homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.193.39
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 310 message thread spans 11 pages: < < 310 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >     
Social Factors - the End of Most Intelligent Content On The Web
coachm




msg:4316504
 8:47 pm on May 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

I see that Google is now using social signals in their SERPS, and I'm quite stunned, in part as a business and also as a search consumer.

This is the single most evil thing I've seen in terms of its impact, if in fact social signals (in essence a measure of POPULARITY, not quality) play anything but a minor role in SERPS.

As social factors increase in importance, the point of creating original, thought leading, anything OTHER than simple mass content is removed.

The reality is that social media is a popular medium focuses on people (not a bad thing in itself), rather than content. The vast majority of the best and brightest in terms of subject matter experts in many niches, simply are NOT spending time pushing their ideas on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIN. They, in fact, we if I be a bit presumptuous, have better things to do with our time. Nothing wrong with social but if popularity (number of tweeted links/likes) is a deciding factor in ranking, those creating the best content in terms of "thought value" simply won't show up.

Apart from the fact that I've spend 15 years creating original content (I mean original, not some sad recast of what everyone else is saying), in print -- articles and books, and online (free, mind you), and that may now be worthless to me, it means that in my role of "content curation" (ok, finding and linking to the best content) is done.

There is now very little incentive to publish new ideas and thoughts to move fields forward, not only because it's hard to monetize, but because no one will see it because it won't have "buzz".

I work a lot with government, and have long wanted to open up a website on the topic, and have grabbed a few domains I might want to use. Now, there's no point.

If you look at social media, for example, what you will find is loads of stuff including the key word government from upset citizens, the political right, and so on....essentially contentless or worthless if one's interest is helping people understand government.

Project canned.

Finding the best content in niches from true authorities (scientists, academics, book authors that don't get buzz) has become harder and harder, and now the curation role is cooked.

And the kicker is, not only is content not king, replaced by "popularity", but the spamming of the SERPS and the pollution of an already polluted social media environment can begin aforce.

It's a trivial technical exercise to tweet every second on something, to vary the tweets, in order to boost SERPS. I have tools to do that, and they are openly available. I don't use them except to post occasional automated tweets for things I think are valuable and always spaced far apart.

Why shouldn't I just go completely black hat and do that?

If that's what it takes to be found, I won't do it, and not only that but there would not be any point in using the Internet anymore, EXCEPT to socialize.

I'm seriously stunned here. I hope I've got this wrong, but not only has Google crushed businesses like mine that trade in ideas and content, it has the potential to significantly damage the society at large by LIMITING (unintentionally) the spread of the very information that runs the economic engines of this planet.

I'm thinking that of course, social indicators will be only a part of determining SERP's, so the effect hopefully isn't as absolute as it could be.

Finally, perhaps this social factoring explains why my sales have gone to zero, my adsense income has disappeared, and what I worked to build is now almost useless to me, to those in my niches, and to the larger world.

Someone, tell me I've got this all wrong.

 

wheel




msg:4318086
 5:21 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

how the mediocre and popular will almost always win,

No.

Mediocrity and popular doesn't win. Marketing wins. Marketing wins over knowledge every day. This has been true for decades. It's also been true for decades that people who can't market, complain about how their expertise is better, and mediocrity is winning.

Mediocrity isn't winning. You're just trying to justify why you're losing the game. Suck it up buttercup and learn how to sell whatever it is that you're selling. This is a harsh lesson - but it's one that everyone does well to learn. I had it beaten into me financially. It certainly wasn't a lesson I went looking to learn.

And don't give me this 'lack of quality content'. My site has content that is beyond expert level. That's what I sell - I am the expert in my niche. I know stuff that others don't, and am able to impart it to them. Heck, my client list includes my competitors' staff and even gov't regulators in my niche.

But expertise is only one of the things that's used for marketing. I compete against people that use technical SEO skills to rank. Other competitors in the serps are backed by multi-billion dollar companies so they've got access to promotion methods I simply don't have. They're all just tools in the marketing toolbelt, and expertise is only one of those tools.

