Calendar
Network
Feeds
Sebastian
I appreciate Edward's efforts, and I've enjoyed reading his pamphlet. Please reinstate his Sphinn acct.
As for the bad neighborhood warning, I'm quite sure that Google doesn't credit all links inserted by various pligg link building tools. Pligg leaves enough footprints to enable an algorithmic check of an (edited!) paginated new list against URIs (respecively URI variations) crawled once or twice during a short time window. Probably disabling the ability to pass link juice is cheaper than removing such URIs from the search index. Just because Google lists an URI (in search results as well as in similar URI results) that doesn't mean that those URIs count for anything. However, the visibility of spham in Sphinn's SERPs annoys me. Dear Google, even if deletes are more expensive than updates (in related tables), please consider removing identified spham asap. Thanks.
Story: Happy 1st Birthday, Sphinn!
Google algos should detect the linking patterns and then Googlers read text on images rendered by their user agents. If not a spam report is faster than the algo.
Story: Happy Birthday aimClear!
Story: Happy Birthday Bill Slawski!
Story: I hate Twitter
I hate it too, and I love it. You just can't ignore Twitter. A non-twittering geek is like a fish dying in the desert.
Story: Top 10 SEO Myths
That's sad news John, I so live off placebos ;) It's a shame we can't test it to compile a bug report that Michelle could find in her email before breakfast.
Story: Top 10 SEO Myths
SEO Myth: The more reciprocal links to other sites you have, the higher your Google page rank goes.
The Truth: Outbound links to related and unrelated sites are factored into page rank. Unreciprocated links count higher than reciprocated links.
This "TheTruth" dude creates myths too. At least this "truth" is extremely imprecise oversimplified to a degree that counts as new myth.
Story: Top 10 SEO Myths
Yeah, I'm such a nitpicking egghead. I'll tell you how I really feel.
Spreading half-assed pseudo-SEO crap is not helpful, not even and especially not with noobs in the audience. There are so many ways to simplify things without putting plain false statements. Example:
SEO Myth: The more reciprocal links to other sites you have, the higher your Google page rank goes.
The Truth: The "I link to you and you link to me" method doesn't fly with Google anymore. The effect of most link exchanges gets nullyfied in Google's ranking algos, and might even attract the attention of linkspam filters.
That's a good answer, providing enough facts. No need to discuss PageRank and
unproven SEO theories without the necessary context. And that's exactly your point, Tad: "I don't think it has to explain everthing in one sentence". Less is more, sometimes. :)
Ok, I'm in a bad mood today so I've downranked the story just because of this crap. I didn't bother reading more. And why should I? I was disappointed, that's a good reason to downrank it. On any other day I would have just moved on, voting with a "close tab" click.
Story: Top 10 SEO Myths
Couldn't resist to click the link again. Here's another pile of bullcrap from the page:
SEO Myth: The more times you repeat the keyword in the page, the higher it will rank.
The Truth: This is a little tricky since each algorithm uses different factors for ranking. A keyword density of 3 to 15% is recommended for tweaking the page for higher placement (depending on the individual search engine). Combined with other optimization efforts and tweaks, the proper keyword density will get listed higher. A keyword density that is too high will get listed lower or penalized.
There's no such thing as an optimal keyword density (per engine).
I seriously do consider a DEsphinn campaign. ;)
Story: Top 10 SEO Myths
Hey Tad, that's 20% crap, at least. I don't think desphinning such articles stinks. I think publishing crap stinks. ;)
I'm not desphinning you as the submitter, just the low quality of the story. I'm sure I've voted for a lot of crap too, just because I've skimmed posts or so. Shit happens. When you reread the story you'll agree.
Story: Top 10 SEO Myths
Tad, this article is NOT helpful for newbies, because it's inaccurate and contains plain wrong statements. That's not a question of how SM works, it's a question of editorial responsibility. It is, of course, also a great example of how to handle misleading stories that got submitted and sphunn by accident. What's "the right thing to do":
- Despinn it?
