Calendar
Network
Feeds
fantomaster
@Harith: >If I was a client who wish to hire a SEO, I would prefer to hire somebody who is not labeled a blackhat by Matt/Google
@Nick: Indeed for BHs the linkjuice value is generally more important than the actual traffic or RSS submissions.
And yes, as a professional SEO you'd be well advised to either establish your own SNS reputation or a network of amenable voters, preferably both if you can. While SNS pages outranking the originally referenced articles or posts may be a fairly shortlived phenomenon, it does tend to make clients happy and will boost money sites' rankings on the long run as well.
@Shady(oops: only slightly so...): Don't you like mutton chops? LOL
@Nick: That SU plugin hit me big in beta when I unwittingly checked some Google SERP and suddenly found their icons all over the page LOL.
And yes, it's evolving ever so nicely - and from a bh perspective, too.
He's right, though, if you go beyond SU and maybe Propeller - try getting that info on Digg or Reddit and you're out in the cold or wrestling with the self-declared top dogs.
I'm still waiting for his list of bonuses (a $83,573 value, or something) to sign up at 3:21 AM (only 235 slots left), yadda yadda.
@Kalena: You're actually right - it ain't very funny because it actually only reflects the overall level of sophistication (ok: lack thereof) on DP and similar joints...
@rotatedspectrum: Not as categorically as you're puttin it, but essentially yes, that's what this study indicates.
@iBrian: Yes, it's more than a minor fly in the ointment. However, that is data which could easily be furnished yet by the author(s) of that paper. (In the e-mail pointing me to it, peer comments were specifically requested, so maybe our q&d analysis will help in establishing a reasonable level of verifiability.
@Halfdeck: Google may quite likely see itself falling victim to the infamous Law of Unintended Consequences with their TBPR policy. And while TBPR has undoubtedly spawned the link-for-PR industry, it's not as if paid links as such hadn't been around long before PR was invented.
As for what may or may not constitute "real PageRank", that's only for Google (or, more probably: a tiny fraction of their specialist staff) to actually know.
@massa: LOL - remember we put up a warning in that piece?
It's a great systematic overview - read it some days ago already but didn't find the time to blog about it yet. Anyway - good stuff!
"Does this make us whistleblowers, rats, snitches, dime droppers" - yes, it does.
A decidedly black hat state of mind, no matter what intellectual and moralistic contortions
It's the little black hat lurking inside every white hat that wants out. :)
Yessir - and of course us nefarious search engine spammers are infamous for GOBBLING SMALL CHILDREN and exclusively burning CANDLES MADE OF BABY FAT as well!
And what's worse: The Age of the Were-SEO is only just dawning! :)
Thanks for posting this - it's a bit of a hybrid now: both dated and not. Because while it did create quite a ruckus at the time, it's not as if the problem had gone away, with Google still promoting their WA app albeit toned down a bit.
Of course, the more general issue is how much you actually want them to know about you in the first place. And that one shows no inclination of going away anytime soon.
Well, maybe this is the renaissance of an entirely new model of monetization, based on the "pay me, or I'll link to you!" quip of a month ago.
Question: If we report on them now (linked, of course), will they pay for non-mention as well? :)
Talk about damage control... That's 1:0 for Aaron, and I can only cordially congratulate him on that.
Whether it will stay this way remains to be seen. Seeing Google's historic performance record in terms of nipping even the last remnants of webmasters' goodwill right in the bud by rolling out a slew of different (often: conflicting) policies and statements, an SEO guy may be pardoned for remaining skeptical.
After all: The good guy Matt Cutts may exert himself dancing the social engineering tune as lightfootedly as he will - all of that can (and very probably will) all implode in a whiffy, following a single press conference statement by Eric Schmidt, that prime PR effort killer incarnate...
LOL - this article is a hoot! Kudos for a) preserving some common sense amidst all the hoopla frenzy, and b) for sharing a twist to it that actually IS useful. Blogged.
#99 is, of course, the most critical one. Saving the best till last again, sneaky dude! :)
Oh, well - aren't we all only too aware of the fact that the minute something hits DP is toast, anyway?
As you know, I'm not as bullish as you are on the chances of paid links being weeded out algorithmically - except for the most simple, clueless kind. But that can easily be packed into the catch-all "artificial linking" category anyway.
Be that as it may, on sidenote your phrase "especially when found on unrelated sites" implies that Google actually applies a "theme" or "topic" label to any given site.
Now while I'm quite familiar with this myth, let me play the devil's advocate for a minute by asking you point blank: Do you actually have proof positive of that? Or is this merely another faint echo of the initial misconception (dating back to appr. '99) so prevalent in SEO circles regarding the "theme" bit in "theme vector"?
Wow - what a "professional" approach: First, you go and gild your denunciation by presenting it as "my professional duty in the interest of you, the client". Second, you make your client go broke (and good riddance to you as well - no need to turn in your card from inside pokey) for slander, libel and character assassination if you make the slightest of mistakes, evaluate a paid link setup wrongly (no, not as YOU may deem it - that'll be for the court to decide; and courts can be REAL funny sometimes, you know...) or use some wrong wording.
Add to that possible indictment for discrimination if your client's competitors happen to be of a different ethnicity or religion or sexual preference or even gender (or if they happen to have some smart competent shysters stressing the point for them), and you'll spend the rest of your life dump diving. As well you should.
And even in a less extreme scenario - ever hit on the idea that there's people with brains outside your particular vale, too? People, I mean, who could be just as capable of fighting dirty? And who may actually enjoy it?
Gee, what a ripping good business model. If this kind of sh** is required to hold whatever "SEO card" you happen to boast of, you can have mine for the asking.
High horse? Reminds me more of a donkey rodeo...
Full agreement, it's truly hilarious!
Googlethink in nutshell - made my day. :)
Story: You comment I follow
Story: Google to Buy Nielsen Data
And your mail. And your spreadsheets. And your social contacts. And your phone calls. And your Internet connection. And your web sites. And your inlinks. And your outlinks. And your search terms. And your whole friggin' life, yeah.
Some excellent points here, esp. "2007 is to social media what 1996 was to SEO" - an apt analogy as far as we can tell presently.
Funny stuff, too, e.g. "I don’t want to end up actually ordering that Xanax and Tramadol stuff that always shows up in the comment spam." LOL
And as Everett says in the comments section: "Is it sustainable? Only as sustainable as any other buzz-generating medium is."
Aye, there's the rub...
Story: T.S. Elliot - A Black Hatter
Groan - who's next? Ezra Pound, perhaps: "A man of genius has a right to any mode of expression", or: "Either move or be moved."
Personally, I'd opt for Jack Handey: "I'd rather be rich than stupid."
Anyway, nice try.
Sorry it's not available in pink, yet. And still searching for pink fluffy fantomHandcuffs, too. :)
Story: A Dirty Dirty SEO Story For The True Geeks