I understand that people don't like sales and marketing. Doesn't change the fact that, as the salespeple say, "nothing happens until somebody sells something".

Planet13




msg:4318105
 5:35 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

Kind of interesting to see that in some ways this discussion actually demonstrates some of the issues I'm trying to bring up for discussion -- how bad content crowds out good, how the mediocre and popular will almost always win, and really, the main point: Google actions will reinforce these trends, reduce high quality expert content available on the net, and make that content harder to find when it is on the net. Despite all of Google's motto's, slogans, press releases about their purpose.


Yes, you are correct about those points. Just as a particularly bad tasting beer from St. Louis is the king of... well, whatever it is king of... The American people will go for spoon fed mediocrity every time.

It was true when P.T. Barnum said it back then, and it is still true today:

"No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

While many call for more search engines to take on a larger percentage of search traffic, either by market forces or by government intervention, I think it is more likely that google, with all its resources, might start creating "niche" search engines. Or, they might come out with more ways to segregate results more distinctly.

We already see this to some extent with personalized search. So, in theory, if a user regularly clicks on content created by PhD's and others with advanced competency in the subject matter, then that user would be served more results that are similar "higher quality" in nature. In theory...

Likewise, if google sees a user clicking on lots of ehow articles, then that user would be served more ehow articles (or they would be served SERPs with ehow articles ranking higher).

So in terms of google "dumbing down" the internet, either intentionally or unintentionally, I think it is more of a case of people wanting dumber and dumber content, and google simply giving them what they want.

In the end, google just wants to give users what the MOST users want. They want an easy way to do that, and one of the easier ways to do that (at least in google's eyes) is through measuring social acceptance / engagement.

I do expect the impact of "social acceptance" to increase in importance in the algos of the majore search engines.

Planet13




msg:4318107
 5:40 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

Mediocrity and popular doesn't win. Marketing wins. Marketing wins over knowledge every day.


I think that is a great point.

I don't think companies win because they have a mediocre product.

Winning companies have a mediocre product because they spend so much money / resources on advertising, they don't have time / resources to develop a quality product.

Also, to get a return on that large marketing investment, they need to hit the widest target audience possible, which may preclude quality content.

indyank




msg:4318110
 5:48 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

Winning companies have a mediocre product because they spend so much money / resources on advertising, they don't have time / resources to develop a quality product.


there you go..Agree with you 100%

We already see this to some extent with personalized search. So, in theory, if a user regularly clicks on content created by PhD's and others with advanced competency in the subject matter, then that user would be served more results that are similar "higher quality" in nature.


I think your understanding of personalized search is wrong.It isn't the way it works currently.

Planet13




msg:4318113
 5:53 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

I think your understanding of personalized search is wrong.It isn't the way it works currently.


It may be. Would love to hear your thoughts on it.

indyank




msg:4318115
 5:57 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

Personalized search is based on your past history either tracked through your web history or a cookie.

[googleblog.blogspot.com...]

tedster




msg:4318130
 6:17 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

The operative word there is "currently". I imagine that in long-term vision, Google could see that kind of personalization as a good thing to add into the mix.

indyank




msg:4318131
 6:19 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

The operative word there is "currently".


Hopefully :)

Reno




msg:4318155
 6:52 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

"No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

For the record, while Barnum is often cited as the originator of that quote, in actuality it was H. L. Mencken who first said it (and it will sometimes be written with the word "tastes" in place of "intelligence", which works equally well IMO!).

If in fact Google is going to give points to the so-called expertise found in social media when calculating the SERPs, then there is another of Mencken's cynicisms that may be particularly relevant (depending on one's POV) to this discussion:

*No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."

...........................

walkman




msg:4318217
 8:41 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

Vigen and some others: you're going off on a tangent. I stated an example where someone acting a traffic cop tells everyone to go to Home Depot even though other people sell the same thing at the same price. In this case it's hiding your "Town Hardware Store" sign from the view as if you didn't exist and people see is Home Deport, Lowes, Ace Hardware...

