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

Danny -

Although I stand by my evaluation of your article, you are right that you just signed up. Another member here (Glenn Ford - GFord) had stolen your content and because they posted it as their own I was thinking it was you. I was going by memory as I was unable to locate the thread until someone just revived it.

 

One last thing. The articles posted on SEO Chat are not reviewed first by SEO Chat moderators. I don't know who reviews them, but it is probably an administrator who may not be an SEO or who may only have basic knowledge of SEO. I wish this were not the case, but nevertheless, just because something is published as an article on SEO Chat, doesn't mean that it conforms to the current thinking of the SEO Chat members and/or moderators. Half of the time, I've never heard of the people who write the articles. I guess my point is that you shouldn't assume that just because you see an article on SEO Chat, that it means that we members of SEO Chat necessarily agree that it is factual.

 

Any more than you should assume anything posted on this or any other forum is necessarily accurate or reflects the views of other forum members. As always, (1) consider the source and (2) rigorously question the content.

 

Niiice and slooow for you.

They were two EXAMPLES of sites. But you are asking me to "prove" something that short of getting a Google engineer out and having them say "yep, we penalize sites for using that feature" isn't possible to actually and scientifically prove ... and you know it.

AND THAT IS COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT. You're an experienced SEO person. You by now know that at the very minimum the Add URL feature doesn't do anything.

The point to the article was to focus on obtaining backlinks.

Seriously, I find it rather comical that you are sitting here on your high horse and quibbling OVER ONE SENTENCE in a 1,200 plus word article.

The point was, don't use the add URL feature, instead get backlinks.

That's advice that I'll bet every single one of you people would give to your clients and here you are lambasting me for daring to suggest there might be another reason BESIDES that one?

Lets try it this way. Prove that I'm wrong.

If you're ever so certain, prove that I'm wrong. I've given you anecdotal evidence to illustrate that I'm right. You've given me NOTHING to suggest that you are.

And it may not be you, but several others have actually said the WHOLE ARTICLE was wrong and or dangerous yet NO ONE wants to actually say HOW when all the article said was GET SOME BACKLINKS!

What, are you people nervous that I'm giving away the hallowed secrets.

 

Danny, we aren't nervous. We just think it's asinine thinking to believe that a simple form on Google's site would penalize you for submitting to it. If it's a brand new domain that wasn't 301 redirected from a previous site is 99% to be sandboxed or have some sort of filter regardless if you submit using the add url feature or not. It has been proven in the past that the form doesn't do much of anything, but I wouldn't go as far to say as Google will penalize you for using it. New sites never get ranked high in Google unless they get a HUGE influx of relevant backlinks from authority sites.

 

So are you now changing your tune?

You seem to be changing your story (aka backpedaling) as you go along, Danny.

So, "Niiice and slooow for you", are you now retracting the claim that using manual submission to Google results in a Google penalty?

And while I'm at it prove that crop circles and alien abductions are myths?

Danny: do a search on the term "null hypothesis" in Google, specifically looking at the issue of the inherent statistical and logical problems in trying to prove the null hypothesis. If you believe that manual submission results in a Google penalty, it is up to you to disprove the null hypothesis, which in this case would be "Manual submission has no effect on Google ranking".

 

Here we go again with this crap. Thus far this year I've written I believe 8 articles for SEO Chat. The smallest of which is the article you folks are talking about now. Generally my articles run somewhere between 1,500 words and 2,000.

Out of 8 articles that I've written ... and gotten rave reviews on mind you ... you are taking issue with a single sentence in a single article, and claiming that by extension I am neither well informed nor sophisticated?

And what's really funny ... I just got off the phone with Jonathan Caputo, the owner of SEO Chat. Strangely, he really likes my articles.

 

It isn't based on a single sentence in a single article, Danny. You've repeated the erroneous claim several times in this thread and even claimed to have "proved" it.

 

No I'm not changing my tune.

It does result in a penalty. You disagree.

Now seriously ... how big of a deal is that disagreement?

Given that there is plenty of evidence (my past articles on SEO Chat) to suggest I'm neither new to this nore uninformed about it, are you seriuosly saying that this one disagreement is proof in and of itself that I have no idea what I'm talking about with regards to SEO AT ALL?

