Home – New › Forums › Tech talk › The changing face of SEO
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 14, 2012 at 1:38 am #1120611Up::0Zava Design, post: 136493 wrote:Sorry????? If I do spend my valuable time doing you a favour and doing your research for you then I would hope it’s treated that way, not from you demanding it thanks very much.
My apologies, but worrying about what you believe or not is very low down on my list of priorities in all honesty.
I would be interested to see those links too.A strong assertion should always be backed up by the assertor, not the other way around.
October 14, 2012 at 1:50 am #1120612Up::0MatthewKeath, post: 136496 wrote:I would be interested to see those links too.A strong assertion should always be backed up by the assertor, not the other way around.
Why don’t you lead by example:1. It’s becoming impossible to separate your SEO, your content strategy (more on this below) and social media.
So, your evidence of this?
Strong assertions/opinions all through this thread, I’m still wondering why I’ve been the only person asked to back up their opinion with links.
October 14, 2012 at 1:52 am #1120613Up::0Zava Design, post: 136494 wrote:So I should go back and challenge everything else anyone has said and ask for them to produce proof, rather than go and do verification myself?Hypocrisy.
If you doubt what they say is true then yes, of course you should.
What if you’ve made a mistake and it wasn’t actually Google that said it or they said something else… Aidan could be searching for days for this alleged reference that doesn’t even exist.
Its far more practical to have the person who is making the claim back it up, especially once challenged.
I’m just trying to establish methods that produce a more meaningful discussion.
October 14, 2012 at 2:03 am #1120614Up::0Zava Design, post: 136497 wrote:Strong assertions/opinions all through this thread, I’m still wondering why I’ve been the only person asked to back up their opinion with links.Most of what I’ve said is my opinion and can’t necessarily be backed up.
However, you weren’t stating an opinion you said “Google said this…” that’s something that we would all (by the sounds of it) be interested in seeing but you have yet to produce the evidence.
October 14, 2012 at 2:04 am #1120615Up::0NickMorris, post: 136498 wrote:If you doubt what they say is true then yes, of course you should.
Okay, I challenge everyone to provide evidence of what they say. Rather than my usual practice if someone brings up something I didn’t know of going and researching it myself.Is that what you want in your “methods”?
It’s not even that hard. Every second or third blog/article/info I come across Googling on the subject basically describes the fact that Google is lowering importance of standard backlinks, and increasing importance of social media linking and sharing.
And example google search. I’m sure there’s many other related phrases that would uncover similar information.
And I’m sorry if “alludes” isn’t good enough for you, but if you’d like to show me any area of their algorithm they actually specific exactly rather than “allude” to I’ll be all ears. As you know, Google doesn’t do that, it’s all “alluded” to, hence why there’s so many differing viewpoints in SEO land.
October 14, 2012 at 2:10 am #1120616Up::0NickMorris, post: 136500 wrote:However, you weren’t stating an opinion you said “Google said this…” that’s something that we would all (by the sounds of it) be interested in seeing but you have yet to produce the evidence.
Depends what your view of evidence is.And this is why this is getting a bit annoying. I’m quite happy for someone to say that “so and so” isn’t enough evidence for them, that’s purely a personal choice and I will have no issue with it. Juries have different opinions of evidence so who are we to argue about that.
But to say I’ve produced no evidence, when I have already produced one link that has google saying that good SEO will come about creating good content that will be shared by others, and avoiding link farms, plus the view I’ve put forward is across the blogosphere, it’s not something unique… Like I said, your interpretation of that may be different than mine, and I will have no issue with that. But I am a little bit sick of the levels it seems I am expected to go to compared to the lack of anything produced by others.
And yes, I’ve reached the end of my tether (not just this, long week), and it’s probably time for a beer (being Saturday night where I am).
