Crowdsearch.me - Is this a legit approach?
-
It seems like a less-than-white hat approach, and anyway I don't know whether or not it could work.
Does anyone have any advice about it?
Thanks!
-
Thanks for the heads up, I was really unsure about this as well but really glad I saved my money by not buying into it!
Matt
-
Thank´s for this page, I have receive a email about this today for my webstore www.arbeidslys.no . I will not use money on something like this.
Preben Want
Manager
Arbeidslys.no -
Terry Kyle has a report on his results with CrowdSearch:
http://seotraffichacks.com/crowdsearching-work-seo-results-far/
-
A nod from the wizard :0 - I'm counting this week as a good friggen week!
-
Thanks, Rand. It's kind of an honor to have you speaking up on my little question here!
It's probably predictable that someone (or more than one) would try to monetize this sort of trick, because of the Google pronouncements that you mentioned and the other articles that have appeared about CTR and time-on-site behavior.
Too bad. I guess that we all have to actually earn all those visits and page views.
-
Thanks, Ray. What you said confirms what I speculated - too good to be true. And not entirely above-board, either.
-
Totally agree with Ray that this isn't a legitimate tactic, nor would I expect it to work. Google's got a lot of defenses and checks to prevent manipulation of this kind, so while it could have an impact briefly and in some SERPs, I'd expect it to be mostly a waste of time and money.
The only part I'll disagree with is Google's disclosure that they do (or rather "might") use pogo-sticking. I believe this was mentioned at a conference last year or in 2013, though I can't find the reference now. There's also lots of test evidence, including the experiment I ran live at Mozcon, this one from my blog: http://moz.com/rand/queries-clicks-influence-googles-results/ (which I did repeat with success), and some mixed results from Darren Shaw here: http://www.slideshare.net/darrenshaw1/darren-shaw-user-behavior-and-local-search-dallas-state-of-search-2014.
Queries and clicks are most certainly impacting rankings, though how directly and with what caveats/other influences we don't yet know (and may never).
-
Is this a legit approach?
No, not really. Google has never confirmed the use of CTR as a ranking signal for their search rankings. And, services such as these point to the fact that if Google did use CTR as a heavy ranking signal, it could easily be manipulated. That's what this service is proposing they are doing, manipulating the search results.
Now, does CTR actually impact search rankings? It's only speculation at this time and does seem like a logical factor to influence ranking. Google wants to show the most relevant results to the user; the results that answer the users search query the quickest and most complete. However, I don't think it could ever be a heavy impact ranking factor because it can be so easily manipulated.
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
-
Old content with trailing `/` - What should be my new approach?
Dear team Moz, I'm investigating SEO issues for the site that dropped rankings over a period of 4-6 months; after conversion from old platform (xenForo) to new custom developed platform. The old version of the site was a simple xenForo based forum; with threads having standard url structure as like www.domain.com/threads/thread-title.{thread_id}/. Notice the trailing slash. We chose to keep the URLs intact during conversion to new platform; however the site still lost rankings. I'm sure there could be multiple reasons for it - but I wish to know if I should adjust the URLs - 1. By 301 redirecting all the URLs with trailing / to the URLs without /. 2. Leave the URLs as they were. I must also mention that the new site has several new sections; and the old forum is just one part of it. The rest of the site follows URLs without trailing / - as it's the recommended URL structure by Google. I'd really appreciate your suggestions on this.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KaustubhKatdare0 -
Best Practice Approaches to Canonicals vs. Indexing in Google Sitemap vs. No Follow Tags
Hi There, I am working on the following website: https://wave.com.au/ I have become aware that there are different pages that are competing for the same keywords. For example, I just started to update a core, category page - Anaesthetics (https://wave.com.au/job-specialties/anaesthetics/) to focus mainly around the keywords ‘Anaesthetist Jobs’. But I have recognized that there are ongoing landing pages that contain pretty similar content: https://wave.com.au/anaesthetists/ https://wave.com.au/asa/ We want to direct organic traffic to our core pages e.g. (https://wave.com.au/job-specialties/anaesthetics/). This then leads me to have to deal with the duplicate pages with either a canonical link (content manageable) or maybe alternatively adding a no-follow tag or updating the robots.txt. Our resident developer also suggested that it might be good to use Google Index in the sitemap to tell Google that these are of less value? What is the best approach? Should I add a canonical link to the landing pages pointing it to the category page? Or alternatively, should I use the Google Index? Or even another approach? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Wavelength_International0 -
Suggested approach (support) for 301 redirects in event of an acquisition
If an agency has recently been acquired by a new organisation, it will need to be redirected to the new organisation's website as soon as possible. We are aware of the need to 301 redirect all pages (domain authority) across to the current domain of the new organisation's website. The new organisation has less pages than our Agency site however, so we cannot point 301 redirects at page level. Would you therefore advise, A, B or C?: A) Redirecting all pages including all blog posts/services pages etc across from the agency site to the new organisation's domain? * new organisation does not have /blog or /services pages. -Will we lose authority if redirecting from pages of our agency site to the new organisation's top level domain? B) Ensure that the new organisation secures hosting of the agency website, and place a holding page on the Agency website directing visitors through to the new organisation for the interim, until we have a /blog, /services page on the new organisation's site? C) Place 301 redirects from agency across to new organisation, and look moving forward (when pages have been put in place on new organisation website) to retrospectively repoint 301 redirects from top level domain of new organisation's site to the new pages which have just been created on the new organisation's site? Any pointers here would be appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Tangent0 -
Approach for discontinued categories and products
My web site previously offered several categories of an indoor type of product, which have since been permanently discontinued. We do still offer a full line of the outdoor type of these products. The usage is quite different (indoor vs. outdoor), and customers looking for the indoor variety are not likely to be immediately interested in the outdoor ones. But the pages for the discontinued categories and products have built up significant page authority and rank quite well even for more generic searches which are not indoor or outdoor specific. I am interested in opinions on what approach to take for the discontinued category pages and product pages. Currently, the discontinued pages are accessible by direct link, but have been removed from the site's navigation menus and on-site search. The pages include some messaging for visitors to inform that we no longer offer this type of product, with some links to active categories. We can remove these pages and serve a 404 error page. Or, we can redirect these pages to the outdoor product category (but all would have to be redirected to a single category, as the specific outdoor categories and products don't map logically to specific indoor ones). Or, we can keep as-is. I am interested in opinions on approach, either between these options above, or other alternatives.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | drewk0 -
GWT does not play nice with 410 status code approach to expire content? Use 301s?
