Climate of fear in the world of SEO
-
There certainly appears to be a certain climate of fear about backlinks at the mo, and not without reason.
I was wondering why Google moved from simply discounting links to punishing site owners for their backlink profiles, many of which were built up when the risks of punishment weren't there?
I mean, I could send them the names of at least 1,000 sites in linkfarms / blog rings - you name it. I'm sure most of us on here could do the same.
Responding to the whims of Google is such a waste of time and resources. Why doesn't Google simply choose a direction and stick with it? What is their strategy exactly?
-
Some great feedback here - firstly, thanks EGOL - I'm focusing 100% on content on a new site. Should be interesting
- and that's a good point re: vandalism. I am concerned with the consequences of negative SEO / scrapers, clones, etc., though. Would be so good to be able to cut nasty incoming links in some way (I can but dream...) Love that saying too Donnie!
Good points there Marie - yes I get plagued by that stuff too - I'm beginning to wonder whether many of these comments are more about hoping some lunatic will click on the link than about manipulating SEO though.
To be totally honest, I wouldn't mind if Google laid down specific rules for linkbuilding. We advise that site owners should only proactively build no more than 10 links/page from relevant sites. The rest should be generated naturally. Something far more specific than we have at the moment.
And thanks Arpeggio. A very good point indeed. I agree.
-
The more advanced technology and logistics etc. becomes the further away human accountabilty becomes. I think thats a major challenge in the modern day in general.
-
I think the latest changes made by Google are accomplishing exactly what Google wants. They want website owners to stop "building links" and instead make the best possible site that gives the user the best possible information.
If they simply discounted links then many people would still go on building them "just in case" they helped. I mean, everyone knows that nofollowed comment spam is very unlikely to be helpful, but I get thousands of crap automated comments on my blog each month that are killed by Askimet, so people are still doing it.
But by building a culture of fear around links they've managed to get a lot of people in the SEO world saying, "Man! If I keep building links I could get a big penalty and my site could tank." The result? People stop building links.
Now, there are some links that are not a bad thing to build and this is the scary thing. People will be afraid to get ANY links to their site and that's not right. I know of someone who got the Better Business Bureau to remove all links to their site because they thought it could look unnatural. That is a good link
-
Thanks
-
"Give the people what they want and Google will give you to the people"
Thanks... that's a great saying!
-
I was wondering why Google moved from simply discounting links to punishing site owners for their backlink profiles, many of which were built up when the risks of punishment weren't there?
Google finally realized that merely "discounting" the links was resulting in a continued vandalism of blogs and forums as linkbuilders deposit their rubbish.
Why doesn't Google simply choose a direction and stick with it? What is their strategy exactly?
I think that they have "stuck" with their use of links for way too long.
Responding to the whims of Google is such a waste of time and resources.
A method to try would be to place 100% of your effort into building content and allow the links to slowly build on their own. This will start very slowly but will build to a rate that reflects the value of your content.
-
They want to give users the best results possible, by ensuring that their SERPs are not easily manipulated they can ensure a better overall user experience.
My saying has always been:
"Give the people what they want and Google will give you to the people"
Its quite simple.. they want sites that have a natural link profile and a great user experience (bookmarked, linked to, or shared)
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Anyone suspect that a site's total page count affects SEO?
I've been trying to find out the underlying reason why so many websites are ranked higher than mine despite seemingly having far worse links. I've spent a lot of time researching and have read through all the general advice about what could possibly be hurting my site's SEO, from page speed to h1 tags to broken links, and all the various on-page SEO optimization stuff....so the issue here isn't very obvious. From viewing all of my competitors, they seem to have a much higher number of web pages on their sites than mine does. My site currently has 20 pages or so and most of my competitors are well in the hundreds, so I'm wondering if this could potentially be part of the issue here. I know Google has never officially said that page number matters, but does anyone suspect that perhaps page count matters towards SEO and that competing sites with more total pages than you might have an advantage SEOwise?
Algorithm Updates | | ButtaC1 -
SEO Friendly IFRAMES?
Hi Everyone, My company is using an iframe for an About US page because we are having coding issues with our CMS. The content is coming directly from our server. After a couple of weeks passed, I searched for the page in Google and I noticed in the search result that the meta description was using the textual content served from the iframe on the page. Does this mean the iframe we are using is SEO friendly? Thanks, Jon
Algorithm Updates | | JMSCC0 -
Is it a good idea to 301 redirect one same niche site towards another site for seo benefit
Hello friends, I have 2 android niche sites, one site is running on a technology dropped domain i catch 1 year ago it has, almost 400+ domains linking to different parts of the site, the other one i established from scratch and both are running from jan 2015. Now i want to redirect first site which already has 400 links pointing towards it to the home page of my 2nd android site. Is it a good idea to do so and does it give any boost in terms of seo?
Algorithm Updates | | RizwanAkbar0 -
Does using parent pages in WordPress help with SEO and/or indexing for SERPs?
I have a law office and we handle four different practice areas. I used to have multiple websites (one for each practice area) with keywords in the actual domain name, but based on the recommendation of SEO "experts" a few years ago, I consolidated all the webpages into one single webpage (based on the rumors at the time that Google was going to be focusing on authorship and branding in the future, rather than keywords in URLs or titles). Needless to say, Google authorship was dropped a year or two later and "branding" never took off. Overall, having one webpage is convenient and generally makes SEO easier, but there's been a huge drawback: When my page comes up in SERPs after searching for "attorney" or "lawyer" combined with a specific practice area, the practice area landing pages don't typically come up in the SERPs, only the front page comes up. It's as if Google recognizes that I have some decent content, and Google knows that I specialize in multiple practice areas, but it directs everyone to the front page only. Prospective clients don't like this and it causes my bounce rate to be high. They like to land on a page focusing on the practice area they searched for. Two questions: (1) Would using parent pages (e.g. http://lawfirm.com/divorce/anytown-usa-attorney-lawyer/ vs. http://lawfirm.com/anytown-usa-divorce-attorney-lawyer/) be better for SEO? The research I've done up to this point appears to indicate "no." It doesn't make much difference as long as the keywords are in the domain name and/or URL. But I'd be interested to hear contrary opinions. (2) Would using parent pages (e.g. http://lawfirm.com/divorce/anytown-usa-attorney-lawyer/ vs. http://lawfirm.com/anytown-usa-divorce-attorney-lawyer/) be better for indexing in Google SERPs? For example, would it make it more likely that someone searching for "anytown usa divorce attorney" would actually end up in the divorce section of the website rather than the front page?
Algorithm Updates | | micromano0 -
Is there any SEO value to Infographs?
I purchased Piktochart to make what they said were SEO friendly infographs. Hearing conflicting responses on the SEO value I figure I should ask SEO's. The program is easy and you can download as an XML. Any responses are welcome Thank You
Algorithm Updates | | polarking0 -
Video SEO: Youtube, Vimeo PRO, Wistia, Longtail BOTR Experience and questions
Obviously Video SEO is changing, Google is figuring out how to do it themselves. We are left wondering… Below we have tried to explain what we have learned and how the different sites work and their characteristics (links to graphics provided) Our problem is: We are not getting congruent Google site:apalytics.tv Video filter results. We are wondering how duplicate content may be affecting our results… and if so, why will Youtube not be duplicate and prevent your own site SEO efforts from working. Is Youtube special? Does that include Vimeo too? We see our own duplicate videos on multiple sites in Google results, so it seems it is not duplicate related…? We’d appreciate your experience or add to our questions and work as a community to get this figured out more definitively. Thanks! We’ve tried four video hosting solutions at quite a cost monetarily and in time. 1.) Youtube, which gets all the SEO Juice and gets our clients on to other subjects or potentially competitive content. Iframes just don’t get the results we are looking for. 2.) See Vimeo Image: Vimeo PRO, a $200 year plus solution that allows us to do many video carousels on our own domains hosted on Vimeo, but are very limited in HTML as only CSS content changes are allowed. While we were using Vimeo we allowed the Vimeo.com community to SEO our content directly and they come up often in search results. Due to duplicate content concerns we have disallowed Vimeo.com from using our content and SEOing our content to their domain. However, we have many “portfolios” (micro limited carousal sites on our domains) that continue to carry the content. The Vimeo hosted micro site shows only three videos on Google: site:apalytics.tv During our testing we are concerned that duplicate content is causing issues too, so we are getting ready to shut off the many microsite domains hosted at Vimeo. (Vimeo has an old embed code that allows a NON-iframe embed – but has discontinued it recently) That makes it difficult if not impossible to retain SEO juice for anything other than their simple micro sites that are very limited! 3.) See Wistia Image: Wistia, a $2000 year plus solution that only provides private video site hosting embedding various types of video content on one’s site/s. Wistia has a free account now for three videos and limited plays – it’s a nice interface for SEO but is still different than BOTR. We opted for BOTR because of many other advertising related options, but are again trying Wistia with the free version to see if we can figure out why our BOTR videos are not showing up as hoped. We know that Google does not promise to index and feature every video on a sitemap, but why some are there and others are not and when remains a mystery that we are hoping to get some answers about. 4.) See Longtail Image: Longtail, Bits On The Run, (JW Player author) a $1,000 year plus like Wistia provides private hosting, but it allows a one button YouTube upload for the same SEO meta data and content – isn’t that duplicate content? BOTR creates and submits video sitemaps for your content, but it has not been working for us and it has been impossible to get a definitive answer as I think they too are learning or are not wanting the expose their proprietary methods (which are not yet working for us!) 2O9w0.png 0eiPv.png O9bXV.png
Algorithm Updates | | Mark_Jay_Apsey_Jr.0 -
URL SEO
Hi All I am completely new to SEO and I have a question about URL's which I would like advise on. We are about to launch an immigration consultancy website which caters for several countries. For the example below we are targeting the keyword "UK Visit Visa", which URL would be better from an SEO prospective? 1. www.example.com/uk/visit-visa
Algorithm Updates | | Fuad_YK
2. www.example.com/uk/uk-visit-visa Thanks, Fuad0 -
Addicted to SEO: Please Help!
Hello. My name is Justin. And I am an addict. I have recently starting dabbling around with SEO about five months ago. And I have found myself wanting more and more. I feel like I needed to come to this group of other addicts and admit it to you. I am constantly checking my ranking in Google. I am obsessed with my keywords. And I will sell my soul for a PR8 in-bound link. I desperately want my site: www.findahealthcarejob.com to be the best in the universe and it has been a wonderful drug for me. This must stop. Please help me. What are some steps of your own 12-steps that help you detox from this addicting lifestyle? Thank you.
Algorithm Updates | | findachristianjob0