Your wrong again. The drop was an algo change that pushed down in the serps poor quality websites that used EMD. At no stage does it show anything to do with an EMD getting a bonus in the serps. Losing ground in the serps never equated to a bonus in the first place. It was an algo change that imposed a downgrade on poor quality with EMD...thats it...nothing more. Still no proof that shows any sort of a bonus with EMD. On the other stuff, ill be back tomorrow to blast that rubbish down as well.
Single handedly rewriting the history of SEO? Matt Cutts does what he calls a Google algorithm change affecting low quality EMDs, over the next few days everyone (http://www.seomoz.org/blog/googles-emd-algo-update-early-data, http://www.searchenginejournal.com/your-guide-to-googles-emd-algorithm-update/49915/, http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2214115/Google-Warns-of-Upcoming-Exact-Match-Domain-Algorithm-Change, http://www.seroundtable.com/google-emd-legit-15937.html, blogs about the EMD algorithm change, but here comes you, registered Feb 2013 with 12 posts (mostly relating to this thread) ... and you're so brilliant that you're smarter than all them and everyone else, proclaiming it wasn't really an EMD algo change, it was something else. Obviously you're wrong.
Let me guess...your selling EMD`s?
I don't sell anything. In fact, I don't bother with EMDs anymore. At one time, prior to 5 months ago, you could post an EMD and get significant advantage with minimal promotion of them. Today, in order to rank them, you have to put more effort into them, which doesn't make sense to bother with when you can simply create an authority site to promote multiple keywords and not have to bother with SEO hosting.
By the way, do you have any connection to the OP?
You can't post 1 link backing up a single thing you say. Nobody in the entire industry believes the things you believe, nobody. You quote Google employees and reword what they say to back up your position when its convenient, and when another Google employee is quoted that negates what you're saying ... you disregard it. So as you crash and burn with nothing to back up your argument, you insinuate that I am the OP? No, I'm not. But as long as we're throwing around wild accusations like that ...
I could just as easily claim you're someone else. Registered February 2013 with 12 posts, and now you're the self-proclaimed SEO god that knows more than all the experts in the industry? As long as we're making wild accusations, you're either the alt of another member, which is prohibited at BHW, or you are a banned member with a new account, which is also prohibited. Either way you have no clue what you're talking about.
You left something out of that ....."Some people have complained that were giving a little too much weight for keywords in domains". Note...thats other people...not Google. There two different things. Thats just other peoples opinions and people have wrong opinions all the time.
Negated by what Matt Cutts says right after what you quoted.
There has been no admission on googles part in the last few years that they give a bonus to EMD as you claim. He then goes on the say that there thinking of adjusting the algorithm regarding keyword domains....but that still does not mean there is any bonus......and the end result was the update last year which penalized those promoting this theory. They did not remove a bonus...they simply are attempting to put this EMD rubbish to rest. Still no proof on your part showing any added bonus to EMD.
Matt Cutts said
And so we have been thinking about adjusting that mix a little bit and sort of turning the knob down within the algorithm so that given two different domains, it wouldn't necessarily help you as much to have a domain with a bunch of keywords in it.
Read it again. He says the word algorithm there, see it? He says adjust it so you don't have an advantage if it has keywords in it, see it?
How can you http://www.seroundtable.com/google-exact-match-domain-keywords-14218.html ... take the phrase "Exact match domains does not equal rankings for that keyword phrase", extrapolate that into an all-encompassing "Google gives zero advantage to exact match domains" when he doesn't say that ... and yet when Matt Cutts uses the exact terms "algorithm", comparing "two domains" (one with keywords, one without), and adjusting the algorithm to stop giving one domain favor ... you somehow wiggle out of that saying it was never in the algorithm and he's not really talking about exact match domains.
Of course exact match domains does not equal rankings. All you need to do is spend a couple minutes searching google to find a EMDs that aren't ranking well ... and there you have it that "exact match domains doesn't equal rankings". That's the only thing in the world you're basing your arguments on?
You've progressed beyond just not knowing what you're talking about, into a troll who doesn't know what he's talking about.
- here's some examples:
