Google Propaganda, SEO and Why Marketers Need to Wake Up

As everyone in the research knows, Matt Cutts published a post last week – I'm paraphrasing – warning us that Google now consider "comments from guests of poor quality" will be spam according to their directions and will start acting in accordance with these beliefs.

I do not plan to run this post entirely around this ad. If you have not seen Matt's message at least a year ago, you were unconscious or in denial.


that can be scaled – and can not be "controlled" by Google as regards their algorithm will not be manipulated by it – will eventually become part of Google's "link scheme" list complete with a FUD campaign in the research community centered around To scare webmasters "into the know" into compliance.

Next, we will see a larger brand "nailed" with a penalty for guest display – complete with accompanying the traditional media coverage of this nailing so that Google can bring out its FUD campaign in the mainstream media. The biggest brand will then claim ignorance to break any guidelines (or blame their SEO company), will make a bunch of articles sharing the message of "this tactic was bad" from Google, and then have their sanction revoked – all in a window of 1 to 2 weeks. Rap The Genius .


As could be expected, comments began to invade Matt's post (at the moment I write this post, there are more than 420 comments) while social media was just a bit run out of panic and blogs in the industry published in force with cheers, taunts and occasionally " I have told you "

As one would expect, one of the most shared comments on this post was from Danny Sullivan one of the few members of the research community "enough" known to be listed in Wikipedia under the arbitrary guidelines of Wikipedia's "Wikipedia worthy of an entry" – and rightly so.

I would post Danny's comment here but it's long, then, you know …

 Angry panda "width =" 550 "height =" 262 " /> </p>
<p> So you're going to go read it if you want to see it in its entirety <a href= here The part of his comment that prompted me to answer was the following:

 Danny Sullivan "width =" 60 "height =" 60 "/> <br />" I wish you did not count the "</p>
<p> What am I? Answered by this: </p>
<p> <img class= retweeted the link to my comment, I hit Matt's post again and saw him making the statement next in one of his comments:

 Matt Cutts "width =" 60 "height =" 60 "/> <br />" We are taking action against poor quality sites or spam in order to protect the relevance of the search experience of our users. "</p>
<p> Normally I would agree with Matt here, believe it or not. </p>
<p> You are an active spammer, you take a risk, and you must be willing to accept the potential negative consequences (just as you do) from the day I participated in activities "underneath "plateau," it was just what it was, and we accepted that. </p>
<p> The problem with P Overall, Matt's comment above is false. In Penguin, Google does not act on "bad quality sites or spam". Google takes action against sites LINKED by "sites of poor quality or spam" </p>
<p> <img class= stated that press sites had a value for obtaining "links for purposes "In 2013, Google officially added these same press release links to their list of link schemas – involving webmasters using highly optimized anchors in them risk being touched for them.

Why would they hit you if they devalued them without penalty since 2005? In my humble opinion, they fail to identify all sites – many of which are considered "higher authorities" – scraping press release sites and republishing versions giving you "natural" and highly grounded links.

By scary – or potentially penalizing you – by adding the nofollow in the version itself, this helps them to solve this problem because the scrapers who leave the links also include the nofollow as a result.

Return to Penguin. They know some crappy links, of course – but they rely on those of you with enough "known" to be touched to fill them even more via the disavowal tool.

Then there is a question of a potential effect of "fallout". If the number of disavowments of a domain is sufficient, is this domain affected? How many webmasters does it take to not ask for a link to delete and simply disavow it before innocent sites are affected by the actions of webmasters scared on the proverbial witch hunt?

