Google Kills The Myth Of Social SEO (Video)

12 years ago

Links are still king but if you don't have social network signals in place you're setting yourself up for an algorithm penalty. Authority sites have them, and low quality sites don't. Search engines incorporate whatever they can track/crawl and they can find indexed tweets, pins, facebook posts, and when in doubt rely on APIs from the horses mouth.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

BacklinksIndexer - automated index/bulk links
TwitterBacklinks - retweets service
Web2.0Backlinks - web2.0 creation/link building
Google+ Matthew Anton

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8905265].message }}

Kevin Maguire

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Matthew Anton

Links are still king but if you don't have social network signals in place you're setting yourself up for an algorithm penalty. Authority sites have them, and low quality sites don't. Search engines incorporate whatever they can track/crawl and they can find indexed tweets, pins, facebook posts, and when in doubt rely on APIs from the horses mouth.

Watch the video to the end. He first explains "no we dont" and goes on to explain the "why we dont". And its not anything to do with crawling a page. He is implying that some parts of the web, may be seen as a privacy risk no-crawl.

So even the parts they can crawl. They don't

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8905308].message }}

Matthew Anton

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire

Watch the video to the end. He first explains "no we dont" and goes on to explain the "why we dont". And its not anything to do with crawling a page. He is implying that some parts of the web, may be seen as a privacy risk no-crawl.

So even the parts they can crawl. They don't

https://www.google.com/#q=https%3A%2...99087162232832

Proof they crawl social sites for things like tweets, pins, etc

I understand what he's saying, which is walled-gardens are harder to crawl and if they can't get information they are happy with they will choose not to use it. The big social networks are a factor in their algorithm. Can look up numerous case studies on this including findings by Rand Fishkin and Moz team.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

BacklinksIndexer - automated index/bulk links
TwitterBacklinks - retweets service
Web2.0Backlinks - web2.0 creation/link building
Google+ Matthew Anton

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8906089].message }}

MikeFriedman

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Matthew Anton

Can look up numerous case studies on this including findings by Rand Fishkin and Moz team.

Sorry, but I have never seen a valid case study proving social signals have a significant impact.

The only thing I have seen is correlation data on it, which is completely flawed.

If social signals play a significant role in rankings, you should be able to rank a page for a moderately competitive keyword with nothing but social signals alone. When I say moderately competitive I mean something where the page would not just rank on its own with good onpage SEO and a few internal links.

I have never seen anyone accomplish that.

All I have seen people do is say that the site which is ranking #1 for "insert competitive, high-traffic term here" has a bunch of social signals, so they must be important. What they fail to determine is did the site get to #1 because of the social signals, or did it get to #1 because of other factors and the traffic it got at #1 brought the social signals.

The majority of people who are preaching that social impacts rankings are people selling social signals (oh look, you're selling tweets) and Moz, which is also selling social services with their Twitter analytics stuff.

[ 9 ] Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8906167].message }}

zinsavage123 12 years ago

Interesting, I wonder if the code will ever be truly cracked lol. So many variables to rankings it's ridiculous.
- Thanks
Signature

Connect with me http://thomaszinsavage.com/
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8906188].message }}

Jesse Kemper

12 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Sorry, but I have never seen a valid case study proving social signals have a significant impact.

The only thing I have seen is correlation data on it, which is completely flawed.

If social signals play a significant role in rankings, you should be able to rank a page for a moderately competitive keyword with nothing but social signals alone. When I say moderately competitive I mean something where the page would not just rank on its own with good onpage SEO and a few internal links.

I have never seen anyone accomplish that.

All I have seen people do is say that the site which is ranking #1 for "insert competitive, high-traffic term here" has a bunch of social signals, so they must be important. What they fail to determine is did the site get to #1 because of the social signals, or did it get to #1 because of other factors and the traffic it got at #1 brought the social signals.

The majority of people who are preaching that social impacts rankings are people selling social signals (oh look, you're selling tweets) and Moz, which is also selling social services with their Twitter analytics stuff.

BOOM! My exact thought, glad I kept reading down the comments instead of jumping to commenting right away. On top of that, many big companies that maintain social media and high social signals also do a lot more with other methods then the typical person who doesn't bother to even use social media etc. (if that makes sense)

Thanks

Signature

Wanna chat more about SEO, Web Design, or Graphic Design? Follow me on Google+

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8906359].message }}

Matthew Anton

12 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

The majority of people who are preaching that social impacts rankings are people selling social signals (oh look, you're selling tweets) and Moz, which is also selling social services with their Twitter analytics stuff.

