many people's sites here the more likely thing to change is that you put your site on Google's radar and get a manual penalty.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8451147].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author hipeopo02
      "small site"?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8451195].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Thack
      Agree,

      Never trust big G. A manual review is the last thing you want. It,s more like...

      " Hey all you seo guys that follow me on twitter. Please let us know who you are and give us your domains so we can study how you are trying to game our system. I will then crush you."

      Who else follows Matt on Twitter other than a couple family members, some ass kissing co workers looking for a promotion, and thousands of people trying to improve their site in rankings.

      They would love a list of sites from the seo group to monitor trends.

      Just my two cents.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8451197].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author hipeopo02
        Originally Posted by Thack View Post

        A manual review is the last thing you want.
        Do manual reviews always have negative effects?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8451782].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author gnd5969
        Originally Posted by Thack View Post

        " Hey all you seo guys that follow me on twitter. Please let us know who you are and give us your domains so we can study how you are trying to game our system. I will then crush you."

        Who else follows Matt on Twitter other than a couple family members, some ass kissing co workers looking for a promotion, and thousands of people trying to improve their site in rankings.
        I'm not sure why but this cracked me up. Probably something I would say. Thanks for the laugh.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8498978].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Oranges
    Honey Trap. Period.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8451665].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author royalstar23
    haha, Well they have alot of websites as survery in to the database, They will do nothing.. It is just the think to keep people busy.. So that they do nothing and still they think they did everything...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8451762].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Arowana
    I have nothing to loss. I submitted two websites that were penalized by the EMD update. Will report if it makes any different...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8451801].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
      Originally Posted by Arowana View Post

      I have nothing to loss. I submitted two websites that were penalized by the EMD update. Will report if it makes any different...
      No need to report. we know it won't. Says very clearly

      To be clear, we're just collecting feedback at this point; for example, don't expect this survey to affect any site's ranking
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8452076].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Levanduski
    He's going to get SO MANY posts for sites. They will largely ignore it.

    If Google REALLY wanted to help people with small sites which should be ranking better, they would incorporate it into webmaster tools somehow.

    Michael
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8452017].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seobuzz
    By doing all these, they simply collect data which they will use while their next update. And no doubt the webmasters who submit their data, are the first to fall victim of those update. Same is true for Google disavow tool.
    Signature
    SecondIncomeBlog.com
    Ideas and Techniques to Make Money Online
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8452392].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author natebunger
    I believe this is for them to gather data for their machine learning of their algorithm. I've already read comments on the internet that they are submitting their websites already. Has anyone submitted their websites here? I know there won't be any changes but I think this is reasonable if the goal here is to see the flaws of their results.
    Signature
    ##ATTENTION##
    Do You Hate Writing Sales Copy?
    I create killer copy for squeeze pages, video scripts, email auto-responders and sales pages. Click here to see reviews.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8452512].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author smodha
    Signature
    I Sell What People Want. The Money Is A Bonus..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8452943].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SoCal Digital
    This tweet is really interesting, I don't know if it is a way to say "Hey look at me" to Google or if its a way to get your website flagged?
    Signature

    Search engine optimization and social media marketing services http://www.socaldigitalmarketing.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8453026].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SoCal Digital
    Lol just saw smodha's post and I agree!
    Signature

    Search engine optimization and social media marketing services http://www.socaldigitalmarketing.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8453028].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trade4861
    The only thing that tweet affirms is that they rig search results so that small sites can't rank unless you build links.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8453093].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author hehehehe
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8453298].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author trade4861
        Originally Posted by hehehehe View Post

        This post affirms that you're really bad at interpreting things.

        No wait, you're right. The game is rigged. Your brand new 5 page site WOULD be #1 for all of your desired keywords, but sadly that ******* Cutts rigged it so Google is biased towards sites that have proven themselves by accruing age and establishing themselves as an authority. How silly!
        Five page site? My silly friend, I have hundreds of pages, all written by scholars or experts in their field. And yes, I am pretty much on first page and first listing for every one of those pages in Yahoo. I have no manual penalties on my site. Google went way overboard with all their updates. Went from 55,000 visitors a month to 13,000. But trust me when I say, Google is extremely bias. Also, I don't build links.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8454197].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author hehehehe
          Banned
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8455838].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author trade4861
            Originally Posted by hehehehe View Post

            If your site deserves to rank, it will rank. Period. Quit crying and blaming external factors like "it's rigged against me". Your victim complex will get you no where.

