Home Forums Tech talk The changing face of SEO

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 112 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1120627
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,461

    Let me do what it seems many are loath to before I head off, actually do some research…

    SEOmoz writer agrees there is at least a correlation between social media signals and rankings.

    Google have said specifically to avoid “link schemes”.

    And a quick 5 minute summary of various points Google have made on their own blog about how they gauge quality:
    – Interact and contribute on forums and blogs.
    – With Google Buzz and other social media services constantly growing, entertaining content is being shared now more than ever.
    – Buying PageRank-passing links or randomly exchanging links are the worst ways of attempting to gather links and they’re likely to have no positive impact on your site’s performance over time.
    – Similar to the way we do it on YouTube, offering bookmarking services for social sites like Twitter or Facebook can help spread the word about the great content on your site and draw users’ attention.
    – Attract buzz: Natural links, +1s, likes, follows… In every business there’s something compelling, interesting, entertaining, or surprising that you can offer or share with your users.
    – Avoid SEOs that talk about the power of “free-for-all” links, link popularity schemes, or submitting your site to thousands of search engines. These are typically useless exercises that don’t affect your ranking in the results of the major search engines — at least, not in a way you would likely consider to be positive.
    – Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?

    So my interpretation is that Google are placing more importance on links that arise from sharing than those that arise from other methods which have been abused.

    Really so hard?

    And as I’ve said previously with methods that I’ve had success with, don’t agree with me that’s fine, that’s SEO. But the rest, just tiresome and hypocritical, and it’s funny how it only seems to be coming from SEO folk on this forum, doesn’t seem to arise on other subjects.

    * sigh *

    #1120628
    NickMorris
    Member
    • Total posts: 283

    So, in summary, you originally said this….

    Zava Design, post: 136836 wrote:
    But Google is putting more weight on it than the more traditional “backlinks”, according to their own information.

    And now you are revising it to this…

    Zava Design, post: 136836 wrote:
    So my interpretation is that Google are placing more importance on links that arise from sharing than those that arise from other methods which have been abused.

    The keywords being “my interpretation”

    If you’d only said this like 50 posts ago we could have moved on from “excuse me Zava, could we have that reference you mentioned” to “I see no reason to accept your interpretation until we see some more evidence”

    Have a nice hike! :)

    #1120629
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591

    The great aspect about this thread, is that it’s put the mind at ease of business owners knowing that to rank you don’t need write page after page of new content. As long as you have a website that is not shallow in information, but enough to satisfy your customers requirements, is all you require. In saying that, make sure the info provided is “Second to None” and not amateurish.

    Imagine how much hard earned money you can save, by not having to hire a copywriter/content writer on a full-time basis thinking it’s the only way to keep up with the masses online. Another “Myth Busted”.

    #1120630
    JohnW
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,642
    Zava Design, post: 136836 wrote:
    Let me do what it seems many are loath to before I head off, actually do some research…

    SEOmoz writer agrees there is at least a correlation between social media signals and rankings.

    Google have said specifically to avoid “link schemes”.

    And a quick 5 minute summary of various points Google have made on their own blog about how they gauge quality:
    – Interact and contribute on forums and blogs.
    – With Google Buzz and other social media services constantly growing, entertaining content is being shared now more than ever.
    – Buying PageRank-passing links or randomly exchanging links are the worst ways of attempting to gather links and they’re likely to have no positive impact on your site’s performance over time.
    – Similar to the way we do it on YouTube, offering bookmarking services for social sites like Twitter or Facebook can help spread the word about the great content on your site and draw users’ attention.
    – Attract buzz: Natural links, +1s, likes, follows… In every business there’s something compelling, interesting, entertaining, or surprising that you can offer or share with your users.
    – Avoid SEOs that talk about the power of “free-for-all” links, link popularity schemes, or submitting your site to thousands of search engines. These are typically useless exercises that don’t affect your ranking in the results of the major search engines — at least, not in a way you would likely consider to be positive.
    – Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?

    So my interpretation is that Google are placing more importance on links that arise from sharing than those that arise from other methods which have been abused.

    Really so hard?

    And as I’ve said previously with methods that I’ve had success with, don’t agree with me that’s fine, that’s SEO. But the rest, just tiresome and hypocritical, and it’s funny how it only seems to be coming from SEO folk on this forum, doesn’t seem to arise on other subjects.