CoachM is making the same point: It all depends on Google and how much weight they give certain things. For the most part, all you can control is good content. You can and should try to market it obviously, but the likes of Home Depot and some popular bloggers will always outdo you in the marketing, face it. It depends how much weight that is given by Google. So for those that say "adapt" or "I'd this and that," if Google that controls 65%-95% of the traffic turns a knob your efforts are in vain and you'll sing the same tune as CoachM.

All this would not be an issue of we had 4-5 search engines, but we don't so they big boys MUST keep this in mind too. Power, responsibility thing. How many small merchants can survive a Panda like hit for a year? Would be it 'fair /right /good' if Google, the traffic cop that control 65%-70% of 'free' traffic, did that, all of the sudden?

Leosghost




msg:4318243
 9:23 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

Not much point posting about how you found a cancer cure if most of those in social media channels probably spell it canser ( I avoided "Kanser" although, from what I see of facebook and twitter, many there would not know a typo from a presidential candidate ..or would "refudiate" their error anyway ) and would only read "Canser Cure fownd" ..and then only if it came prefaced with "rumer.. Lady Gaga mite haz"..

[edited by: Leosghost at 9:28 pm (utc) on May 26, 2011]

Reno




msg:4318265
 9:58 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

I hate to think about scientists, engineers and what nots having this negative attitude

From my end there is no particular negative attitude about social media per se, the problem is Google referencing it and giving it algo points, as a way of determining a position in the SERPs. And the problem there is simple ~ the proliferation of blogs & etc makes anyone and everyone a kind of "expert" as long as they can type & spell reasonably well (a nod to Leosghost on that one!). I mean, c'mon, a PhD level scientist from MIT has earned a level of respect that a 19 yr old pretty smart kid writing on Facebook or WordPress can only hope to reach eventually. And websurfers asking serious search queries have to hope that Google does not place them side by side in the SERPs, as though there are only minor differences between the two (if past postings here are any indication, that's not uncommon). So yeah, we should be negative about that ~ it's not only wrong, it's potentially dangerous, and thus in many if not most circumstances, has no place in an algo calculation.

...................

coachm




msg:4318306
 10:59 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

Not much point posting about how you found a cancer cure if most of those in social media channels probably spell it canser ( I avoided "Kanser" although, from what I see of facebook and twitter, many there would not know a typo from a presidential candidate ..or would "refudiate" their error anyway ) and would only read "Canser Cure fownd" ..and then only if it came prefaced with "rumer.. Lady Gaga mite haz"..


A gem, Leosghost.

shallow




msg:4318314
 11:15 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

Yes, coachm, it is a gem.

I recall years ago when I walked out of the classroom with the professor: Mentioned I'd love to go into a particular technical field but felt I was too old compared to all the young people in the class. His response:

"But can they spell?"

I agree with most of what you've said, coachm. To the others, a quote from Mad Magazine that I read decades ago:

"There is no progress without change, but change is not necessarily progress."

Staffa




msg:4318317
 11:29 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

This is the most interesting (article by now) thread that I have read in a long time, here or elsewhere and mostly because if I search the web it's to find sites with content of the type Coachm is referring to. Most likely not in his field of expertise but in the field of others and it has become nearly impossible to dig them up. I often skip from page 1 or 2 straight to 10 or 13 or even further down in the hope to drag something from under the covers but even that may draw a blank.

[edited by: tedster at 4:54 am (utc) on May 29, 2011]

Play_Bach




msg:4318321
 11:39 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)

@coachm
Just re-read your "Internet based side of our business basically wiped out as of March 28
.but no drops in traffic" post
[webmasterworld.com...]

For those who haven't read it, it might help shed some light on who coachm is and why the tone of this post is the way it is.

HuskyPup




msg:4318336
 11:57 pm on May 26, 2011 (gmt 0)


"There is no progress without change, but change is not necessarily progress."