            Hopefully you can wrap your brain around the idea that there's more factors to consider when determining if a site deserves to rank than the content on the page.

            "But my content is da best! It's written by Stephen Hawking!"

            If it's the best then it will get linked to, and in time, it will rank well. Yes that's right - if you want to rank without "cheating", you will have to wait. SORRY BRO.

            I’ve invested nearly $12,000 into my not-for-profit website. Which is roughly $2,000 short of an average monthly income for me, based on the last 3 years of running my money sites. Crying? Hardly! I’m merely disappointed that all of what Matt Cutts has preached has, mostly, been a lie.

            “If your site deserves to rank, it will rank,” My site does rank in Yahoo, and does very well in Bing. I get many educational sites linking to me, tons of students that use easybib to cite pages on my website. Often have people reference my site on Yahoo answers and similar sites. Many people link to me on Facebook, and some of the intellect crowd sharing links on Riddet.

            Aside from that, let me tell you the truth of why I and so many others don’t rank in Google. Google was severely loosing the war on spam. This is why authority sites get the bulk of traffic. Authority sites are less likely to contain spam. So, Google gave preference to all the “large” authority sites, thus they rank higher in search results. This was the only way they could win against spam and make people believe that their search results were quality. All Google did was push non-authority sites so far down they hardly ever get noticed.

            Your ignorance is blinding you, I constantly check my competition. While some searches deserve respect, I can’t tell you how often I see sites like wikianswers ranking on the first page for just a question and no answer -- just a blank page of clickable adverts. This is a very common result in my niche. So often, all I see are empty pages on authority sites in Google’s top search results, or with just mediocre content. Or, searches almost entirely unrelated to the query.

            Trust me, I’m over the failure of my site, I’m merely expressing my opinion to the opening statement. I think it clearly supports my claim. The little guy has no chance! Or, unless you manually build links.

            If it's the best then it will get linked to, and in time, it will rank well. Are you telling me people are linking to empty pages on wikianswers? Well damn, I guess I've been doing this all wrong.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8456383].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Eduard
              Originally Posted by trade4861 View Post

              Google was severely loosing the war on spam. This is why authority sites get the bulk of traffic. Authority sites are less likely to contain spam. So, Google gave preference to all the "large" authority sites, thus they rank higher in search results. This was the only way they could win against spam and make people believe that their search results were quality. All Google did was push non-authority sites so far down they hardly ever get noticed.

              I constantly check my competition. While some searches deserve respect, I can't tell you how often I see sites like wikianswers ranking on the first page for just a question and no answer -- just a blank page of clickable adverts. This is a very common result in my niche. So often, all I see are empty pages on authority sites in Google's top search results, or with just mediocre content. Or, searches almost entirely unrelated to the query.
              This.

              I believe Google went way too far with the latest update.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8458844].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author online only
              Originally Posted by trade4861 View Post

              I’ve invested nearly $12,000 into my not-for-profit website. Which is roughly $2,000 short of an average monthly income for me, based on the last 3 years of running my money sites. Crying? Hardly! I’m merely disappointed that all of what Matt Cutts has preached has, mostly, been a lie.

              “If your site deserves to rank, it will rank,” My site does rank in Yahoo, and does very well in Bing. I get many educational sites linking to me, tons of students that use easybib to cite pages on my website. Often have people reference my site on Yahoo answers and similar sites. Many people link to me on Facebook, and some of the intellect crowd sharing links on Riddet.

              Aside from that, let me tell you the truth of why I and so many others don’t rank in Google. Google was severely loosing the war on spam. This is why authority sites get the bulk of traffic. Authority sites are less likely to contain spam. So, Google gave preference to all the “large” authority sites, thus they rank higher in search results. This was the only way they could win against spam and make people believe that their search results were quality. All Google did was push non-authority sites so far down they hardly ever get noticed.

              Your ignorance is blinding you, I constantly check my competition. While some searches deserve respect, I can’t tell you how often I see sites like wikianswers ranking on the first page for just a question and no answer -- just a blank page of clickable adverts. This is a very common result in my niche. So often, all I see are empty pages on authority sites in Google’s top search results, or with just mediocre content. Or, searches almost entirely unrelated to the query.

              Trust me, I’m over the failure of my site, I’m merely expressing my opinion to the opening statement. I think it clearly supports my claim. The little guy has no chance! Or, unless you manually build links.
              I think your last sentence sums it up.

