Home – New Forums Tech talk The Fall of Guest Blogging & Rise of “Interviews”

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #988837
    NickMorris
    Participant
    • Total posts: 283
    Up
    0
    ::

    I was wondering what would be the new pet tactic after guest blogging was whacked and thought that interviews would be a likely candidate.

    Now, just received an email from the founder of MyBlogGuest about their new service: http://myblogu.com/. Essentially its a service to connect those wanting to do interviews with those wanting to be interviewed (and, of course, ‘cited’ for their trouble).

    Its still basically free content in exchange for a link but transfers the control of the citation link back to the website owner which makes it easier to claim that its ‘editorial.’

    To be fair, I think it most cases I would consider it an editorial link until such time that the expectation of citation becomes so high, as it did with the guest post bio, that it becomes a pure exchange of content for link and becomes a clear blackhat technique.

    Thoughts?

    #1169142
    IncredibleCo
    Member
    • Total posts: 406
    Up
    0
    ::

    Guest posting for the purpose of adding a link.

    Surely if the post adds value to the blog – how can it be considered blackhat?

    Yeah it’s playing the system but everyone still wins no?

    Pretty soon there’ll be no white hat techniques…

    #1169143
    NickMorris
    Participant
    • Total posts: 283
    Up
    0
    ::

    Its a higher quality technique than, say, a blog network but its still not an editorial link and therefore blackhat. Google has already starting taking action against those using Guest posts excessively, however, they do seem to be only targeting those who’ve linked back to themselves using keywordy anchor text, for the moment.

    I still think Guest Posting can be a worthwhile technique to raise awareness and bring traffic though.

    #1169144
    IncredibleCo
    Member
    • Total posts: 406
    Up
    0
    ::

    Pretty sure that Google just want everyone to use adwords in the end…

    #1169145
    JohnTranter
    Member
    • Total posts: 842
    Up
    0
    ::
    IncredibleCo, post: 196192 wrote:
    Pretty sure that Google just want everyone to use adwords in the end…

    I think it can be summarised as
    “If you’re doing something purely for the SEO benefits, we don’t want you to do it”

    #1169146
    Cesar
    Member
    • Total posts: 591
    Up
    0
    ::
    JohnTranter, post: 196194 wrote:
    I think it can be summarised as
    “If you’re doing something purely for the SEO benefits, we don’t want you to do it”

    Spot on John, one day the Internet community will wake up to the fact Google wants everyone on Adwords. Organic listings and SEO are biting into their profits, and hence why they “did away” with Author-Bio photos showing up in the search results.

    #1169147
    JohnW
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,642
    Up
    0
    ::

    Hi Nick,
    We are in opinion land here.

    Guest blogging for a “citation” link seems to me to be a low return on investment SEO activity. (A “citation” link won’t pass pagerank.)

    Wouldn’t the same article published on the parent website be more valuable as an SE referral generator?

    IMHO, If folk focus on trying to devise another quick link building scheme they will only get away with it for a short time. Then G will lower the boom on it as it has every couple of years for the last 14 years.

    Cost-effective link building needs to take a long term approach. It needs to be based on “natural” link building strategies from sites topically related to the parent site.
    Regs,
    JohnW

    #1169148
    JohnW
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,642
    Up
    0
    ::
    Cesar, post: 196284 wrote:
    Spot on John, one day the Internet community will wake up to the fact Google wants everyone on Adwords. Organic listings and SEO are biting into their profits, and hence why they “did away” with Author-Bio photos showing up in the search results.
    Hi Cesar,
    Have you opened a can of worms with these statements?

    Correction: IMHO, What is biting into G’s profits is mobile phone search.

    Many mobile users are switching to searching on apps and therefore bypassing Google search. One survey I read recently forecast G’s share of online ad revenue will decrease from 80+% to 60+% in the next 3 years for this specific reason.

    Correction: Deleting author pics
    I believe G. has stated that this has been implemented to reduce the space needed to show G search results on a smartphone’s interface.

    There are so many types of searches on smartphones where G is not capable of delivering user-friendly results. G’s search info delivery is being compromised by so many sites that are not smartphone-friendly.

    IMHO, this scaring the s–t out of G and is the primary driver of all its changes.l
    Regs,
    JohnW

    #1169149
    Greg_M
    Member
    • Total posts: 1,691
    Up
    0
    ::
    JohnW, post: 196391 wrote:
    IMHO, What is biting into G’s profits is mobile phone search.

    Many mobile users are switching to searching on apps and therefore bypassing Google search. One survey I read recently forecast G’s share of online ad revenue will decrease from 80+% to 60+% in the next 3 years for this specific reason.

    Deleting author pics
    I believe G. has stated that this has been implemented to reduce the space needed to show G search results on a smartphone’s interface.

    There are so many types of searches on smartphones where G is not capable of delivering user-friendly results. G’s search info delivery is being compromised by so many sites that are not smartphone-friendly.

    IMHO, this scaring the s–t out of G and is the primary driver of all its changes.l
    Regs,
    JohnW

    Hi John

    I know I’m in the realm of opinion here, but given the above.

    Do you see the potential (going forward) for bonus points in search, for sites optimised for mobile access (not talking about exclusively .mobile as such)?

