SEO True of False

Discussion in 'Search Engine Optimization' started by gtull1, Feb 16, 2008.

  1. #1
    Hey,

    I tried to get a thread going about seo myths a while back. It's to help me separate truths from rumors. I wanted to try it again with this direct approach.

    Each question will be followed by my answer (T or F), but I honestly don't know chit. I'm a total newb that is just trying to learn more here. If you want to agree or disagree with any of my answers, I would love to hear why.

    1- Google may penalize you for buying links. F

    2- Backlinks from within your own niche are better for serps. F

    3- .edu or .gov backlinks are more powerful. F

    4- If you have a high PR, you will have a lot of traffic. F

    5- PR and serps are not directly related. T

    6- If you copy content from another site word-for-word, it will be counted as duplicate content and not rank, no matter how many backlinks you get to your page. F

    7- Duplicate content is placed in the supplemental index by G. F

    8- Links with the "no-follow" tag are not followed by G's robots. F

    9- Building too many links too quickly will cause G to remove your site from its index. F

    10- Google defines morality and the legal system as it is applied to the internet in the US. F


    What do you all think? Am I wrong? Got any others to add? I'm ready to absorb.

    :)
     
    gtull1, Feb 16, 2008 IP
  2. hsvhsv

    hsvhsv Active Member

    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    #2
    1- Google may penalize you for buying links. - T

    2- Backlinks from within your own niche are better for serps. T

    3- .edu or .gov backlinks are more powerful. T

    4- If you have a high PR, you will have a lot of traffic. F

    5- PR and serps are not directly related. T

    6- If you copy content from another site word-for-word, it will be counted as duplicate content and not rank, no matter how many backlinks you get to your page. T

    7- Duplicate content is placed in the supplemental index by G. F

    8- Links with the "no-follow" tag are not followed by G's robots. T

    9- Building too many links too quickly will cause G to remove your site from its index. T/F [you will be investigated to find out the way you built the links]

    10- Google defines morality and the legal system as it is applied to the internet in the US. F


    What do you all think? Am I wrong? Got any others to add? I'm ready to absorb.
     
    hsvhsv, Feb 16, 2008 IP
  3. DaGrip

    DaGrip Peon

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    1- Google may penalize you for buying links. T

    2- Backlinks from within your own niche are better for serps. T

    3- .edu or .gov backlinks are more powerful. T

    4- If you have a high PR, you will have a lot of traffic. F

    5- PR and serps are not directly related. T

    6- If you copy content from another site word-for-word, it will be counted as duplicate content and not rank, no matter how many backlinks you get to your page. F

    7- Duplicate content is placed in the supplemental index by G. F

    8- Links with the "no-follow" tag are not followed by G's robots. F

    9- Building too many links too quickly will cause G to remove your site from its index. F...this question is too simplistic, there are many variables

    10- Google defines morality and the legal system as it is applied to the internet in the US. ?
     
    DaGrip, Feb 16, 2008 IP
  4. xsimulator.net

    xsimulator.net Peon

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    more opinions more confusion can anyone write perfect and right information about this ??
     
    xsimulator.net, Feb 17, 2008 IP
  5. astup1didiot

    astup1didiot Notable Member

    Messages:
    5,926
    Likes Received:
    270
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    280
    #5
    1. Google may penalize you for buying links. (False)

    - Sites that "sell" text links are the ones that get penalized, if it was the other way around it wouldn't be hard to get your competitors penalized by buying them textlinks.

    2. Backlinks from within your own niche are better for serps. (True)

    - Backlinks that are from sites that are relevant to yours always carry more value than non-relevant sites.

    3. .edu or .gov backlinks are more powerful. (False)

    - TLD extensions carry no special weight in search engine results. This has been stated by Matt Cutts already.

    4. If you have a high PR, you will have a lot of traffic. (False)

    - Pagerank is a value earned by backlinks, not traffic levels.

    5. PR and serps are not directly related. (False)

    - Don't forget, Google Pagerank is part of Google search algorithm, and plays a part in search results. This doesn't mean higher PR sites will always out rank lower PR sites.

    7. Duplicate content is placed in the supplemental index by G. (False)

    - The supplemental index doesn't exist anymore.

    8. Links with the "no-follow" tag are not followed by G's robots. (False)

    - No follow prevents any value being passed on to the link, it doesn't mean crawlers won't follow the link and index pages. Tests have been done already to show this theory is sound.

    9. Building too many links too quickly will cause G to remove your site from its index. (True"ish")

    - A large increase of non-relevant links in a short period of time can flag your site to the Google search engine, it won't remove your site but may not pass on the value from those inbound links.

