Shaddows - 12:02 pm on Apr 26, 2012 (gmt 0)
Like it or not Google's algorithm was built on counting backlinks
Yes. Natural backlinks. There were no unnatural backlinks because there was nothing to manipulate. You will notice I acknowledge that in the post you selectively quoted:
on-topic, organic links are powerful, as is content. Google deliberately rewards those.
IMO now that they have messed with the fundamentals of how their search engine works everything has went haywire
IMO, they are in an arms race where people are exploiting the fundamental way their SE originally worked. Because of backlink manipulation, they have had to work out ways of differentially valuing links.
The thing is, in any given purge of paid links, sites that merely dabble in them also get caught and have some of their backlink power reduced. And that's not even considering downstream effects (you might get links legitimately, but what if all your links come from link builders who have suddenly been devalued).
But all SEO seems to be getting targeted not just the black hat because Google can't tell the difference between good content and bad content
That doesn't make sense. SEO isn't content, and content isn't SEO. That sentence might as well read "dogs are getting targetted because the pound can't tell the difference between white cats and black cats"
Some people obviously think they should devalue all types of SEO and IMO this is a basic misunderstanding of how SEO works.
Anything that enriches the web should be rewarded. Proper SEO should always enrich the web. Proper SEO is just marketing and everyone in this forum is a marketer - so is Google!
That's word games again. To restate:
Some SEO is punished
Some SEO is Good Seo
Good SEO is getting punished.
I don't think all SEO should be devalued. Neither does Google. They want to punish paid links and spun content. That's not good SEO, and it doesn't enrich the web. The SEO is not trying to enrich the web, just himself.
I'm not saying Google are getting it right here. Clearly some crap is still ranking. I do note that those who consistantly advise against chasing the algo are doing fine. Those who say they "only do what is necessary" (and obviously far less than their competitors do) are getting hit.
Perhaps there's something in that.