Ok...I have had this poster on my office wall for 25 years now quoting George Bernard Shaw 1903, way before t'interwebby however just as applicable today:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world:
the unreasonable one persists in in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

coachm makes some extremely valid points because he is concerned for what he percieves as happening and whether quality will survive in the social networking era.

netmeg's post was superb because it is a wake-up call for many of us here, it was not directed at coachm, it was a reality check for us all who do not "do" it, IF it is possible to do in one's widget arena.

It is very noticeable that several have tried and failed. Is that because of social networking per se, the way they have approached it or something else? I have no idea, it's an anathema to me probably because I'm a private person not wanting to shout my personal stuff from the roof tops but quite happy to scream about my company at every international exhibition in my trade all over the world!

We know the average age here is not 20-30, I seem to remember from a thread that it's nearer the 50-60 with quite a lot of 40s in there as well.

Could I be as bold to say that many of us need a masterclass in social networking to show us the possible opportunities?

Surely everyone contributing to this thread has the equipment to view such a class at reasonable cost?

Leosghost




msg:4318342
 12:20 am on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

Not a question of needing a class in social networking ..I was brought up most of the time on a farm, a lot of farm work involves shoveling crap and consorting with dumb animals ..

Keeping the enthusiastic face,/ smile on, whilst doing so every day for hours on end is the difficult part ..

Which is why we are here discussing this, and not twittering it ( oh the typo beckons there every time ..get thee hence satan ;-) or pasting things on a wall..we all need to talk to adults once in a while..even if we disagree from time to time..

Sometimes the twittering and clucking and quacking things get in ..and make a noise..chickens and ducks etc used to get into the kitchen when I was a kid too..:)

We didn't worry about whether they liked what we did or said ..because they weren't able to make an informed qualified intelligent decision..but we knew what to feed them so they grew fat..and we knew that a lot of crap came out of them ..often there was unpleasant stuff coming out of both ends..along with a lot of noise..

Reminiscing ..ah what was the subject, did I drift off topic there ?..oh yeah twitter and facebook...

that is twice I beat the compulsion to put an English typo in the one and a French typo in the other..I think I'll pour myself another drink for showing great restraint ;-)

Leosghost




msg:4318348
 12:41 am on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

If the two of them turn out not to be passing fads ..and or Google or Bing choose to let the serps be influenced unduly by either or both of them ..

We'll have to get used to going out in the yard from time to time ..over to the walled garden(s)/stys ..and feeding them ..and ignore the noise and the odors.. just like on the farm ..

Beats working on the line.. no clock .

docbird




msg:4318377
 3:05 am on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

Google has been "social" from the beginning; it's what made it special.

Logical, then, to progress by becoming even more social.
Seems a messy jump to embrace Facebook etc, yet much will change. Indeed will still be people seeking quality, not just WhatTheMobWants.

No matter if some sites are fads, social will remain.
Change; the only constant in nature, and on the web.

Atomic




msg:4318411
 5:34 am on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

I am a private person not wanting to shout my personal stuff from the roof tops but quite happy to scream about my company at every international exhibition in my trade all over the world!

Social "factors" are so much more than that. Take the the Like button, for example. It's not just a vote for something. It's evidence, or social proof that this or that page is good. It's subtle but people respond.

And that's just one example that requires no shouting.

Planet13




msg:4318418
 6:16 am on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

...the problem is Google referencing it and giving it algo points, as a way of determining a position in the SERPs.


But that is only a problem if you presuppose that google is SUPPOSED to provide "quality content" written by "experts."

As far as I know, that is not necessarily a key success factor for google.

Their key success factor is better delivering the content THAT THE USER WANTS to the user.

The user MIGHT want quality. The user might NOT want quality.

How long would McBoxBurger stay in business if every time you went in to get a Caustic Meal, they actually gave you a veggie burger instead because they are healthier for you?

Or, what if for every search for Lady Gaga instead returned results for Grace Jones, Nina Hagen, and Patti Smith?

HuskyPup




msg:4318452
 8:52 am on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

Social "factors" are so much more than that. Take the the Like button, for example. It's not just a vote for something. It's evidence, or social proof that this or that page is good. It's subtle but people respond.


