- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ok sorry for the language and i dont actually agree with this statement but i found myself repeatedly saying this on the weekend during a meeting/dayout/pub crawl/ with a very nice chap from the mobile gaming industry who took me to see the rubgy. Well i basically kept saying this along with “seo is dead” because it seems you cant do anything these days without google trying to catch you out and penalise you, and i settled by saying “im only working on my on-page seo from now on” well thats seems to also be to much for google with the new algorithm due to hit in the next few weeks, take a look at this
Too Much SEO? Googleshall we all just give up now:Ohno:
Wow… itsblitz, I totally understand your frustrations. It just almost seems that you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t…
I’m just confused… how are they defining if a site is “overly search engine optimized”???
Just work on great content, seo will follow and i think that is what they are saying. Sites with 40% keyword density and broken english to stuff them in, 900 links with that anchor text and the other 70 links are natural deserve to get hit.
@allfreechips 237460 wrote:
Just work on great content, seo will follow and i think that is what they are saying. Sites with 40% keyword density and broken english to stuff them in, 900 links with that anchor text and the other 70 links are natural deserve to get hit.
I think you are right about that!
@JillO 237453 wrote:
I’m just confused… how are they defining if a site is “overly search engine optimized”???
well thats the problem, if its factors such as rel=”nofollow” links, using things like pretty link to cloak your links or php redirects then we could be in trouble, also what about linking keywords within your content to your front page to boost rankings and vice versa, how about over optimised page titles and h1 tags? this whole thing just seems crazy, why try to penalise people who not only concentrating on producing great unique content, but also take a real interest in seo and want to compete with the big sites? after all this is what this is about, google trying to level the playing field, they have been trying to do that for years and look at some of the rubbish hitting the front page of google at the moment, im refering to google.co.uk (my target market) google ‘no deposit bonus’ which is a pretty good keyword in terms of amount of traffic and alot of sites aim to rank for this in the casino niche, 7 out of 10 sites on that front page shouldnt be there, i dont even think one of my sites deserves to be there to be honest, its only 60 pages or so and not even great content, so google is not leveling the playing field, its just letting poor quality sites with little care about content or seo rank
ok rant over
on a lighter note Jill, i received my CAP hoody
and will be sending what i promised soonFirst I agree with allfreechips, content is still king.
As for you saying that 7 of the 10 sites on page 1 for no deposit bonus don’t belong. From my datacenter searching on g.co.uk sites 1,2,8 are exact match searches. #3 is a massive site with tons of content and inbound links. A few others are also massive sites with tons of inbound links. Maybe 2-3 of those sites shouldn’t be there.
Also keep in mind that every site listed is over 6 years old which is a G factor that most people overlook. An older site will outrank a newly registered site almost every time. This is one reason we rarely buy new domains anymore. It’s easier and better to just pay a small premium for an aged one.
btw, I have nothing to do with any of the 10 sites on page 1 but I can see why most of them rank as they do.
I know it’s frustrating, we’ve all been there, you just need to find ways to work through the frustration and also realize that it’s no longer 2006 and we need to bust our asses in order to get decent rankings.
@itsblitz 237543 wrote:
well thats the problem, if its factors such as rel=”nofollow” links, using things like pretty link to cloak your links or php redirects then we could be in trouble, also what about linking keywords within your content to your front page to boost rankings and vice versa, how about over optimised page titles and h1 tags? this whole thing just seems crazy, why try to penalise people who not only concentrating on producing great unique content, but also take a real interest in seo and want to compete with the big sites? after all this is what this is about, google trying to level the playing field, they have been trying to do that for years and look at some of the rubbish hitting the front page of google at the moment, im refering to google.co.uk (my target market) google ‘no deposit bonus’ which is a pretty good keyword in terms of amount of traffic and alot of sites aim to rank for this in the casino niche, 7 out of 10 sites on that front page shouldnt be there, i dont even think one of my sites deserves to be there to be honest, its only 60 pages or so and not even great content, so google is not leveling the playing field, its just letting poor quality sites with little care about content or seo rank
ok rant over
on a lighter note Jill, i received my CAP hoody and will be sending what i promised soon1) Thanks for the breakdown and your insights… I do have to side with fonzi however… Content is still King. As cheesey as it sounds, it’s true. What confirmed this was the most recent Google Panda update that we just endured.
