Remember when everyone thought that Google could live without links?

HustleTong said:

Topical authority is the new buzzword everyone's throwing around
Backlinks will always have it's own relevance

Click to expand...

Sunya said:

It reminds me of the movie Terminator 2. How the Terminator tries different faces it knows, before finally collapsing into the molten pit. Hoping one of those faces will save him.

Google is doing the same, rotating through different algos hoping to save itself.

SERP quality is deteriorating and Google knows it.

Click to expand...

blackmagic1902 said:

fact remains that PageRank is still (comparatively) the most effective scoring system they've got.

Click to expand...

SirLouen said:

The thing is that I'm not 100% confident that this is still true. I'm finding a lot of chaos within an order. Like: hey now we have like these 20 sites that are more or less satisfying, but we cannot understand how to order them, so basically we do a weird randomization, specially under relatively new non-established queries.

This includes: "Hey do these 5 sites have good content according to what, we think, is good content? Yes".
"Does this site have 3 links from reputable sites? Yes, I don't really care, still I will be putting the other one in first place because, still, I think that all 5 sites have more or less the same what I think quality content", but now and then we put one or another in top 1, to check CTR's and all that

Meanwhile, a ton of people think that can deceive CTR, while probably 99% of the deceiving techniques have been perfectly patched already by Google (one of the easiest things to patch nowadays)

So personally, I do not trust either in technical SEO, content SEO or Linkbuilding SEO. I think 100% that there is a market force which also includes a major Luck factor that used to be high, but now it's nuts. I don't know a single SEO guy in the world nowadays that ranks consistently. SEO manipulation is now reduced to 25-30% of skill while fine-tuning. Not even mass works (like those massive automation AI sites, with 0.1% fine-tuning). Still, they are fully risking, spending resources like mad, and most not ranking a shit (I have a ton of colleagues that are on this crying like babies in our private groups).

And plus, now I'm crying like a baby because not even my biggest efforts are being rewarded with 1/5 of how the used to be rewarded.

Click to expand...

Sunya said:

Maybe I am exaggerating. Good Luck! I will start doing something else other than SEO.

Click to expand...

SirLouen said:

I am not sure if you are exaggerating. I have invested countless hours on this by now, so it feels weird. Trying to figure out a new idea ATM.

Click to expand...

GoogSEO said:

Links have been and will continue to be the most important ranking factor.
The problem is that Google devalues a very large percentage of links placed incorrectly in its opinion.
Yes, AI helps it a lot with that. Without AI, evaluating link placement was much more difficult.

What most people don't realize when looking at these leaps in SEO is that the amount of information and domains themselves on the internet has increased many times over, which is why search results have gotten worse. Handling 10 million sites 10 years ago and 12 billion now is a different task.

I always thought that in the current situation, an instant and eternal ban of copies, any copies, would solve the problem for a while. But Google is mumbling, they are afraid to remove copies, citing that there are words in the copy that may carry other useful information.
I, and other developers like me, know this, we know Google's word weights, we know which niches have certain weights and are not to be blocked for copy and we use this to flood the internet with more copy that ranks at the top even though it doesn't carry anything new or useful. And so it will continue to be until Google makes the willful decision to remove any duplicate information permanently.

As Google's bases are filled with garbage, it removes useful old content that it can no longer afford to keep, but keeps this garbage modern.


They talked about thematic authority, no one popularized it, it is one of the sub branches of the BERT algorithm, who is seriously involved in mathematics, he knows that it is thematic authority and the division of phrases into groups of topics determines the links and weight when searching for textual information.
This is the basis, Turbek just voiced it in his works, and the leeches of marketers forced him to start doing what he is doing now. I think he himself is not happy that he got in touch with them, they only know how to make money on the skills of others, while doing nothing themselves (although, the ability to make money on others, apparently also useful and cool skill).

Yes, about thematic authority, it is mandatory, it is determined by which link and what weight will pass to your site. If you ask BARD and ask to give you types of sites from where to put links to your site, he will tell you about thematic authority and show examples of how and where you maximize the effectiveness of placing links to your site. However, if your site is just a mishmash of words and topics, even BARD won't be able to figure out what your site is and give you any good advice.

Also, when you create sections on your sites, topic authority is a must, it is the basis for calculating textual relevance, the more accurate and extensive you take away the topic word map, the higher the weight your section will have on the site as a whole. The more correctly you link it to related sections, the better your entire corpus of topics will be ranked on the site. You will need, for example, 3 good links to get the top 1-3 on a competitive query, and who has a site built worse, will need 50-100 links of the same level.



If you do not use risky technologies, place links only on well-planned and successful sites that are suitable for you to promote, you will not have any jumps, you will always stand evenly in the output, minimal fluctuations will be caused only by various tests of modules in the output, but the core algorithm itself will not affect you in any way.

I have a group of such sites, they are not affected by any updates, they always either grow, or stand in one place having exhausted all queries in the niche. But they can not get a lot of income, because of this policy. Therefore, to make money, you need to use completely different technologies and lose sites and ratings, and again to gain and raise them.

