Calendar
Network
Feeds
Halfdeck
Long term solution: get rid of rel=nofollow. If Google took responsibility in separating wheat from chaff we wouldn't be having this discussion. Of course, easier said than done, just like building a face-recognition machine or AI that can think at the level of a 5-year-old.
Short term solution: Let Twitter profile link of legit Tweeple pass juice and keep nofollow on the bio links.
"I really don't understand Suggarae's consternation"
I can relate to the emotion driving her post, and I do feel the profile nofollows could be handled differently, but Twitter isn't wrong in nofollowing links just like if someone told me to remove nofollow from one of my blogs I'll tell him to go take a hike.
Did G blackmail Twitter into nofollow? No, I believe Matt simply suggested that the bio section could be abused and that potential could attract spammers. The common solution (that most SEO blogs also employ) is to use nofollow, which I think is what Matt suggested to @ev.
Just because Rae's profile links aren't malicious doesn't mean links on every popular Twitter profile won't be, so using that specific example to base an argument on is like saying there's no reason to keep your front door locked because I won't walk in and rob you. Someone else eventually will. Building systems that work only for special cases leads to systems that can easily be exploited. Instead you build systems that don't break no matter what you throw at it. Yeah, sometimes that means throwing the baby out with the bath water, but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
Is Google being a bully? Did Twitter shock you by bowing down to Google? We all know Twitter isn't the first site ever to use nofollow on user-generated links. Once the bio links became public knowledge via a blog on Matt's RSS feed, the rest is history. Not taking action would have made G look weak.
"And when did someone appoint Google as the police force of the Internet?"
It's a power game, Google has a seat on the table, and its just playing out its hand.
"Yet, you defend that Google should be able to do it."
Play sheep and go along with G's game? No. I never said Google *should* be able to do it. I said it will do whatever it can to mold the web to its business model. That's how most of us conduct our business - Google just happens to have a bigger sphere of influence.
75% no, huh?
Reading the HR thread my answer is no because the timeline is 12 months and the client should be flexible and not expect everything to happen according to plan on month 1.
I think the rumors the knol launch stirred up reminded Matt about potential avalanche of posts a product launch can trigger about privacy and other concerns. I imagine he had to surf around the web to squash rumors left and right regarding knol, and just didn't feel like reliving that wack-a-mole-ish experience. No wonder he stayed up late to write up this post, so he can publish it on the same day Chrome became available. I don't think he is speaking on behalf of Google.
I appreciate the fact that Matt doesn't have blinders on when it comes to user concerns and is open to feedback. The devil is in the details though, so I'll wait and see. In Johnon's Chrome post's comments, for example, John noticed Chrome sending what looks like OS info back to Google on uninstall.
Looks to me like an example of a clueless SEO company spamming Sphinn for backlinks.
Voted/commented up by three Sphinn thin profiles.
The footer links link to the home page multiple times using keyword-stuffed anchor text plus keyword-stuffed links to keyword-stuffed doorway pages:
[sydney], [australia], [seo - search engine optimization australia], [seo australia], [seo brisbane], [seo melbourne], [seo adelaide], [seo perth]
Seo adelaide link leads to http://www.seoworks.com.au/Content_Common/pg-seo-search-engine-optimisation-adelaide-south-australia-sa.seo
Notice the keyword-stuffed URL and "SEO" as file extention. The page content is also keyword-stuffed borderline spam.
Another SEO company that needs to learn SEO before trying to make money off selling it.
Big business and big brand names don't need search marketing. SEO is for people who are invisible, trying to gain visibility. Will Obama/McCain gain more search traffic if they had a clue? Sure. But they can pay their bills without that traffic.
Give me a ring if anyone in the SEO industry rakes in more money per quarter off the internet than Obama.
Laura, I didn't look but maybe your site has canonical issues? This is the second time two URLs submitted to Sphinn pointed at identical content.
