Will so called SEO experts be killed off by their silly prices

[UKSBD]

.

Referring sites are counted?

One referring sites, or 500? I would like 500. Along with organic traffic

A referring site would mean your links are probably worth more than a penny.

I'm not talking about referring sites or links at all, I'm talking about direct traffic via Google

Which would Google think is the best new page?

a page that has 100 links pointing to it but little traffic
or
a page with only a couple of links to it, but Google is already sending a lot of traffic to.

Surely Google is clever enough now to think that a page receiving lots of genuine traffic is better than a page receiving none?

I've just written a blog post here explaining my theory
http://www.v1seo.co.uk/11/is-traffic-baiting-the-new-link-baiting/

 

[JohnnyCash]

I'm not talking about referring sites or links at all, I'm talking about direct traffic via Google

Which would Google think is the best new page,

a page that has 100 links pointing to it but little traffic
or
a page with only a couple of links to it, but Google is already sending a lot of traffic to.

Surely Google is clever enough now to think that a page receiving lots of genuine traffic is better than a page receiving none?

So how does a page get traffic from Google in the first place... Google can't reward a site for getting traffic from Google.

 

[UKSBD]

So how does a page get traffic from Google in the first place... Google can't reward a site for getting traffic from Google.

By being creative with page titles and creating pages at the right time.

"Google can't reward a site for getting traffic from Google"

How do we know that? I'm talking about over a period
i.e the site builds up more trust and authority because of genuine traffic it receives via google.

Like I said, just my theory, did you read my blog post above?

 

[JohnnyCash]

Yeah I read it... I think the theory behind it is poorly thought out for a couple of different reasons.

If Google was going to reward me for pulling in visitors, I would be using low end writers to churn out post after post about X-Factor contestants, C-list celebrities, whatever crack addicted celeb has died this week, and who each footballer is sleeping with. It'll pull in visitors. Sure they'll be off topic and worthless from a conversion point of view, but it will score big under your suggested algorithm.

Secondly, how is Google going to decide whether to rank my half a dozen Amy Winehouse posts or not? So now you're back at a link based algorithm, exactly where you started. I think this idea would be absolutely impossible to implement. Its not practical and the search results you got from it would be a disaster.

 

[UKSBD]

Yeah I read it... I think the theory behind it is poorly thought out for a couple of different reasons.

If Google was going to reward me for pulling in visitors, I would be using low end writers to churn out post after post about X-Factor contestants, C-list celebrities, whatever crack addicted celeb has died this week, and who each footballer is sleeping with. It'll pull in visitors. Sure they'll be off topic and worthless from a conversion point of view, but it will score big under your suggested algorithm.

Why make them off-topic and worthless though?
You make the posts related to the site not just random.
You bring in related themed traffic and build up your site at the same time.
i.e.
If it's a financial site you keep an eye on financial news stories and make the right posts at the right time, you don't post about x-factor contestants. (unless it's an entertainment site)

Secondly, how is Google going to decide whether to rank my half a dozen Amy Winehouse posts or not? So now you're back at a link based algorithm, exactly where you started. I think this idea would be absolutely impossible to implement. Its not practical and the search results you got from it would be a disaster.

Again, I don't know why you would write half a dozen Amy Winehouse posts if they're not related to your site.

You write posts related to your site, the overall strengh of your site gets the posts ranking, which in turn strenghens the site more, basically building up trust, strengh and content the more you to it.

A real Trust Rank system.

 

[JohnnyCash]

I would write random off topic because its easier. And it would work far better... more people are searching for Cheryl Cole than news articles about car tyres.

I just think your idea is doomed from the start... what you are suggesting is letting some sites start ranking content, then rewarding them because that content ranked. Then rewarding them because that content ranked. Then rewarding them because that content ranked. So this continues and the strongest sites get stronger and stronger and the newer (potentially better) sites can't get a look in.

I know that can sort of happen in a link based system, but it would be a million times worse in the one which you are suggesting.


I think seo's just need to accept that we need to work with a link based algorithm. Its been that way for 10 years, and it'll be that way for 10 years more. They might start adding in social features to count for a tiny fraction of the ranking algorithm, but imo the ranking algorithm is 90%+ links at the moment and won't go below 80% any time in the next several years...

