TheOptimizationIdiot - 7:51 am on May 4, 2013 (gmt 0)
I notice you mention the manipulation patent quite frequently.
I do, but that may be due to me seeing what appears to be "effects from it" more often than most over the years I've been around. (I'm beginning to wonder if there's an effect from it -- or effect from something similar to what's outlined -- that "hits" big sites when a threshold of pages is changed more than others, because most of what I work on is 10,000+ pages and I've worked on smaller ones, but when really thinking about it I can't say I've noticed "bouncing" on the smaller sites or due to changes that affect a small number of pages like I do on the bigger ones when changes affect 1000+ pages at a time.)
To my knowledge I've read all of the patents that have been featured on here over the last 10+ years, including this one.
Me too, and then some.
(There's at least one or two not noted here. One on trust for sure.)
A name which is descriptive and easy to remember is far better from a marketing point of view.
No question. And, personally, if I knew it was better I'd probably give Google the proverbial finger and not redirect it. (But I have been known to be a bit stubborn and contrary lol)
I've never been big on links so I think a link penalty is highly unlikely, however this term is more competitive than others and the name has attracted natural links using the EMD as anchor text.
Interesting, because I feel the same way. Haven't really bothered to build any in years, even though that's totally contrary to "SEO advice". I also have an EMD that's fine.
I would actually wonder more about internal links and text. Does the particular site you're referring to use more "matching text" in internal links or on page than the others you have that are not affected do?