Story: When Blackhat SEO IS Ethical
Ethics becomes an issue when an entire industry endorses behavior that clearly only benefits a select few. When many people in the SEO industry endorse questionable tactics (e.g. 90% of SEOs high-fived Lyndon for his fake news bait and 90% of SEOs are pro-paid links that pass juice), it confirms in people's minds the idea that most SEOs are spam-happy scum.
These debates won't change Matt Cutts' mind nor will they convince the average webmaster that black hat seo is a good thing. So why bother debating, rationalizing, and justifying? Are SEOs so much of a goody-two-shoes that we need to constantly talk ourselves into believing that we're not being bad?
I don't need Google's permission to do what I do or to hear Matt's opinion.
The first paragraph gives away the farm and the message isn't new, but that aside, one of the most compelling reads this week.
Khalid, not sure why you'd prefer site explorer's page count to Google's site: results. Also SER's TBPR's penalized, so 4 isn't representative of its real TBPR.
Blaming the market, buyers, and low price point isn't the way to win this argument.
Almost none of these I'd bother with when promoting a "good" site (tactics are just a few steps up from directory/article submissions +doFollow commenting+ social profile links) but link injection opportunities are always welcome when building links to sites with a short life span.
For the Yahoo! 301 redirect trick see SlightlyShady's post where he explains how the process can be automated.
Its an interesting take, but I don't define hat colors based on Google guidelines. There are cases where a site owner doesn't violate any of Google's guidelines but still manages to publish 100,000 spammy pages for monetary gain. There are hundreds of Google-compliant template driven RE sites out there, for example, that just serves as surfer traps.
If you want to define hat colors by the level of risk, then I'd agree: you minimize risk by making sure your site violates no guidelines. And I appreciate Vanessa's point that regardless of intention, some tactics can lead to penalties. And even the best-intentioned site may be impossible for Google to crawl.
Still, I personally define hat colors by intent. To a certain extent, Google also does the same thing. Hidden text, or example, may not byself lead to a penalty if Google decides the intent is just to make the page look pretty.
His update still talks around the bottom line: don't click on my ads unless you're looking to spend some money. Window shopping? Fine. Looking for sites to bookmark in case you want to buy later? Also fine. But Seth's initial post recommended clicking on ads as a way to tip a blogger.
Quote: "If you like what you're reading, click on an ad to say thanks."
There is no exit strategy for that statement except retraction.
"the price of clicks is fairly high because they're so few and far between."
You think adsense clicks are expensive because not enough people click on them? Have you ever tried AdWords? Google also routinely bans Adsense accounts due to invalid clicks, so people following Seth's advice aren't necessarily doing bloggers any favors.
Story: Matt Cutts on Big Sites and Black Hats - SEOspace - Organic Search Engine Marketing with a B2B Twist
Google routinely penalizes big sites, but unlike small sites, I doubt big sites ever get perma banned. Instead I imagine Googlers shoot them an email/phone call telling them what the problem is and how to fix it. When MSN released 100,000+ URLS at once and triggered a flag, Google took steps to make sure those pages were trusted enough to gain footing in the index. The playing field is not level; big sites do get the red carpet treatment. And when you combine deep pockets for paid links and online "diplomatic immunity" you get competitors that are virtually untouchable.
Google's business model depends on returning valuable results. A choice between penalizing a big site and perserving user experience isn't rally much of a choice.
Story: What If It Isn't Linkworthy?
I also only bothered with step 1 and 2. One problem I came across is if working with a small business client they don't have the resource to follow through on step 3. A bigger problem is if a client, like scott says, isn't willing to invest money and time into creating something link worthy. If a client believes there are easier ways to boost rankings (e.g. pasting internal links with nofollow, submitting to directories) some of them tend to want to exhaust those low cost tactics before moving up to more effective marketing strategies.
Without any tangeable evidence, this post is nothing but hearsay. Remember all the controversy around the second link anchor text not flowing juice? That "test", though repeated and well-documented, turned out to be inaccurate. BTW, nofollow links flowed anchor text previously in rare cases; according to Matt Cutts that bug was fixed. Anyway, I'd advise people to run verifiable tests before jumping to conclusions. This one can't be verified, therefore its as good as having no evidence and saying "trust me."
Here's the Matt Cutts interview I was referring to BTW:
It is interesting. Whenever we talked about it originally, we said PageRank would not be passed, and the messaging that I tried to do was that it would not even be followed and it would not even be crawled. It turned out there was a really weird situation, where, if you had totally unique anchor text that nobody else had, we would not follow that link - but if we had found the page from some other source, we still had this anchor text lying around and we were willing to associate it with that page. Personally, I think that is almost a bug...
http://www.stephanspencer.com/search-engines/matt-cutts-interview
John, being skeptical isn't the same thing as simply pointing out that you're making an assertion without verifiable evidence. You basically threw your hat in the ring with these words: "It's supposed to do what we've been told by Google what it's supposed to do. Unfortunately, it doesn't do that." Suggesting would be: "based on tests we ran, in some cases, nofollow still seems to be passing anchor text." If you want to push beyond that, you need evidence others can verify.
I also took issue because your post read to me like a whine either about Google shifting goal posts or about Google lying to webmasters. Comparing Google to the government added to that ethical undertone. SEOs talking ethics just doesn't fly as anything more than hypocrisy these days when the industry itself is devoid of a moral compass. Besides, Google has the right to change their algos anytime, anywhere (in fact algos are modified every day). Also, like I pointed out, Matt Cutts admitted there were quirks to Google's handling of nofollow. More importantly, no SEO should expect to be spoon-fed by Google; Google is not your friend.
"Cause unless you have it over documented with pictures and examples at all areas & you are making statments that dont go with what everyone else is currently believing then you're wrong"
Maybe if you re-read what my comment it'll hit you like a ton of bricks that I didn't say I didn't believe John's findings or that I'm skeptical. There's no verifiable evidence to back up what he's claiming is what I said and there's no shit you can pull out of your ass to dispute that. A bunch of me too emails is no SEO experiment. It's just part of the same old rumormill.
"Guess wht I believe the guy 100%, until I can prove different I will keep it that way."
And if someone says Adsense will screw with your organic rankings or that your next door neighbor robbed K-mart you'd believe that too till some one shoots it down. Go ahead and leap before you look - we got plenty of people doing that in this industry. Remember the Knol gets an auto-ranking boost bullshit? People ate that one up pretty quick.
This has nothing to do with people not trying shit. Its about watching the crap you publish. We all try a bunch of stuff 24/7 most of it never gets published for good reason - because the tactics aren't milked dry enough. If you got ideas you can afford to publish they're not all that valuable to begin with.
None of the three metrics are central to any of my campaigns. I do track them all but what really matters is what you're putting into the black box not what's coming out. If you already know doing X results in Y you don't need to track Y, just X. For example, you know posting frequently generally leads to more RSS subscribers and higher link velocity. Tracking how many blog posts you publish/week, in that case, is more productive than looking at ranking shifts, traffic increases, or conversions. Acting on ranking shifts lead to reactive SEO, whereas acting on input variables pushes a campaign steadily forward. Not saying you should ignore those metrics but its important to stay focused on things that matter and not be distracted every time there's a dip in traffic, ranking, or conversions.
I guess Stacey, Darrin, Megan01, Bianca, Charlene, and Ellis like to vote on the same stories.
http://sphinn.com/story/66202
http://sphinn.com/story/66193
http://sphinn.com/story/66190
http://sphinn.com/story/66193
http://sphinn.com/story/66188
.....and the beat goes on.
Then again I guess the mods don't give a shit as long as "quality" submits are getting bot-sphunn.
Story: Did Twitter Lay Down for Google?