-----------------------------------------------------------------
SearchReturn Discussion List
"Understanding Internet Search Technology"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Published by:
Disa Johnson SearchReturn
http://www.searchreturn.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
November 27, 2007 SearchReturn Issue #139
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEND POSTS:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Refer a friend: http://www.searchreturn.com/subscribe.shtml
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.....IN THIS DIGEST.....
// -- FEATURED POST -- //
"Link Building"
~ Da' Tmeister (Terry Van Horne)
// -- CONTINUING DISCUSSION -- //
"Ranking Reports"
~ Bill Kruse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
// -- FEATURED POST -- //
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> Link Building
From: Terry Van Horne
>>>
Are advertising (purchased) links often detected and given no
ranking value? [Matt Cutts WMW Keynote Nov 2005: detected and
washed out 95% of the time]
<<<
Not to steal Eric or Bruce's thunder but... I am often skeptical
of stats/statements coming from SE's, if "detected and washed out
95% of the time" is the case, then, why resort to desperate "rat
programs"? The current FUD campaign is nothing but a witch hunt
and not the actions of a search engine **confident** it detects
95% and washes it! IMO, there's way more to this and it has
nothing to do with "relevancy", fairness or anything other than
the almighty $ and sweating publishers into monetization using
AdSense!
Google is leaving a ton of money on the table because, IMO, they
can't provide enough "quality" target sites for the contextual ad
program. I leave 50% of my budget on the table every day because
there isn't enough inventory to go around. So if you sweat all
the publishers into your program then you have substantially
increased profit without adding one new customer.
IMO, Google are calling links advertising when that is likely not
the intent of the publisher. IMO, the thought that the W3C is
selling links is absurd, and the accusing finger some within the
industry pointed at this austere group is a clear indication we
have lost touch with our webmaster roots and there is a "lynch
mob" mentality at work here!
Below are characteristics of penalized directories Jeff Bushey
and I identified while working on the list of Reviewed
Directories on SeoPros. I hope this will help some of our junior
brothers better understand what could possibly be seen as
advertising or a problem directory to be listed on.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I know these are the reasons PR
dropped because that's a mugs game only the SE's know for sure,
but... these characteristics were very prevalent among those
whacked!
1. Multiple links to the listing site from pages other than the
results page
2. They mention in their sales pitch "we help you | manipulate
SEs | get higher rankings"
3. They link to recent queries from the home page (inflating
internal PR is **always** a big negative)
4. They have empty categories (inflating internal PR)
5. They list anybody (low quality directory)
6. No indications of what is advertising and what isn't
Note: even back then (shortly after Florida) if they charged
"anything" in return for a review or listing the Google bitchslap
came faster and was more severe!
Some characteristics I've seen which may not be subject to
penalties for paid links:
1. Site content or publication is also published offline
(secondary means of monetization ie: not built for SE)
2. Google Partners IMO, raise trust in the domains linked to
3. Running AdSense on some parts of the site
4. Matt Cutts has posted that paid links marked as "sponsored"
are less likely to be a problem. I say "less likely" because for
the first time in my long observance of Google I view with great
scepticism every word uttered by Matt or Google they have lost
all credibility with me!
The sad part about this is that if this continues I believe there
are some good resources that will fold because Google has scared
away the sponsors that enable them to maintain the site. I feel
this way because I hear from at least 1 SeoPros Member a week
concerned about their link on the site. We have also had every
maturing subscription this week cancel upon the renewal request
from PayPal!
So... yes I'm biased and concerned about the viability of many
Web publications! IMO, it also clearly indicates that the
majority of the industry haven't got clue 1 what is seen as paid
or not, beyond is there a cost to be listed. That this FUD
campaign is for the most part scare mongering is unacceptable to
me! Google can't do a thing about paid links it's just too big
and inherent to the system.
Since many of the best resources are using paid links to monetize
it would be insane to remove these from the results. But, of
course those who believe all above them in the results are
spamming are lining up to get the "guys" they can't compete with
because they only attract low budget contracts with no budget for
advertising beyond a few grand for some wannabe SEO to submit
their site to 100's of directories!
Nothing against these members of the industry, they are needed
but... they need to be realistic about what can be done with
**just** that one trick pony!
That we're rolling over like h*'s on the corner to Google's
fierce p**phand is disgusting to me! This industry has no spine
or leaders who will stand up and say hey... this is wrong on so
many levels!
IMO, Universal Search really is Universal Monetization with a
few videos and one boxes to throw us off the scent! Has there
ever been this many Google partners and Adsense monetized sites
in the results? Not that I've noticed anyway.
Da' Tmeister
-----------------------------------------------------------------
// -- CONTINUING DISCUSSION -- //
-----------------------------------------------------------------
==> Ranking Reports
From: Bill Kruse
On ranking reports: Of course they're flawed.
I always advise clients to take an aggregate view. Flawed or
not, though, an aggregate top ten position if properly handled is
going to lead to more conversions than an aggregate position
around one hundred and ten.
"Big" Bill Kruse
Kruse Internet Services
http://www.kruse.co.uk/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stay Tuned.
Got feedback?: http://www.searchreturn.com/feedback.shtml
Archives: http://www.searchreturn.com/digest-archive.shtml
Alternate formats:
http://www.searchreturn.com/info-formats.shtml
Manage Subscriptions:
http://www.searchreturn.com/help/manage-subs.shtml
Problems unsubscribing? Contact the postmaster:
mailto:postmaster@searchreturn.com
Information on how to sponsor this publication:
http://www.searchreturn.com/help/advertise.shtml
Published by SearchReturn
http://www.searchreturn.com
Website Membership:
http://www.searchreturn.com/register.shtml
The contents of the digest do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of SearchReturn or Disa Johnson. SearchReturn and
Disa Johnson make no warranties, either expressed or implied,
about the truth or accuracy of the contents of the SearchReturn
Digest.
Copyright 2007 Disa Johnson. All Rights Reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------