 Salem "Witch Trials" width = "550" height = "214" /> </p>
<p> But, these are crappy sites, is not it, if not people would not disavow them. But here's the problem: Google's lack of transparency associated with devastating financial penalties is causing desperate webmasters to disavow the links of sites where they only have anchors, distribute a revision product to the webmaster and legitimate links that They want to kill, you know, just in case … </p>
<p> And now, we've added sites that allow guest comments on the chopping block, and if you think webmasters are not running not – as you read this post – disavowing legitimate sites where they have a legitimate and useful guest message s (I do not speak of sites "made for guest posts" here people) then your head is buried in sand. </p>
<p> In Panda, Google encounters false positives because they are not able to always deduce exactly who is the original source of the content. </p>
<p> They go by some measure of authority as if the big guys would never steal from the little guys (and they still have a harder time deciding on "authority" when he s & # 39; 39 is to determine an original source when it comes to non major brands.] </p>
<p> Manufacturers who do not know better provide merchants and affiliates the same products that they use on their Own sites If the merchant or affiliate using this feed has been longer than the manufacturer, or has better links than the manufacturer, or is Amazon, then the manufacturer gets Pandaized. </p>
<p> Sites like Yahoo Answers and Amazon Askville have users who plagiarize small content sites on a regular basis – often posting a full article from an outside site without crediting the source. </p>
<p> Sites like Business Insider republish the RSS feed of the blog and you must give up advertising or hope to have a decent enough relationship profile to compete. </p>
<p> <img class= republish the incredible blog posts that they will find on the web (with permission). Do you see the source site ( Daddy Doin 'Work ) ? for this article? Of course, that may not speak to an entire site to get hit by Panda, but this testifies to Google's inability to properly identify (and not to rank the original)



Google acts as if they themselves were a kind of protector – and decision maker – of what is well and what is wrong on the web.

In Penguin, they act as a parent telling a teenager they are his They have not relied on four specific things that their friends have done in the last three years of their lives – and they will let them go as soon as they apologize for the four specific things their friends have done and identify which friends have them. done

But, they must understand what the others did without help. When 16 year old complain that it is unfair, they tell them if they do not like their period, they are free not to live in their home.

When in reality they know that this is not a viable option For them, Google is like a teacher who gives you a failing grade because somebody 39 else copied your test – whether or not you knew that you were copying from yourself or that you were actually copied.

 Hooded Child "width =" 550 "height =" 247 "/> </p>
<p> They simply see two identical tests – one of a student A, a d & # 39; 39; a student B and without question or appeal, they assume that the student B is the one who cheated.You receive the punishment of the failure of the class and if you do not like it, you are free to go to a different school. </p>
<p> The best part of all this is that Google does not give you the # Example: </p>
<p> Google Loca is one of the largest scrapers on the web, while Google tells sites not to create pages containing only manufacturer information without Google being able to index them, Google Local retrieves databases, other review sites and publishes pages without notice. </p>
<p> And we will not even "there go "with the <a href= Knowledge Graph

Do what dad says, not like dad. Reminds me of the 80s saying no to commercial drugs – "I learned it by looking at you daddy!".

"We" are not allowed to give bloggers products to review except we ask for a nofollow on the post. But, Google can give thousands of Android phones in 2009 resulting in thousands of links without any problem or slap from Google's search division.

In fact, they did it on and on again – without recourse.

But, everything is a question of intention? Too bad you can not resize the decisive intent.

Google claims that it can not be "responsible" for moderating the content of each comment posted on YouTube, but requires AdSense publishers with UGC content may be able to do it to stay in compliance with their policies.

Google says embedding links in widgets without nofollow is not only bad, but causes penalties in their search results. However, as noted Dave Naylor it seems that Google Maps is exempted to feel anger.

Google says that you are not supposed to add rich anchor links to your press releases without nofollow or risk having a negative impact on your search results. Yet, when they announced Calico, they put two links in the press release to their own properties using the anchor text – without using nofollow. This of course gave rise to direct links between the people who scratched the liberation. This does not seem to have had any effect on the rank of the page to which they were linked in the version with regard to the classification on the anchor used .

