Google "ADD URL" hurts your potential rankings????

Ive submitted to google once a month for a year , got me no better results. I did however take advice from those who know how and now i have a ranking! Backlinks,Backlinks,Backlinks,Backlinks,Backlinks,Backlinks,Backlinks, is the answear they all seem to agree on( there are others but this seems to be a main factor)
how ever i did not get any (spam) penalty. just got nowear fast. why! no backlinks!

 

I dont think thats true either. Personally I did that as well back a few months ago and it didnt affect anything. What reason would there be for this? NONE!

 

I get better results by not submitting. 2 pr3 links will get your site indexed in 4-5 days.

Submitting... 3months..

It may not affect the serps, but 3 months is a lot of wasted time.

 

I don't use google's add url form, and usually google bot crawls my new site within 24 hours, and it's indexed latest within 2 days (I point links from my old sites).

About this article, and "add url" form, I do not agree. Google always says "Somebody else cannot hurt your rankings", and if the author's theory was true, many webmasters were submitting their competitors' sites every day countless times. It just doesn't make sense.

Also what's submission form has to do with PR ??? I don't see any relation at all. SEOChat is losing credit for me

 

Wow...people need to use a bit of common sense.

 

one would speculate that google and all other large search engines would use a data base program to filter out random url submitions,and if they did this one would further speculate that they would crawl the latest submition vs the last 20 . so what would it hurt

 

like i said ... the only reason why i bring this up is that is was put out by seochat.

 

onestop said:"Somebody else cannot hurt your rankings"

Actually, if someone links to your site as http://www.site and just http://site theoretically you could end up with 2 versions of the same page indexed. That could hurt.

 

Except that wouldn't actually hurt you. Just one site would be listed which if they were the same exact site (and you didn't use a 301) it wouldn't matter.

 

I'm actually surprised SEOChat would even publish that

 

Some of the articles are great as they are written by some very respected SEO's on the forum circuit. Unfortunately this article was not one of them as it seems to be a mix of cut and paste and statements combining fact and fiction.

There are a lot of parts discussed as fact that could be downright dangerous to a newbie.

 

Actually I considered the first part Informative and usefull, The second part
left me wondering what that person was smoking when he wrote that .

They really like like they were written by different people....

 

Wouldn't you get penalised for duplicate content? That's what I have always been led to believe.

Thanks for the RSS code, BTW. (if you didn't see my comment in the original thread).

 

I hate to pull a Clinton, but maybe its the definition of "penalty". Penalty to me means loosing ranking or even being banned.

What Google has put in place is actually a system where two identical pages cannot rank for the same term. So in this particular case, the original site won't be "penalized".

What will actually happen is the second duplicate (due to no redirect) just won't rank. When people talk about the "duplicate content penalty" they are actually talking about the fact that Google has deemed many of their individual pages similar to the point that they are considered duplicate (what that percentage is, no one knows for sure).

 

Danny Wall's homepage is;
http://www.wolfdatasystems.com
Danny writes an article called; How to Steal to the Top of Google
himm, he must be Seo Expert, let's check his web site, what he has done and how he optimized his web site as an expert...
Primary keyword seems like "Web Design" and secondary leyword phrase seems like "Search Engine Optimization"...
Let's see how he stole to the top of Google for his homepage...
Ho? he's no where?!?! how come? I thought he knew how to get in top at G!
umm how about PR? Just 4? I thought he was teaching us how to get massive PRs very easily!?
I'm sorry but this article is totally worthless for me.

 

He is a member here and was just posting last night..He seems to have avoided commenting in this thread

 

I wonder why

 

I'm not against of people telling their opinions about a subject.
But if someone writes pretentious article on a website which has high traffic, that person has to be more careful what he/she says or has to prove it. I can't see any of it.

 

in his defense ... my customers are doing well se wise and my site is nowhere for "seo" terms ... my biz is on word of mouth from my years of experience, and while that does sound hypocritical because i sell clients on why seo is so important ... i'm simply so busy caring for clients and working my adsense ... i could care less for my site ranking high for "seo" when it's going to consume sooo much time and resources. i'm doing great as a 1 man show. you need a team to do it all.

but yeah ... that article is a steaming pile.

 

Is it even remotely possible that google keeps a queue of sites to be crawled? And when the spider adds to the queue that is off higher priority than the user entered queue? And it won't queue up a site to be crawled multiple times, so if the spider finds you first, you get more weight than a user entered URL.

Not saying that is how it works... just asking if it is a possibility, could explain what this guy means. But that's kind of a "find a situation to match the statement." Which you can do with anything really. *rambles* heh.


Also, did you guys think the first part of the article was bad? Coz I followed some of those tips. =) I liked the stuff about overture keyword stats and finding some keywords that people actually search for. My original keyword/phrase overture said about 3/month... which probably isn't too good? =)

Just curious.