Ever see those hair club for men commericials? I'm not only a seller of the service but an avid user of it! Don't be so cynical and judgemental. Sounds like you are saying I only promote it because I sell it, which is the farthest from the truth. I do research and case studies for everything (can look at my track record, I put my $$ and time where my mouth is). But this isn't about me. It's about your misguided opinion.

Mike, are you really arguing the search engines don't factor in things such as tweets, facebook posts/likes/shares, pinterest pins/repins, stumbles, linkedin shares, etc? Maybe this is a time warp to 2009 where rented homepage backlinks were all that mattered.

Just because you might not be able to rank on purely social network signals, doesn't mean they don't validate and help the credibility of your current and future links. Much like chemistry, alone they aren't as powerful, but combined they form a winning combination.

If you were a search engine would you factor the major social networks to help determine what is relevant / an authority site? Most would answer yes, and Google is striving to bring more relevant results. The best sites have these types of signals and interactions. I wouldn't risk building thousands of links without a social campaign in place; it's begging for an algorithm penalty or manual review.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

BacklinksIndexer - automated index/bulk links
TwitterBacklinks - retweets service
Web2.0Backlinks - web2.0 creation/link building
Google+ Matthew Anton

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8907276].message }}

nettiapina

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Matthew Anton

Mike, are you really arguing the search engines don't factor in things such as tweets, facebook posts/likes/shares, pinterest pins/repins, stumbles, linkedin shares, etc? Maybe this is a time warp to 2009 where rented homepage backlinks were all that mattered.

My name is not Mike, but I'd say that these "signals" don't need to be a special factor. Social media sites are just web pages. They have some special characteristics such as relatively fast flowing feeds and very personalized content witch makes them harder to index. I see no point why Google would do anything beyond the normal spidering.

You said this has been discussed somewhere. Would it be too difficult to point me to the right direction?

Thanks

Signature

Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

What's your excuse?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8907679].message }}

Mike Anthony 12 years ago

Just something to confuse the life out of all of you (LOL)

Does Google use data from social sites in ranking? - YouTube

However it should be pointed out (for those that listen and hear only what they want). The video only admits to real time search. It does NOT prove that the regular serps are affected.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8906438].message }}
- Kevin Maguire 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony
  
  Just something to confuse the life out of all of you (LOL)
  
  Does Google use data from social sites in...
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8906461].message }}
cbpayne 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Matthew Anton

Can look up numerous case studies on this including findings by Rand Fishkin and Moz team.

All they showed was how gullible people are to fall for the correlation vs causation stuff.
- Thanks
Signature
LookAfterWP - Protection, Maintenance and Performance
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8920135].message }}

yukon

Banned 12 years ago

I tweeted this.

[ 4 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8905266].message }}

Kevin Maguire 12 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

I tweeted this.

See, we are 1st now thanks to that Tweet.

I think we have a WINNING WSO on our hands.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8905334].message }}
- yukon Banned 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Kevin Maguire
  
  See, we are 1st now thanks to that Tweet.
  
  I think we have a WINNING WSO on our hands.
  
  HE$$ yea... #1 with 38 million competition.
  
  [ 6 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8905350].message }}
Content Commando 12 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

I tweeted this.

ok, that made me laugh
- Thanks
Signature

One article received 10,519 social shares! Become a true authority within any niche INSTANTLY by investing in a proven content writer.

Don't believe me? Click HERE
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8908199].message }}

UnkwnUsr

12 years ago

Stop worrying about Google! Start promoting your site for REAL people and Google will eventually come around. According to Matt Cuts you shouldn't:

Guest Post
Blog Comment
Social Signals
Web 2.0
Trade Links
Buy Links
Article Marketing

Guess what? All these techniques still work when applied in way that targets actual readers and not done on autopilot with software. Engage your audience wherever they are and get rewarded.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

FREE Shopify Training Course {NO SUBSCRIPTION}

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8905295].message }}

online only

12 years ago

Originally Posted by UnkwnUsr

Stop worrying about Google! Start promoting your site for REAL people and Google will eventually come around. According to Matt Cuts you shouldn't:

Guest Post
Blog Comment
Social Signals
Web 2.0
Trade Links
Buy Links
Article Marketing

Guess what? All these techniques still work when applied in way that targets actual readers and not done on autopilot with software. Engage your audience wherever they are and get rewarded.

Dear Sir,

Guest posting is so 2012 (not saying it's ineffective)
Blog comments - are you serious?
Web 2.0 - post one article and spun it and run through indexer?
Article marketing - this is 2009 stuff

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8906181].message }}

Jesse Kemper

12 years ago

Originally Posted by online only

Dear Sir,

Guest posting is so 2012 (not saying it's ineffective)
Blog comments - are you serious?
Web 2.0 - post one article and spun it and run through indexer?
Article marketing - this is 2009 stuff

OMG, im screwed. =( *Starts feeling old, outdated, antiquated....*

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Wanna chat more about SEO, Web Design, or Graphic Design? Follow me on Google+

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8906370].message }}

UnkwnUsr

12 years ago

Originally Posted by online only

Dear Sir,

Guest posting is so 2012 (not saying it's ineffective)
Blog comments - are you serious?
Web 2.0 - post one article and spun it and run through indexer?
Article marketing - this is 2009 stuff

You completely missed the point, I'm not saying try to rank a site using one of these methods is a great idea. I'm saying if you are doing a little of each of these on sites that people actually read then Google is not going to punish you. And you'll be promoting your site to people who may link to you, subscribe or bookmark you site. Now this only works if people feel like your site adds some value to the topic at hand.

Thanks

Signature

FREE Shopify Training Course {NO SUBSCRIPTION}

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8919522].message }}

koocnaed

12 years ago

I personally use Facebook and Twitter to grow my brand and reach targeted individuals whom I think will value my content, and whilst I have their attention and trust will direct them to my sales funnel.

Don't get me wrong, Google is awesome and the SEO Ninjas out there are incredible, but personally I think that it is getting old hat.

Thanks

Signature

Do you need to have multiple income streams to succeed in Internet Marketing?

Have Your Say Here...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8905316].message }}

Ricardo Furtado

12 years ago

Google will definitely reward you if you are genuine and not using all kinds of black hat stuff.

So, stop worrying about what Google will do and start working genuinely to grow your blog or site.

All the best. Regards.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Ricardo Furtado

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8906178].message }}

ScrooG

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Ricardo Furtado

Google will definitely reward you if you are genuine and not using all kinds of black hat stuff.

So, stop worrying about what Google will do and start working genuinely to grow your blog or site.

All the best. Regards.

I couldn't disagree more. I have tried this and it certainly does NOT work.

When I started out in internet marketing I knew nothing about IM so I figured "If I build a nice, informative site with good content, I'll do well." So that's what I did.

Guess what? Building a nice site with great content will get you this:
DOODLEY SQUAT!
After a few such attempts I learned my lesson.

Do you know what works?
Backlinks. (Including some social backlinks, though I don't think social backlinks are the main thing that works.)

Now, I DO think it may help to have great content but having great content is not the key to page one rankings.

I'd say that on page SEO (whatever that is; it tends to change from time to time), off page SEO (backlinks, mostly, whether social or otherwise; preferably High PR backlinks from sites in your niche) are what make a site rank.

I'd say that having great content is last on the list.
I've seen many many sites rank on page 1 of Google with horrible content, even NO content. (Well, okay, a photo and a few keywords.) Sometimes not even that.

If you're a newbie please do not believe that if you write a bunch of great content that is totally on point and great for visitors to read, that you will get page one rankings.

You will NOT get great rankings unless you have:
1. great high PR backlinks (relevant to your niche, preferably)
2. great on page seo (whatever Google considers that to be at the time)

I take it back. SOMEtimes a site with good content and few backlinks will make it to page 1. But it's not the common occurrence. If you think it is, show me some sites that have little or no backlinks but are on page 1 of Google.

When people say "all you need is great content" "written for your target audience" I say SHOW ME SOME EXAMPLES. There may be a few such sites but this certainly is not a winning strategy for most people.

Thanks

Signature

"Live and let live".

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8922817].message }}

PerformanceMan

12 years ago

Thank God we can trust what Matt Cutts says!

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8906228].message }}

Moneymaker2012

12 years ago

Dear Sir,

Guest posting is so 2012 (not saying it's ineffective)
Blog comments - are you serious?
Web 2.0 - post one article and spun it and run through indexer?
Article marketing - this is 2009 stuff

So what these strategies are still working web 2.0 is best when you put a quality written content.

Thanks

Signature

**[FREE] Lots of Free WSO/ Tools/ eBook and Video Courses**

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8906378].message }}

syncon

12 years ago

Matt Cutts job is NOT to help you with learning how to best manipulate the search engine owned and operated by his employer.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8907405].message }}

MikeFriedman

12 years ago

Like I have said to numerous other people, show me one site that is outranking another based solely on social signals. I have yet to find one.

I've never seen a site move up (or down) in rankings just by getting a bunch of Facebook likes or Tweets. Ever. Now sometimes those likes and Tweets might lead to more links, and that certainly has an impact.

I can prove other stuff. If I make a bunch of changes to a site's onpage SEO, I can see a direct impact on rankings. I can acquire a bunch of great links, and see an impact. I can slow a site's server speed to a crawl and see an impact. I have yet to see anyone prove social signals impact rankings in anything other than real-time search. And for real-time search, social signals make perfect sense.

Nobody is ranking in the top 5 for car insurance because of social signals.

Here's the other thing that social fanatics never seem to grasp. Google is never going to make something a significant part of the ranking algorithm that they could be completely shut out of at a moment's notice. Without warning, Facebook and/or Twitter could decide they no longer want to allow Google to crawl their sites. If Google gave even a 5-10% weighting to social signals in the algorithm and then was suddenly shut off from them, the SERPS could be a mess overnight.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8907517].message }}

danparks

12 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

Here's the other thing that social fanatics never seem to grasp. Google is never going to make something a significant part of the ranking algorithm that they could be completely shut out of at a moment's notice. Without warning, Facebook and/or Twitter could decide they no longer want to allow Google to crawl their sites. If Google gave even a 5-10% weighting to social signals in the algorithm and then was suddenly shut off from them, the SERPS could be a mess overnight.

Yup. And who's to say that even though Facebook and Twitter are huge and important now, that either or both could easily fade away like the huge MySpace did? If that happened, what then becomes of the weight that was given to those social signals?

And for those who think that this couldn't happen to Facebook or Twitter (too big to fail), people thought that about MySpace. Already there's a bit of talk of how Facebook is losing the young crowd. People are fickle - they're always looking for the next big thing. People don't have any big loyalty to Facebook or Twitter, they just use it because "everyone else is using it." I know more than a few people who are using Twitter and Facebook less and going with SnapChat. I wouldn't be surprised if a year or two from now some other new social media networking site starts taking over.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8920117].message }}

nettiapina

12 years ago

Originally Posted by danparks

Already there's a bit of talk of how Facebook is losing the young crowd. People are fickle - they're always looking for the next big thing. People don't have any big loyalty to Facebook or Twitter, they just use it because "everyone else is using it." I know more than a few people who are using Twitter and Facebook less and going with SnapChat. I wouldn't be surprised if a year or two from now some other new social media networking site starts taking over.

Apparently that "losing the young crowd" was some sort of misunderstanding and/or sensationalist writing. As far as I know there's no data behind the statement. Yeah sure, FB might not be the hot new thing any more.

People are fickle, but they're using these services precisely because everyone they know is using them. Social networking alone doesn't make much sense. The biggest thing going for FB at the moment is their huge user base and ubiquitous nature. The service has never been technically that marvelous, and there's better implementation on almost every idea they've copied from somewhere. It's easy to wrestle couple of early adopters to try a new service, but getting the masses to switch is going to be very hard.

I'm kinda hoping that something better and more open will replace FB, but I'm not holding my breath.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

What's your excuse?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8922734].message }}

Enfusia

12 years ago

I've ranked videos and pages on nothing more than social signals. We are talking moderate keywords.

Nothing huge. As an example one that comes to mind is the video is at over 70K views in a year and there are no other forms of backlinks on it at all.

Patrick

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Free eBook =>
The Secret To Success In Any Business
Yes, Any Business!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8922796].message }}

nettiapina

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Enfusia

I've ranked videos and pages on nothing more than social signals. We are talking moderate keywords.

Nothing huge. As an example one that comes to mind is the video is at over 70K views in a year and there are no other forms of backlinks on it at all.

If you're talking about ranking YouTube videos with "social signals" - yes indeed, getting viewers will help you to rank videos higher in the YouTube search. That's one of YouTube's ranking factors (along with the view time, titles, descriptions and "total engagement").

What kind of success you've had with pages that have nothing but social media links?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

What's your excuse?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8923560].message }}

Enfusia

12 years ago

Originally Posted by nettiapina

If you're talking about ranking YouTube videos with "social signals" - yes indeed, getting viewers will help you to rank videos higher in the YouTube search. That's one of YouTube's ranking factors (along with the view time, titles, descriptions and "total engagement").

What kind of success you've had with pages that have nothing but social media links?

Hi, well as I said "I've ranked videos and pages on nothing more than social signals. We are talking moderate keywords."

I just gave the video as an example. I've done many easy keyword pages on my main niche site with nothing more than social signals.

To the home page of that site I may have only 50 links that I've put there from relevant sites. It likely has a few more links from others linking to it.

But long tail keywords with light competition will rank with just social on a site that is established, I do it all the time. I do them all by hand no software.

Patrick

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Free eBook =>
The Secret To Success In Any Business
Yes, Any Business!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8924032].message }}

PerformanceMan

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Enfusia

Hi, well as I said "I've ranked videos and pages on nothing more than social signals. We are talking moderate keywords."

I just gave the video as an example. I've done many easy keyword pages on my main niche site with nothing more than social signals.

To the home page of that site I may have only 50 links that I've put there from relevant sites. It likely has a few more links from others linking to it.

But long tail keywords with light competition will rank with just social on a site that is established, I do it all the time. I do them all by hand no software.

Patrick

I completely agree. But this is one controversial topic for this forum. I'm finding as more links get penalized, it's very easy to rank long tail keywords even when all I've done is 'social sharing.'

Thanks

Signature

Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8924080].message }}

nettiapina

12 years ago

Originally Posted by Enfusia

To the home page of that site I may have only 50 links that I've put there from relevant sites. It likely has a few more links from others linking to it.

But long tail keywords with light competition will rank with just social on a site that is established, I do it all the time. I do them all by hand no software.

Thanks for the info. This is interesting stuff. My view of social media as a SEO tool is quite bleak, but perhaps I've been too negative about it. Have to experiment more.

Thanks

Signature

Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

What's your excuse?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8924364].message }}

yukon

Banned 12 years ago

The world has met it's quota on funny cat pics & nobody cares If aunt Betty can't find her car keys.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8907844].message }}

nettiapina 12 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

The world has met it's quota on funny cat pics & nobody cares If aunt Betty can't find her car keys.

You don't know what you're talking about. Funny cat pics are the force that holds internet together, and aunt Betty is the entirety of FB's business model.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

What's your excuse?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8907866].message }}
- paulgl 12 years ago
  
  I can name tons of junk sites, from PTC, hack sites, autosurfs, etc. that have tons of social followers and a huge social footprint. Means nothing to google.
  
  How on earth could you suffer an aglo penalty because you refuse to get involved
  in social junkola?
  
  Now if you want to argue what google is doing with google+, well, I'm all ears.
  
  No doubt google has something up it's sleeves for g+.
  
  Funny. Just read something about how FB will be nonexistent in less than 10
  years...
  
  Paul
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8907875].message }}
  
  jinx1221 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by paulgl
  
  Funny. Just read something about how FB will be nonexistent in less than 10 years..
  
  Facebook will LOSE 80% of its users by 2017 – epidemiological study
  
  The internet has seized with glee on a Princeton research paper that suggests Facebook will be a virtually abandoned, tumbleweed-riddled corner of the web by 2017, when the social network's "outbreak" will have run its course.
  
  Princeton PhD students Joshua Spechler and Johan Cannarella used epidemiological modelling, traditionally employed to track the growth patterns of infectious diseases, to predict Facebook's imminent demise, citing the way that MySpace peaked in 2008 and then rapidly disappeared in three years.
  
  According to the students' paper, Facebook is "just beginning to show the onset of an abandonment phase", after reaching its popularity peak in 2012, which will lead to it losing 80 per cent of its peak user base between 2015 and 2017.
  
  The paper, which has yet to be peer-reviewed and is available here (PDF), uses Google search query data to determine popularity and shows a downward trend in search frequency from last year.
  
  Whether or not the paper stands up to academic scrutiny remains to be seen, but the study has certainly stirred up some mild controversy and few belly laughs from the gallery.
  
  Tech analyst Rob Enderle of the Enderle Group gave MarketWatch a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment on the research.
  
  "I'm sure [Facebook CEO Mark] Zuckerberg loves being compared to Typhoid Mary," he joked.
  
