Content Can Do More Harm Then Good

SEOBS said:

Not asking for help, it was just a warning that content can do more harm then good, with a "vague" example added.

Click to expand...

If you are not asking for help, let me tell you something, your comment is completely ABSURD. At least for as long as you don't go really in depth with the strategy for these so called "buffer" sites.

Go back and edit it and let us know
- Anchors used and their %
- Amount of content used in each "buffer site"
- WHEN did you build the first link, was it from the day you created this "buffer" site and added the article?
- Overall campaign
- Sample article so we can understand what you mean by "quality".

All in all, you are stating a stupid fact
"Content Can Do More Harm Then Good"

And yes, I say stupid because you don't give a fact like that without properly explaining it in depth.

Anyways, next time put your arrogance away and LEARN how to back up a fact.

Best of luck

/e

SEOBS said:

Never had any problems doing that.

I think it's perfectly normal that a brand new site gets a ton of promotion at the start and that it slowly dies off. Think of press releases, think of requested links from dealerships, think of listings at Yelp and the like, Twitter, Facebook Google+. It would be more normal to receive a ton of links right at the start then weeks or months later.

In theory it would be more strange that an empty site would rank great.

Click to expand...

See? Now you are doing it better "I think"
I can guarantee you it does not work like that, at least if your aim is to go big with a brand and maintain it up and running.

HOW you build a campaign is as important as WHEN you build each of the elements and WHERE as well as WHAT do you do with them afterwards.

Reyone said:

If you are not asking for help, let me tell you something, your comment is completely ABSURD. At least for as long as you don't go really in depth with the strategy for these so called "buffer" sites.

Go back and edit it and let us know
- Anchors used and their %
- Amount of content used in each "buffer site"
- WHEN did you build the first link, was it from the day you created this "buffer" site and added the article?
- Overall campaign
- Sample article so we can understand what you mean by "quality".

All in all, you are stating a stupid fact
"Content Can Do More Harm Then Good"

And yes, I say stupid because you don't give a fact like that without properly explaining it in depth.

Anyways, next time put your arrogance away and LEARN how to back up a fact.

Click to expand...

All of your questions have already been answered so who is arrogant here? You for half reading the post or me for leaving out irrelevant things like anchor diversity as the sites already ranked based on the links that I build before the content was posted and they started to drop AFTER the content was posted.

In the very first sentence I told WHEN the links were build and in the 3rd sentence I told the word count, I edited this post cause I wasn't 100% sure about it but what did you read to come up with these questions? Only the TITLE of the post maybe? WOW

Reyone said:

I can guarantee you it does not work like that, at least if your aim is to go big with a brand and maintain it up and running.

HOW you build a campaign is as important as WHEN you build each of the elements and WHERE as well as WHAT do you do with them afterwards.

Click to expand...

For most sites on the web, like from my clients, it exactly works like that. People put money into a site, and then they promote it, same like when you buy something new for entertainment, like a Jetski, first you use it a couple of times a week, if you're close to the water and later on the thing stands their in the garage and gets used maybe once a month.

SEOBS said:

When talking on IM forums about quality content you should see it from the perspective of uniqueness / correct grammar / free of spelling errors.

Obvious Google would never be able to understand valuable content.

Click to expand...

Uniqueness IMO is the #1 factor hands down. Let's talk about spelling errors for example. Pretend it's a web site quoting lyrics to a rap song and the lyrics use a certain slang that isn't proper spelling, is that content still not quality? I mean I can think of quite a few examples where things would be spelled incorrectly and still quality. I think this might be very niche dependent however. There might be a threshold where a certain number of misspelled words would cause the page to lose ranking. Who knows? Only Google does as far as I know.

crazedspyker said:

Well, nowadays SEO seems to be more about avoiding the bad stuff than having the good.

The more information you give google, the more they have to ding you with.

In most cases, an almost empty page with no content that doesn't trip any of the filters, is going to rank better than a high quality page with tons of backlinks that happens to trip one of the filters.

Filters are most likely looking for combinations of factors, rather than a single thing.

Click to expand...

If commercial then sadly this seems true.

It's crap - but seems true.

SEOBS said:

I experienced it a year ago with some crappy question and answer site that I setup, it had like 30 random questions, or in other words 30 random articles of 500 words.

Used to rank at #4 for the main EMD keyword, then I accidentally deleted my site and setup a quick empty WP but had no time to re-post the content.

The site instantly moved up to #1 and stayed there for a long time, outranking huge (irrelevant) authority sites where it showed the FAQ page from.

Later on I appearantly had my VA's post the content again (as I see the site is live again) and it's back at #4.

Click to expand...

Remove the content and slap on huge ads instead, see what happens. The same with your buffer sites that just tanked. Unless, of course, they make too much money for you to risk that.

Is there any grammatical issues involve in it? Or it was because of low quality content?

Dude ,

It ranks out first due to freshness of new blog but when the decent articles came in, the robots start to rate it accordingly hence explains the decline.

DamageX said:

Remove the content and slap on huge ads instead, see what happens. The same with your buffer sites that just tanked. Unless, of course, they make too much money for you to risk that.

Click to expand...

Adsense disabled the ads at that Q&A site due to unrelated questions so they considered it pure spam.

Can't post ads on the buffer sites as they are setup for my clients.

The buffer sites are just simple one page sites with the intention to rank at least in the top 50, and they link out to the client to add some relevancy to their back link profiles. Perhaps I should put some work into those sites each month to get them top positions so in case a client cancels at some point he could keep on paying to rent the site and then I could cloak the traffic to their money site.

Commoner said:

Dude ,

It ranks out first due to freshness of new blog but when the decent articles came in, the robots start to rate it accordingly hence explains the decline.

Click to expand...

Makes some sense but then why would a site move to #1 after the WP database got accidentally deleted? Is that also part of the freshness?

And maintain ranks for many months and drop again once content was posted.

I do not believe your issue is related to content, did your sites drop in ranking between May 15 and May 22 ?

andrewabd said:

I do not believe your issue is related to content, did your sites drop in ranking between May 15 and May 22 ?

Click to expand...

Content was published on the 23rd, drops happened on 24th and 25th.

That other site that I talked about was over a year ago.

One day in most cases is not enough for Google to pick up the new content and cache it then drop your rankings, I think those domains are impacted by links/anchors related updates that happened in the last few weeks more than changing the content

maybe it was not original content.

This is because google is an algorithm.

With just a blank page and an h1 title tag theres nothing to trip you up with when it comes to OOP

When you add an article you get nailed for something, or the algorithm just decided its gonna rank you worse because it doesnt like your 5 h2 tags or whatever.

The only reason to write quality content is so when the user hits your site, he doesnt think its shit and leaves.

I find it easier to rank mediocore 400 word articles than a well written 3000 word article because theres less words and stuff to worry about.

moral: google sucks

InsanelySane said:

This is because google is an algorithm.

With just a blank page and an h1 title tag theres nothing to trip you up with when it comes to OOP

When you add an article you get nailed for something, or the algorithm just decided its gonna rank you worse because it doesnt like your 5 h2 tags or whatever.

The only reason to write quality content is so when the user hits your site, he doesnt think its shit and leaves.

I find it easier to rank mediocore 400 word articles than a well written 3000 word article because theres less words and stuff to worry about.

moral: google sucks

Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better, Google is one weird animal:

- Post decent content, you get punished
- Have many posts with too few content, you get punished for being a thin site

- You get forced to show what your page is about with titles, h1, h2, h3, alt tags or Google has no clue.
- Pull it a little too far and you get punished for it.

- Build anchor text links, you get rewarded hugely
- Build too many anchor text links, you get punished.

As you said, Google sucks big time.

Seen similar things a number of times, they dont want to rank quality content on keywords that are hot for adwords.