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

What was the bad advice exactly? the advice that I gave was to not worry about the add url feature of google and instead to get backlinks. Please tell me how that was bad advice.

Please explain to me how anything in the article could be poisonous! You keep painting with an awefully broad brush. The article recommended getting backlinks. How is that a bad thing.

Thank you!

You've called me uninformed and unsophisticated. Perhaps that might be why I've come to the conclusion that you're bad mouthing everything I've done.

BUNK! The article recommended getting backlinks. Hardly unaccurate or lacking in quality. The article recommended the use of purchasing text links for a new site to get some initial visibility. Hardly unaccurate or lacking in quality.

At least there is ONE person here that is honest about the problem. I stated as fact something which you folks believe to be an erroneous opinion.

At the end of the day though, the RESULT of my opinion still stands.

Don't use the Add URL feature, instead get some backlinks. Now here you are tell me that the advice in the first sentence of this paragraph is poisonous, unaccurate, and lacking in quality. What I find poisonous, unaccurate, and lacking in quality is the bash fest that is going on here.

Google penalizes sites that use the Add URL feature. I have proof. Hard evidence. I may give out some minor anecdotal evidence here but I am NOT going to provide the hard proof because doing so would require me to give out a small mountain of other information which others have had to pay quite a bit for (and still others are going to pay quite a bit more than the first group for).

 

Translation, for the record:

Danny Wall shot his mouth off when he first made that claim. He has not produced anything to back up the claim because he can't -- the claim is false. He also isn't man enough to admit that he simply overstated his case or was misinformed. He continues to backpedal (notice how what he formerly called "proof" he now describes as "minor anectdotal evidence"?) but will not come clean and just say, "Okay, I acknowledge that Google doesn't penalize manual submissions -- my main point was to advise people to concentrate on getting backlinks and I used a bit of hyperbole to make that point".

His other problem, of course, is that the advice to get backlinks is neither original nor controversial, certainly not worth trying to build an "original" article around.

 

I want to know one thing, guys:
Only one reason to submit your url to Google.
What year is this, 1999?

 

Tutor, did you read this thread? The issue isn't whether it does any good to submit -- the issue was Danny Wall's claim that Google penalizes sites that are submitted.

 

So it is SERIOUSLY your position that there aren't any programatic things in the Google algorithm that can affect a given web pages PR?

You don't think a web pages PR will be affected AT ALL if the page has ... oh, lets say 10 text links on it all pointing to banned sites?

And, for about the "millionth time" WHERE WAS THE INACCURATE ADVICE IN THE ARTICLE???

The advice in the article was to get back links. Please tell me how that was inaccurate.

Really? Why? Once again you are saying things with a broad brush without bothering to check it out. First, as I've said more than once, if you check the way back machine you'll see that my company was a major player in data mining. I've still got some ongoing customers in this space (Chevron and Haliburton to give two names you'll all know).

Now that I'm getting away from data mining and indeed data warehousing almost completely as a line of business (I've had it with the travel schedule), that leaves me with some rather powerful equipment with nothing to do.

So I decided to put it to some use. The setup was 5 SGI Onyx 3000 servers (this part was overkill, but I have the machines) running on a storage area network (all XFS formatted). A custom crafted piece of software fed search results into COSMO (statistics software) where the lionshare of the processing was done. COSMO output then went to MineSet (data mining) where the data correlations were found.

The reason for the long run times had to do with the fact that unless multiple millions of pages across at least a few thousand search terms were processed I couldn't guarantee that the results weren't simply anomilous.

Now, hop on over to any discussion group with silicon graphics geeks or data miners and ask them if my setup could accomplish exactly what I claim it did.

Like you said. While my writing is sensationalistic ... and that is by design ... I am hardly "uninformed". It doesn't take much of a look at my stuff to KNOW that I obviously have at least some level of knowledge.

And the thing is, I'm not even saying you have to believe that what I said is true. I've stated repeatedly that you should test it out for yourself. Sheesh, you could run a quick and dirty test for what, $13 bucks ($8 for a domain name and $5 for a cheap hosting account).

But to state so emphatically that it isn't true makes no sense ... especially when the end result of the statement results in something you would tell your own clients!

Don't use the Add URL feature, instead get some bls to your site.

In a nutshell that is what my article was about, that is the advice my artice gave. How that advice was bad, wrong, inaccurate, dangerous, poisonous, uninformed, or unsophisticated is beyond me.

 

Minstrel ... when I posted the links I said "here are two examples".

Now please explain to me where in the "here are two examples" I claimed tha I would be giving proof in this forum.

Run an alexa search on the Google Add URL page. Tell me how much traffic that thing gets, and alexa's traffic information only tells you what people with the alexa toolbar are doing. Just imagine how many more people are using that thing.

So obviously there are more than a few people out there without your knowledge or experience.

Do me a favor. Go and have a look at the comments section for the article you're bashing me over. Obviously some people needed to get this information.

So at this point, (and I realize not all of this has come from you), but not only is the article bad, wrong, inaccurate, terrible, poisonous, uninformed, and unsophisticated ... but now <ROFL> it's unoriginal as well!

In other words, the folks having to backpedal right now are YOU GUYS.

 

Well, I don't know, Danny... what would you call this?

 

We're simply asking for one, very reasonable request - change the article to reflect that either the statement that Google penalizes sites which use the "submit URL" form is simply a contested opinion of yours, or that it is inaccurate (or, preferably, just remove it entirely).

No one is suggesting that using that form is a good idea, or that getting backlinks is a bad idea. We just don't want you spreading misinformation. It really would be big of you at this point to admit your error and change your ways. I would see it as a great leap forward.

Here's to hoping you have what it takes.

 

sorry, no I didn't - only in part
But one thing I have seen was a reference to seo chat articles and this I know:
They accept articles based on trusting certain sources without verifying the content and it's validity. Seochat articles have no more weight IMO than anyone's opinions on a forum like this. I personally would not submit to Google because it seems like Google likes to find sites on their own. I am also not sure that if Google states you won't be penalized, that it means they may not penalize you in some shape or form.

 

haha seoinc and seochat ... now there are 2 trustworthy sources

 

from G webmaster Page;

"Please visit our "Add URL" page to input your URLs. You can submit your site as often as you like, but multiple submissions will not improve the likelihood of your site being added or accelerate the process. We do not penalize sites for 'over-submitting'. If you choose to submit your site, only the top-level domain is necessary, as the spiders will follow your internal links to all the rest of the pages.

The best way to ensure Google finds your site is for your page to be linked from lots of pages on other sites. Google's robots jump from page to page on the Web via hyperlinks, so the more sites that link to you, the more likely it is that we'll find you quickly."

Yes, unfortunately this is correct. As a fairly newbie person, I would like to see articles which has been proven, reliable, depending on facts and written by well-known, respectable SEOs.
Can we close this thread please. Cause it seems like Danny would not step back from "his Facts" and being more arrogant when someone says against "his Facts".
To Randfish; I respect you more than ever Randfish. You're so calm against all these abuses...

 

Don't worry about Danny, he is just showing off. This forum won't close threads, that is what other forums are for where the "respectable SEOs" don't share their real info with only a few and then end a conversation when they are called on it.

Best thing to do is learn as much as you can on your own, trial and error and ignore anyone who is more concerned about flattering him/herself than actually helping others out.

 

sorry SiteTutor, I meant close it virtually. If no one answer to Danny's posts, this thread would fade away, cause it's getting non informative thread and being duel between individuals.

 

true, just arguments for the sake of arguing.
Agreed, the whole thread should be ignored

 

Nonsense. This is another example of logic-lacking.

If i walked around with a shirt that said "kick me" on the front, i would have no right to complain if someone obliged the challenge.

be careful what you read - and consider the source. Everyone has the right to free speech, you don't have to listen to them though.

 

Maybe it's true

 

Free Speech... umm ok then let's all start spamming, ruin this forum, make it unuseful place?Is that all you want it?
oh no, what am I doing? Another nonsense, out of subject discussion.
Ok I'm done...

 

Nice quote. And of course this thread will fade away like any other.

 

I believe that in the long run, it makes no difference on your rankings whether you submit your site via the add url or let google find it on its own.

I do believe, and have seen evidence from a half dozen sites I have rolled out, that you get stronger INITIAL rankings by having google find the site itself, particularly having it find it from a site with some PR.

One plausable explanation is that if google finds your web site from add-url it is started with no BL's so has an internal PR like rank of 0.8. This gives it very little crawl visability. Compare this to google finding it on a PR4 or PR5 site without too many outbound links. It will start life with a PR2 or PR3 equivalent and be crawled as such.

Is it true? I don't know. Sounds plausable. I do know that I have rolled out similar sites both ways. One with add url, the other by creating a blog and putting the site in a the links panel. The one that google "found" on its own was more aggressively crawled.

In the long run, I doubt it will make a hill of beans of difference. Both will be rated by their content and who links to them. Any difference between add url and letting google find it will be short lived if it exists at all.

 

If you're referring to dannywall's statements about Google penalizing manual submission, no... It isn't true.

That's quite a different thing from saying that Google penalizes you for submitting, though, which is what dannywall was trying to have us believe.