- Sphinn it for the entertainment?
- Sphinn it for the discussion?
- Comment / vote for comments but don't sphinn/desphinn?
- Vote with the feet, er ignore the submission and let it go hot even when you disagree?
- ...?
Story: Top 10 SEO Myths
Tad, again, please don't take it personally. Actually, I've clicked through because I've expected a good article solely based on the fact that you've submitted it. Then I was disappointed, and expressed my opinion. What's wrong with that? I'm not trying to teach you anything. When you've calmed down and reread the article tomorrow you'll certainly unsphinn it. Sorry when I've offended you, getting you pissed was not my intention.
Story: Top 10 SEO Myths
Lora, that's unfair! :)
Tad, I can't agree: "If you disagree, don't vote for it but for voting it down it must be downright wrong, which it is not." IMO this piece is downright wrong. 2 out of 10 items totally and utterly crap, not to speak of the other imprecise statements, doesn't qualify it for a recommendation. Even 1 crappy paragraph out of 10 would qualify for a desphinn, because the article addresses noobs. When you recommend (sphinn) such a low quality piece by accident, then you must live with the unavoidable critique.
Sphinn is not a tool to please our egos, at least not in my opinion, and I don't understand/use it as a popularity contest. Hence downranking your submission is not a negative vote for you. I may be a more taking than giving user, but I think (hope) there's room for my user profile, or usage of Sphinn as an interested user, not professional voter. Thanks to you and others there's a lot of great stuff to read at Sphinn. I appreciate your efforts very much, but I don't sphinn or desphinn contributers, just stories. BTW that's the reason for my replies at all, I really can't understand why you're so angry, but I'd like to know.
Whether or not I was bored plays no role. When I dislike crap it's perfectly ok with the intent of the desphinn functionality when I vote it down. As I said above, usually I would have ignored the story, but today I was in the mood to desphinn it. And that's perfectly legit and in no way making you lose your time on such pedantic endevours. I mean you could have read the article beforehand. It's neither my fault that you've submitted it, nor that you've stolen a fair amount of my valuable time to comment on a crappy sales pitch. ;)
Peace
Story: Top 10 SEO Myths
Hamlet, just as an experiment, when you unsphinn (not desphinn) it now (hot with 22 sphinns + 9 desphinns) it should disappear from the front page. Would it? If so, then when you sphinn it again will it come back? Curious ...
LOL robots.txt, sitemaps, REP and stuff like that is perfect sebastianbait. Check out Vanessa's coverage at SEL too.
Thanks :) Google roasting spamming roosters or something like that was another story title I thought of ...
Zonk, that's true, if you prefer to pay for links that Google can detect, e.g. from a trackable link broker like TNX. Try to delete Shady's 35k forum messages with one click, or 100k blog comments, and you'll see why the title is totally precise.
Zonk, new links might work for a few days, but the second iteration of any anti-linkspam algo discovers and devalues them at the latest. Go ask Google. :)
BTW there's an interesting discussion about negative SEO, how and when Google penalizes link spam, as well as reconsideration requests in the post's comments.
Zonk, of course paid links clerverly embedded in textual contents work. Paid links don't work when traded in lots of thousands and put on sidebars and footers. Maybe you can fool the masses at DP, but not Google, at least not with your approach. That's not a question of buying or spreading FUD. You sell links that don't work as promised to clueless folks, that's not exactly gentlemanlike. You were warned and pointed to the flaws in your concept. You can't see the big picture and you can't understand algos walking link networks, so that's all search engine FUD for you. Sad, and bad for not that savvy Webmasters who fall for your sales pitch. Do you tell your customers that you believe 95% of the stuff you sell them is noneffective? Here's some bad news: add 5.
Using a story about risks of boosting white hat site rankings with link spam to promote your shady link marketplace at Sphinn sounds a little desperate, doesn't it? It's interesting that you refer to your own stuff as stinky links by the way. ;)
Congrats Shana, you rock! Me and my little red crabs throw you a party too :)
Story: Google "Directory Submission" Update