They are getting too big for their shoes. That was MS downfall and it seems to be plaguing Google and Apple.
Exactly. Power corrupts and Google is taking advantage of their power now. I can't understand why in the world they would penalize websites that made them #1. They wouldn't be where they are now without websites. Does anyone have an explanation for their ridiculous rules?
Yeah. Matt Cutts posted on it recently(btw, I agree it's ridiculous). As you're a DPer, I'll assume you're talking paid links. His logic is that if paid links were 100% legitimized, major corporations would dominate the rankings, and no small fries would ever have a chance. If they can dump 50 grand into ranking #1, do you really think you can compete? Besides, real SEOs don't need purchased links.
Exactly my point. Don't you think big companies would do this if they needed to. And who says they do not? BTW how do you think some of the top sites in keyword rankings got up there? It was by paid links. Very few times I see a small site rank high in keyword searches. This means that they are using something other than SEO. BTW this makes my 1,000 post. Finally a Spirit Walker...
Spirit walkers stink of poo. I think they mean ALOT more companies would do the paid links thing. I'm sure some do now. not like they would if it was legitimized.
Oh I know that big companies did it. And ya know what? I'll still spank em and send em home. If someone's buying most of their links, that means they're probably taking the easy way out. If you mention anchor text variance, they'll scratch their head. If you mention proper internal SEO, you'll get the same response. If you build proper, and REALLY know your stuff(not stumble exchange BS), you can outrank a lot of higher ups. At least for now.
I agree with you. But what about quality of the results you are getting? Is it as good as goooooooogle?
Live has no option to show 100 results in one page and for me it seems very old data instead of new, may be countries has effects.