And here's the thing. #1 it would require that there had BEEN an oversight. #2 I give respect to people that ALSO give it to me. This page was nearly 4 complete pages in length before I was even a member of this forum, and every comment was about how bad the article was, how uninformed and unsophisticated I was, how poisonous the advice was, and on and on and on and on. I walked into the middle of a bash fest. And worse, I posted a "last I'm going to say" on the matter and apparently the site owners deleted it ... effectively eliminating my point and making me have to restate. I do have a sensationalistic writing style. I will admit that. Having said that, people are taking issue not only with a single sentence, but then equating that to an error in the entire article, and equating that to errors in everything I've done. My apologies for feeling a little offended by that. Here is the plain and simple fact of the matter. Only an infant in SEO with Google would claim that Google does not give you different treatment based on how the spider finds you. Minstrel is claiming that how the spider finds you is irrelevant. You have apparently been defending his position.
Apparently you didn't get my PM in time, I was trying to save you the embarrassment of yet another pointless post. Mike
Like I said, it's all a matter of perspective. You know about getting good backlinks and how important those backlinks are. To you, it's a bonus. Talk to someone that's brand new to SEO in the first place. To them, they are being penalized for "doing that which Google invites them to do." The truth is that someone new will build a page, submit it to Google's Add URL feature, then continue to work ON THEIR PAGE completely oblivious to the fact that no backlinks equals bad treatment by google. To them, it's a penalty. It simply matters which side of the fence you're sitting on.
To say it in one sentence: "Don't submit your site to Google - take our word or leave it, it's not my site."
I've repeated myself so many times because I keep seeing the same BS responses over and over again. How many times has someone said "well then I can just submit my competition over and over"? Please show me anywhere in any post on this forum that I've talked about an invention. I've said that I ran some statistics and data mining software to give me empirical evidence into what the search engines were looking for. And this is the kind of crap that I keep seeing. 85% or better (probably closer to 95%) of all SEO is basic stuff. That means that by neccessity any article on SEO will contain some basic stuff ... and that from a purely statistical point of view most articles PERIOD will contain nothing but basic stuff. I'm getting bashed on one hand for writing an article containing basic knowledge (yet obviously a lot of people don't have that knowledge) and on the other for stating basic knowledge which most of you now, just stating it differently than you might state it. How Google finds you is important. I think you all know that. If how google finds you is important, then having it find you one way over another is better, or worse, depending on how you look at it. Or are you folks trying to say "well, you don't KNOW that how G finds you is important ... you don't have PROOF" and therefore you should be saying that you BELIEVE that how Google finds you is important." If that's the case, then all of you are completely full of crap. Do you have any idea how often just in this thread I've seen other people state something as fact for which they had no proof? Where is the bash fest going on against them? Where are four pages of pounding on them for making statements of fact they can't back up? I have lots of proof about a lot of things that I won't post here. And to lighten this thing up a little ... I'll probably continue to make statements of fact that you folks won't believe, and seriously, I don't care if I have your respect ... and in the words of my five year old ... so there
I think most SEOs would agree that: If a site has 0 backlinks, G is very likely to simply ignore it. If a site has 1 backlink, G is likely to eventually find that link and follow it, but it could be months before it does. If a site has 10 backlinks, G is more likely to find it than if there were only one, and is more likely to index pages sooner than if there were only one backlink. Therefore I might conclude that the more backlinks, the more likely a new site is to be indexed sooner. The quality of those links might further shorten the process, assuming the links were from high quality sites. In my view, whether or not the submission form is used is moot, and totally coincidental. The issue is getting links, period. Now Danny chooses to sensationalize, and leads one to believe that he is exposing some secret about the submission form, saying that in fact it will harm your rankings. Then he defends the statement by saying that what he meant was that it will harm you only when compared to / relative to the benefit of having backlinks. This relative logic says “if something is good when you do it, you are therefore doing harm if you don’t do itâ€. This is the crux of the untruth, that the *absence of a positive equals a negative.* Taking any action can have a negative result, a neutral result, or a positive result. I think Danny is saying that using the submission form is a negative simply because it alone, can not have be a positive. I think others are agreeing that using the form alone can not have a positive result, but that the lack of a positive is simply a neutral, and not negative. Had Danny stated, ‘don’t waste the 2 seconds that it takes to submit because it won’t help in the least’ I doubt many would be taking issue.
Yes, that appears to be the problem. The believe that not dong something good is doing harm when in reality it's not doing harm, but doing nothing at all.
No. AQctually, what I said REPEATEDLY was that Google does not penalize manual submissions. All things being equal (i.e., in this case, having the same number and value of backlinks), whether Google finds a site from another link or via the manual submission is of no consequence. There is no penalty for manual submission, Google does not punish you for manually submitting your site. You will not receive a lower ranking because you manually submitted the site. Danny, I suggest you stick to trying to tell other people whatever it is that YOU are trying to say. You are doing a damn poor job of trying to explain what I am saying. You're not even doing a very good job of explaining what YOU are trying to say, since you keep bobbing and weaving around the issue... the primary issue being that you made a claim about a non-existant Google penalty that you keep repeating and then backtracking on and which you know damn well you is false.
I never made it sound like it was a secret (or at least that wasn't my intention). I simply made a statement about what would happen. SiteTutor has said it would happen, Brad Callen has said it would happen. LOTS of people have said that how Google finds you is important. I am STILL saying that how G finds you is important (which is the basis for the claim in the article). What you have seen is simply me (and others such as SiteTutor) providing different arguments for the same ... lets call it phenomena. The issue I am now finding isn't WHAT I said so much as HOW I said it. And just think ... if I hadn't said it the way I did we wouldn't be having fun with this debate now. Depending on how you look at it, it does. If you're sitting at a table, and you do something that someone INVITES YOU TO DO, and you suddenly find that you don't get desert, while other people, who did something different do get desert, would you say that you'd been penalized, or would you say simply that you have the "absence of a positive"? Like I've said repeatedly, it's all a matter of perspective. The ONLY reason you don't see the negative is because you're sitting at the table and you and everyone you know is getting the desert.
For someone in the mental sciences profession you have an amazing lack of ability to see things from another person's perspective, so how about this example: You are sitting at a table eating with some people you don't really know, but hope to. The host of the meal invites you to do something, which you do. Other people at the table, instead of doing that which the host invited them to do, perform a different action which YOU DON'T SEE OR NOTICE. Later, the host is going around and giving out desert. HOWEVER, You don't get one because you took the action the host invited you to take. The other people at the table who took the other action DO get desert. Now, from THAT perspective would you say that you got penalized for taking the action the host invited you to take? The answer is of course you would. If you seriously and honestly look at it from that perspective YOU WERE PENALIZED!!!. It isn't that you simply didn't get the bonus of desert ... with the perspective I gave above, the host withheld the desert from you. What would you think if a bunch of people at the table then said ... "hey, it isn't that you were penalized, it's just that we got the bonus of desert and you don't get that because you did what the host said you could."
Danny, about 15 pages ago you promised proof of your absurd claim. All I;ve seen since then is a couple of sample URLs which proved nothing at all, a lot of pointless and repetitive rhetoric which proved nothing at all, and now little home-made parables which prove nothing at all. This isn't even a debate. It's just grade 2 nonsense. I'm actually getting bored. And that doesn't happen to me very often.