Do you hold that same opinion of everyone who disagrees with you?

 

Danny, why can't you just say that you believe Google may penalize a site for submitting using the "add url" form?

I don't think people would have as big of a problem w/ that.

After all, it's your opinion...not fact!

Otherwise it's like saying, my site starts w/ the letter "B" and it's burried in the SERPS....so don't use domains that begin w/ the letter "B".

 

I didn't even say that of you, Danny. Go back and re-read my posts. I said you were wrong about that claim.

 

My new two cents.

1) Google tells you to use that form. So, if Google penalizes you for doing what Google tells you to, it doesn't make sense.

2) Chances are that if you get a link on another site (say PR 5 or higher) rather than just submitting with that form, you'll have better rankings. Since you have a link from a site with good PR you'll reap the benefits.

It's not that you'll get penalized for using the form, it's that you will get more rewards from an actual link.

There is nothing wrong with using the form.

 

Whew, Thank God! My domain starts with C.

That was a close one.

 

Danny,

Your credibility is shot. I strongly suggest you re-consider defending what is obviously an indefensible position. The issue that most of the community has is not one of "proving" you wrong, but rather hoping to avoid having bad advice spread by the SEO community. It would be irresponsible of us to allow something like this to slide - akin to a forum on mushrooming allowing publication of an article advocating eating a mushroom that is known to be poisonous (not as dangerous to your health, but certainly to your business).

I did read some of your other articles:
How To Put Your Link Trading On Steroids - An interesting idea and good contribution, not a bad article at all.
An Insider`s Secret To Seriously High Rankings With Yahoo - A good article, too, although the truth about how effective this tactic is might be stretched a little (which is OK, it's still a good idea).
Google Optimization Secrets From The Trenches - Not a bad article either; Hierarchies and Taxonomy are definitely underappreciated in the SEO community.

John was right to say that you're not a bad author and have contributed good material. I don't want you to think we're badmouthing everything you've done. It's simply that this specific advice (and that article on the whole) was not of the quality or accuracy level that is on par with the community.

I know it can be really tough to apologize and admit a mistake. It's humbling and may seem like "caving in", but in reality, it's a big step and one that will earn you more respect in the long term.

 

I said I had proof of it. I gave two examples. People have posted reasons why it could be something else (sandbox) ... but take a look at my past articles and then tell me I'm "uninformed and unsophisticated". Look, there are things which can boost your PR besides simply bls. There are things which can hurt your PR as well.

Is there anyone here willing to state for the record anything which can hurt your PR?

 

You gave two URLs which were not even close to proof of your claim that their Google rankings were damaged by manual submission.

I wasn't the one who made that statement...

Sure. But manual submission isn't one of them.

You're grasping at straws here, Danny. Take the advice offered by randfish:

 

How about this for an answer.

Exactly, specifically, what the search engines are "looking for" can be found by getting an engineer with the company to give you the search algorithm. Since you aren't likely to find such an engineer, then if you want to know, you have to approach the "problem" from a different angle.

Knowing what the engines are looking for is nothing more than a MASSIVE multi-variable statistics problem.

You can determine certain things that are unpublished by the various engines by creating websites with given parameters and rerunning the statistics engine.

The stat engine (running on some serious hardware) chews through ... lets just say a lot ... of web pages and takes roughly 10 days for each run per search engine.

If you want hard proof, you can have it ... the next time it gets released ... maybe. The report went for $5K a pop and was released to only 20 folks.

I've been thinking the info should be released again, but at a $30K price tag and to maybe another 20 or 30 folks.

You want proof? It ain't gonna be free.

 

*sigh*

Give it up, Danny... you got nothin'...

 

I have seen articles there which were 100% wrong!

 

Danny,
This statement is also dead wrong. PageRank, by definition, is simply a measure of the Internet's link structure, and cannot be influenced otherwise (unless it is through manual manipulation by the Google engineers).

Danny, based on your prior articles, I would say you are somewhat sensationalistic, but not uninformed. This makes inaccurate advice worse, because your credibility is already established. Certainly you can understand this logic.

These are the words of a desperate person, someone who really doesn't know their stuff. There's no need to resort to this.