So for now I will continue to write crap posts about Amy Winehouse, albeit I shall be placing them on other peoples blogs with a credit link back to my site in them

 

[RedEvo]

but over time they collect data on ctr, time on site, no. of pages visited, whether the searcher returned to the search results or conducted the same (or similar) search again etc etc etc

And you don't think it's possible to game that data?



d

 

[Rags]

So how does a page get traffic from Google in the first place... Google can't reward a site for getting traffic from Google.

That's what the 'Google Dance' is for.

It gives a new page some exposure - enough for G to see how it performs with real visitor behaviour. If it performs well (by their reckoning) it is rewarded with a contiued high rank - if not it gets consigned to page 58.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

That's what the 'Google Dance' is for.

It gives a new page some exposure - enough for G to see how it performs with real visitor behaviour. If it performs well (by their reckoning) it is rewarded with a contiued high rank - if not it gets consigned to page 58.

If this theory is correct, I can see a new DP forum service offering 10,000 bounces to knobble your competitors...

 

[Rags]

And you don't think it's possible to game that data?



d

For sure! But it's much more difficult - mainly due to the huge numbers of real people using the internet.

It's much more difficult to mimic behaviour than it is to manipulate things like backinks and on-page factors. Would-be spammers with this intention don't have access to a Google-eye view of what real visitors click, how long they stay there and whether they return to do another search unsatisfied.

G on the other hand has Google Search, Youtube search, Chrome, people logged into Google all day long, Google Toolbar, sites with Adsense, G+, G+1 and who knows what else all those cookies send back to their masters.

With all that data they will (again over time) be able to discern real from fake user behaviour.

 

[UKSBD]

For sure! But it's much more difficult - mainly due to the huge numbers of real people using the internet.

It's much more difficult to mimic behaviour than it is to manipulate things like backinks and on-page factors. Would-be spammers with this intention don't have access to a Google-eye view of what real visitors click, how long they stay there and whether they return to do another search unsatisfied.

G on the other hand has Google Search, Youtube search, Chrome, people logged into Google all day long, Google Toolbar, sites with Adsense, G+, G+1 and who knows what else all those cookies send back to their masters.

With all that data they will (again over time) be able to discern real from fake user behaviour.

Yes, 10 years ago Google wouldn't have been able to do this as they wouldn't have had enough data and traffic going through them.
The amount ot traffic going through them now gives them lots more options to build this in to the search algorithms

 

[terryuk]

I'm not talking about referring sites or links at all, I'm talking about direct traffic via Google

Which would Google think is the best new page?

a page that has 100 links pointing to it but little traffic
or
a page with only a couple of links to it, but Google is already sending a lot of traffic to.

Surely Google is clever enough now to think that a page receiving lots of genuine traffic is better than a page receiving none?

I've just written a blog post here explaining my theory
http://www.v1seo.co.uk/11/is-traffic-baiting-the-new-link-baiting/

Sounds great but wheres the proof? :|

I prefer my theory personally. I think others may agree.

Considering your the only one who knows about 'traffic baiting' makes me think twice

And bounce rate would be what your talking about. Maybe. I am lost.

 

[UKSBD]

Sounds great but wheres the proof? :|

I prefer my theory personally. I think others may agree.

Considering your the only one who knows about 'traffic baiting' makes me think twice

And bounce rate would be what your talking about. Maybe. I am lost.

There's no proof as it's only a little theory of mine based on common sense.

You would think that if a new page is sent genuine* taffic via Google, that Google would think it is a better page than one that receives no traffic.

If Google sees that a sites new pages generate genuine traffic, you would think the site in general gains trust.

*genuine as in natural traffic from numerous different IP's and spread over a natural timescale.

I'm not saying this could be a major part of the algorithm, just another indication of trust rank.

Pefect example is my +1 checker page.

It's probably received 20,000 visits in the few weeks it has been up and in that time has only received 3 or 4 backlinks.

The question is,
what makes the site stonger,
The 3 or 4 backlinks or the fact it has received 20,000 visits ?

We can only guess at this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the fact it has received 20,000 visitors counts for something.

 

[terryuk]

You would think that if a new page is sent genuine* taffic via Google, that Google would think it is a better page than one that receives no traffic.

If Google sees that a sites new pages generate genuine traffic, you would think the site in general gains trust.

Yeh that already has been happening for some time now... why do you think the sandbox exsists ?

 

[UKSBD]

Yeh that already has been happening for some time now... why do you think the sandbox exsists ?

Are you talking about Freshbot?