I appreciate that but it is also precisely why it makes me "nervous", 99.99% of people would not have a clue whether my products are better or worse than someone else's since they simply do not know.

I realise you have not written that and you have stated "social proof that this or that page is good". How could Joe Public know if they have absolutely zero trade knowledge or experience?

Can they tell just by reading/scanning my information? The page layout? The images? It's a big enough problem marketing to experienced trade buyers but to let Joe Public quantify their perceived likeability, or value, of non-standardised widgets, actually fills me with massive apprehension.

Yep, that's the description I've been looking for, apprehension.

Anyway, we're going to give Twitter another go with a hotel site we manage and see if we can get some of the locals involved and also discuss with the hotel if they want/need to integrate FB into their site since they are already extremely busy.

Sorry, went a big off-topic there!

Atomic




msg:4318454
 9:04 am on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

How could Joe Public know if they have absolutely zero trade knowledge or experience?

If "Joe Public" is who is visiting your site and, as you say, "have absolutely zero trade knowledge or experience" then I would say your site is attracting the wrong kind of people and you have a huge problem.

Staffa




msg:4318463
 9:43 am on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

Their key success factor is better delivering the content THAT THE USER WANTS to the user.

I am the user and I want to find quality content so why is it not delivered ?

Reno




msg:4318532
 1:11 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

But that is only a problem if you presuppose that google is SUPPOSED to provide "quality content" written by "experts."

Remember, it was Matt Cutts & Panda/Google that made a huge deal about quality ~ all we're asking is that they actually deliver what they say they want, which is superior SERPs that emphasize "quality". From my POV, much of social media is not quality information but rather is personal opinion ~ a huge difference.

How long would McBoxBurger stay in business if every time you went in to get a Caustic Meal, they actually gave you a veggie burger instead because they are healthier for you?

As a veggie since '73, I'd be thrilled, but for almost everyone else, I'm sure it would take an act of God to make them eat something that wasn't a dead animal.

Or, what if for every search for Lady Gaga instead returned results for Grace Jones, Nina Hagen, and Patti Smith?

If only! Now throw in Bob Dylan, Dinah Washington & REM and I'd be a happy guy...

;)

HuskyPup




msg:4318542
 1:22 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

then I would say your site is attracting the wrong kind of people and you have a huge problem.


Tis the Internet...I have a lot of trade visitors however I rank extremely well for most of my products therefore it is inevitable that Joe Public will also see this information. Sure it is pertinent information but I'd bet that much of it is completely another language to them even though they may actually be considering spending thousands on purchasing the product.

It's no different to me visiting a medical site and not understanding the information, my technical information is impossible to dumb down but, of course, the generic stuff is no problem for most.

iamlost




msg:4318547
 1:38 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

Their key success factor is better delivering the content THAT THE USER WANTS to the user.


I am the user and I want to find quality content so why is it not delivered ?


Google wants to deliver results that will appeal to the greatest number of users, which by definition must be skewed to a lower quality of information threshold.

Google wants to deliver results to the greatest number of people who - for whatever reason - will click on (1) the surrounding ads and (2) Google properties, which requires that results be skewed to less than or equal to that of the ads.

Google has always been a popularity engine, to them the social graph is a difference of degree not kind from the link graph.

None of the above makes Google 'bad', just a business. Too many anthromorphise the Plex projecting their own needs or desires onto it. And of course Google feeds that view because it is very good for their business.

Until search can directly parse content for quality - not on any horizon I can see - all the engines will be leaning hard on some recipe of indirect indicators. From their point of view they are doing a superb job of turning dross into gold.

coachm




msg:4318568
 2:02 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

Google wants to deliver results that will appeal to the greatest number of users, which by definition must be skewed to a lower quality of information threshold.

Google wants to deliver results to the greatest number of people who - for whatever reason - will click on (1) the surrounding ads and (2) Google properties, which requires that results be skewed to less than or equal to that of the ads.

Google has always been a popularity engine, to them the social graph is a difference of degree not kind from the link graph.