October 14, 2012 at 2:26 am #1120617Up::0Zava Design, post: 136374 wrote:But Google is putting more weight on it than the more traditional “backlinks”, according to their own information.As far as I’m aware, this is the quote of yours that everyone is challenging you on.
The use of “more weight” and “according to their own information” seems to imply that Google has stated this somewhere.
This whole discussion (the discussion within the discussion) has been about you producing this alleged statement by Google.
Its not that hard… either produce the reference e.g. a link to where Google has said this or admit that you CANNOT or WILL NOT.
Enjoy your Sat night
October 14, 2012 at 2:56 am #1120618Up::0I recently learned that over the coming months Google will start placing a significant amount of weight on Flash plug-ins. The more flash based content you have the better your site will rank.
Deal with it.
October 14, 2012 at 4:06 am #1120619Up::0Zava – you made a claim about what Google said that the rest of us have apparently all missed. We’re all waiting for you to show us that info. Because you made a claim, the onus is on you to back it up.
You must understand this is a forum designed to be helpful to very small business owners and startups. Those folk do not need anybody coming in here giving them information that is just plain wrong. The damage that can be caused to those businesses by wasting time and effort is too great.
Those of us who appreciate the position soloists are in (because we are in or have been in that position ourselves) get quite antsy when somebody makes an unfounded claim around here.
Our world is already full of poor SEO advice from people who really don’t know enough to comment but who insist on doing so in order to make themselves look knowledgeable to those who don’t know better.
If you pedal nonsense you will be called on it. If you make a claim that nobody else believes you will be asked for evidence.
Over and out.
NathanB – mate thats great news about the flash based plugins, I’m going to dust off some Wix sites in preparation
October 14, 2012 at 4:54 am #1120621October 14, 2012 at 7:59 am #1120622Up::0In the interests of all small business owners with a website, so as not to be misguided, we can concur that freshness or adding content is not always a necessity.
October 14, 2012 at 8:01 am #1120623October 14, 2012 at 9:23 am #1120624Up::0People who think social media links are extremely important should read these articles before they respond:
1. The link posted by Terence Kam is very relevant – “What Social Signals Do Google & Bing Really Count?”
2. 17 Ways Search Engines Judge the Value of a Link
Now, how about some common sense here, troops? It really does work…
Twitter
Google no longer has a direct feed from Twitter so cannot index many “tweets”. A “tweet” has a miniscule life on the web before it disappears. Twitter links are “no follow”.That means Twitter links are relatively unimportant. It’s why Google says, “we do use this as a signal, especially in the “Top links” section [of Google Realtime Search]”. How many people uses “realtime search”?
These factors make a Twitter links of very questionable and transient value.
Facebook
Google cannot index much of this either, apparently.Is a Facebook page’s content likely to be completely relevant to your business or will it range over a huge diversity of topics? The nature of Facebook pages make links from most pages of extremely low value. On a scale of 1-1 million, they will probably be down below the 100 mark.
How long will a Facebook link to your site remain active? Will its value deteriorate quickly? What sort of “relevance” is someone’s Facebook page likely to carry? Probably none.
A link from Lady Gaga’s Twitter page will possible get you 2 days of referrals – that may be great in the unlikely event they are relevant, but her tweet is unlikely to help you on Google’s generic rankings.
IMHO
Regs,
JohnWOctober 16, 2012 at 3:05 am #1120625Up::0Aidan, post: 136514 wrote:Zava – you made a claim about what Google said that the rest of us have apparently all missed. We’re all waiting for you to show us that info. Because you made a claim, the onus is on you to back it up.
I’ve provided enough links. Interpret it as you like. Meanwhile I’m off to hike to Machu Pichu.October 16, 2012 at 3:06 am #1120626Up::0Scrooge, post: 136518 wrote:We also have to remember one of the largest purveyors of missinformation of the years about SEO has been Google.
Funny. When I brought up something in a previous thread that I had discovered from research, it was discounted by most due to a Google blog.Hmm….
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.