If you look at my first post, http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1757052&postcount=141 you will see I said,

"I suspect they are doing things like this more and more already."

I've always suspected there was more of a reason for Freshbot and it is an ideal way to see which new pages generate traffic and which don't, it makes sense that pages that generate traffic are rewarded even if they don't gain backlinks.

 

[terryuk]

Are you talking about Freshbot?

If you look at my first post, http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1757052&postcount=141 you will see I said,

"I suspect they are doing things like this more and more already."

I've always suspected there was more of a reason for Freshbot and it is an ideal way to see which new pages generate traffic and which don't, it makes sense that pages that generate traffic are rewarded even if they don't gain backlinks.

Never heard of Freshbot before. But I'm talking about some new sites having too much authority. The sandbox decides whether to boot or stay.

I've had sites never hit the sandbox, probably because they receive clicks and has a nice bounce rate.

Where as, if you are given a push early and no one clicks your site, or people are clicking off asap. then something is obviously up.

Not many sites will just appear on Google with 0 links, so it's just one part of the process IMHO.

Busy busy so laterz

 

[adventurelife]

If they can do it for +1, Facebook and Twitter then they could also do it for links from websites/blogs.

I'm not seeing any effect of all this social media nonsense... its completely unneeded in SEO today.

Really? I am seeing the complete opposite. Not an seo just a daft business owner but recently seen just under 150 enquires at $6.5k each all via social media

 

[JohnnyCash]

Really? I am seeing the complete opposite. Not an seo just a daft business owner but recently seen just under 150 enquires at $6.5k each all via social media

Thats great if you can make sales directly from it, I just mean I'm not seeing any real SEO benefit - nothing you can do on social media is directly going to help your site rank better.

 

[adventurelife]

Thats great if you can make sales directly from it, I just mean I'm not seeing any real SEO benefit - nothing you can do on social media is directly going to help your site rank better.

Disagree. It is given my sites links from the most unexpected places. Links help ranking.

Also I am sure the seo's on here will explain how the search engines are adding in social profiles into the algo's

Like I said though I am not a seo so take what I say with a pinch of salt

 

Disagree. It is given my sites links from the most unexpected places. Links help ranking.

Also I am sure the seo's on here will explain how the search engines are adding in social profiles into the algo's

Like I said though I am not a seo so take what I say with a pinch of salt

Also brand is becoming a factor,Hence Ling is posting her ( well how shall we put this?) controversial posts all over the social world.

Which brings in links ,improves the brand and very often floods the site with traffic.

Not to mention paying customers when she posts special deals.

Earl

 

[Rags]

Thats great if you can make sales directly from it, I just mean I'm not seeing any real SEO benefit - nothing you can do on social media is directly going to help your site rank better.

Hmmmm...

http://searchengineland.com/what-social-signals-do-google-bing-really-count-55389

Also SEO isn't just about getting 'your site rank better' - you can also rank your social media profiles and (Fan) pages giving you multiple listings in the SERPS.

 

[JohnnyCash]

Hmmmm...

http://searchengineland.com/what-social-signals-do-google-bing-really-count-55389

Also SEO isn't just about getting 'your site rank better' - you can also rank your social media profiles and (Fan) pages giving you multiple listings in the SERPS.

Unless you've got lots of bad reviews, its not even particularly essential to get multiple listings for brand related searches.

As for that interview, its in search engines best interests to pretend things are more complicated than they are. I've not seen any real world examples of social media interaction, number of facebook likes, twitter followers etc having any affect on rankings at all.

My seo strategy has been, and will continue to be, ignore absolutely everything apart from direct link building. And a quick hours work on the onpage side of things...

 

[Rags]

Hey I'm not saying what you do isn't effective - it clearly is. I do much the same myself.

It's just that your sweeping statement:

'nothing you can do on social media is directly going to help your site rank better'

simply isn't accurate.

From that page:

If an article is retweeted or referenced much in Twitter, do you count that as a signal outside of finding any non-nofollowed links that may naturally result from it?

Google:

Yes, we do use it as a signal. It is used as a signal in our organic and news rankings. We also use it to enhance our news universal by marking how many people shared an article


​

 

[JohnnyCash]

I don't think Google are being truthful when they say they use it as a ranking signal.

If they do, then they are putting so little weight on it that, imo, you would be far better off spending time chasing links instead.