    * sigh *
    Hi Zava,
    I’m also big on research…

    The reason some of us jump in with hob-nailed boots in this forum is that there is so much mis-information and spurious services pedalled under the guise of SEO that we feel an obligation to help sort out fact from fiction for non-SEO FS readers. (Not suggesting you are in that category. :)).

    I’m first to support your position on the importance of “quality” external links. Where we seem to differ is on the issue of link “popularity” versus link “quality”.

    I suggest it is link “quality” that is important. Link quality is concerned with what the linking web page is about, its title, how many other sites about the same information topic link to it, how long it remains active, the nature of the link to your web page, can/has the SE indexed it, etc.

    If you then think of the nature of links from blogs, forums, Facebook, Twitter, G+, etc. they simply don’t offer these “quality” attributes.

    Blog links: Often lowest value, “no follow” links and they also often move around the site getting devalued as that happens.
    Forum links: Get devalued as they get demoted in the forum. Often forum pages get lost to SEs and their links are no longer indexed by them.
    Facebook, Twitter, G+: See answer below.

    15 Aug 12: Quotes from Google’s Matt Cutts about social media links:

    “Google isn’t able to crawl Facebook, either because people set their profiles to private or Google is blocked from crawling.”

    “When Google lost access to Twitter’s firehose, Twitter blocked Google for several weeks. If Google can’t crawl and see how many people you follow or who follow you, they can’t use that as a reliable signal.”

    “Google Doesn’t Put a Lot of Weight on +1’s”

    The trouble with this whole SEO area is knowing what is current, relevant and accurate. (Always look for an article date to start with…)

    PS: Google “retired” Buzz – 15 Dec 11
    Buzz was another Google failure. It only lasted a couple of years.

    “On October 14, 2011, Google announced that it would be discontinuing the service”

    Not picking on you, just trying to offer another view with some other research. :)
    Regs,
    JohnW

    #1120631
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,461

    Oh look, someone else with the same viewpoint as mine:

    http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/2200201/using-social-media-to-increase-your-search-rank

    Which was reprinted on mashable.

    (dozens more out there)

    I guess just all hot air though, yeah? :rolleyes:

    JohnW wrote:
    I’m first to support your position on the importance of “quality” external links. Where we seem to differ is on the issue of link “popularity” versus link “quality”.
    Not at all. Just because Google are putting more and more weight (it seems) onto links arising from social media channels, does not mean (and I have never stated) that “quality” is being ignored.

    JohnW wrote:
    Not picking on you, just trying to offer another view with some other research.
    No problem with that, you’re the first person who’s offered a balanced alternative view with some evidence. :)

    But I’ll point back to Google’s targeting of “link farms”, and ask outside of a few relevant business directories, what other form of quality “link” would you say there was outside of those generated via social media channels, that google wouldn’t categorise as “link farms”? And I include forums, blogs, wikis ..etc in social media, and they are social interaction between online users.

    Those great long spreadsheet list of sites to post your links on (I’ve got a few of those), you don’t think Google is aware of this practice and targeting it?

    I also think everyone here seems to think that “social media” ends with someone clicking “like” on a page. I think that’s an extremely short sighted viewpoint of the social media path and life span.

    —-

    NickMorris wrote:
    The keywords being “my interpretation”
    Tell you what, I’ll be anally watching that you clarify every single comment you make in every single post on whether it’s “scientific” fact or a viewpoint you hold, fair enough?

    Boy, we’re going to have some very pedantic and long winded threads… :rolleyes:
    (much like this one)

    #1120632
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,461
    Cesar, post: 136536 wrote:
    In 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.
    Wow, that’s a really selective interpretation of all that was video, and yet no one questioned you? Hmmm… starting to get the picture here. Old boys club or similar?

    Now to actually question that video and ensure small business owners have a wider understanding of what it conveyed, so as to not be misguided…
    – He did say not to just change a few words and dates to fake “fresh” content.
    – He did say that some content is “evergreen” and of value despite age.
    – “Freshness”… is one of the 200 or so signals… so it is still a factor within their algorithm, the point of the video being to actually to say don’t focus on it at the expense of other important signals.

    Conclusion: “Freshness” is important, just of equal importance (give or take) as many other SEO signals so don’t ignore those.

