Home – New Forums Tech talk EMD’s getting smoked – latest algo update Reply To: EMD’s getting smoked – latest algo update

#1119427
Zava Design
Participant
  • Total posts: 1,463
Up
0
::
NickMorris, post: 134421 wrote:
Please accept my apology for any offense caused, I do tend to get a bit hot under the collar sometimes, its something I’m working on.
Accepted.

I’m not a statistician but those numbers seem far to small to be statistically significant. We’re talking about trillions of searches across billions of web pages after all.

Did you not so research at Uni, or for a company at any time? It is quite possible to have valid research done utilising a smaller sample number than the entire population, incorporating a ratio for room for error. Research companies do it all the time. (Indeed, here’s one I just came across today! ;) )

And you tell me: If you had conducted similar research, and got the results I got on the number I used, what would you have concluded? What if I’d continued and used 100+ more keywords and come out with the same results?

You found domains that had equal numbers of backlinks, from the same sources, identical content, identical ages etc.?

I created the sites, so yes. Not identical content though, Google would penalise that. I created varied content that utilised the same keyword density/structure …etc. I started out doing it to make income from Adsense ads. And then I noticed something, so did further research and testing… and lo and behold, look what I uncovered.

Have you noticed that not one other person in this thread – people with plenty of experience – has agreed with you? If you value experience, doesn’t that ring some alarm bells?

And you don’t also think I noticed that the prevailing viewpoint within the SEO world was also against my discovery? So you don’t think I would be hesitant to bring it up if I wasn’t pretty confident?

But has anyone disputing me in this thread done any indepth research themselves on the subject, or simply accepted the prevailing view and gone with it? As I did at first… but since it involved me investing my own time and money (rather than someone else’s) I pushed myself to go a little further, and question the “prevailing attitude” to see if it was actually correct. And what I found is that maybe it wasn’t.

SEO professional
SEOprofessional.com.au 1st page – I haven’t touched that site in mmmm 2 years?

SEO course
I took the site down during my bizzbuzz deal… no content at all.. 1st page still
SEOcourse.com.au (in fact there is one page only)

… et al

Actually, a few of them aren’t first page any more. But that’s neither here nor there, even one example is great for discussion.

Now, for any of those sites, do you have another “matching” site you have put equal time in, equal backlinks, equal type of content, equal keyword density and structure …etc, and can compare each to? That would be the test, and it’s what I did with the sites I created a little over a year ago, watching results over the following months.

Anyway Zava, thanks for the discussion… is always nice to start the week with a new virtual polemic about the SEO world.

Anyone with knowledge of SEO knows that the viewpoint that EMDs aren’t quite the easy SEO solution many think is nothing new, and that the debate about their value has existed for a couple of years at least.

2009: http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/K96omFzXp0w
“SEOMoz has reported UPTO 10-15 % rises – and, as far as I know, that was never distinguished between the DomainName having the Keyword, or links to the site ending up with KEywords in it.”

October 2010: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/exact-match-domains-are-far-too-powerful-is-their-time-limited
“Interestingly, some of the more experienced, ear-to-the-ground SEO types indicated that they’d heard (or believed) that Google would soon be taking action against exact match domains. One person, who wasn’t at the event, but whom I trust a great deal (and will remain anonymous) indicated they thought the next 6 months would bring about this shift.”

November 2010: http://www.seobook.com/should-you-buy-exact-match-domain-name
– Google already aware that EMDs are a problem.

You really think they left it for 2 years to do something about it? Or is it 2 years before they had perfected their algorithm and decided it was time to target aged EMDs? Completely impossible idea? You’re that certain about Google’s algorithm??

Plenty other similar discussions from a couple of years ago and earlier if you Google with date range.

And my viewpoint was formed out of one simple situation: I was able to rank a site equally well whether it used an EMD or not. Now if that’s not the situation you found, then that’s cool, but it is what I found was able to be achieved, and hence my viewpoint (and saved $$$).