Page is a not externally linkable
-- Google SEO News and Discussion
---- The State of the Internet (2013) - Summarised perspectives.
hitchhiker - 9:51 pm on Jun 16, 2013 (gmt 0)
|@goodroi: Those comments are not useless, they make me lots of money by distracting my potential competitors from doing real research |
ROFL, man you're so spot on here.
|@diberry: you need to convince them THEY will benefit from it |
I've been trying. I have to believe they care about the state of the SERPS. So: Feedback from the community (we saw these things start a year ago). What the h*** else can we offer them? :)
|@seoskunk: Perhaps now is a time for hitchhiker to create a new thread "Questions for Google Guy" and let people post their questions. |
First off, thanks for the post. I'm waiting for the go ahead from WebmasterWorld; it's currently a gray area as the forum charter specifically states (paraphrase) 'this is not a place to attempt to contact Google directly'
I think dropping suggestions here *might* be ok though.. If you look back at page 4 there's these:
"We tend to see very little evidence of recoveries via the disavow tool, and it's existence somewhat calls into question the current implementation of 'PageRank'. Isn't this just a 'hack', a somewhat clumsy attempt to fix larger problems; one that needlessly distracts and confuses webmasters?"
I believe 'Negative SEO/toxic links/disavowing' should have been something you vehemently guarded against. (The concept of any link or relationship as being 'negative' rather than 'ignored') No external entity should have been able to affect our websites negatively. Why did you choose to allow this to happen, when it has now clearly resulted in yet-another-way to game the playing field?"
Just added now
There's a great deal (thousands) of whitehat webmasters who are being penalised to non-existence (or the effective equivalent). Sites that have demonstrated good practice, satisfied audiences and neither betray or mislead users. This is unacceptable, what are you going to do about it?
Following on from your statement confirming 'brands are not favoured': High levels of instability favour only those with 'deep pockets'. Given the current, exceptionally unusual, and well documented turmoil hitting some 'whitehat webmasters', isn't that indirectly favouring 'brands'?
I'm sure there are better, more useful ones - those were just first attempts. The point is it would be interesting to get real answers to these. REAL answers, beyond the usual 'disavow tool' rhetoric which is infuriating given the circumstances.
Fighting back with a 'chance'. If enough set this as a goal, in a few weeks we'll *probably* have answers. If you're not sure, then I say: It's better than anything we have now.
Also, there are a lot of eyes on this thread. (I've been in contact with bloggers who are 'waiting to see how it goes') - if it doesn't lose focus, we stand a chance of getting some momentum.
Our first shot should be 10-15 solid relevant questions.
[edited by: hitchhiker at 10:19 pm (utc) on Jun 16, 2013]
Thread source:: http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4583408.htm
Brought to you by WebmasterWorld: http://www.webmasterworld.com