Forbes SEO Article for 2015

CWonker

Newbie
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
22
Reaction score
3
Ladies and Gents,

This article is almost 2 months old. After reading it I found most of it complete bs and speculation. I was just wondering if you would share your thoughts. I personally stick to long term white hat Stradegies because I sell branded products. However it amazes me that the author was published on Forbes with this information and I apologize if he is a member here no offense meant.
1. Basically states content is important.
2. Sites need to be mobile compatible. Although this is true I feel like this is oldnews
3. Brand mentions and citations will be as important as links. This is interesting and something I have been doing for a couple years. I don't know how it has affected rankings but always took it into consideration. "As important as links" I personally can't see this happening however I have never tested results only using mentions.
4. Search engines will place more value on social signals. This is interesting because they are so easily faked. In example YouTube views and Instagram/Facebook likes
5. Building relationships with bloggers and brand influencers. I think this is always a good practice but will it really have more effect in the coming months.
6. NSEO will be a bigger threat. With the rolls backs of several Google updates over the last few months do you think this could really happen. IMO I feel like Google is moving more towards devaluing links rather tha. Penalyzing.
7. SEO will become part of marketing rather than a specific branch of the marketing department.

overall I feel like most of this article is completely bs it almost sounds like a spun article on basic white hat SEO that was written 2 years ago. I hope #3 and #5 would be true and they would have a bigger impact. I didn't mean for this to be a rant but how many of you agree/disagree with these points? Here is the original I look forward to your feedback
 
I agree unfortunately I couldn't post the link. What do you think about social signals and mentions?
 
I personally do not think social signals matter at all. Instead, I am of the opinion that site interaction is what google looks at. It just so happens that sites that have awesome user interaction have more social shares. My 2 cents though.
 
as anticrist said all basic IM knowledge nothing fancy
 
When you say social interaction would an example be a blog that has actual comments along with conversation from the blogger. The reason I ask is I have have been phasing out page rank as a mark of a good blog link. I have been focusing on blogs with good comments (active followers) and also blogs with active Facebook followers. I run into these types of sites that have 20k Facebook followers and one or two likes per post. I figure active members are more important than numbers on paper. Do you agree that moving in this direction is more important?
 
social signals are good for creating viral effect while running mass link building campaign . when ever i am running a campaign that includes alot of links (in a short period of time) i make sure i sent equal amount of social share to not look 100% shady
 
That's interesting I have never thought of that. In your opinion one of my biggest link building Stradedgies is through product reviews, almost all of them share the review through their social platforms. If this wasn't to happen do you think it could have a negative impact? I've been stuck at 5-9 for my big keywords and I am trying to find a safe way to break through this wall. It's been a struggle beating some of the big authority sites
 
The negative SEO thing is interesting, if not a little scary.
 
Shouldnt be the Forbes SEO article in the laymen terms ? I dont know, I have seen this article for the first time.
 
EV1kYAM


Wow ... that's some impressive guru shit!

Actually everyone knows that Jason DeMers sell links on Forbes, price is $1500-ish. He also sell links on Entrepreneur and Inc, together with his faggot friend http://www.searchenginejournal.com/new-marketingnerds-jayson-demers-makes-great-title/123794/ . Here, a free commercial.
 
There is guy name greg he also sell links on forbes for $1000 I contacted him But never got his reply.
 
There is guy name greg he also sell links on forbes for $1000 I contacted him But never got his reply.
Maybe he don't sell if he never replied. Some spammers use random posts to show "samples" of their previously posted articles on Forbes.

Neil Patel, Jason DeMers, John Rampton and of course Murray Newlands, they are killing it. Earning big buck selling links on these sites. But hey, they all preach white hat SEO and inject links while they are doing it.
Oh, and don't forget PR (public relations) is the new SEO
 
Genuine social signals matter a LOT. I've experienced this personally on some of my authority sites (with viral kind of content). However signals sold here or via panels or on fiverr is crap (like the ones 100 g+ for $2-5 is shitt).

I personally do not think social signals matter at all. Instead, I am of the opinion that site interaction is what google looks at. It just so happens that sites that have awesome user interaction have more social shares. My 2 cents though.
 
I'm not sure why people look at contributor posts and then hold that up as "oh look at what Forbes said!". I feel like any Joe Schmoe with good English could get a contributor account and spout whatever crap they want. Unless it says "Forbes Staff" under the name, I'm not all that interested.

Now, from the standpoint of selling links...
 
I saw publication even from contributors which were shared thousands of times. ! same like the editors ones.
 
9gwu8x.jpg


Lololololol, remembers me of CEO SAM ...
 
Back
Top