I'm not sure about the last one. It's not JUST been a popularity engine, and it has never claimed to be one. It CLAIMS to want to improve its SERPS so as to serve up what the searcher is looking for. That's not really about popularity per se although it uses inbound links, so that's popularity of a sort.

I'm not blaming Google per se. Bing actually announced first.

As with most things, for every action there are unintended consequences, and Google seems to be particularly poor at anticipating the results of their actions, or not caring.

The no barriers to signup for adsense is a perfect example of how one company's really great idea, but for one small detail, could help to create millions of pages of junk, which then had to be parsed out of SERPS, and policed and on an on.

So, to repeat. If popularity indicators provide significant weight in the serps, it will remove the incentive to produce certain kinds of content, particularly more advanced material and make them available on the net.

I really think the search engine world needs to start segmenting further, and I hope we see additional startups who go after the smaller niche markets.

JoePublisher




msg:4318592
 2:32 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

There is a totally predictable social explosion going on by users of the world wide web ... which stems not from Facebook or Google but actually right from Tim Berners-Lee's vision of 'sharing' information, and the evolutionary 'group mentality' of most humans who now use it.

(Twitter) Rock -> GOOGLE (search market share) BING <- Hard Place (Facebook)

What Google and Bing are doing at the moment in the initial 'dabbling' with social is like skipping stones across a large and growing, fast-flowing, rampaging and noisy river - with unpredictable and quickly decaying results. When actually what someone really needs to do (and what Google and Bing are almost certainly working up to post 2011) is to throw a meteor in to it, to make an undeniable, long lasting impression. Yet building an algorithmic meteor from scratch, to throw it 'accurately' into the middle of this fast-flowing, newly forming, River of Social Data, will take time ...

______________

[edited by: JoePublisher at 2:55 pm (utc) on May 27, 2011]

coachm




msg:4318594
 2:35 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0)

I usually throw my "distributed search engine" idea on these threads -- so I will again. Think decentralized DMOZ where vetted reviewers "manage" a niche, locale, or other chunk of the index and the same way DNS is propagated to root servers, the index is propagated out to decentralized indexes. The computing power can all be obtained from excess CPU, bandwidth and disk space from the unused resources of already existent sites.

Someone is the "editor" for apple pie recipes, someone else is the editor for "blue widgets", etc.. (when a category gets too big, it gets broken down to "blue widgets in USA", "in Canada", "in China", etc -- but those all share a fraction of the "rank" of all "blue widgets" collectively). Title keyword spamming, link spamming, best-blue-widget-in-the-world.xyz domains would be worthless

Like DMOZ it could have a hierarchical editorial structure - with a peer review type system built in -- a vote of no confidence would see any particular editor voted off the island.


Lexipixel: Having been a DMOZ editor, and all that jazz, I don't know. But oddly enough we have all the tools for the solutions, kinda. In fact an open source type search engine using google customer search engines might just do it.

More than TWO YEARS ago, I was having problems finding material to "curate" (along with my original articles, I do some niche directories on a hand picked one by one basis).

What I did was use Google CSE TO create topic engines and hand picked the sites to be searched. It's pretty amazing how FEW good quality sources can make up a decent niche search engine if you ensure the sites are information focused. Obviously, more is better but twenty authority sites on a topic can produce amazing quality SErps.

CSE's allow multiple contributors, so theoretically, you could organize a loose structure of people to produce a loosely associated set of search engines. Add some system for quality control, start small grow slowly, and you'd have something with high quality content, and something you can monetize.

Scaling is always an issue, and I'd wonder if one got something going and going well, whether google would pull the plug on you.

Anyway, we made our CSE's available to our visitors, and I use them for my own research.

SO, basically, we hand pick authority sites, and let google search them for what the visitor/searcher wants. Efficient because WE don't have to index pages, only sites, and quality really does jump out for the authority/quality pages.

Darn you guys. Too much good stuff here to ignore.

This 310 message thread spans 11 pages: < < 310 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved