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.

Matt Cutts Says Not to Use Article Directories for Links

Discussion in 'Directories' started by tornado!, Jan 30, 2014.

  1. tornado!

    tornado! Active Member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #41
    Conspiracy theories? LOL Google is a publicly traded company that has been growing at an exceptional rate. How do they maintain this growth? By consuming more of the internet marketing, product and service spending online. If Google has a point, why don't they live by their own rules and change the layout of their search engine so that it is not so top heavy with paid advertisements? They just refreshed that algo https://twitter.com/mattcutts/status/432940645200588800 and expect everyone else to drop ads that are above the fold. It's another push to control more of the online advertising sector by making it difficult for advertisers to buy good performing ads on independent websites. Look at the comScore deal Google just inked http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/02/10/google-comscore-advertising-deal/5291189/ that will give them even more access to advertisers and their data.

    There really is not a day that passes that Google does not use their dominance in search to promote anti-competitive policies that takes more money away from you, me and many others so that it can be redirected into their bank account.
    SEMrush
    There are no conspiracy theories to those that can see beyond the tip of their nose. Unfortunately there will be a segment of the population that remains mindless even when they are standing in line to get a Google chip installed in their forehead.
     
    tornado!, Feb 12, 2014 IP
    SEMrush
  2. cblanke

    cblanke Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    16
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    118
    #42
    Not true, It was the site owners excepting the low quality content from the start that led the SEO companies to do that. People only do what you allow them to do as a site owner.
     
    cblanke, Feb 12, 2014 IP
  3. TStarnes

    TStarnes Active Member

    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #43
    The reason I said conspiracy theories is because I see statments (rants?) like this a lot, but no actual proof. The few people I have talked to that worked in some way for google, some who I know personally and trust, have all said that there is no pressure on the web spam team to change the algoritum in ways that will benefits the paid search. In fact they all have said the two groups are very separate and have little communication.

    I don't think it is fair to say people that don't see these nefarious plans are mindless or "can't see beyond the tip of their nose", when the only proof every given is along the lines of "isn't it obvious", then anecdotal evidence. This is the same way people who believe in bigfoot and alien abductions respond.

    I am not saying it isn't happening, just that I never actually hear proof, just speculation. (your response included, it is all anecdotal evedince)
     
    TStarnes, Feb 12, 2014 IP
    ryan_uk likes this.
  4. TStarnes

    TStarnes Active Member

    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #44
    True, although the quality did get worse once SEO companies started weighing in....but yea the quality of those sites was never awesome.
     
    TStarnes, Feb 12, 2014 IP
  5. sundaybrew

    sundaybrew Numerati

    Messages:
    7,294
    Likes Received:
    1,260
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    560
    #45

    SEE and there lays the mo fo problem..............Not everyone is educated to the degree of Google Employees,

    I would think that people writing anything and then publishing, would be better then world wars or the bullshit we have now.....

    All of a sudden Google is the grade school teacher,

    GOOGLE here is a fookin clue........91 million people still search for restauant <------ using that wrong spelling,

    I think anything that is published can have value to someone somewhere.....
     
    sundaybrew, Feb 12, 2014 IP
  6. tornado!

    tornado! Active Member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    70
    #46
    There is no proof that Jimmy Hoffa was murdered, but there is a strong presumption that it did occur. Corporations, that are intent on protecting their profits and shareholder value, are not going to broadcast 100% concrete evidence for you or I to decipher. Instead of proof, Google leaves behind an evidence trail with every policy change they make, each company they buy and how they use their political influence.

    In the context of what I previously posted, we really don't need any proof because the chilling effect of penalizing websites for having too many/heavy advertisements above the fold is common knowledge. I've seen in other forums where webmasters have already removed ads from their webpages in response. For Google this is mission accomplished, but it will take some time to roll out and become an accepted standard for many webmasters.

    Just like dominoes that are set up in a close chain and in the same direction, there is a presumption that when one domino hits another it too will fall. Google's link policy has chilling effects as well because now many people are afraid of being linked to. Would anyone dispute that fewer webmasters linking to other websites would not force more users to use a search engine?

    The harmful effects created by Google's policies are an issue of cause and effect. Because of Google's policies, it is having an adverse effect on many industries and is extremely harmful to competition. For example, independent ad brokers are going to be further marginalized as Google gains more power/marketshare through their comScore deal, as webmasters produce fewer links and as webmasters display fewer advertisements. This is not lacking in proof but an expected outcome of Google's actions. And I can assure you that it benefits Google, their shareholders and very few others.

    Anyone that has bought or sold CPM ads knows that the ads should be positioned above the fold. Who would pay for CPM ads if they are tucked away at the bottom of the page when fewer people see them? I sure wouldn't. As the availability of ad inventory above the fold drops, Google's advertising services become far more valuable. Just like it is safe to say if we cut off our finger we will bleed, we can also safely assume that independent ad brokers will be harmed by Google's policies. This reduces competition, and as a result, is anti-competitive.

