With all the changes with Google, the SEO game is a new one. Here are some of the rules of the New game that I can come up with... 1. Do not submit to paid directories. 2. Do not do excessive link exchanges. 3. Do not link to other websites that are not of direct relevance. What are some other NEW rules?
I also doubt a few of them. I believe you will not get penalise for links on someone else website, like paid directories. You can only get penalise for content on your own site, and content/in page optimisation count for not more then 20% in they eye of SE.
There is no "NEW GAME" in the SEO world. There are just people rewriting articles to create content and links. As for your items 1-3, these are not Google requirements, these are just SEO suggestions.
Why is that? His first point is valid - Google is discounting paid link power, his second is also correct, I'm not so sure about the third though.
First point: do i really need to explain why is this point false ? yahoo, botw, and many niche directories recommanded by Google itself and by matt cuts on his own blog are PAID DIRECTORIES. Second point: iv seen politic blogs with blog rolls having over 120 links (almost all those are link exchanges) and they still get pr7 and pr8 and rank perfectly well on the search engines. Third point: absolutely non-sense, the only guys that u shouldnt link to are the bad guys, including infected and malware websites, Mfa'... according to his logic A multinational company operating in many sectors (Ferrari for example) shouldnt link to its own Clothing and Auto Parts websites, because those are not relevant to eachother ? yes right.. am sure google will penalize them for that..
I think Google are a bit more leniant to people whos websites actually feature in the directory, I think they only really penalize the directories/websites themselves. Although don't take my work on this. A good example would be http://www.text-link-ads.com/ a PR7 website, suddenly being completely dropped from Google's SERP's. The second one isn't really true as far as I know, Google praises websites with link exchanges with relevant websites. And the third one I personally think is rubbish, Google has no problem with websites with no relevance linking to your website, although the link doesn't carry as much weight as a link which is relevant. Personal websites provide a links page sometimes, just generally providing their favorite links - not at all thinking about linking relevantly. Plus plenty of websites link to Google and a lot of them aren't SE related. Google cannot have one rule for one website, and have other rules for the rest, because that is monopolizing.
Were the 120 links reciprocal? Google has said 'don't go overboard', they've left the amount very open. Maybe it's 20, maybe it's 200.
man u have no idea about seo. So i will open a thread about the new rules for webdesign. I have no idea about webdesign too
For your information some of my clients are on page 1 of google for words such as "los angeles hosting" and "chocolate cookies" but that's on a different matter This is GOOD I've proven my theory to be correct. Take a look at the topic, there's absolutely no new game but as I claimed there was, controversy stirred. The objective is to stir enough controversy for users to blog about. This creates a scenario where other people market for you and is directly related to SEO because these are natural inbound links. You could think of this as a cover up for my post, but read my original thread again (see who notices the hint I gave)
I wouldn't worry about this. It's pretty much a non issue. If these 'blog rolls' are using blogrolling.com or other services, 99.9% of them aren't even being seen by Google. They're put on the page using javascript and unless I'm mistaken crawlers do not execute scripts. Blogroller has an option to use php to get around this but I would bet less than 1% use it. I went a different route with my last site. I put the blogroll link into a cron and printed that to a plain html file, then used an include. i THINK the bots would see includes. My original reason for doing this wasn't for seo at all. It was because those sites often slow down, and your whole page loads slow when the scripts are delayed. So i call them every few minutes on a cron job, and in the page only load the resulting text file. So there is no delay. Anyway, I might be wrong about the bots, but here's why I believe they don't. First off it would be a huge security risk. lol second, I wrote a site that will display referrers on people's websites. In order to do this the javascript prints out a url for the site. viral marketing etc. But I had hardly any backlinks, and over 1.5 million page views per day on the script. So I changed the way the code is done, and you paste a regular hyperlink below the script call. Obviously some people... no, a LOT of people will try to be clever, so they'll remove your link. But I have a script that runs using curl and it checks the page for the link. If it doesn't exist your list will have a decent sized image above it with what ends up being much more invasive, but just an ad. Anyway, once I implemented this and forced all members to change their code, my backlinks went to well over 10,000 in a matter of days. That's my experience at least. Almost all of these blogrolls are automated and done with scripts. it would be very painstaking to manually do them. So I don't think it will affect PR at all.
If paid directories are out then why does Yahoo Directory still have relevant clout? I know this cause I quit the Yahoo listing and when they finally got around to taking out my listing it cost about a 15 place drop. Also, if a Paid directory has a PR6 Google Pagerank....does it not have value? Surely, visa vie all paid directories would gain no Page rank or be banned from Search results I always find it amusing for Google to say they dont like you to pay for being at the top of the Search results...I think they mean they dont like you to pay anybody but them...
Those are just the gossip of google prenalize which not really implemented yet. I agree with Funkymario that those points sill not really valid.