homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.189.156
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Visit PubCon.com
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 72 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 72 ( 1 2 [3]     
Matt Cutts: Guest Blogging for SEO is Over
jackxin




msg:4638211
 3:26 pm on Jan 17, 2014 (gmt 0)

Are you accepting or request guest blog posts ? Matt Cutts confirmed in a tweet "weíre taking action on hundreds of buyers, dozens of sites, & dozens of spammy writers," in reference to a blogs bribing investigation.

There is a new case going on with extensive investigation on customers, marketing agencies and bloggers taking money to manipulate search engine rankings.

https://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/414175219796824064
[mattcutts.com...]

Matt Cutt's announcement should make most of this bloggers think twice before accepting paid guest posting and marketing firms stop bribing them if they care about SERPs.

[edited by: brotherhood_of_LAN at 10:14 pm (utc) on Jan 20, 2014]
[edit reason] added MC article [/edit]

 

zeus




msg:4641926
 4:56 pm on Feb 2, 2014 (gmt 0)

Bounce rate is not used in my opinion. I also had a site where the bounce rate was 85%, now 42% no change in rankings at all. I would also not say that the site is better now, changes was made be cause of google, you know these days we have to make a site for search engines.

rish3




msg:4642002
 2:29 am on Feb 3, 2014 (gmt 0)

Paid click percentages have increased by double digits in almost every quarterly report from G...clearly at the expense of organic referrals.


Even if that were true, it would be true only for search queries (such as "transactional" or e-commerce queries) that lend themselves to advertising.


"Even if that were true". It's not up for debate...it's in their quarterly reports. Or perhaps you mean "at the expense of organic"? In that case, I'm curious how the percentage of paid clicks goes up without affecting organic.

As for it affecting only commercial queries. Sure. They have other new widgets to push down the organic results for non-commercial queries. You know, the "Knowledge Graph", "One Box", etc.

CaptainSalad2




msg:4642545
 8:22 am on Feb 5, 2014 (gmt 0)

@Edguy

Return to search" is likely to be a more useful metric, because a high rate of going back to search and clicking on other results


I never did understand websites that used that annoying JS script that prevents the back button working, now I do.

I hope that isn't a signal they put much faith in as JS has prevented me using the back button MANY times and using the URI to get back becomes the only option (or disable JS).


Itís a bit easy to manipulate to put much weight into donít you think?

trakkerguy




msg:4642619
 2:09 pm on Feb 5, 2014 (gmt 0)

If they used "return to search" as a big factor in the algo, couldn't they just check if sites disable the back button to stop that method of manipulation?

EditorialGuy




msg:4642682
 3:55 pm on Feb 5, 2014 (gmt 0)

If they used "return to search" as a big factor in the algo, couldn't they just check if sites disable the back button to stop that method of manipulation?


If I were Google, I'd regard such disabling of the back button as a signal of low quality, since:

1) It takes away from the user experience, and...

2) It suggests that the site owner believes that users won't stick around unless they're trapped on the site.

CaptainSalad2




msg:4642713
 5:03 pm on Feb 5, 2014 (gmt 0)

If I were Google, I'd regard such disabling of the back button as a signal of low quality, since:


If you were Google hopefully you would know that it wouldn't be hard for a semi competent server side programmer to detect the G bot and deliver the same content with the "JS back button disable" script omitted, and therefore not apply any ranking weight to something easier to manipulate than a dofollow backlink is to gain these days.

aristotle




msg:4643731
 6:32 pm on Feb 9, 2014 (gmt 0)

EditorialGuy wrote:
I sometimes see awful sites ranking high in the SERPs because they have a domain name like [cityname].nu.

People are always complaining about Google giving high rankings to "awful sites", but as far as I know, complaining here doesn't do any good. Is there any way to make Google aware of this problem?

EditorialGuy




msg:4643739
 7:03 pm on Feb 9, 2014 (gmt 0)

People are always complaining about Google giving high rankings to "awful sites", but as far as I know, complaining here doesn't do any good.


I wasn't complaining. Read what I said in context.

Is there any way to make Google aware of this problem?


Look for the "Send feedback" link on the bottom of each Google SERP.

aristotle




msg:4643742
 7:42 pm on Feb 9, 2014 (gmt 0)

I wasn't complaining

I read your whole paragraph about the matter, and somehow still got the impression that you were complaining. In any case, are you saying that it doesn't bother you when you see awful sites ranking high in the SERPs?

Look for the "Send feedback" link on the bottom of each Google SERP.

I used to use that feedback link occasionally to report hacked sites and parked pages that were ranking near the top of the SERPs, but gave up because my efforts never produced any results.

EditorialGuy




msg:4643745
 8:35 pm on Feb 9, 2014 (gmt 0)

I read your whole paragraph about the matter, and somehow still got the impression that you were complaining.


Nope. I was making an observation.

I used to use that feedback link occasionally to report hacked sites and parked pages that were ranking near the top of the SERPs, but gave up because my efforts never produced any results.


Awareness and action are two different things. :-)

aristotle




msg:4643760
 10:00 pm on Feb 9, 2014 (gmt 0)

Nope. I was making an observation.

So if you don't feel a need to complain about it, then I'll repeat my other question: Are you saying that it doesn't bother you when you see "awful sites" ranking high in the SERPs?

EditorialGuy




msg:4643764
 10:14 pm on Feb 9, 2014 (gmt 0)

Aristotle, of course I don't like seeing awful sites ranking high in the SERPs. Does anyone, except the owners of the awful sites?

(Whatever happened to the topic of this thread, by the way? Does no one else have anything to contribute on the topic of "guest blogging for SEO"?)

This 72 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 72 ( 1 2 [3]
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