We have been diligently managing our index size in Google for our sites and are returning a 410 status code for pages that we no longer consider "up-to-date" but still carry value for users to access to have Google remove them from our index to keep it lean. However we have been receiving GWT warning across sites because of the 410 status codes Google is encountering which makes us nervous that Google could interpret this approach as a lack of quality of our site. Does anyone have a view if the 410 approach is the right approach for the given example or if we should consider maybe simply using 301s or another status code to keep our GWT errors clean? Further notes there is hardly ever any link juice being sent to those pages so it is not like we are missing out on that the pages for which we return 410 are also marked as noindex and nofollow
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | petersocapro0 -
What is best practice SEO approach to re structuring a website with multiple domains and associated search engine rankings for each domain?
Hello Mozzers, I'm trying to improve and establish rankings for my website which has never really been optimised. I've inherited what seems to be a mess and have a challenge for you! The website currently has 3 different www domains all pointing to the one website, two are .com domains and one is a .com.au - the business is located in Australia and the website is primarily targeting Australian traffic. In addition to this there are a number of other non www domains for the same addresses pointing to the website in the CMS which is Adobe Business Catalyst. When I check Google each of the www domains for the website has the following number of pages indexed: www.Domain1,com 5,190 pages
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JimmyFlorida
www.Domain2.com 1,520 pages
www,Domain3.com.au 149 pages What is best practice approach from an SEO perspective to re organising this current domain structure? 1. Do I need to use the .com.au as the primary domain given that we are in this market and targeting traffic here? Thats what I have been advised and it seems to be backed up by what I have read here. 2. Do we re direct all domains to the primary .com.au domain? This is easily done in the Adobe Business Catalyst CMS however is this the same as a 301 redirect which is the best approach from an SEO perspective? 3. How do we consolidate all of the current separate domain rankings for the 3 different domains into the one domain rankings within Google to ensure improved rankings and a best practice approach? The website is currently receiving very little organic search traffic so if its simpler and faster to start again fresh rather than go through a complicated migration or re structure and you have a suggestion here please feel free to let me know your ideas! Thank you!0 -
What is the best approach for getting comments indexed, but also providing a great UX?
The way our in-house comments system was built, it uses AJAX to call comments as the page is loaded. I'm working on a set of requirements to convert the system over to be more SEO-friendly. Today, we have a "load more comments" after the first 20 comments, then it calls the server and loads more comments. This is what I'm trying to figure out. Should we load all the comments behind the scenes in the page, then lazy load the comments or use the same "load more" and just load what was already loaded behind the scenes? Or does anyone have a better suggestion about how to make the comments crawlable for Google?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JDatSB0 -
Best approach to launch a new site with new urls - same domain
www.sierratradingpost.com We have a high volume e-commerce website with over 15K items, an average of 150K visits per day and 12.6 pages per visit. We are launching a new website this spring which is currently on a beta sub domain and we are looking for the best strategy that preserves our current search rankings while throttling traffic (possibly 25% per week) to measure results. The new site will be soft launched as we plan to slowly migrate traffic to it via a load balancer. This way we can monitor performance of the new site while still having the old site as a backup. Only when we are fully comfortable with the new site will we submit the 301 redirects and migrate everyone over to the new site. We will have a month or so of running both sites. Except for the homepage the URL structure for the new site is different than the old site. What is our best strategy so we don’t lose ranking on the old site and start earning ranking on the new site, while avoiding duplicate content and cloaking issues? Here is what we got back from a Google post which may highlight our concerns better: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=62d0a16c4702a17d&hl=en&fid=62d0a16c4702a17d00049b67b51500a6 Thank You, sincerely, Stephan Woo Cude SEO Specialist [email protected]
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | STPseo0