To be clear, I'm not choosing Matt personally here even though his position was partly responsible for this post. Google is a huge company and Matt does not manage it. I am sure when Matt is met with examples of the above, he is sometimes like …

 Matt Cutts Facepalm "width =" 550 "height =" 233 "/> </p>
<p> And I hope that after reading this post, he will not feel … </p>
<p> <img class= epic in 2012.

In short, I am supposed to publish great content, not actively promote it and hope that the right ratios of the right kind of people ( sites) like it and bind it. Oh, and then I'm supposed to cross my fingers and hope that my competitors are not actively trying to fuck with my "Create a good content" alignment.


Of course, Google (and their fanboys) will tell you that you are free to do what you want, and will simply accept that you might not appear (well) in Google accordingly.

But let's face it …

 Search Share August 2013 "width =" 550 "height =" 260 "/> </p>
<p> That's bullshit financially devastating – even the biggest Just like a tyrannical leader can tell his citizens if they do not like it, they can move – he knows that the vast majority of these citizens do not have any realistic and viable choice but to endure – and obey – tyranny. </p>
<h3> ZOMG! GOOGLE TUE SEO! </h3>
<p> Hardly as anyone with an SEO agency will tell you Probably, demand for good SEO services has simply increased.Before all the madness Penguin / Panda, we (SEO) had a basic offer.We helped you put your technical website online and you helped to build your image of brand and your links with the ultimate goal of being more visible in the search engines. </p>
<p> there is now a demand (and therefore, services) to help Penguinized sites (both deserved and underserved) to recover and Pandaized sites (deserved and undeserved) to recover. Because this shit is too complicated at this point for anyone who does not live and breathes SEO to navigate – especially regarding false positives. </p>
<p> Now add the need to understand on-site factors, indexing issues, schema markup, understanding of backlink profiles, how to get keyword data when Google takes it hostage (except to paying advertisers), infusion of Google Places, personalization, information architecture, Hummingbird and even the potential social impacts on SEO … </p>
<p> Many people who think that" SEO is dead "in my opinion, do so because they were" a pony ride "so to speak. How do you "do" SEO or perhaps more specifically, what you perceived SEO is, partially depends on when you entered the industry, IMHO. </p>
<p> <img class= builders links are standing with their dicks in their hands proclaiming that SEO is dead because they do not perceive that SEO as a tactic compared to an ll encompassing traffic growth and conversion strategy.


If I were to list what I wanted you to remove from this post, it would be:

Google's main concern It's not "the web" or "you" – that's GooglePenguin's not always just – Google knows it but … see # 1Panda is not always right – Google know it but … see # 1Google talks about the conversation, but does not work and there is nothing we can do there "Create good content" guarantees you JACK SHIT when it comes rankingSEO is as alive as it was ten years agoSEO has evolved to become the result of a real marketing strategy against marketing tacticsYour pony is dead

So what now? It's time for traders to wake up.

 Say Content Marketing Once Again "width =" 550 "height =" 261 "/> </p>
<p> From now on you have to stop with tactics, you do not can not replace "link building" with "content marketing" and call it a damn day. </p>
<p> From now on, a marketing plan that consists of (and more importantly, is based on ) "classify well in Google" is a bullshit plan because Google does not care about you, or your website or your business, they care about theirs. </p>
<p> From now on you work to generate traffic From there, you work on creating a brand image, from there you work on getting customers, from there you work on the manufacturing your product or service or "value" epic – FUCKING EPIC </p>
<p> I'm not saying that the new SEO is not to do SEO, I say that you have to do things in the most optimized way for research. possible, but never lose the site because what you are supposed to do is build a business and not just build search engine rankings. </p>
<p> By doing this, you are doing the most defensible thing you can for your business. And, you will end up doing what Google seeks to reward in its algorithm. Google does not want to make websites popular, they want to rank popular websites. If you do not understand the difference, you are in a frightful ascent. </p>
<p> And if Google still turns the screw on you at the end of the day – despite you doing your best to "do things right" – it's your only chance to survive – and prosper. </p>
    </div><!-- end desc -->
    <hr class=

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *