- This topic is empty.
October 2, 2012 at 1:36 am #1119388::seocourse, post: 134321 wrote:Funny, I just looked at my adsense report for the last 18 months.
I have over 15 EMD sites.
So may be you are right, EMD didn’t rank easily
I guess while you did your research other people where building sites .
And at the same time as you built and optimised those EMD sites did you do the exact same work with non EMD sites within the same keyword group to compare?
Plus, even just to touch the very surface of valid research, just do a random google search across a dozen or so different keywords/phrases. Whatever you choose I would almost guarantee you have as much chance of finding an EMD on the first page as not.October 2, 2012 at 1:37 am #1119389AGMBrisMember
- Total posts: 319
Was wondering if anyone could get me up to speed on what this actually is re: EMD’s? Is it referring to having a domain name the same as your business name? Or related to keywords in some way you mean?
Thank you – keen to see what the issue is. We have a domain name the exact same as our business name but wasnt sure of the relevance to this discussion/issue?
Speak soon.October 2, 2012 at 1:40 am #1119390::
Look, here’s 4 random ones done for you:
No EMD in sight. You should have saved your money.October 2, 2012 at 1:42 am #1119391::AGMBris, post: 134324 wrote:Was wondering if anyone could get me up to speed on what this actually is re: EMD’s? Is it referring to having a domain name the same as your business name? Or related to keywords in some way you mean?.
EMD = Exact Match Domain.
A domain that matches the keyword(s) you’re trying to aim for exactly.October 2, 2012 at 1:50 am #1119392::
Now where an EMD may make an impact (and I recall reading something about this a while ago) is where someone types in that EMD domain name into the search field.
Though even then, just tested “flowers.com”, and flowers.com isn’t even on the first page of results, ha ha! So much for that EDM.October 2, 2012 at 2:01 am #1119393::
Don’t jump to fast conclusions guys there is much to be tested before we can say anything for sure but personally I’d welcome a change in EMD weights as it has made for too much ‘easy’ seo which was abused.
BTW – search for a domain still works like it always has, it won’t list a domain which is permanently redirected to another domain – flowers.com for example!October 2, 2012 at 2:11 am #1119394::Aidan, post: 134333 wrote:Don’t jump to fast conclusions guys there is much to be tested before we can say anything for sure but personally I’d welcome a change in EMD weights as it has made for too much ‘easy’ seo which was abused.
I didn’t. I was all for finding available EDMs and using them to make money! And I do own a few I bought in the early days of my research, since that was all the go across the Adsense income forums and blogs, and sites like Flippa and the like. But after doing as much research as I did (and it was LOADS!), it became very clear that I was wasting my money, and my money and time was better utilised on other SEO elements.
There’s not many things SEO-wise I’m 100% certain about, as so many things change all the time (Google keeping us on our toes), but this is as close to one of them as I know. Open to learning otherwise if I come across – or do again – further research as comprehensive as what I did, but for the moment (until an appeal) the jury is in.Aidan, post: 134333 wrote:BTW – search for a domain still works like it always has, it won’t list a domain which is permanently redirected to another domain – flowers.com for example!
Ahh. I did think that seemed very strange.October 2, 2012 at 2:36 am #1119395::
My comment was not directed at any one individual
My feeling on the change is that the aim of the update is to devalue sites that are ranking by virtue of EMD alone (i.e. where there is a lack of other signals to suggest it is a worthy ranking).
It would likely be that G has had enough of the benefit of the doubt given to domains as brands. Brands (genuine ones) should of course rank if they are searched for. Domain names which are brands (genuine ones) should therefore rank if they are searched for.
Domain names which are not genuine brands do not deserve to rank – IMO that is the part G is now trying to fix.October 2, 2012 at 2:42 am #1119396::Aidan, post: 134336 wrote:Domain names which are not genuine brands do not deserve to rank – IMO that is the part G is now trying to fix.
And IMO (and research) that has been a minimal factor for a number of years already.
But whether folk are prepared to accept that or not, seems it’s definitely the case now.October 2, 2012 at 2:55 am #1119397NickMorrisParticipant
- Total posts: 283
You are the one making the claim so you are the one who has the burden of proofZava Design, post: 134306 wrote:EMDs have had no greater weighting than including keywords in the page name for at least a couple of years, probably a lot more.
So far I haven’t seen any compelling evidence from you to back up this claim.
The complexity and ever changing nature of Google’s algorithm makes it an extremely difficult thing to study, so while you may have done some “research” I find it highly unlikely that it justifies anything approaching the 100% certainly you claim to have on this issue.
SEOmoz’s Search Ranking Factors survey is widely regarded as the best research into Google’s algorithm and their results suggest that EMDs do carry extra weight http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#metrics
Certainly its not perfect, but could we reasonably say its likely to be more accurate that your “research”?