    Cesar, post: 136898 wrote:
    Imagine how much hard earned money you can save, by not having to hire a copywriter/content writer on a full-time basis thinking it’s the only way to keep up with the masses online. Another “Myth Busted”.
    Far from it “myth” buster. I would give it “plausible”, rather than either “busted” or “confirmed”.

    As mentioned above, “fresh” content is one of a myriad of signals Google uses, but it’s certainly not irrelevant, far from it.

    My advice: Along with ensuring the main core of your business site is built with clean and well structure markup, and your static content (about us, services …etc) is well written, a blog or news section with relevant, well written & topical content will add to the SEO capabilities of your site, and may be especially important within a highly competitive search genre.

    It may also increase the likelihood of users sharing, talking about, and linking to your content. Much more likely to have a blog post “The 7 secrets of making a million dollars” shared and linked to than the about page of your financial services business site. ;)

    Anyone going to disagree with that?

    (ahh this is so much fun and games, funny how it is only SEO folk that this escalates to… ;) )

    #1120633
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591
    Zava Design, post: 136932 wrote:
    But I’ll point back to Google’s targeting of “link farms”, and ask outside of a few relevant business directories, what other form of quality “link” would you say there was outside of those generated via social media channels, that google wouldn’t categorise as “link farms”?

    Zava, you seem to be losing credibility claiming we are talking old school, yet you keep bringing up link farms, content is king and buy text links to rank. What era are you in buddy? We have given you the proof with information that is current, yet you keep talking about “Link Farms”.

    All I can say Zava…

    #1120634
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,461

    Huh? Google was talking link farms, in their latest update, I didn’t bring it up. Or did you not read that post I linked to either?

    And I don’t recall ever mentioning buying links. At least please debate the things I say.

    And credibility? Let’s put aside your anonymous forum facelessness of not providing any info on you or your business or anything else to give credence to you having any experience at all (which everyone else in this thread provides at least), but you’re trying to say that fresh content isn’t important, that you’ve “busted a myth”, while to many it most definitely is.

    ie. http://workingseo.com/2012/10/08/freshcontent-back-links-and-ranking/

    “So in this case, if your product or service niche has a lot of competition (particularly brand competition) Google (Via Matt Cutts) seems to be saying you don’t need to create fresh content. Which leaves businesses only the option of Pay Per Click, because if your site is number 500,000 for T-Shirts for Sale and you don’t do something other than Pay Per Click then you won’t come up in the rankings. Remember – as of 2012′s advanced Google algorithmic changes to their 2011 Panda update you really can’t artificially buy and inflate your back links (prior to this many sites still tended to get away with it) and you can’t over-SEO the site (listen below).”

    Makes sense, no?

    Anyone who thinks that Google is going to lay it all out on how to rank highly is the one with their credibility at risk imho.

    #1120635
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591

    Zava, there are many sites that rank on page one without ever having to update their content. That is a fact my friend! You have over 200 signals ranking that site, and updating your content is not the dominating factor.

    Only Google knows who will rank in first position, we can only guess.

    #1120636
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,461
    Cesar, post: 136940 wrote:
    Only Google knows who will rank in first position, we can only guess.
    And yet previously you said you “busted a myth”, now it’s a “guess”.

    So I would now expect the wrath of the thread to descend on you for not making that clear in the first place. :rolleyes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

    #1120638
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591
    Zava Design, post: 135976 wrote:
    I have never – in the last 3/4 years – had a problem getting a site to page 1 on google through good content. Never.

    Even my own site, about 3 weeks after I launched it, was on page 1 in Australia for “sydney web design”. Anyone in the biz would now how much competition that phrase has. I didn’t stay there, because I didn’t keep adding content, due to Google not being so important for me for finding work.

    I know other factors in the past have had an impact, but content has and always will be the major factor in SEO.

    Zava, the myth was as you claim here, that content is the major factor in SEO, when in fact it is not.

    Many sites with stupendous content recently got slammed by the algo changes.

    Now, here is another credibility problem. You claim that after launching your site, within 3 weeks it was on the first page. The fact is my friend, it’s common knowledge that some new sites tend to rank highly at first, but within a few weeks they quickly lose rank and nowhere to be seen, as was the case with your site. Your excuse it lost rank because you did not keep adding content is a lame excuse, sorry to say. They are the facts!

    #1120640
    Zava Design
    Participant
    • Total posts: 1,461
    Cesar, post: 136950 wrote:
    Zava, the myth was as you claim here, that content is the major factor in SEO, when in fact it is not.
    Wow.

