SEO

The Penguin Whisperer

Rae Note: Welcome to the first appearance of a guest in my Rants category in Bitchland. And let me assure you, it takes a pair of special skills combined with a big pair of balls. And Paul Macnamara has both.

If you have spent some time, you have probably seen people comment on how some of the best SEOs are SEOs you have never heard of before. Paul (PMAC) is one of those SEOs. He has spent the last 15 years ranking among the toughest industries on the web.

Paul pushed all the limits imposed by the search engines – not only crossing the line, but even defining the line that Google would draw. I know it because it's been part of my circle of trust for over a decade now. I have long witnessed his work first hand.

Since, Paul has been repentant and decided to use his knowledge and judgment about what algorithms can and do not want to tolerate to help people penalized on the web to regain their rankings

In short, when I tell you that Paul knows his shit, Paul knows his shit.

He also stole my hat. But it's a different story.

With that, it's over for him

 Penguin Secrets "width =" 550 "height =" 400 "/> </p>
<p> Finally, he There is an answer on how to recover from the most punitive algorithmic feature that a search engine has ever unleashed on the SEO community. No need to wait more than a year to escape the # 39; Hell of the mighty Penguin. "</p>
<p> This answer is the Holy Grail, and we know that it must be true because it is presented as a free prison card by a renowned SEO expert. Bachynski </p>
<p> Josh must be an expert because he has been introduced several times now on the Moz whiteboard that some would say to be the star of Moz's blog. it helps to pontificate about SEO issues on their influential dish Moz is about credibility, trust, legitimacy and professionalism after all. </p>
<h2> A Breakthrough SEO </h2>
<p> The fact that Josh can shoot Penguin sites in just 2-3 days is one of the most important. Remarkable discoveries I've heard about in all my years of SEO work. As you can see in the video below, Josh says to ignore what <a href= says John Mueller regarding the disavowing links

Josh says rather to contact him for negotiate a price to know more. top-secret recovery technique for this very difficult algorithmic penalty.

You can see a transcript here.

That's right, people enter and sign up for your Penguin recovery moment that it will not disclose until you've negotiated the fees. It does not look like snake oil for me. This must be legitimate because it's a high level MOZ contributor, right?

Scientific Evidence The Disavow Tool Is Totally Useless

Josh raised a bit of controversy last week when he organized a Whiteboard Friday posted on Moz where he said that it was impossible for a site to recover from Penguin using the disallowance tool alone and that there had to be a link removal component for a site to recover . He based this "factoid" as a result of a "scientific experiment" where he took twelve sites that had shown traffic increases during Penguin 3.0. All twelve of these sites had link loss as reported by third-party binding tools such as ahrefs .

As a result of this massive data set and the absence of a control group, Josh came to the conclusion that the disavowal tool does not work and that it does not work. there must be link deletions for one site to be retrieved.

This is despite the fact that some of the most respected names in the collection of penalties have made it clear that they have indeed recovered Penguin sites while not making any link removal. These are people whose reputation is above reproach, as Marie Haynes Glenn Gabe and our esteemed host Rae Hoffman . I can also say unequivocally that I've recovered Penguin sites using the tool disavowal without making any connection.

What A Laughable Argument

Sites that have been affected by Penguin are much more likely to be susceptible to link attrition as a result of a loss of link which occurs naturally with sites that have weak or even toxic profiles. Suggesting that the loss of links should mean that withdrawals must take place so that a site recovers from Penguin is such an imperfect argument that I am shocked that MOZ allows this to be displayed as a "scientific experiment".

If the file of disavowal does not work, how is it possible to explain all the recoveries that took place following its use if there was no deletions?

According to Josh's finding, that means there were enough attrition links that had naturally removed only the problematic links that a recovery was occurring while alone. Or maybe Josh says we are all working in the penalty space that has recovered sites without making kidnappings.

Of course, it was not a scientific experiment in any way whatsoever. Using a small set of data to draw a conclusion without considering or even talking about all the other variables that might be at stake is at the very least to play with the facts and, at worst, it's a carefree disinformation.

In comments after the post, Chuck Price articulated it much better than I could ever when he said :

To be a scientific study you need a control group. "A control group study uses a control group to compare to an experimental group in a test of a causal hypothesis.The control and experimental groups must be identical in all relevant ways, with the exception of the introduction of a suspected causative agent in the experimental group.If the suspected causative agent is actually a causal factor of an event, then the logic dictates that this event should manifest itself more significantly in the experimental group only in the control group.

Just because there is a correlation between the 12 recoveries & link loss does not mean that denying only recoveries is a myth. Web that triggered Penguin's algorithm have generally gone a long way in building spammy links, and have gained many links since the types of sites that fall all the time.

