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.
SCALE CAPACITY = THE EVENTUAL BLACKLISTING OF A TACTICAL
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 .
THE RESPONSE OF INDUSTRY HAS STOPPED IN
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 …
here The part of his comment that prompted me to answer was the following:
retweeted the link to my comment, I hit Matt's post again and saw him making the statement next in one of his comments:
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?
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)
THE PROBLEM WITH THE FEAR OF THE BLIND
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.
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.
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 …
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.
"YOU CAN ALWAYS TAKE YOUR BALL AND GO TO YOU"
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 …
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.
WHERE WE GO FROM HERE
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.