    “White hat” search engine optimizers often improve the usability of a site, help create great content, or make sites faster, which is good for both users and search engines.

    Create a useful, information-rich site, and write pages that clearly and accurately describe your content.

    Overall, our advice for publishers continues to be to focus on delivering the best possible user experience on your websites and not to focus on specific algorithm tweaks.

    When a search engine delivers a page of results to you, they can measure their success by observing how you engage with those results. If you hit the first link, then immediately hit the “back” button to try the second link, this indicates that you were not satisfied with the first result. Since the beginning, search engines have sought the “long click” – where users click a result without immediately returning to the search page to try again. Taken in aggregate over millions and millions of queries a day, the engines build up a good pool of data to judge the quality of their results.

    Google started by using human evaluators to manually rate 1000s of sites, searching for “low quality” content. Google then incorporated machine learning to mimic the human evaluators. Once its computers could accurately predict what the humans would judge a low quality site, the algorithm was introduced across millions of sites spanning the Internet. The end result was a seismic shift which rearranged over 20% of all of Google’s search results.

    Okay, I’ll sit back and see if you get slammed as much by others for stating something as “fact” when it’s clearly not. Then we’ll see if there’s any balance on this forum with regards to SEO comments and who makes them.

    #1120641
    OneArmedGraphics
    Member
    • Total posts: 314

    Life’s too short…

    #1120642
    Aidan
    Member
    • Total posts: 1,125

    Life is too short to waste on those who can’t admit their mistakes! (I can’t remember who said that…)

    A simple check on the support and agreement each participant has had from others in this thread or indeed even a count of the ‘likes’ each participant has received is rather telling…

    tra la la…

    I’m off to hike around the Northern Beaches during my break.

    #1120643
    JohnW
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,642
    Zava Design, post: 136932 wrote:
    Oh look, someone else with the same viewpoint as mine:

    http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/2200201/using-social-media-to-increase-your-search-rank
    Hi Zava,
    I’m sure you could pull out tens of thousands of articles supporting a belief in the importance of links from Facebook, Twitter, etc.

    A line from your referenced article really needs to be questioned, IMHO…

    “In 2010 the game officially changed, with Google’s support of social media – author reputation, bookmarking, commenting, as well as a number of other social factors (likes, tweets, retweets, shares, etc.) – as a major factor in how it ranks websites and blogs in its algorithm.”

    Who says that these are “major factors” that Google uses? The author offers no supporting statement from Google and the one I referenced above indicates it is very minor.

    The web is full of people publishing articles to promote their services and yes, many of them are just “hot air”. The author does not even claim to be an SEO expert in her bio.

    There is a huge SEO rumour mill – G releases a list of algo changes and some parts of it get hyped out of all reality. (Remember 2 years back when page load speed was supposed to be the answer to SEO? You can now find 500 million pages about it.)

    Zava Design, post: 136932 wrote:
    But I’ll point back to Google’s targeting of “link farms”, and ask outside of a few relevant business directories, what other form of quality “link” would you say there was outside of those generated via social media channels, that google wouldn’t categorise as “link farms”?
    If you want a “quality” link profile look to links from your industry’s suppliers, associations, industry news sites, industry specific directories, etc.

    In fact, most of the web has been built around this process and most web page links would never be classified as “link farms”.

    Zava Design, post: 136932 wrote:
    And I include forums, blogs, wikis ..etc in social media, and they are social interaction between online users.
    I expect we will find that the explosion in link spamming that G is presently hammering has been largely made possible by the explosion in forums and blogs.

    It is those social media platforms that enable visitors to insert their own links that are potential SE spam problems. G has been de-indexing blogs that are link spam – BuildMyRank is gone. A good article (with references) is, “It’s Official, Blog Networks Are Getting Squashed By Google

    Today’s emails included its share of spam SEO offers. Here is the sort of social media spam services being offered to me on a daily basis:

    “Our packages for 15 keywords are mentioned below:

    4 Web2.0/Blog Postings
    30 Social Bookmarking Submissions”

    I’d love to know how many posts this site’s Sysops have to cull for link spamming reasons. :)

    At present, I can’t see how a SE can use signals from social media as a major determinent of a page’s ranking.
    Regs,
    JohnW

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 112 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.