              If you don't build legit links or don't have a large base of linkeratis/followers it's almost impossible to dive right into competitive niches and start getting gsearch traffic.

              But, for small guys - it's still possible to outrank huge authority sites. Pleasing Google and your visitors at the same time will get you to the top for sure. It won't happen overnight, but if you put enough effort in it you will get that sooner or later.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8461525].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
            Originally Posted by hehehehe View Post

            If your site deserves to rank, it will rank.
            While I generally agree with the 'stop whining' attitude - this statement was way off base.

            If you can't connect people to your site, nobody will link to it. Google isn't going to just magically decide the site is great and should rank when they have no external factors that indicate it should.

            It's a nice pipe dream to assume that every high quality site created will rank because it deserves to - but that isn't how things work in reality.

            At some point the webmaster has to get involved and promote his material. I'm not suggesting that purely means to build links to it, but promote it overall. Whether that's social, on forums, or in fact just building links to it.

            But with that having been said, no matter who is doing the link building/promotion, everyone still has to play by the same rules - which nobody but Google controls. So, when we don't have control over the rules that evaluate our site's ranking despite our best and most honest efforts there is no reason to blindly trust that all sites that 'deserve to rank' will.

            I can tell you are someone that likes to attack people by how you handled your response above and you can attack me if you want, but there is one of us conducting actual research and one of us is yelling incomplete and inaccurate bullshit at everyone who disagrees with them... so go ahead
            Signature
            Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
            http://www.godoveryou.com/
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8456399].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso


              While I generally agree with most of your blog post (awesome strategic thinking, btw) - I can't totally agree with this statement:

              Originally Posted by godoveryou View Post

              If you can't connect people to your site, nobody will link to it. Google isn't going to just magically decide the site is great and should rank when they have no external factors that indicate it should.
              Google ranks sites with virtually zero backlinks. They do it often, and test their stuff. If their stuff shows site deserves to stay there, it will stay, for some weeks/months, while testing is underway, and while backlinks start showing up - real or manipulated

              And Google uses a lot of different "external factors" to analyze a site. Truth is, most people don't think about them or even uses them, but they exist. Example, you analyzed a "real life" backlink cycle in your blogpost, right? So, take that approach for a new brand... and you'll understand how some of these "real life signals" can, and will, make Google love you.

              I won't discuss this publicly, but I am sure a "tester" like yourself will dig deeper and see what gives.
              Signature
              People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8459866].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post



                Google ranks sites with virtually zero backlinks. They do it often, and test their stuff. If their stuff shows site deserves to stay there, it
                Sorry my man but thats just fantasy La la land stuff.

                Show me a competitive serp where a site with zero backlinks ranks. Thats just totally deceptive to newbies reading this thread. Sure you can find some obscure keyword or reference a site that occasionally outranks another based on QDF but what you said there is just flat out wrong. To this day a site with quality backlinks will almost always outrank a site with none given they are properly targeted for the keyword.

                Furthermore its just science fiction to maintain that ANY company has an algo that can determine good content for human beings. Google has ABSOLUTELY ZERO ability in their algo to determine the difference between passable content and great content.

                They may have some things that can look at grammar, synonyms,spelling and Titles but No nothing that can look at a page and say - Aha this is great content for human beings. Thats because up to this time in history no computer program can determine the difference in quality between an episode of Sponge Bob Square pants and Moby Dick.
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8460252].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
                  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                  Sorry my man but thats just fantasy La la land stuff.
                  You're telling me you never saw a brand new site ranking top 10 for a competitive keyword "with virtually zero backlinks"?

                  Thats just totally deceptive to newbies reading this thread.
                  Hmmm, nop.

                  It turns deceptive when you quote a line from a longer idea, which is kind of funny, cause normally thats what people do when they have nothing to say about the WHOLE idea:

                  Google ranks sites with virtually zero backlinks. They do it often, and test their stuff. If their stuff shows site deserves to stay there, it will stay, for some weeks/months, while testing is underway, and while backlinks start showing up - real or manipulated

                  And Google uses a lot of different "external factors" to analyze a site. Truth is, most people don't think about them or even uses them, but they exist. Example, you analyzed a "real life" backlink cycle in your blogpost, right? So, take that approach for a new brand... and you'll understand how some of these "real life signals" can, and will, make Google love you.

                  I won't discuss this publicly, but I am sure a "tester" like yourself will dig deeper and see what gives.
                  And Mike, if you need proof, go get them. Build your own test ship and see what gives. I won't say more then said above: take that approach for a new brand... and you'll understand how some of these "real life signals" can, and will, make Google love you.
                  Signature
                  People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8461144].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                    Originally Posted by Fernando Veloso View Post

                    You're telling me you never saw a brand new site ranking top 10 for a competitive keyword "with virtually zero backlinks"?
                    Stop blowing smoke. Almost all the regulars here know you are. If the serps are so full of them then give an example. Why won't you? because you have no example in a competitive serp.:rolleyes:. You are doing what every flakey WSo does. Making claims based on some weak old serp and then claiming your thesis works as a general principle.


                    It turns deceptive when you quote a line from a longer idea, which is kind of funny, cause normally thats what people do when they have nothing to say about the WHOLE idea:
                    No its what people do when they know that the people reading have already read your post. I do not have to quote an entire post in order to respond to it. thats nonsense and frankly dishonest to then use that and claim deception on my part.

                    And Mike, if you need proof, go get them. Build your own test ship and see what gives. I won't say more then said above
                    Sure sign that you are blowing pure smoke. When asked for evidence for your own assertions you dodge and then claim the other person must go test it. Didn't you? so where is your evidence? I might as well come on the forums and claim if you include the name "Matt Cutts" your site will rank higher. NO? Go build your own test ship.

                    There are not enough hours in a day to test every nonsense thesis someone on a forum can come up with. further the serps already show that backlinks are necessary to rank most sites and every person reading this knows that artificial intlligence has not come to the point where a computer can determine what is best quality content for humans.

                    If You were blowing any more smoke people would think airplanes had hit two sky scrapers again.
                    Signature

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8461193].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Fernando Veloso
                      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                      Stop blowing smoke. Almost all the regulars here know you are. If the serps are so full of them then give an example. Why won't you? because you have no example in a competitive serp.:rolleyes:. You are doing what every flakey WSo does. Making claims based on some weak old serp and then claiming your thesis works as a general principle.



                      No its what people do when they know that the people reading have already read your post. I do not have to quote an entire post in order to respond to it. thats nonsense and frankly dishonest to then use that and claim deception on my part.



                      Sure sign that you are blowing pure smoke. When asked for evidence for your own assertions you dodge and then claim the other person must go test it. Didn't you? so where is your evidence? I might as well come on the forums and claim if you include the name "Matt Cutts" your site will rank higher. NO? Go build your own test ship.

                      There are not enough hours in a day to test every nonsense thesis someone on a forum can come up with. further the serps already show that backlinks are necessary to rank most sites and every person reading this knows that artificial intlligence has not come to the point where a computer can determine what is best quality content for humans.

                      If You were blowing any more smoke people would think airplanes had hit two sky scrapers again.
                      You REALLY believe I would publicly bug it for you? You think I am stupid or what? If you want to test it, grab a company starting right now, build their corporate site, and do your sh#t with "virtually zero backlinks" and see if they GET higher rankings for competitive keywords or not.

                      If not, then you must realize this is not 2003, and you can rank sites with LESS backlinks, and more "relationships". Blowing smoke again Mike? Oh poor guy. I must explain in detail, right? Otherwise I am blowing smoke. Guess I must detail what clever people do, instead of buying backlinks in a forum. Right?

                      Wrong.

                      You're the one stuck in 2003, and you're the one demanding proof - when in fact YOU can have all the proof YOU wanted, if you did SEO for bigger companies, or bigger projects, where people RUN AWAY from guys like you and your backlink theories.

                      Blowing smoke again, Mike? Right...

                      Regulars know I am?

                      Seriously Mike, you're damn right in that ^ ^ one:

                      Regulars WHO DON'T give a shit about SEO do know who I am, know my story from when I started my offline business in 2004, what we did back then, what we do these days, who we work for, size of online projects, and they know many things of my life, both personal and business - and they especially know I don't blowup smoke, especially in industry related stuff.

                      And they surely know I don't sell backlinks for a living, or need to blow some shit to the air to make money, like many people in this SEO (coff coff) sub-forum.

                      :rolleyes:

                      Sorry about the offtopic folks - go on with your scheduled programming.

                      I am so ****in out of here.

