Barry Schwartz noted on his blog today that Matt Cutts has responded to a question about Penguin and it's correlation to links. Cutts gave his usual "non answer" but appears to allude to links.

Matt Cutts on Twitter:

@joshbachynski saw your comment on Barry's post. Certainly links are a primary area to monitor. Been true all this year; expect to continue.

Article Source: http://www.seroundtable.com/google-p...nks-15590.html

I see the case of Matt Cutts as a misplaced priority.

Instead of fighting quality result on the search engine he is fighting webmasters and SEO experts.

Well, place it 100% white hat and you will remain safe.

Originally Posted by john1444

I see the case of Matt Cutts as a misplaced priority.

Instead of fighting quality result on the search engine he is fighting webmasters and SEO experts.

Well, place it 100% white hat and you will remain safe.

Sadly, TONS of white hat only websites were hit by Penguin.

Originally Posted by RightInTwo

Sadly, TONS of white hat only websites were hit by Penguin.

There's a saying in my country: "Not everything that's flying is good to eat" same with websites & SEO, "Not all that's White is good to rank"

Originally Posted by topdown

There's a saying in my country: "Not everything that's flying is good to eat" same with websites & SEO, "Not all that's White is good to rank"

While your saying is right, I was mainly talking about the data side of things. Meaning, that even if you play by Google's rules and do in fact deserve to rank, you might get hit.

I'll go ahead and say fuck matt cutts

Saying the same thing as he has for the last year or two

He's definitely misplacing his target...

I am sure those "white hat" sites were buying links

or their seo sucks period...

white hat link building is the only 100% safe for short and long term.

Originally Posted by RightInTwo

Sadly, TONS of white hat only websites were hit by Penguin.

Originally Posted by psytrance

white hat link building is the only 100% safe for short and long term.

According to Google's Internet Law, any link you make is unnatural and black hat. That's what happens when a monopoly is allowed to apply their dictatorship over a one trillion dollar a year industry (e-commerce).

Originally Posted by assphuck

According to Google's Internet Law, any link you make is unnatural and black hat. That's what happens when a monopoly is allowed to apply their dictatorship over a one trillion dollar a year industry (e-commerce).

Assphuck is right (was laughing while typing that!). Technically any​ form of link building is going to be against their TOS.

Originally Posted by psytrance

white hat link building is the only 100% safe for short and long term.

White hat means no link building at all. White hats wait for links to come by themselves.

Of course Google is still all about links. Everybody, their dog, and their grandmother seems to preach to you these days about how black hat links will only get your site sandboxed, although almost none of them have ever even tried it. If they have, they bought some overpriced spammy blasts, hurt a site, then decided that it was a done deal.

If white hat was the true secret to ranking in google, when you type in search terms like "seo tips," it wouldn't all be white hat propaganda. They certainly aren't going to teach you how to truly manipulate their search engine and profit.

/rant.

Originally Posted by xenix9

There's no such thing as 'white hat' link building.

Actually, there is.

Originally Posted by assphuck

According to Google's Internet Law, any link you make is unnatural and black hat. That's what happens when a monopoly is allowed to apply their dictatorship over a one trillion dollar a year industry (e-commerce).

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Google is an evil dictator.

I did an analysis on this back in May, after 2 weeks of 40+ hrs studying penguin and sites hit/not hit (along with actual work) I told every person on this forum that Penguin was all about links, and now links can have NEGATIVE value.

Everyone swore up and down that I was full of it for the most part, but I have been operating (quite successfully) upon this assumption since and also doing extensive negative SEO on competitors.

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackha...ml#post4292560

If only you people would listen.

I knew this, simply by analyzing enough sites to know. It's extremely obvious that on-site factors had little, if anything, to do with Penguin.

lol, someone de-repped me for saying blaming matt cutts is like blaming ronald mcdonald.

Matt Cutts is making sure Google can pander to their "Favorite" companies.
In my opinion Penguin and Panda are ass kissing algorithms to make sure small
guys cannot compete.

RedClover

Originally Posted by Expertpeon

I did an analysis on this back in May, after 2 weeks of 40+ hrs studying penguin and sites hit/not hit (along with actual work) I told every person on this forum that Penguin was all about links, and now links can have NEGATIVE value.

Everyone swore up and down that I was full of it for the most part, but I have been operating (quite successfully) upon this assumption since and also doing extensive negative SEO on competitors.

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackha...ml#post4292560

If only you people would listen.

I knew this, simply by analyzing enough sites to know. It's extremely obvious that on-site factors had little, if anything, to do with Penguin.

Well I am glad they didn't, it's one thing to make yourself stronger but to damage other people's sites is really low. The people that own those sites could be anyone, you could be fucking up their life, stop doing that shit.

But anyway I thought negative SEO, though possible for a short time isn't any more.

Originally Posted by StirlingMedia

Well I am glad they didn't, it's one thing to make yourself stronger but to damage other people's sites is really low. The people that own those sites could be anyone, you could be fucking up their life, stop doing that shit.

But anyway I thought negative SEO, though possible for a short time isn't any more.

It's certainly very easy and very straightforward to do negative SEO on fresh or semi-fresh domains... I do this because it works, regardless of the "morality" floating around it. If google wants to be a moral company, and their users to be moral, they have to lead by example.

Rolling out random algorithms that support conglomerated business interests, bypassing privacy settings on browsers, clear anti-trust violations, and criminal acts concerning the EFTA are not exactly going to keep your users honest.

Negative SEO is particularly cost effective when a site has spent a small fortune to rank a very competitive keyword, usually on paid links. You can quickly, and effectively, destroy any hope they had of a good ROI.

My post about the nature of Penguin is here

sure it's about links... 80% of seo means backlinks

Originally Posted by xenix9

There's no such thing as 'white hat' link building.

doing manual comment and link exchange with other sites

Originally Posted by riderblogger

doing manual comment and link exchange with other sites

That is definitely not white hat, especially the link exchange part.

Originally Posted by Expertpeon

I did an analysis on this back in May, after 2 weeks of 40+ hrs studying penguin and sites hit/not hit (along with actual work) I told every person on this forum that Penguin was all about links, and now links can have NEGATIVE value.

Everyone swore up and down that I was full of it for the most part, but I have been operating (quite successfully) upon this assumption since and also doing extensive negative SEO on competitors.

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackha...ml#post4292560

If only you people would listen.

I knew this, simply by analyzing enough sites to know. It's extremely obvious that on-site factors had little, if anything, to do with Penguin.

I have a HUGE amount of respect for you after reading many many of your posts. And you likely have much much more experience than I do (but I also do have some experience).

I'll discuss this with you privately if you want too.. but I had a webmaster call me up about a week after Penguin. Their site had tanked from Page 1 of Google to the neverlands of pages 40's and 50's. I know their backlink profile was good.. but anchor text not diverse. But, in looking at the site, there was far too much onsite optimization... and my advice was to ditch that.

Nothing was done as far as their backlink profile (which I still suspect could have some anchor text dillution done), but within two weeks, major keywords returned to page 1 after reducing onsite over optimization. So I'm not convinced.

Penguin seems to be an almost "case by case" study with randomness thrown in.

Originally Posted by riderblogger

doing manual comment and link exchange with other sites

How is this "white hat?" Isn't their an intention to manipulate the SERP's? If there is intent to manipulate the SERP's, it is not "white hat." I have a real problem with some SEO guys calling themselves "white hat," yet their very job is to try to manipulate the SERP's on behalf of themselves or their clients. That "manipulation" makes it blackhat or grey, at best.

All you've come up with is a method, that somehow you think you can say is more "moral" or "more ethical" or more.. whatever.. the end result is the same - an intent to manipulate SERP's. Isn't that your intent??? Please be honest... And is your time not money? And.. if your client is paying you, isn't that paid links in one form or another?

Matt Cutts is worthless.

Here is what I gather from Penguin... Stop keyword stuffing your titles, now we want a low keyword density.

I just saved you from having to listen to Matt Cutts (and from spending hundreds of dollars on WSOs).

@upmykilt but what your overlooking is that your blaming penguin for so something that could have been panda. read up on the release dates of each. there is some serious crossover, so where you might be attributing penguin, it could have been panda.

So many erroneous lines of thinking in this thread.

Two points I think can be considered facts:
1) Google owns the traffic fair and square. They are a natural monopoly, there is a almost no barrier to entry in creating a search engine, and there are hundreds out there. With these factors in mind, Google is a private company, they fairly and competitively gained all their traffic (you and I and everyone else in the world typing in google.com into their web-browser over and over and over again), and therefore they can do ANYTHING they want with their traffic, and that is how it should be.

2) As far as search results go Google is most concerned with one metric over and above EVERYTHING else: Positive user experience. At the end of the day all changes to their algorithm hope to, at the margin, improve the search you, your mother, your teacher, your friend just typed in and pressed "Google Search" for...