    I didn't answer all the questions.
     
    astup1didiot, Feb 17, 2008 IP
  6. w3bmaster

    w3bmaster Notable Member

    Messages:
    17,594
    Likes Received:
    416
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    240
    #6
    1- Google may penalize you for buying links. T (see JohnChow blog etc etc)

    2- Backlinks from within your own niche are better for serps. T (but any one way link can help)

    3- .edu or .gov backlinks are more powerful. F (i didn't see any difrence)

    4- If you have a high PR, you will have a lot of traffic. F (this one is a cracker many people dream of high pr becouse they think this way they will have traffic)

    5- PR and serps are not directly related. T (yep not directly / indirectly yes)

    6- If you copy content from another site word-for-word, it will be counted as duplicate content and not rank, no matter how many backlinks you get to your page. F (i know as i have site with content that is not unique no problems)

    7- Duplicate content is placed in the supplemental index by G. F yep again false

    8- Links with the "no-follow" tag are not followed by G's robots. F They are not passing pr but count for SERPs

    9- Building too many links too quickly will cause G to remove your site from its index. F (well i didn't reached yet that to quickly thing so i ca not say but to many can hurt you that's for sure)

    10- Google defines morality and the legal system as it is applied to the internet in the US. F (this made me laugh)
     
    w3bmaster, Feb 17, 2008 IP
    sahilcoolsmart likes this.
  7. Scottscd

    Scottscd Peon

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    1- Google may penalize you for buying links. True, if they find out, which is difficult.

    2- Backlinks from within your own niche are better for serps. True

    3- .edu or .gov backlinks are more powerful. Used to be, probably not anymore

    4- If you have a high PR, you will have a lot of traffic. False

    5- PR and serps are not directly related. True

    6- If you copy content from another site word-for-word, it will be counted as duplicate content and not rank, no matter how many backlinks you get to your page. True, if they find and flag it. This is usually only spotted when almost all of the content on a page is duplicated.

    7- Duplicate content is placed in the supplemental index by G. False

    8- Links with the "no-follow" tag are not followed by G's robots. Google says it isn't followed at all but SEO experiments show it is. Either way no link juice is passed on.

    9- Building too many links too quickly will cause G to remove your site from its index. False. It would just potentially be sandboxed if it was a new site.

    10- Google defines morality and the legal system as it is applied to the internet in the US. False
     
    Scottscd, Feb 17, 2008 IP
  8. gtull1

    gtull1 Guest

    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    Yeah, I should have expanded. But please give my answers zero value. It's just opinions from me based on others and rationalization. But I don't know chit.

    1- Nah, penalizing buyers sets it up to screw with your competition.

    2- This goes against most folks. Two people that I respect in seo have said this. It makes sense really. I would like to see a test on this.

    3- I think G is on to the fact that .edu links have been exploited.

    4- PR is a joke.

    5- I don't think that PR is part of the serp algo. Am I wrong?

    6- Quite a few "pros" have told me that if you have more link juice than the original article, you will outrank it.

    7- Duplicate content can outrank the original.

    8- The bots still follow this to index, but not for pr.

    9- Most think you should go slow and steady. I have seen some folks go hard and fast and come out on top quickly.

    10- This just makes me laugh. A lot of people think selling links is illegal cause G doesn't like it. G is a company that is trying to make as much as possible. G does not define right and wrong, for me.




     
    gtull1, Feb 17, 2008 IP
  9. gtull1

    gtull1 Guest

    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9


    lol Yeah, something like that.

    :)
     
    gtull1, Feb 18, 2008 IP
  10. fr@nc!z

    fr@nc!z Active Member

    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    12
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    80
    #10
    Im starting to get confuse now.... :confused: :confused: :confused:
     
    fr@nc!z, Feb 18, 2008 IP
  11. gtull1

    gtull1 Guest

    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    10
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11
    I'm at the head of the confused line. You need to join the others behind me.
     
    gtull1, Feb 18, 2008 IP
  12. harshakiran

    harshakiran Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,586
    Likes Received:
    226
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    225
    #12
    1- Google may penalize you for buying links. : T

    2- Backlinks from within your own niche are better for serps. T

    3- .edu or .gov backlinks are more powerful. T(no because google value tdl but .edu site have great content and high backlinks so they are have high value)

    4- If you have a high PR, you will have a lot of traffic. :F

    5- PR and serps are not directly related. :F

    6- If you copy content from another site word-for-word, it will be counted as duplicate content and not rank, no matter how many backlinks you get to your page. F

    7- Duplicate content is placed in the supplemental index by G. F

    8- Links with the "no-follow" tag are not followed by G's robots. F

    9- Building too many links too quickly will cause G to remove your site from its index. T

    10- Google defines morality and the legal system as it is applied to the internet in the US. F
     
    harshakiran, Feb 19, 2008 IP
  13. Aryans

    Aryans Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,854
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    178
    #13
    I'm also confuse now............
     
    Aryans, Feb 19, 2008 IP
  14. Scottscd

    Scottscd Peon

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    They are not directly related. There are many examples of pages with lower PR which rank higher than pages with more PR for search terms. They are indirectly related, but far from directly related.
     
    Scottscd, Feb 19, 2008 IP