Further, how do you account for the fact that Matt Cutts has tweeted that Google has released an algo targeting low quality EMDs? If EMDs had no extra weight why would this be necessary? Are you claiming more knowledge about the algo than Matt Cutts and Google themselves?October 2, 2012 at 3:01 am #1119398Craig_LongmuirMember
- Total posts: 556
The update was not just for emd’s
Craiglongmuir.com which was in the top 3 for ” freelance web design” and 1st page for “web designer Sydney” for the past few years is, as of 29th sept, nowhere …October 2, 2012 at 3:06 am #1119399::
I think it should have been minimal but have seen many instances of EMDs ranking well over the years when it was difficult to see other reasons why they ranked.
I believe many of those sites ranked because G interpreted them as brands (rather than keywords) and so to comply with the need to rank sites for users searching for brand names, G allowed them to rank well. Now it seems G may be looking for other signals to suggest the ‘brand’ is genuine before allowing EMDs to rank.October 2, 2012 at 3:55 am #1119400::NickMorris, post: 134340 wrote:You are the one making the claim so you are the one who has the burden of proof
Umm, no I’m not. In the absence of something being (ie. God, EDMs having value) it is those claiming that being to be real who have the burden of proof.
So far I haven’t seen any compelling evidence from you to back up this claim.
Did you miss my really quick demo just a page back?
So just out of curiousity, can you show me any kind of 5 minutes evidence that shows EMDs carry any weight? Or are you just relying on what others are writing/saying? You see, I did rely on that for the first few weeks of my adsense money making venture, was sold on it as much as anyone else reading the usual SEO blogs/resources, until I realised I was getting just as good results from non EDMs with every other aspect being equal. That was also about the time I began to learn that a lot of other claims from SEO “experts” were hot air and not much else, and that good SEO really boiled down to half a dozen or so key elements that weren’t brain surgery, just involved a bit of time and some decent copywriting.
I’m sorry, but whatever some blogger from Google, and a site selling SEO tools might say (and I value a lot of what SEOmoz have to say) in the end, for me, the proof was in the pudding.
And just because I’m not specifically in the business of selling SEO tools like SEOmoz, does my 15 years in the web industry – designer, developer, project manager and now business owner – mean I have no chance of actually discovering an insight that might have some truth to it, with no real vested interest in why I would contradict what other “higher profile” folk might claim?October 2, 2012 at 3:56 am #1119401::Aidan, post: 134347 wrote:I think it should have been minimal but have seen many instances of EMDs ranking well over the years when it was difficult to see other reasons why they ranked.
I certainly agree they did a few years ago, just as keywords helped for a while.
And for all we know, the comment from Matt Cutts could be about the domains that have been around for a while and gained their SEO “juice” from way back then. Though we’ll never know for sure since Google will only release “so much” information about their algorithm changes, hence this debate could go on indefinitely…October 2, 2012 at 4:50 am #1119402NickMorrisParticipant
::Zava Design, post: 134355 wrote:Umm, no I’m not. In the absence of something being (ie. God, EDMs having value) it is those claiming that being to be real who have the burden of proof.
- Total posts: 283
Its not about being and unbeing, its about who’s making a claim.
“There is no God”
“Homeopathy doesn’t work”
“EMDs have extra weight in the algo”
“EMDs have had no greater weighting than including keywords in the page name for at least a couple of years, probably a lot more.”
These are all claims for which the person making them has the burden of proof.
What you should’ve said was that you don’t think there’s any evidence that EMDs have extra weight in the algorithm but what you actually did was make a positive claim that EMDs have no extra weight in the algorithm, this is the same as making the positive claim that God does not exist – both are claims that need evidence to back them up.
Maybe your research technique is as revolutionary as you claim it to be but just stating “I have done a lot of research” isn’t evidence that anyone should take seriously.
The way you have described it, it sounds like your research was haphazard at best. What was your methodology? How big was your data set? How did you isolate the EMD aspect to the exclusion of all other factors when you don’t have a clue what other factors there are?
You seem very skeptical of evidence from others on this issue – SEOmoz, Google and Matt Cutts but you don’t turn the same skeptical eye on yourself.
Normally I’d be happy to let you wallow in your own ignorance but I fear that your high post count might make you seem like some kind of authority to those who don’t know any better.
We need to be careful because humans are very good at fooling themselves. People doing their own research at home can come up with justifications for all kinds of crazy claims – aliens, conspiracy theories, ghosts, water diving, gambling systems, homeopathy, the loch ness monster – if we accept this kind of evidence we are liable to believe almost anything.
- The topic ‘EMD’s getting smoked – latest algo update’ is closed to new replies.