duplicate content never has been an issue. back in the days when matt cutts was around he made a video about it and said that there is no penalty
I missed that memo. But I also never agreed with everything Matt Cutts said... or any representative of any big corporation for that matter. And las but not least, I'm not always seeing sites ranking with 90% of the same content all the time, despite of how ok this is. So, it can't be 100% true all the time.
But thanks for the heads-up!
i keep saying that old tricks still work they were never gone
apparently so
its just that in the SEO scene there is so much talk and nonsense theories based on pure guessing instead of actual testing.
I had big plans of testing every single SEO myth out there and share the results of everyone about 1.5 years ago. But due to lack of finances I gave up eventually...
But many folks who can do this hardly ever share any results, so all we have to go by are theories and guessing.
they all "think" google is so powerful at detecting specific tricks and then they tell people on forums their theories acting like its facts instead of just a wild guess
well, google used to be powerful, but for some reasons they've lost that power. It could be the economic crisis that might have impacted them, it could be the SEOs getting smarter, it could be many things, but it's certain that google have lost a lot of power lately
or "i've tried once and it didnt work" lol oh and then every other week a new post pops up here with some spam sites and people asking how the fuck it can rank with spinned/scraped content cloaked to affiliate offers.
I am one of those people who say "I've tried once and it didn't work", as it was the case with web 2.0 backlinks about 2 years ago when I built about 40 of them to a website with thin content and without EAT in the pregnancy niche and I concluded that web 2.0s don't work.
So, if you alluded to me then you are correct, and I'm not ashamed to admit it that I do say it like this. But I am also right in saying that it didn't work, and that's only half of the story. The other half is that if I have enough time and money to make web 2.0 links work then I'd rather spend all of these resources on making better links work instead of web 2.0s.
Back in my day (7-8 years ago, maybe more) web 2.0 links used to work great for low-medium competition keywords but as always, when something's good and free, google filters it out of their algo because too many people can make money with it and God forbid that common people dare to have money because this creates more competition for the sharks up top who are the only ones who should be free, happy and wealthy. Everyone else can just drop dead in what concerns the powerful entities that rule this world.
As for the second part of your quote, I can say that I'm
not one of those guys
anymore who asks themselves how the fuck spun / cloaked content can rank because I know that if you're a born hacker you can make any piece of code work in your favor. But sadly, most SEOs don't have a damn clue how to use this insider knowledge to their advantage, so in what concerns them their questions are legit, as hard to understand this is for people who were born with computers in their hands (figuratively speaking, of course)
then there is a google update, people claim seo is dead and the whole cycle repeats itself.
I've noticed this. And I was one of those who claimed that SEO is dead quite a few times in the past... until I learned to just ignore the mass hysteria and not be afraid of change and just do what I need to do to meet my goals. Of course, I still haven't met my goals, but that's for personal reasons which I won't discuss, more than anything else. But yes, I used to be one of those guys