 

[Rags]

Believe me, I'd love to just chase links as well. But over time links will become devalued as social proof takes over - it's already happening.

If something can be gamed as much as link building, you can be sure that it's time will pass - just like so many seo tricks that are no longer effective or even frowned upon (white keyword text on white background x 1000 anyone?)

Like you I'm going to keep building links because that's what's working now - but I'm also getting clients active on the 3 big social networks as well as working with them to get reviews from their real customers/clients - especially on Google but also on Qype, Tripadvisor, Yelp etc (Google looks there too).

Eggs in one basket and all that...

 

[JohnnyCash]

Believe me, I'd love to just chase links as well. But over time links will become devalued as social proof takes over - it's already happening.

I don't agree with the bolded part.

If something can be gamed as much as link building, you can be sure that it's time will pass - just like so many seo tricks that are no longer effective or even frowned upon (white keyword text on white background x 1000 anyone?)

Nobody has yet came up with a credible alternative to links that can't be gamed even easier. At least with links you need a website to participate in gaming search results for other people in return for money. If they start doing it on social interaction, Mumsnet will be full of threads offering 2 facebook likes and a Google serp clickthrough for $2...

Like you I'm going to keep building links because that's what's working now - but I'm also getting clients active on the 3 big social networks as well as working with them to get reviews from their real customers/clients - especially on Google but also on Qype, Tripadvisor, Yelp etc (Google looks there too).

Eggs in one basket and all that...

My biggest site is genuinely useful to users.... so to some extent I will pick up some social signals naturally but yeah I am pretty much putting all my eggs in one basket. The algorithm has been link based for years, and I am betting on it staying that way. We don't even have a twitter account or a Facebook account... our competitors have thousands of fans on each.

My lead gen stuff will never get a single legit mention on social media, facebook, twitter and so on. I just don't think it will matter, at all. Get enough links and they'll rank.

 

[Rags]

I don't agree with the bolded part.

Surely nofollow came out of nowhere and devalued links. It's definitely already happening.

For my own (affiliate) sites, I don't mind taking a risk and ignoring the social stuff.

However for my clients, I have a responsibility to give them the maximum chance of good results - both now and going forward - and that means getting established in the social sphere where buyers look to their peers for help with buying desicions and not just the blurb that the companies themselves say about themselves in their copy.

 

[JohnnyCash]

Nofollow was a completely separate issue, that was nothing to do with social media so don't really think its relevant. If anything the use of nofollow is helping my approach... my link building today mostly consists of reaching out to bloggers and giving them content in return for links. its funny watching my competitors spam these same blog posts to try and piggyback on what i'm doing, but only getting a nofollow link from it

Not a reflection on your work as I have no idea what sites you work on, but i am seeing a lot of seo people basically waste their clients budgets on maintaining garbage Facebook pages, spamming social media and auto generating twitter followers. I think a lot of these people would be better seeing their responsibility as ranking their clients sites today, not worrying about some fanciful theory that might or might not start accounting for 5% of the ranking algorithm at some point in the next 10 years.

 

[RadiusBPO]

If an article is retweeted or referenced much in Twitter, do you count that as a signal outside of finding any non-nofollowed links that may naturally result from it?

Google:

Yes, we do use it as a signal. It is used as a signal in our organic and news rankings. We also use it to enhance our news universal by marking how many people shared an article


​

You relise they said that before they didn't renew their Twitter API deal and they no longer have access to the backend.. This is what killed off real time search.

 

[Rags]

All I'm saying is that Social is becoming more important for SEO.

Social media profiles are ranking - sometimes above the parent website.
Google places is largely socially driven through citations and reviews.
Google has just released it own social network in Google+

In terms of branding, if a searcher can see the business on Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and all those other review-type sites at the point when they are trying to decide who they should spend their money with and see that they are being favourably mentioned and reviewed by past cuatomers- that will give that business a better chance of getting the sale compared to someone whose internet real estate portfolio is sparse.

It's obvious from that interview on searcengineland that Google is moving towards adding social signals to their algo (failed negotiations aside Andy!)

 

[JDX_John]

After all how many other proffessions get paid without any checks on ability, Hours worked, Qualifications and Honesty

Any IT contractor/freelancer is just the same though you can ask for data on time spent to be provided, and if you don't check for ability you are risking your money... ask for sites they have worked on and a report on what they did.

For £5200 I can hire a bright apprentice who can spend a couple of months reading up and experimenting on the web for 37 hours a week and then spend the next 9 months =1332 hours dedicated to your own sites and still have a months holiday

SEO is one area this MIGHT work but your apprentice needs to know the basis of how to test their changes... tinkering is easy but gauging the result requires discipline.

£15,000 is still good pay in Norfolk, the majority I would say earn less than £13,000

The majority of unskilled benefits claimants, not the majority of skilled IT workers. Even in the North-East that is low.

 

[RevaxMedia]

With the silly prices being talked about by SEO experts, with no guarantees of page one and no ways of measuring how much time and effort they apply to your own account is their time comming to a end. After all how many other proffessions get paid without any checks on ability, Hours worked, Qualifications and Honesty

For £5200 I can hire a bright apprentice who can spend a couple of months reading up and experimenting on the web for 37 hours a week and then spend the next 9 months =1332 hours dedicated to your own sites and still have a months holiday

This is obviously the low of the low, but quite a few times I have been offered SEO at £1000 per month, would I really be getting value or by paying someone £12,000 a year or even £15-20,000 and undertake all the IT and maintance of the sites

£15,000 is still good pay in Norfolk, the majority I would say earn less than £13,000

Have you spoken to all the seo companies out there? I could get a list of 10 plumbers and ask for a quote to repair a sink and I can guarantee one will be well over the top. Just because one SEO company overpriced doesn't mean you need to add yet another black mark towards SEO professionals. I can agree it can be a murky world but you cant tar everyone with the same brush.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

The majority of unskilled benefits claimants, not the majority of skilled IT workers. Even in the North-East that is low.

Ha! You never been to Norfolk? It's a different world

 

[JDX_John]

Oh that's genius!

While they're at it, they may as well sack the accountant and do the accounts in house, swot up on a bit of legal studies and do away with solicitor, ditch their web guy and design their own websites, buy servers and host their own websites, buy a Haynes manual and service their own fleet, scour the country to buy new premises eschewing the services of commercial estate agents - in fact why not stop buying things altogether and make them ourselves - computers, monitors, printers, vehicles etc could all be knocked up in the stock cupboard based on 'how to' videos on YouTube - think of all the money we'd save!

By your logic I should hire a cleaner and a gardener, a chef, and not do any DIY - those are all jobs a professional can do too.

Ha! You never been to Norfolk? It's a different world

Compared to the NE I'm sure it's green and prosperous

 

[Rags]

By your logic I should hire a cleaner and a gardener, a chef, and not do any DIY - those are all jobs a professional can do too.

Please don't quote me out of context - I was responding to:

'the best person to optimise their website is themselves'

I'm not saying that gardening, cooking and DIY etc can't be done by anyone, but simply that the 'best person' to do those jobs is an expert in that field - just like the 'best person' to do SEO is an SEO specialist - not the website owner as stated by the previous post.

 

[JDX_John]

I'm not quoting you out of context. In business, it might sound nice to outsource everything to various experts but unless your business is large, people have to wear several "hats" because professional fees quickly add up.

Most small companies don't hire an expert network administrator / IT guy... often someone is given that role and has to pick it up as they go. Often the MD has to do accounts or other stuff they wouldn't in a large company.

SEO is something that can be done internally - it's not ideal but it may be unfeasible to hire someone at market rate - and hiring someone cheap might be worse than doing it yourself. An SEO guy needs to understand your business and your market and as such, being good at it commands a high fee. Someone cheap is probably just doing bog standard things anyone can find from reading SEO guides online.

 

By your logic I should hire a cleaner and a gardener, a chef, and not do any DIY - those are all jobs a professional can do too.

Well yes of course if you can earn more money doing the job you do.

No brainer.

P.S not sure the wife would allow a chef in "her" kitchen?:|

Earl

 

[Ali-v-8]

I have a cleaner who does my house.
My mates called me stupid and say its a waste of money.
Thing is I come home and my washing, ironing and general stuff is all sorted.
This gives me time to do what I do.
Now some of you will say why not get married.
Simple answer: I want to save money not lose it lol

 

[Annoying Donkey]

Well yes of course if you can earn more money doing the job you do.

No brainer.

Agree totally. Seems far too many 'business people' are focused on the cost and not the return...

 

[Annoying Donkey]

Now some of you will say why not get married.
Simple answer: I want to save money not lose it lol

Yes, wives are high maintenance... wonder if mine would fetch anything on ebay