Click to expand...

GoogSEO said:

Links have been and will continue to be the most important ranking factor.
The problem is that Google devalues a very large percentage of links placed incorrectly in its opinion.
Yes, AI helps it a lot with that. Without AI, evaluating link placement was much more difficult.

What most people don't realize when looking at these leaps in SEO is that the amount of information and domains themselves on the internet has increased many times over, which is why search results have gotten worse. Handling 10 million sites 10 years ago and 12 billion now is a different task.

I always thought that in the current situation, an instant and eternal ban of copies, any copies, would solve the problem for a while. But Google is mumbling, they are afraid to remove copies, citing that there are words in the copy that may carry other useful information.
I, and other developers like me, know this, we know Google's word weights, we know which niches have certain weights and are not to be blocked for copy and we use this to flood the internet with more copy that ranks at the top even though it doesn't carry anything new or useful. And so it will continue to be until Google makes the willful decision to remove any duplicate information permanently.

As Google's bases are filled with garbage, it removes useful old content that it can no longer afford to keep, but keeps this garbage modern.


They talked about thematic authority, no one popularized it, it is one of the sub branches of the BERT algorithm, who is seriously involved in mathematics, he knows that it is thematic authority and the division of phrases into groups of topics determines the links and weight when searching for textual information.
This is the basis, Turbek just voiced it in his works, and the leeches of marketers forced him to start doing what he is doing now. I think he himself is not happy that he got in touch with them, they only know how to make money on the skills of others, while doing nothing themselves (although, the ability to make money on others, apparently also useful and cool skill).

Yes, about thematic authority, it is mandatory, it is determined by which link and what weight will pass to your site. If you ask BARD and ask to give you types of sites from where to put links to your site, he will tell you about thematic authority and show examples of how and where you maximize the effectiveness of placing links to your site. However, if your site is just a mishmash of words and topics, even BARD won't be able to figure out what your site is and give you any good advice.

Also, when you create sections on your sites, topic authority is a must, it is the basis for calculating textual relevance, the more accurate and extensive you take away the topic word map, the higher the weight your section will have on the site as a whole. The more correctly you link it to related sections, the better your entire corpus of topics will be ranked on the site. You will need, for example, 3 good links to get the top 1-3 on a competitive query, and who has a site built worse, will need 50-100 links of the same level.



If you do not use risky technologies, place links only on well-planned and successful sites that are suitable for you to promote, you will not have any jumps, you will always stand evenly in the output, minimal fluctuations will be caused only by various tests of modules in the output, but the core algorithm itself will not affect you in any way.

I have a group of such sites, they are not affected by any updates, they always either grow, or stand in one place having exhausted all queries in the niche. But they can not get a lot of income, because of this policy. Therefore, to make money, you need to use completely different technologies and lose sites and ratings, and again to gain and raise them.

Click to expand...

Greay7 said:

I have a domain that has some really good links that I want to reuse for another project in a similar field. If I remove the content will I lose the links
what is the best way to go about this? Thanks

Click to expand...

GoogSEO said:

There's no telling how lucky you'll be here. Many site owners never check links, and some almost every week.
Thanks

Click to expand...

SirLouen said:

The thing is that I'm not 100% confident that this is still true. I'm finding a lot of chaos within an order. Like: hey now we have like these 20 sites that are more or less satisfying, but we cannot understand how to order them, so basically we do a weird randomization, specially under relatively new non-established queries.

This includes: "Hey do these 5 sites have good content according to what, we think, is good content? Yes".
"Does this site have 3 links from reputable sites? Yes, I don't really care, still I will be putting the other one in first place because, still, I think that all 5 sites have more or less the same what I think quality content", but now and then we put one or another in top 1, to check CTR's and all that

Meanwhile, a ton of people think that can deceive CTR, while probably 99% of the deceiving techniques have been perfectly patched already by Google (one of the easiest things to patch nowadays)

So personally, I do not trust either in technical SEO, content SEO or Linkbuilding SEO. I think 100% that there is a market force which also includes a major Luck factor that used to be high, but now it's nuts. I don't know a single SEO guy in the world nowadays that ranks consistently. SEO manipulation is now reduced to 25-30% of skill while fine-tuning. Not even mass works (like those massive automation AI sites, with 0.1% fine-tuning). Still, they are fully risking, spending resources like mad, and most not ranking a shit (I have a ton of colleagues that are on this crying like babies in our private groups).

And plus, now I'm crying like a baby because not even my biggest efforts are being rewarded with 1/5 of how the used to be rewarded.

Click to expand...

SerpSurfer said:

Monopoly of Google, people not focusing on Bing, Yahoo, DDG, or Other. Even back days If i;m not wrong, Yahoo Search was sponsored or merged with Google SERP Results, Now they are free from Google Cage, I Guess SO

Click to expand...

blackhat64 said:

I suspect google employees throwing us off by creating fake articles and fake youtubers about nonsense

Click to expand...