    What is publicly released from Google should not be trusted. Just as their lobbying group, The Internet Association, claims to be the unified voice of the internet economy, only the privileged are allowed to speak. In other words, Google sticks a plug in the mouths of small business owners and promotes an oligopoly that they share with Amazon, eBay and many others that control most transactional internet traffic. Also Google Ventures backed websites also get pretty good positions in Google search engine. Because no proof exists that Google elevates these sites because they have a financial interest in them, does that mean we should believe it simply can't be true?

    Anyone that believes Google is a company that has the internet's and user's best interests in mind should read the news. Google has been found in violation of privacy laws many times and is still under investigation for its policies. Not only does Google share this information with the NSA, but their recent acquisitions will allow them to gather more data on individual users. Google's rapid expansion into data collection (all types of internet connected devices) is happening at the same time they are pushing out penalties for those that engage in marketing outside of Google's search engine.

    I apologize if I offended anyone, but I do take issue with those that resort to "show me the proof" posts when so much evidence is out there in not only what Google has/is doing but how many people/businesses they are harming in the process. All people have to do is read the news and connect the dots. As it relates to article directories, they are now taboo because of Google's policies. So are too many ads above the fold and just about all other sources of traffic outside of what Google has deemed acceptable. That does not leave much other than Adwords.
     
    tornado!, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  7. TStarnes

    TStarnes Active Member

    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #47
    I am not saying they aren't doing stuff, but the "I don't need proof because it is obvious" is the same argument by whackadoodles who argue all kinds of conspiracy theories. Your arguments are about equal to those who argue for the illuminati or knights templare or masons or other groups with nefarious plans.

    Yes, their policies have made article directories way less important, but content of article directories has always been total crap so no big loss. I think Google should put more focus on return search results that actually matter to the topic, and not crap article directory articles.

    And you can have ads above the fold, I have sites that rank well with ads above the fold. You just can't plaster your site in ads and have it rank well. And again, I agree with them on this. I have never seen a site with good content that also had so many flashing ads that it induced epilepsy.

    And the whole argument that Google is collecting info for the NSA is crap. They are indeed collecting a lot of info, but for marketing. Sure they hand over info when they get a subpoena, but as a company working in the US they have to. The NSA broke into Google's data chain, but that isn't the same thing. If a criminal breaks into your house and takes a gun you own, then kills someone with it, should you be charged for providing the gun?

    There are lots of opportunities to rank stuff in Google and get traffic. There are a lot of opportunities to make money off those traffic. Most of the people caught by the changes Google has made, and screaming about it, were trying hard to rank sites by working in the grey areas. Google has always said provide quality relevant content, and don't try and fake the marketing to your site, and you will rank well. This is what I have been doing and none of my sites have been hit.
     
    TStarnes, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  8. averyz

    averyz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    167
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #48
    Google is a major publicly traded company they needs to show profit every quarter everything they do, create profit. Fact.

    When a major corporation says "we want to help people" it is called marketing. Marketing is when you make your profit driven intentions sound like they are helping consumers. Good marketers are good at what they do, the better they are the more clueless consumers take what they say at face value.

    It no conspiracy that google is doing what they do to boost profit. that is their job if they don't do that they will be in the red and shareholders will bail.
     
    averyz, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  9. ryan_uk

    ryan_uk Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Best Answers:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    465
    #49
    And why try to meld them together? People are forgetting why Google is popular, why people choose to use Google. Their organic results are better then their competitors, the various additions to their products are better than their competitors.

    They need to deliver high quality organic in order to have a large customer (searcher) base. That is the only way they can make money from AdWords, otherwise who will view their search results? How could they have such a massive audience?
     
    ryan_uk, Feb 13, 2014 IP
    Agent000 likes this.
  10. TStarnes

    TStarnes Active Member

    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #50
    This is why I am saying I don't think they are playing games. The search team only really cares about driving solid search results. Past employes, again some of whom I know personally and have NO reason to lie, confirm that there is little to no connection between the paid search teams and the search results/web spam teams.
     
    TStarnes, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  11. TStarnes

    TStarnes Active Member

    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #51
    As Ryan_UK said, the search team is trying to create a product that people use, so that the paid search team has something to sell. Their goal isn't to "help people" but make the best product that the most people want to use. What do you say to the Fact that past employees from the search team, who are no longer employed by google and have no reason to lie, say there is no collusion between the two groups?
     
    TStarnes, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  12. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #52
    The only solid search results I ever see are localized, geotargeted, contextual based ads. The rest is usually MFA, landing pages, unrelated or outdated or just dead links. More of an emphasis as been put on delivering relevant ads in the search results than delivering relevant search results.
     
    Mia, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  13. averyz

    averyz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    167
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #53
    People working in the "search team" are just workers they do not control the big picture or probably even see the big picture. Just like workers on a construction site do not see the big picture the just work and build what they are told, they might see the building but they have no clue how the financial wheels that keep the project going work.

    The CEOs and other upper management make decisions and plains based on profit models, expected earning and other financial elements. These plains get handed down to managers who in turn hand them down to workers. This is how publicly traded companies work. The workers are just workers they are there to follow orders and work so that profits can be made.

    It comes down why would google tell people to tear down links and not to buy links ? Becouse they want a better search results ? Under paid ads..? No, Because that is all money that is not flowing to google. adwords is losing profit, it has been losing profit for years they need income back into adwords.
     
    averyz, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  14. TStarnes

    TStarnes Active Member

    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #54
    That's ridiculous. They penalize people buying links because that is how SEO companies have been gaming the system, and getting crap results through. Its their attempt to keep the algorithum from being completely gamed, which is what people are trying to do. You don't think a search company would want to plug the holes in their system that allowed people to game it?

    And yes, these workers don't have the big picture, but they would know if this information is passing back and forth, or if they are getting commands from up on high to "block links that don't pay us". As far as I have heard, the decision to do stuff like lowering the value of links from article directories (not that specifically, but decisions like that) are generated internally in the team. They would know the difference between an idea that one of their group had and a directive from their bosses.
     
    TStarnes, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  15. Nick02

    Nick02 Active Member

    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    Digital Goods:
    1
    #55
    It is true that seo marketers started to exploit article directories only for seo purposes.
     
    Nick02, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  16. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #56
    The problem is however that the system is now broken.

    The emphasis has been put on populating the search results with relevant ads since the search results are being gamed. Now we have crap for search results where at the very least there were relevant sites that were spending money not to "game" the system, but rather to rank better their their competition. In so doing they found more value in employing companies to market their web sites, rather than pay one company to make money every time someone clicked on their company. My guess is from a sales perspective more leads and sales were generated marketing the web site than were ever made paying Google to rank their website at the top of search results.

    In the end it comes down to a question of money vs. delivering quality content. Instead of delivering up quality search results, Google has moved to a model of negating the quality web sites in favor of placing those willing to pay for prominence above those less than stellar search results. The effort appears to be paying off.
     
    Mia, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  17. averyz

    averyz Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,228
    Likes Received:
    167
    Best Answers:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    115
    #57
    They already penalize buying links. The issue now is they are telling people to take down links they have built through articles, directories and blogs. I will be the fist to admit these avenues have attracted spam just like all avenues eventually do on the internet. But.. big deal just take away the seo juice and page rank.. problem solved
    The real spam issue is huge collections of dropped domains with spun content, robot spewing links, and other mass scale spam tactics. Not the average Joe writing a article and putting it on ezine or paying $30 for a directory listing.

    With this recent "disavow your links" "directories are bad" they are just targeting the average website owner. They already have plenty or tools to go after the mass robot spammers and human edited directories and sites already filter them.

    This is about money flowing to a industry to promote websites that is not google. No “unnatural” links only if you buy them from google ?

    Take a look at the webmaster tool changes, they are taking away most of the good tools and making people buy certifications to sell adwords. The new SEO buy adwords.
     
    averyz, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  18. dscurlock

    dscurlock Prominent Member

    Messages:
    4,565
    Likes Received:
    260
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    300
    #58
    666 - Powered By Google
    (and its FREE!)

     
    dscurlock, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  19. ryan_uk

    ryan_uk Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    3,983
    Likes Received:
    1,022
    Best Answers:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    465
    #59
    I really have to wonder what kind of junk you are searching for? As an example?

    It's not actually "directories are bad" but any that are purely for the purpose of links, where any old sh*t is accepted. And people were submitting en masse for the purpose of ranking and page rank. Google has always been clear that link schemes are a violation of their guidelines. That is not targeting the "average website owner"; why were they submitting to such crappy places in the first place? Disavowing links gives people a chance who have made a mistake. But disavowing is not enough, the marketing needs to being again. Some people seem to expect they have a God/Satan/Alah-given-right for their rank to return once they disavow links.

    AdWords is not unnatural links. They are adverts, it's a big difference between a link on a page (say in an article), which should be editorially given and an advert, which is marked as such and paid for. Adverts should not be in content in the way people have been/are doing. It's deceptive for the audience. If it's an ad/sponsored article then it should be marked as such. There are so damn many advertising companies out there, but there wouldn't be if no advertising was allowed.

    What good tools were removed? I remember there was some stuff removed in 2013, but it can't have been that good as I don't remember. :p The tools have improved - disavow is finally here (which everyone was crying for and is no whining about - no win situation for Google), rich snippets and structured data tools.
     
    ryan_uk, Feb 13, 2014 IP
  20. TStarnes

    TStarnes Active Member

    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #60
    Also all blog posts aren't bad. He was very specific to say all the spammy guest blogging people were doing was bad. Later he did say "don't do guest blogging" because spammers were still trying to get around it. But I have a lot of links from blog posts, legitamite posts from sites interested in what I have, and I have not lost ranking or had "unnatural content" warnings. In fact I have gained ranking.
     
    TStarnes, Feb 13, 2014 IP