                      And Mike, as I know you're going to say "oh he was so blowing smoke, that's why he went away" etc etc, so please, tell us all again why you need to sell that thing you sell in your signature, when you could be making a killing doing it alone, no competition, and ranking ALL the sites you wanted, in competitive markets, making a million per year?

                      I swear I won't come back for response, but I am sure it will be delightful for the rest of the board.

                      Take care folks.
                      Signature
                      People make good money selling to the rich. But the rich got rich selling to the masses.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8462596].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author nik0
                        Banned
                        [DELETED]
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8462711].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
                          [DELETED]
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8465368].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author nik0
                            Banned
                            [DELETED]
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8499206].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kevin Maguire
    I give you my Sister's website for No1 spot,
    Keyword "Boom Boom Shaggy Daddy"
    Exact Match 23 US.
    You can have her virgin also.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8453614].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Vernet
    fake advertisement, its a trap..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8454042].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
    Yeah, this tweet annoyed me a little.

    Over the past few weeks I had been testing domain size as a mechanism of action for the algo. I decided to partially publish an overview of what I found after I saw his tweet. You'll understand why: Matt Cutt’s Fumbles Tweet – Penguin 2.0 Leaked

    Of course - I couldn't just let it go at that.

    No, no of course not. ME? Let it go... So I teased him on another tweet.
    Signature
    Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
    http://www.godoveryou.com/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8454120].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author johnsmith789
    Exactly..It's a trap. Google is bias.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8454371].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tudexo
    Come on that ridiculous these days as Google is trying to give ranking to only huge brands. They won't and will never give you any preference compared to other sites already ranking just by filling these forms. Simply waste of time!!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8454584].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Enuke
    i do not know what is small size of a site. would you please tell me because of a big site may be above 10000 pages then small size i do not know the criteria.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8454673].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jazbo
    One of the weirdest things I have ever seen Google do. The only people who will bother submitting are the desperate and the people being paid to try and bump a sites rankings.
    Signature
    CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
    Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8455042].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yestyle
    Banned
    I doubt about that. It looks like a tool of you or Matt cutts promoting it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8457089].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Make Money Ninja
    I think they are tipping their hand, saying "Sites with few pages get penalized easier"
    Signature

    The Ultimate Guide To Link Building
    Get More Links - Generate More Traffic - Make More Money!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8459928].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author godoveryou
      Originally Posted by Make Money Ninja View Post

      I think they are tipping their hand, saying "Sites with few pages get penalized easier"
      Exactly the point of my post referenced above.

      Glad to see I wasn't completely alone. LOL
      Signature
      Don't Know Me? - Read my interview at Matthewwoodward.co.uk
      http://www.godoveryou.com/
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8460672].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Vector Graphics
    Submitting your site through that link will never help you increase your rankings. If anything it will give you more chance of being manually penalized. I wouldn't be focusing too much on building small sites anymore anyways.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8460318].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamesColin
    Banned
    I don't have a small website that I think should be doing better in google. All my sites should be doing better at google who is capping the traffic sent, it is very clear, no other explanation for a site growing in users and content but whose traffic from google is at approximately the same daily amount every day for months.
    So it's not my sites who should be doing better in google, but google should be doing a better job at sending me free traffic :-)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8460343].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RyanLB
    I would never be comfortable handing my site over, especially when its not going to have a direct positive effect. I don't see the point.
    Signature

    I'm a Freelance Copywriter that helps Agencies, Startups and Businesses Educate Their Audience and Grow Sales
    Skype Me: r.boze
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8499223].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WareTime
    I'm not sure if I should submit best-four-slice-toaster.com or red-bottom-shoes.com. Decisions, decisions, decisions.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8499470].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Anne0521
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8500841].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author oko
      Good posts trade4861


      trade4861 Post#25

      Trust me, I'm over the failure of my site, I'm merely expressing my opinion to the opening statement. I think it clearly supports my claim. The little guy has no chance! Or, unless you manually build links.

      If it's the best then it will get linked to, and in time, it will rank well. Are you telling me people are linking to empty pages on wikianswers? Well damn, I guess I've been doing this all wrong.


      trade4861 post#20

      Five page site? My silly friend, I have hundreds of pages, all written by scholars or experts in their field. And yes, I am pretty much on first page and first listing for every one of those pages in Yahoo. I have no manual penalties on my site. Google went way overboard with all their updates. Went from 55,000 visitors a month to 13,000. But trust me when I say, Google is extremely bias. Also, I don't build links.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8526797].message }}

Trending Topics