If your sites tanked don't start bitching, get to work on rebuilding them or new ones. 9/10 serious SEO'ers I know loved the updates, less competition now, most of their competitors lost ground also, they see it as an advantage now that everyone is scrambling and screaming 'WTF do I do!?'.

The guy heads up the team whose sole purpose is to destroy SEO. He works for one of the most profitable businesses in the world. Despite all the so-called **information** he releases, each Google update still takes us all by suprise.

I'd stop hanging onto every word he says to be honest, because I think 50% of it is public spin and the other 50% smells slightly of bullshit

Originally Posted by Emergent

As far as search results go Google is most concerned with one metric over and above EVERYTHING else: Positive user experience.

The metric Google is most concerned with is positive cash flow and not a positive user experience. The proof is in the large number of listings in the SERPS which are benefiting from domain crowding, thin content pages now ranking, etc.

Originally Posted by Emergent

they can do ANYTHING they want with their traffic, and that is how it should be.

This is both true and false. Google is a top destination for people using search. Google also is expanding its ISP services. Having a company that controls how you get online and where you go to find something online is what many consider to be a monopoly. And monopolies are known for reducing choice and snuffing out any potential competition with their dominance. Google's many recent anti-trust accusations seem to indicate that Google is not the do no evil search engine they claim to be.

Originally Posted by Emergent

9/10 serious SEO'ers I know loved the updates

I hate to say it, but you probably don't know many serious SEO'ers. As you stated above, Google can do anything they want with their traffic. And they are. Organic listings are progressively getting pushed beneath the fold and replaced by paid ads. Google's push to fill the first pages of the SERPS with paid ads, and promoting their verticals, is one way Google is driving up their profits from search. I don't know any of the heavy hitters in the SEO industry that do not fear that their services will be marginalized by paid listings. Seriously, who wants to be the highest organically ranked website and sitting on page two?

Originally Posted by Emergent

So many erroneous lines of thinking in this thread.

I would agree that your comments are chief among the erroneous and quite limited points of view. Look beyond panda, penguin, unnatural link warnings, etc. and you will see Google is slowly taking over the first page of the SERPS. Google has instilled fear into webmasters in an effort to break an underground link selling industry to grab some of those unspent marketing dollars. Also referral traffic is in Google's crosshairs. Webmasters that fear linking to other sites won't do it, and that makes end users more reliant on search to find what they are looking for.

Originally Posted by Emergent

Two points I think can be considered facts:
1) Google owns the traffic fair and square. They are a natural monopoly, there is a almost no barrier to entry in creating a search engine, and there are hundreds out there. With these factors in mind, Google is a private company, they fairly and competitively gained all their traffic (you and I and everyone else in the world typing in google.com into their web-browser over and over and over again), and therefore they can do ANYTHING they want with their traffic, and that is how it should be.

Except, they did not fairly nor competitively gain the traffic. They got it by force, and are currently facing anti-trust charges in 5 countries and the European Union.
Hint: "Getting traffic competitively and fairly" does not mean that you buy the "default" status across every browser that will let you for billions per year (firefox and safari for instance)

2) As far as search results go Google is most concerned with one metric over and above EVERYTHING else: Positive user experience. At the end of the day all changes to their algorithm hope to, at the margin, improve the search you, your mother, your teacher, your friend just typed in and pressed "Google Search" for...

I'm sure google was "watching out" for the user when it turned Google shopping into a fully paid advertisement vehicle, or when it constantly ranks youtube over every other video site even if vimeo is better.

Step one - capture your audience
Step two - monetize that audience
Step three - monetize some more

A positive user experience might have been Googles number one priority a few years ago, but not any more

This might be REALLY out of date, but still makes amusing reading
http://googleworlddomination.com/

Originally Posted by Expertpeon

I did an analysis on this back in May, after 2 weeks of 40+ hrs studying penguin and sites hit/not hit (along with actual work) I told every person on this forum that Penguin was all about links, and now links can have NEGATIVE value.

Everyone swore up and down that I was full of it for the most part, but I have been operating (quite successfully) upon this assumption since and also doing extensive negative SEO on competitors.

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackha...ml#post4292560

If only you people would listen.

I knew this, simply by analyzing enough sites to know. It's extremely obvious that on-site factors had little, if anything, to do with Penguin.

Totally concur, but with on caveat: I have tested limited neg seo on more established sites (pr4/5, 12-15 yo) with zero success. Were talking sites with sub 10k links, usually with 2 way link trades. Wish neg seo was more universal...

Originally Posted by Expertpeon

I did an analysis on this back in May, after 2 weeks of 40+ hrs studying penguin and sites hit/not hit (along with actual work) I told every person on this forum that Penguin was all about links, and now links can have NEGATIVE value.

Everyone swore up and down that I was full of it for the most part, but I have been operating (quite successfully) upon this assumption since and also doing extensive negative SEO on competitors.

http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackha...ml#post4292560

If only you people would listen.

I knew this, simply by analyzing enough sites to know. It's extremely obvious that on-site factors had little, if anything, to do with Penguin.

Thats awesome info. Hopefully people listen up! Out of curiosity, how many sites were you analyzing?

Your 50% correct but you didnt got my point. Yes, if you read G TOS you will find that any type of manipulation of SERPS are not allowed, thats includes ON PAGE and OFF PAGE SEO... No tell me if you can rank something without decent on page seo and backlinks.

"any link you make is unnatural" this is not true at all. but I understand what you meant.
btw you can still rank with tons of "unnatural" link building campaigns but thats black hat and not a long term plan. like i said, real white hat quality link building campaigns are the only ones that will not be affected for any type of ALGO update... not including thats conspiracy/dictatopship that you mention

Also you are completely right with the rest of your post.... but guess what? eat that or move on.. its their company and all they think of is money... no problem for me because I am not an user anymore. i use yahoo and bing for my searches. and if they continue to do what they are doing alowing neg seo and stuff like that...i am sure they will start to falling down eventualy. but big g will be always be the big g and like i said, eat that or move on. its sad realy sad but we cant do anything about...

Originally Posted by assphuck

According to Google's Internet Law, any link you make is unnatural and black hat. That's what happens when a monopoly is allowed to apply their dictatorship over a one trillion dollar a year industry (e-commerce).

ANY type of link is agains their TOS but not necessary means it will hit your site in any way... they need to protect their business and continue doing what they are doing... like i said all they want is money. but I dont want to argue here.

Originally Posted by RightInTwo

Assphuck is right (was laughing while typing that!). Technically any​ form of link building is going to be against their TOS.

Originally Posted by infoasian

White hat means no link building at all. White hats wait for links to come by themselves.

thats not white hat link building infoasian. thats a BS webmaster

Interesting thread this. It is clear these days that each and everyone's relationship with google is entirely personal. I guess that's how google likes it.

I think we all should too.

Originally Posted by psytrance

Your 50% correct but you didnt got my point. Yes, if you read G TOS you will find that any type of manipulation of SERPS are not allowed, thats includes ON PAGE and OFF PAGE SEO... No tell me if you can rank something without decent on page seo and backlinks.

"any link you make is unnatural" this is not true at all. but I understand what you meant.
btw you can still rank with tons of "unnatural" link building campaigns but thats black hat and not a long term plan. like i said, real white hat quality link building campaigns are the only ones that will not be affected for any type of ALGO update... not including thats conspiracy/dictatopship that you mention

Also you are completely right with the rest of your post.... but guess what? eat that or move on.. its their company and all they think of is money... no problem for me because I am not an user anymore. i use yahoo and bing for my searches. and if they continue to do what they are doing alowing neg seo and stuff like that...i am sure they will start to falling down eventualy. but big g will be always be the big g and like i said, eat that or move on. its sad realy sad but we cant do anything about...

Sadly, what google wants is a moron webmaster to design a shitty site and then hope that "if you build it they will come." They, being links.

Thats not what g wants. You are watching to many mat cuts videos :P

G is making (average) people "think" that BUT
what g wants is that people fail in seo and pay for ad$$$$

Google is what helps us make money! ADAPT or DIE!

Google wants people to buy the top spots and will resort to pushing organic listings below the fold, so even the #1 spot is devalued. By targeting sites that are spending money on SEO (link building, services here, etc) they hope to later convert them to PPC clients when the SEO stops working.

Originally Posted by StirlingMedia

That is definitely not white hat, especially the link exchange part.

Actually on G's own site they say they only prohibit "excessive reciprocal links or excessive link exchanging".

That by definition makes "non-excessive" link exchanges white hat, whatever non-excessive means.

Originally Posted by pyromarketing

The guy heads up the team whose sole purpose is to destroy SEO. He works for one of the most profitable businesses in the world. Despite all the so-called **information** he releases, each Google update still takes us all by suprise.

I'd stop hanging onto every word he says to be honest, because I think 50% of it is public spin and the other 50% smells slightly of bullshit

bullshit