1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

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

Discussion in 'Google' started by skattabrain, Apr 26, 2005.

  1. Estrange

    Estrange Peon

    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #41
    IMO nddb, as far as I know there are more than one google spider fetching around.
    These spiders than sent information to DC and Dc sends crawlers to fetch everything of that site and sends back to DC, DC does some process of the site and send it to the main server, somthing like that, as far as I remember.
    Now "Add Url" option is surely puts you to the queue for Crawlers to fetch your site. This means you're not waiting for spiders to follow inbund link to your site to follow and find your site.
    So IMO opinion, "Add Url" option is useful.

    I don't want to say anything about his article, my nerves getting stretch! :p

    OVT popularity definetely would be advantegous. Domain Buyers & sellers look for rich OVT keywords as well.
    This is common knowledge...
    But cons is, if lots of people look for a particular product, that product's comptetition would be much more higher than less popular ones.
    So, tough competition is waiting for you buddy.
    For instance search for "ipod" and "yogurt" you'll see the difference ;)
    This is my 2 cent... :eek:
     
    Estrange, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  2. nddb

    nddb Peon

    Messages:
    803
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #42
    Yea, I'm not even in the top 200 for my new words. But I'm waiting on the next crawl to see where I will fall. I followed some of the article, checking out the top sites. They have a LOT of backlinks though. I might get up there on MSN and Yahoo just from keyword density and a lot of indexed pages, but probably not on google.

    That is the problem I had with the first part of the article. Getting a popular site to link to you is almost impossible, let alone 10 or 20. I've sent out so many emails that never get replies... to sites where I would legitimately fit in, and these were typed by me, not bulk, just fyi. =)
     
    nddb, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  3. Estrange

    Estrange Peon

    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #43
    Yeah that's one of the issue on that article.
    That is totally bs! No one would give your site link back if your PR would not be any use of for them.
    He says, "search for your keyword term, send email to top ten sites, bam... you have PR 99 at the next update!"... sure, you little joker :p
     
    Estrange, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  4. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #44
    It is true. I'm the author of the article you're talking about, and the SEO Chat forum has been a little hot with this too.

    1) the comment was regarding NEW sites that have not yet been spidered or indexed.

    I am not the only one that says this either Brad Callen of SEO Inc has the same opinion. I realize that he RECENTLY got smacked down by Google, but he maintained the number 1 position in Google for a VERY long time for a VERY competitive keyword so he OBVIOUSLY knows what he's talking about despite the recent happening.

    And anyway, in my case it isn't opinion, but fact that I can back up.
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  5. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #45
    No, itsn't BS. Look at the article, the article referenced a *NEW* site. Not one that already exists and is already spidered and indexed.
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  6. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #46
    How long ago do you mean by "early days"?
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  7. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #47
    Look, allow me to be clear.

    The penalty only comes from NEW sites that have not been spidered or indexed yet.

    The penalty DOES NOT happen on sites that have already been spidered and indexed because google ignores Add URL requests from sites already in its database.
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  8. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #48
    What? The article talked about using Google's "Add URL" FEATURE. Not about sites HAVING an Add URL on them.

    Google will "punish" a new, as yet unspidered and unindexed site, if the webmaster/owner uses GOOGLES Add URL feature to let Google's spider know to spider the site.

    Google's engine essentially believes that if your site can't be found by the spider just crawling the web then your site probably isn't going to be much. Especially when you figure the heavy reliance Google places on PR to determine rankings.
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  9. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #49
    Most of it? Like what specifically?

    Obtain backlinks to cause an increase in PR ... the backlinks will get you spidered by Google.

    Pretty much, that was what the article was about. Please tell me what EXACTLY you disagreed with.
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  10. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #50
    It isn't rubbish. What frustrates me about the posts I've read like these is how many of you claim to have read the article ... or at least the portion in question ... when you clearly have no idea what the article said.

    The article talked about getting LISTED by Google at the very beginning.

    That means that your site hasn't been spidered or indexed by Google yet AT ALL.

    If you use GOOGLE'S Add URL feature to put your site into the spider's queue then your site will get hit with a penalty that will hang around your sites neck for MONTHS.

    The way to get listed by Google is to build the site then obtain backlinks from sites with decent PRs. The google spider will then find your site on its own.

    I truly fail to see what is so controversial about the above that it has generated a five page thread!
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  11. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #51
    Google ceased even paying attention to submissions via its Add URL feature for sites it already has in its database.
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  12. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #52
    Well, the article said "steal" your way to the top, not "cheat" for starters.

    Secondly, the whole "steal" concept would have made more sense if you read part 1.

    Thirdly, 99% of SEO is actually pretty basic stuff. It's actually DOING IT without tripping up and doing something dumb along the way that's the hard part.

    How many articles are there that talk about how to construct a "proper" title tag to help your search engine rankings ... yet almost no sites, even those at the top of any of several rankings ... actually have a well constructed title tag.

    AND THAT'S JUST RIGHT OFF THE BAT!

    Google all but comes right out and tells you "hey, we'd really like an OPML file" and that I'm aware only the podcasting community actually creates them for their sites, and then only partially.

    Google all but comes right out and tells you "hey, we'd really like to see an RSS feed for your site" yet other than blogs, how many sites actually have one for their site.

    And that's just the easy crap.
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  13. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #53
    How about this.

    Create two identical sites with different names and IP addresses.

    With one, use the Add URL feature on google, wait 4 weeks, then have a PR6 backlink to the site.

    With the other, DO NOT use the Add URL feature on Google, wait 4 weeks, then have a different PR6 site backlink to the site.

    In 4 more weeks look at the rankings for the two sites.

    Then come here and apologize to me.
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  14. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #54
    w**.wolfdatasystems.com Send them my way.

    The simple fact that a business owner is seeking out an SEO in the first place should tell you that they've got some idea they need help which pretty much tells you they aren't completely clueless.

    The reason for hiring you in the first place is because they understand that the best way of getting good rankings is to use a professional.

    The only time I get frustrated is when some business owner wants me to charge "$25 dollars an hour" (just got this one today), or some other rediculously small amount, for my time, knowledge, and experience, while demanding that I get him onto the first page of Google where he expects to make several hundred thousand a year.
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  15. Infiniterb

    Infiniterb Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    168
    #55
    You've got the audacity to come here and claim this as cold hard fact?

    Where's your proof?

    And what PR6 are we linking? Does it matter if it's themed or Google's implementation of LSI thinks of it as such? Is the site we are making on the same topic? Are we using one link?

    Again, you seem to be hell bent on thinking this works, so once again...where's your proof?
     
    Infiniterb, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  16. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #56
    A couple of points. Google can, and does, give "PR penalties" for any one of several actions.

    Google will give you a lower PR if the spider has to find you because of an Add URL submission than it will give you if it finds you on its own.

    Period.

    Once you are in the google index, the spider ignores all Add URL submissions from that site, so submitting after that point neither helps nor hurts.

    I think I've said that enough different ways now.
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  17. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #57
    Really?

    Which ones?

    The article was essentially:

    Don't use the Google Add URL feature. Instead, get backlinks.

    And that's dangerous? Please explain how?
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  18. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #58
    I'm sorry, Danny, but that is simply nonsense. Wherever you heard/read this, destroy the bookmark.

    It probably neither helps nor hurts at any time -- it is a rare site that has zero backlinks and at one time (at a conference a year or so ago) a Google rep hinted that Googlebot can find even orphaned sites -- he didn't elaborate as to how.
     
    minstrel, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  19. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #59
    I wrote both of them. I will admit that I was in a bit of a time crunch for the second part because of projects that I had going and the folks at SEO Chat have asked me to step up a bit to help them through a crunch they are having.

    Having said that, I can say that I'm getting more than a little annoyed with the blanket statements.

    Some people have complained that the article was "basic SEO" ... yet here you are complaining the first part was "informative and useful" ... For crying out loud, Part 1 had the most basic SEO stuff in existence!

    And for that matter, Part 2 wasn't exactly rocket science either. I truly fail to understand how ...
    Don't use the Google Add URL feature, instead get backlinks" ... which is essentially what the entire article was about ... is somehow controversial!
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP
  20. dannywall

    dannywall Peon

    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #60
    I didn't "hear" it anywhere. It is a fact and I have hard evidence of it.

    Like I said, if you don't believe me, create two identical sites.

    With one, use the Google Add URL feature. Wait 4 weeks, and get a PR6 backlink

    With the other, DO NOT use Google's Add URL feature. Wait 4 weeks, and get a DIFFERENT PR6 backlink.

    wait 4 more weeks. Then come back here and tell us which site has:

    1) The better ranking
    2) The better PR

    If I'm wrong, then your test should have the two sites exactly the same.

    However WHEN you see that I'm right, you'll find one site with a SIGNIFICANTLY better ranking than the other and a PR a full point higher.

    <shrug> You can say that ... but you'd be wrong.
     
    dannywall, Apr 28, 2005 IP