2) And Hooray! So happy you receive it safe and sound… And looking forward to the follow-up
Back in 07 and 08 I was building my site more for visitors and not so much google. I had a pr 5 for a long time. Then I thought, hell man, I got a PR5, I’m gonna get cracking with my SEO and get it up to 7 or 8. Well that didnt work, I am now at a PR 2 LOL.
Now that March Madness is just about over and my slow months are approaching, I just might go back to 07 and 08 and not think so much about SEO and think more in terms of my guests.
I was pretty upset about this news at first, but I think it’s going to be a good thing in the end. It’s not going to affect everyone, just websites that are over optimized. In terms of what over optimized means, I think it means websites that are buying irrelevant and low quality links, as well as websites with too much on-site optimization e.g. Unnatural keyword density.
Fingers crossed this will be a good change that will only affect black hat SEO techniques.
@fonzi 237563 wrote:
As for you saying that 7 of the 10 sites on page 1 for no deposit bonus don’t belong. From my datacenter searching on g.co.uk sites 1,2,8 are exact match searches. #3 is a massive site with tons of content and inbound links. A few others are also massive sites with tons of inbound links. Maybe 2-3 of those sites shouldn’t be there.
Hi fonzi, i was actually going to post a follow up saying i was wrong about 7 out of 10, yes it is more like 3 that dont belong, one of them being mine, uknodeposit.co(.)uk but it thought it would be fun to get some some other insight, and yes you are right on most points alll except the age thing. This is where i think things are changing, some seo guys think that the new update that came in with panda3.3 a few weeks ago was to give less credit to anchot text links and more to brand links, well i dont agree as google have said they have “turned off” a ranking metric that they have used for many years, but wont say what it is, im going to go out on one here, but i think google no longer uses site age/domain age as a raning factor, and i think this because so many new sites are popping up, xecutable mentioned n another post how a new site he was helping on with not much content was ranking for good terms. If you think about it, and im no seo guy here, just a guy rambling, but as google is all about delivering relevant results, most searchs are to do with things that are happening now, like “earthquake in mexico” google will use social media, news etc to rank the top site, niot age or trust in the domain, hmm i dont know, like i said im ramblng. But i do think that google wants to give new sites a chance, like my site thats ranking front page at present, only has 65 pages and its less than 8 months old, but as i add almost a page a day, maybe google thinks this site is more relevant for ‘no deposit bonus’ beacsue its growing, more so than a site that has been solid on the front page for 6 years, hmm, im not even gonna read this post back, thats my thoughts
Gambling sites in general lost gobs of PR around that time. I think the timing is just coincidence.
@bud405n 237591 wrote:
Back in 07 and 08 I was building my site more for visitors and not so much google. I had a pr 5 for a long time. Then I thought, hell man, I got a PR5, I’m gonna get cracking with my SEO and get it up to 7 or 8. Well that didnt work, I am now at a PR 2 LOL.
Now that March Madness is just about over and my slow months are approaching, I just might go back to 07 and 08 and not think so much about SEO and think more in terms of my guests.
I’m glad the quesiton that sparked the ‘over op’ comment was about the ‘mom and pop shop ‘ competing against the big $$.
“mom and pop” may not be to savvy but they usually have ‘heart’ and a solid product. That sounds like the google I want them to be (instead of the view as money grubbing business people).
Anyway, I hope that also means the domain age does not have to be a main criteria for good ranking – otherwise I’d beat out facebook (a newish site comparatively speaking).
It’s a tricky one – competition has gone up 100 fold since 2004/2005.
Google has seen affiliates in all industries manipulating results with different tactics – it’s only fair they start basing the results on quality.
@rmeeuwsen 237643 wrote:
I
Anyway, I hope that also means the domain age does not have to be a main criteria for good ranking – otherwise I’d beat out facebook (a newish site comparatively speaking).
funny you mention facebook, im reading an seo book by danny dover(was lead seo at seomoz) and he explains that facebook was(and still is) is so poorly setup seo wise and allowing google to crawl it that google had to make changes to it bot just for facebook
It not just facebook. Have a look at google.com. They fail almost every metric yet they’re Google.
