Calendar
Network
Feeds
willneu
Nice article!
3) If you’re desparate, the robots.txt wildcard
Personally I wouldn't even mention that one though, its not even a last resort and letting Google handle it themselves is a better approach than disallowing the whole session_id wildcard IMO
@onreact: Not everything that is interesting is going to increase your rankings, but if its helpful to send/quote to clients then it is just as important.
Instead of getting hands on with the customers a less obtrusive method is to get your client to setup analytics if they are already ranking for terms, and if they are not get them to setup analytics and do a PPC campaign targetting some of the keywords for a month. This way you will see what the customer wants by what converts ;)
Har har, I r n00b. My bad guys, wrong place....
Story: See a webpage like a SEO
@onreact: you can hardly call a tool that checks one page a "deep website check" >_>
On a brighter note, the website is nice for a quick overview nice one Dave.
Story: See a webpage like a SEO
Hmm sorry for the negative response, a day of keyword research can do that to someone.....
"Quick Website Check" in my opinion is better suited, its a very quick overview of the website top level.
I don't see how this makes any sense what-so-ever, a sitemap is a great tool for increasing keyword coverage of pages within your website. While if your website has 100 pages then yea, granted you can probably get a decent structure internally anyway, but when you have 100,000 pages then a sitemap really does help.
This does just seem somewhat backward to me, going against everything I recommend to clients on a daily (quite literally) basis.....
Why on earth remove it? These companies have made fuck ups and should pay the price, just because they "politely asked" does not mean you should remove it!
Nice article.
"I guarantee that in 6 months you’ll already be ahead of 90% of your competition." - Soooo, car insurance it is then? :)
Meh nice article, but a load of hype and rubbish really! Google will never be a human driven algorithm primarily, while it might one day take human activity into account it will only ever be a minor part of the algorithm, falling back to the core link driven algorithm in the end as a base for everything.
Even if Google move to user driven results the issue will still remain, small niches will still be dominated by the big guns with bigger pockets. And i'd even go as far as saying for smaller niches the issue would simply be worse, blackhat spam would be much easier for clients with big pockets with I can only assume quicker results seen.
Just because Google may be "adding" results by implementing sitelinks and some universal search to the mix of the results. The base search results I believe will stick with a link based algorithm, I can only assume it is easier for the search engines to indentify spammy websites using links to boost rankings and for those to be manually reviewed. Than it is to indentify websites spamming "clicks" to websites via clever even spread of SE clicks to several websites but mainly sticking with one in particular to boost its rankings.
Just my thoughts, but I cant see human input taking a huge input on search results any time in the near future.
@SlightyShadySEO - Just because websites getting reported, and then a manual reviewer comes along with the ban stick doesn't mean results are not link based....
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=car+insurance&meta=&btnG=Google+Search - Notice our friend ranking #1? Good ole Money Expert have gone from nowhere -> position 1 with a cloaked page and a couple hundred thousand dodgy links in under 2 weeks.
I agree bbcarter, imagine working on the same niche market day in day out. I guess if you were working for Amazon it wouldn't be so bad, but even then!
The toolsets and resources agencies generally have far outweigh anything that a company could achieve within reasonable cost constraints!
And it is always good to have an outside view on this sort of situation anyway, having an outside eye looking in and creating a report to follow is always better than just "doing SEO" on your company website.
How is the situation in the US? I work for a client in a niche somewhat related and doing backlink audits 95% of competitor links are paid, Money expert doing DP spam isn't the only one spammning believe you me.
@Dudibob, while I'm sure it makes Google take a look (and i can't see them not banning them soon) PCWorld are doing a completely good thing, just because they decided to call it "seo" is irrelevant, its standard white hat procedures, whether they name it "seo" or not!
Erm this might be verging on Grey hat, but has been around for years. Check seobook.com's SEO tools, or CheatsDatabase.com's appended links at the end or the cheat descriptions. Its syndicated content, at its best for SEO ;) I know there is a certain website with embeded video, with html appended below it to match the video box but with link embeded.
There is plenty of examples of this around, file and image hosts are another major player in this field. Even affiliate links, with 301 redirects, wholinks2me.com with the clever referer based domain assigning, so they can get the links to the homepage ;)
At Patrickaltoft, i wouldn't say its the syndication of the button that is the problem there though. I would give a guesstimate that the thousands of pay per blog posts are something to do with him not ranking for his domain name ;)
Story: Is Izmocars Spamming Us?
lol iBrian, that would work i guess!
In regard to the anti-social spammer, everyone does it to the major ones, ok not to the specific niches that are definitely not related. But definitely to the Digg, Propeller general niches, its probably the easiest link you can achieve from a weighted domain, would be silly to not even use it!
From the post on hitwise: http://www.insiders-view.co.uk/gocompare-banned-from-google/0096
Aye, could do with some higher categories, at least >$20k if any of us are SEO's for our own content businesses 24/7 i can only assume >$5k
Its quite interesting how major websites cloak this, and some don't seem to care. A simple, allow the major's leave the small engines out seems to be a good tactic to me. This is cloaking at its simplest, but one of the few times it won't be frowned upon by the search engines ;)
I don't see the problem with improving the standard 404 page, it is far more userfriendly! And as long as they aren't stepping on my toes RE the custom pages, i'm all for it!
Planetc1: I wouldn't recommend doing that, unless you don't want those pages to rank higher than pages that are only linked to once. Its doubling the weighting the page is passed via that link, im sure there are levels where Google just ignores the excessive links on a single page and/or flags it for spam. But, the more links the less weight every link gets, but if to have more links you are linking to one page twice, that page should get a higher share of the overal "juice" passed from that page.
MariaSEO: That would in theory make sense, however just because link text is not used does not mean its not passing it any juice if you want to make your website rank top for "great cars" then of course the text "Great cars" is probably the best to target. But, why not have a footer link and a homepage link which would increase the weight that, that page would recieve internally. Remember, homepages recieve more links from external sources too, so if you have a competitive keyword they are far more likely to rank top so adding that extra internal juice will help. So in short, i would disagree with your suggestion, unless the juice would be best used elsewhere.
I'm not even sure if that makes sense, but i don't have time to read over it again!
Story: Fixing duplicate content in SEO site architecture