  “If the disease model holds, it suggests that Facebook will need to evolve/mutate in order to begin another curve or it will die out. It has to overcome the immunisation cycle,” he added. ®
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  The Ultimate Private Network Management,
  Visualization and Automation Tool
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8908137].message }}
  
  nettiapina 12 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by jinx1221
  
  Facebook will LOSE 80% of its users by 2017 – epidemiological study
  
  Someone wanted to make another BS guess, and applied non-related methodology to it for some extra press mentions. Nice.
  
  Facebook loses it's users when something much better, cooler and/or easier comes along, there's such a massive blunder on the development side that the platform collapses, NSA succesfully implements cavity-search-over-IP protocol, or aunt Betty moves her cat pictures to somewhere else. One of these may or may not happen before 2017, but it's hard to combat FB's development budget and their status as a the communication tool that everyone knows.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
  Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.
  
  What's your excuse?
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8908190].message }}
Kevin Maguire 12 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

The world has met it's quota on funny cat pics & nobody cares If aunt Betty can't find her car keys.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8907869].message }}

yoangov

12 years ago

The way I understand this - social signals are still a great links. However, links might not be accessible by google spiders. Yet, from my experience, social signals help you big time

Thanks

Signature

I generate high quality leads for your business, PM me!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8920050].message }}

Content Commando

12 years ago

I started reading these guys lastnight and really enjoy their no BS approach. they call it as they see it. I'm not affiliated with them in any way, just thought these fit the topic at hand. Both articles are long reads, but really freakin cool.

Why Google Pushed Me to Build a (Bigger) Link Network
This one explains how all of the changes to Google have screwed smaller businesses. They leave little recourse than to use "black hat" methods such as blog networks and link building etc.

Triple X Niche Case Study Update: Expenses Report
This is a competition between 3 of the guys. Will a budget of only $500, they are each building a site in the same niche and trying to rank for the same keywords. The catch is that each is following a different method. One is using ONLY social media. One is using SEO (i.e. backlinks, web 2.0's etc). the third is allowed to use any method he wants.

I'll be keeping tabs on it to see how well the site that uses only social media does. My prediction is that it does the worst. Again, i'm not affiliated with that blog and if a mod has an issue with a think, I will gladly remove them.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One article received 10,519 social shares! Become a true authority within any niche INSTANTLY by investing in a proven content writer.

Don't believe me? Click HERE

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8922908].message }}

yukon

Banned 12 years ago

Originally Posted by Content Commando

I started reading these guys lastnight and really enjoy their no BS approach. they call it as they see it. I'm not affiliated with them in any way, just thought these fit the topic at hand. Both articles are long reads, but really freakin cool.

Why Google Pushed Me to Build a (Bigger) Link Network
This one explains how all of the changes to Google have screwed smaller businesses. They leave little recourse than to use "black hat" methods such as blog networks and link building etc.

Triple X Niche Case Study Update: Expenses Report
This is a competition between 3 of the guys. Will a budget of only $500, they are each building a site in the same niche and trying to rank for the same keywords. The catch is that each is following a different method. One is using ONLY social media. One is using SEO (i.e. backlinks, web 2.0's etc). the third is allowed to use any method he wants.

I'll be keeping tabs on it to see how well the site that uses only social media does. My prediction is that it does the worst. Again, i'm not affiliated with that blog and if a mod has an issue with a think, I will gladly remove them.

Lol, at all the affiliate links in those articles.

I'm sure the one that wins will involve yet another killer affiliate link. Stay tuned...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8923494].message }}

ViperChill 12 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Lol, at all the affiliate links in those articles.

I'm sure the one that wins will involve yet another killer affiliate link. Stay tuned...

First article: Not a single affiliate link despite many opportunies.

Second article: 10 (more?) outgoing links and 2 affiliate links.

No affiliate link to Graphic River, ThemeForest, ThemeSpot or many other opportunities. And the second affiliate link has a (non-aff) link next to it.

Let me guess, you just don't like that asshole ViperChill?

I was wondering how someone could reach 13,000 posts
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8924314].message }}

PerformanceMan

12 years ago

Regardless of whether Google likes your social or not - you do it because it brings visitors.

Thanks

Signature

Free Special Report on Mindset - Level Up with Positive Thinking

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8923474].message }}

Google Kills The Myth Of Social SEO (Video)

Trending Topics

hi guys, new here

Clickbank, Digistore24 or Amazon Associates

What is the fastest way to get traffic to an affiliate link?

Buying passive-income KDP businesses on Flippa

Hey Warriors! Excited to join the community