    I don’t include in this scenario, a site just jammed in a responsive layout framework, but actually having an “app” type UI at small screen resolutions.

    I can’t find it atm, but I do recall a link (which you may have provided) to a Google test page that actually rates a page/site for user interface points at the mobile resolution … thought that may be a clue to what they’re hoping developers will aim for (and hence my query).

    Cheers

    #1169150
    JohnTranter
    Member
    • Total posts: 842
    Up
    0
    ::
    JohnW, post: 196391 wrote:
    Correction: IMHO, What is biting into G’s profits is mobile phone search.

    Many mobile users are switching to searching on apps and therefore bypassing Google search.

    Can I just ask you which apps? I’m genuinely curious as I’d never heard of this before.

    #1169151
    MatthewKeath
    Member
    • Total posts: 3,184
    Up
    0
    ::
    JohnTranter, post: 196410 wrote:
    Can I just ask you which apps? I’m genuinely curious as I’d never heard of this before.Me too.

    Android was built to allow Google to funnel people into their search, and Apple allows you to choose your default search provider.

    #1169152
    JohnW
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,642
    Up
    0
    ::
    estim8, post: 196408 wrote:
    Hi John

    I know I’m in the realm of opinion here, but given the above.

    Do you see the potential (going forward) for bonus points in search, for sites optimised for mobile access (not talking about exclusively .mobile as such)?

    I don’t include in this scenario, a site just jammed in a responsive layout framework, but actually having an “app” type UI at small screen resolutions.
    Hi Estim8,
    G has said that it will be placing more importance on page load speed as a ranking factor in the future. They say the driver for this is mobile phones and the slower speed of mobile Internet access.

    Simply implementing a small screen user interface won’t impact load speed.

    At this stage I don’t think it would risk factoring other parameters into its algorithm as the proportion of sites with mobile interfaces must be very small.

    I believe one of the big problems G will be trying to resolve is that its own interface is not smartphone-friendly in that it is not conducive to both giving relevant search results and delivering all the ads that it does on a desktop screen.
    Regs,
    JohnW

    #1169153
    JohnW
    Member
    • Total posts: 2,642
    Up
    0
    ::
    JohnTranter, post: 196410 wrote:
    Can I just ask you which apps? I’m genuinely curious as I’d never heard of this before.
    Hi John & Matt,

    Here are a few references.

    1 Aug 14: How Consumers Search for Products on Desktop, Tablet and on Smartphones

    “Consumers are definitely conditioned to use Google or another search engine for search on desktop—excluding travel searches. For travel, we see more mobile usage, and in that case, they’re usually using an app which is specific to whatever travel site used such as KAYAK or TripAdvisor. That category is pretty much the first to be “appified,” as some have termed it.

    When it comes to shopping and general discovery, on desktop it’s still Google or a search engine, or a particular shopping or deal site when the customer wants something specific. To quantify, 73% of product research is done using a search engine, 33% is done through specific shopping sites, and 24% is through apps.”

    “The reason is people prefer to use apps if they’re searching on their smartphones, and that’s partly because that search happens right there in the store… On the phone, the generic search engine has a small amount of real estate, and it’s kind of clunky and not the best user experience.”

    Look at all the shopping, travel and others that provide search apps to deliver info that might otherwise have been sought from G.

    Dec 13: Survey: Majority Use Mobile Search, Find It “Harder Than PC

    Nov 13: How Australians use Smartphones and Tablets

    Aug 12: Which Smartphone Apps do Savvy Shoppers Use Most

    From the above. (This is 2 years old data.)

    App Provider = No. Users
    eBay Mobile = 13,161,000
    Amazon Mobile = 12,122,000
    Groupon = 11,942,000
    Shopkick = 6,481,000
    LivingSocial = 4,349,000
    Walgreens = 2,810,000
    Target = 2,215,000

    These tens of millions of app users must be replacing many potential G mobile searches.

    This is not to say that the number of searches on G have diminished – they have not. The apps have extended how people can search online and IMHO, it is G adwords revenue that is likely to be hurt.
    Regs,
    JohnW

    #1169154
    JohnTranter
    Member
    • Total posts: 842
    Up
    0
    ::
    JohnW, post: 196423 wrote:
    App Provider = No. Users
    eBay Mobile = 13,161,000
    Amazon Mobile = 12,122,000
    Groupon = 11,942,000
    Shopkick = 6,481,000
    LivingSocial = 4,349,000
    Walgreens = 2,810,000
    Target = 2,215,000

    These tens of millions of app users must be replacing many potential G mobile searches.

    Gotcha. Sorry, I thought your previous post implied that people were using Apps exclusively for search and never using Google, hence my confusion.

    #1169155
    NickMorris
    Participant
    • Total posts: 283
    Up
    0
    ::
    JohnW, post: 196390 wrote:
    (A “citation” link won’t pass pagerank.)

    Maybe its just a difference in our definitions of ‘citation link’ but why wouldn’t they pass PageRank?

    JohnW, post: 196390 wrote:
    Wouldn’t the same article published on the parent website be more valuable as an SE referral generator?

    In some situations I’d say the link/s would be more valuable.

    From what I’ve read it does seem like Google are more concerned with the anchor text of ‘self linking,’ as in the case of guest blogging, rather than the links themselves though.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.