Selling Snake Oil

If Josh's flawed argument was not enough, he then laid out penalty collection professionals who would dare to sell the link cleanup by disavowal as a service, implying that they are selling snake oil and taking advantage of customers to fill their portfolios by simply adding domains to a text file.

This comes from someone who tells people to ignore Google's own advice when it comes to Penguin. to use the tool disavow to ask Google to ignore the links that it contains, they should simply email it so that it can negotiate a price and then he will pick them up from Penguin in 2-3 days. Who is the snake oil salesman? This comes from a guy who claims that he does 300 site audits and recovers a year? How does anyone who says that he does 300 audits a year have any credibility whatsoever?

 Discussion Can you Disavow Penguin's Whiteboard Friday Moz "width =" 537 "height =" 310 "/> </p>
<p> Even my most basic audit takes more than 39 a day for me to write and this does not include the time spent doing the audit Josh has to drink coffee as it is his job because he does not sleep s & # 39; 39; he </p>
<p> Not only is Josh the most productive penalty recovery expert in the industry, but he has recovered many Penguin sites </a> to make JUST moves because he NEVER uses the salvage system. </p>
<p> Josh must have very good awareness skills with regards to referrals because as someone who has deleted a very important number of manual penalties, I can tell you that a removal rate of 20% would be considered extrememem High ent and elimination rates of 5-15% would be more typical. These figures are not enough to bring out a typical Penguin affliction site </p>
<p> Either Josh is the Penguin whisperer, or his trousers are on fire. </p>
<h2> MOZ Goes Low Bar </h2>
<p> When the methodology of Josh's scientific experiment was questioned in the comments of his post MOZ, Josh's responses were thick and dull. Arrogance and vitriol and completely unworthy of what I would expect from someone who runs a white board Friday on Moz. In fact, MOZ moderators have published at least a dozen comments from Josh for "personal attacks." </p>
<p> Curiously, the moderator's comments are gone and the editing notes say that Josh did the editing and there is no mention the reason why the editing was done. MOZ really seems to have recently set foot on issues related to their blog and having contributors like Josh on the main blog, especially on Whiteboard Friday, seriously undermines their credibility and reputation with serious SEO. The Gossip Was Perceptible </p>
<h2> Going Against The Grain </h2>
<p> This is not the first time that Josh has gone against the tide with respect to Penguin. At 1:40 pm in this video Josh says unequivocally that Penguin has nothing to do with links. At 17:00, he says that it is not necessary to remove the links to recover </p>
</p>
<p> I'm pretty sure that the links have something to do with Penguin. Pure speculation on my part of course. </p>
<p> There is so much pure trash that is written in the SEO space that I do not even give it a second thought when I read something that is misleading. Normally, I ignore it and I continue my day, but I felt that in this case, this post was to be called, not only for the flawed methodology that led to such a horribly vicious conclusion, but also because of that. After being presented on a whiteboard Friday </p>
<p> By presenting this post on the whiteboard Friday, some will believe that it is about an information checked by Moz and they're sure. They will take this ridiculous conclusion as a fact. Although Moz claims that contributors' opinions are his, I'm sure if I wrote an article explaining why it makes sense to "submit" your site to search engines, it would not be promoted on the main blog, and yet minus </p>
<p> Finally, I could not sit back idly while being accused alongside other professionals of eliminating the penalties of selling snake oil by someone else. One who has no credibility. The words pot, kettle and black come to mind. </p>
<h2> Collect </h2>
<p> Have a site that has been assigned by Penguin? The recovery is very, very difficult and in fact many times, it might be better to discard the field and start again. If that is not possible and there is a solid foundation of good ties in the profile, then my advice would echo Marie Haynes who <a href= would include the following steps :

You must perform a full audit of your link profile to identify as many problematic links as possible. If you have control over the link (directories or web 2.0 sites where you have connections for example) then you must remove the link. Tool to disavow to disavow problematic links at the domain level. Create a resource that will attract the types of high quality authority links that Google is likely to reward in the future.

Finally, I would like to thank Rae for allowing me to go on a rant on her blog. There was a moment when Rae seemed constantly throwing grenades behind her while she was surfing the web and rarely had the opportunity to call shit when she saw him. Even though I must confess that Rae is unleashed on occasion, I appreciate the fact that she has better things to do now

Closing Rae: Oh, do not twist pmac, I'll still jump in the ring. However, someone once said that I did not need to have a dog in every fight. ; -)

(Penguin photo credit to JPC.Raleigh )

UPDATE:

John Mueller confirms that Disavow only is sufficient to remove an algorithmic penalty Penguin . He advises you to do both to cover your basics, but that from a technical / algorithmic standpoint, a single disavowal will suffice.





Leave a Reply

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

*
*