Time to Change Your SEO Mindset
- Thread starter jstover77
- Start date
Simas9
Elite Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 2,043
- 919
I have been building sites like that for the last 6 months...my anchor text was as random and natural as possible (only ~0.3-0.5% targeted my exact keywords), HQ related links, HQ $20/700 words articles, you name it. Unfortunately I did not survive the last penguin update and even my new sites keep falling from the SERPS.
b1step-ahead
Elite Member
- Nov 15, 2010
- 1,731
- 1,035
the fact that google responded so quickly tells me that he did work there and has some knowledge. With the g's stock taking a hit, they prob wanted to squash this quick.
- Feb 27, 2009
- 3,219
- 4,935
A lot of what I talked about isn't new at all. In fact fundamentally nothing is different from when Google first launched. I was speaking more in terms of everyone having the same old mindset. I.E - build lots of links, heavy exact target anchor text ect....
Last edited:
Dan Da Man
Elite Member
- May 31, 2011
- 1,851
- 939
Ehhhh.... Again, this is just speculation. If you go out and build authority sites, you are putting yourself in more danger. Go ahead, build 2 or 3 authority sites. Spends years of work, thousands of dollars and than google does an update and your gone. Just because you think you have an authority site with good links and all that other bullshit doesn't make you immune to shit. Go this route and you will get burned.
Build sites that are disposable. Google has forced us to. Listen to me or not, eventually your "authority" sites will get burned just like my disposable sites.
Build sites that are disposable. Google has forced us to. Listen to me or not, eventually your "authority" sites will get burned just like my disposable sites.
Build whatever you want, but ultimately you will need other services besides SEO to get money. God forbid any of the losers relying on seo as their "solution" make any money easily while good hard workers like me take my clients to the next level with advanced advertising. Being on here does not mean shit quality, but that is the mindset of people posting in these conversations. Gee, I can't seem to get many sales, why aren't people buying my SHIT QUALITY sales copy and packaging. I mean I spent 1 month on it... Really? I sometimes just want to bitch slap my punching bag because of the idiotic posts on here.
OP is right, QUALITY + QUANTITY = MONEY + AUTHORITY. It works the same way on Google as it does in brick and mortar businesses as it does on YouTube as it does on Facebook as it does in everywhere else. All you need to boost your quality and authority to drive sales is MONEY and SMART STRATEGIES. Enough said, I probably need a full night of just beating my fists against my punching bag so I don't come here and rage for no reason at someone for the lack there of imagination and strategies.
OP is right, QUALITY + QUANTITY = MONEY + AUTHORITY. It works the same way on Google as it does in brick and mortar businesses as it does on YouTube as it does on Facebook as it does in everywhere else. All you need to boost your quality and authority to drive sales is MONEY and SMART STRATEGIES. Enough said, I probably need a full night of just beating my fists against my punching bag so I don't come here and rage for no reason at someone for the lack there of imagination and strategies.
Simas9
Elite Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 2,043
- 919
Beating your fists? Punching bag? Dude...you seriously need some anger management classes or at least to get laid.
- Feb 27, 2009
- 3,219
- 4,935
Not sure how this is speculation. The data/information is there for anyone to see. But, listen if that is how you want to build your business, with throw away sites, go for it. If that is what makes you good cash then all the power to you brother. Everything in business is a risk. I never said that building an authority site guarantees your site won't get wacked. But, I feel as though you have a better chance of surviving Google's algo changes by following best practices. Ultimately if you build a authority type site, you should be diversifying your traffic anyways. With how unstable organic is right now, it is risky as shit not to.
- May 1, 2010
- 2,442
- 470
This is what google wants for us to think. Build quality sites. I do build quality sites, but they are still getting penalised. Actually, loads of very good sites were penalised by recent updates. So old school methods with cheap content still work the best.
Google doesn't deserve quality sites.
Last edited:
MaxTucker
BANNED
- Aug 22, 2010
- 423
- 334
The problem with this thread and similar threads is that we are looking at a very narrow scope.
I used this analogy before and I think it applies here.
Let's say you walk in to a gay bar and you survey one hundred people about their sexual orientation. It turns out that 96% of people in the gay bar are gay. So using this data you conclude that 96% of the worlds population is gay. Clearly this would not make sense. Well, we are doing the same with Google.
There are millions of keywords out there and hundreds of millions of sites targeting them. If you took a random sample of 1,000 keywords to analyse how the top rankers earned their serps. The margin of error would be off the charts. Here we have seen only a handful of examples....
That being said I do agree with the overall theme of this thread. Google is getting smarter at detecting over optimized sites. Natural looking authority sites is the way forward, in my opnion.
I used this analogy before and I think it applies here.
Let's say you walk in to a gay bar and you survey one hundred people about their sexual orientation. It turns out that 96% of people in the gay bar are gay. So using this data you conclude that 96% of the worlds population is gay. Clearly this would not make sense. Well, we are doing the same with Google.
There are millions of keywords out there and hundreds of millions of sites targeting them. If you took a random sample of 1,000 keywords to analyse how the top rankers earned their serps. The margin of error would be off the charts. Here we have seen only a handful of examples....
That being said I do agree with the overall theme of this thread. Google is getting smarter at detecting over optimized sites. Natural looking authority sites is the way forward, in my opnion.
Jstover- I too have studied the serps-
you are spot on with anchors...but the rest is currently fail.
1) fresh content gets no boost in the serps I check (like it used to)
2) relevant links don't matter. In other words, if you have a dog food site you can
get dozens of links from plumbers, restaurants and the like and still crush. Why? Cause those sites have trust and are
NOT PENALIZED.
Anyone else want to spout off about opinions instead of things that have actually been TESTED?
YMMV, and G is random to a large part, and my sample size and methodology is flawed to be sure....so take this with a grain of salt.
Or, believe
you are spot on with anchors...but the rest is currently fail.
1) fresh content gets no boost in the serps I check (like it used to)
2) relevant links don't matter. In other words, if you have a dog food site you can
get dozens of links from plumbers, restaurants and the like and still crush. Why? Cause those sites have trust and are
NOT PENALIZED.
Anyone else want to spout off about opinions instead of things that have actually been TESTED?
YMMV, and G is random to a large part, and my sample size and methodology is flawed to be sure....so take this with a grain of salt.
Or, believe
manny521, can you please elaborate on this or point me to a thread where this has been discussed?
collywobbles99
Junior Member
- Mar 22, 2009
- 173
- 21
Good observation. Mix up those anchors everyone!
- Feb 27, 2009
- 3,219
- 4,935
This is a terrible analogy, but it is the pretty funny. I totally see what you are saying though. There are endless amounts of keywords out there, and simply drawling conclusions from a small set of data can be problematic. I just wanted to point out the observations I am seeing. Take it for what it is, or do the research yourself.
Jstover- I too have studied the serps-
you are spot on with anchors...but the rest is currently fail.
1) fresh content gets no boost in the serps I check (like it used to)
2) relevant links don't matter. In other words, if you have a dog food site you can
get dozens of links from plumbers, restaurants and the like and still crush. Why? Cause those sites have trust and are
NOT PENALIZED.
Anyone else want to spout off about opinions instead of things that have actually been TESTED?
YMMV, and G is random to a large part, and my sample size and methodology is flawed to be sure....so take this with a grain of salt.
Or, believe
Actually I have tested..A lot, but again, I was never trying to state my findings as fact. Simply giving my observations. You can take it however you want.
Adding content to your site helps boost long tailed traffic. Too many people in this game ignore the fact that the majority of all queries in the search engines are long tailed. Not going to get to far into this, because it could be it's own thread, but adding content is definitely important. Again, not a necessity, but highly suggested in many cases.
As far as relevant links. I never said that adding links from non related sites is bad. Most sites are going to have incoming links from non relevant websites. I was saying as a best practice, try to get mostly niche relevant and industry specific backlinks. BUT, if you have a link opportunity from a website that is non relevant, but has good authority then go for it.
Last edited:
ThunderC
Power Member
- Jul 6, 2010
- 738
- 241
at the bottom line, i think it's all about keyword diversity these days.
i always built quality and semi quality links, and the only sites that went trough the last updates and got higher rankings, are those that i had targeted at least 50 different keywords.
i always built quality and semi quality links, and the only sites that went trough the last updates and got higher rankings, are those that i had targeted at least 50 different keywords.
ethanmitchel
Regular Member
- Dec 13, 2011
- 355
- 122
I've seen both cases, but honestly as long as you're smart about your anchor text backlinking and point high quality backlinks to your site then it pretty much can be garbage, I've also done research on this, but I guess a lot of other things can work.
marcus528
Regular Member
- Jun 26, 2010
- 278
- 86
I honestly think some of the people here that are claiming "this is all speculation" or "SEO is still the same" are in complete DENIAL.
My experience has been what OP states. All the sites ranking in the top 3 have low amount of backlinks, their anchor text is no direct to keyword, it's mastly naked URL or generic. Their onsite SEO IS SHIT (keyword stuffing, invisible text) but they have "natural link profile" which is why they are ranking well...
The game has changed, adapt and survive or don't and die.
My experience has been what OP states. All the sites ranking in the top 3 have low amount of backlinks, their anchor text is no direct to keyword, it's mastly naked URL or generic. Their onsite SEO IS SHIT (keyword stuffing, invisible text) but they have "natural link profile" which is why they are ranking well...
The game has changed, adapt and survive or don't and die.
Last edited:
