SEO Crap information

[GNU]

Well clearly they work because he's #1 for his main keyword.

Of course they work, lots of anchored links has always worked with Google and continues to work.

I really don't get this link snobbery amongst SEOs on here. Surely Google are the ones who decide what is or isn't a "crap link"?
Steve

Its not snobbery about links, my links are no better than his, probably a lot worse, he has a few from national papers etc.

I dont have a problem with any of this stuff, check my blog, its full of link swindles and automation.... but its honest.

For me its just about that... honesty and tiring of people putting themselves forward as "experts" who are not. People selling "ethical white hat SEO" when they are running spam bots.

Its the porkies and hocus-pocus I am snobbish about.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

Like what? Comment spam? I've had a bit of that from your URL.

Really? From memory, I made one comment relevant to your post, which was deleted, so I haven't bothered commenting again... I don't use blog comments for link building, only for commenting on things I might have an interest in. Mostly, I don't even bother posting a link anymore.

There are other ways of getting links without paying and without spamming... Perhaps that should be one of the tests for a good SEO

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Its not snobbery about links, my links are no better than his, probably a lot worse

So would you happily refer to the link work you do for clients as "craplinx"?

Steve

 

[RadiusBPO]

There are other ways of getting links without paying and without spamming... Perhaps that should be one of the tests for a good SEO

Shouldn't making more money, better rankings, more traffic, lower bounce rate etc etc etc, all be the measures. Not just if someone gets a link from the Daily Mail one day.

 

[david64]

Well clearly they work because he's #1 for his main keyword.

I really don't get this link snobbery amongst SEOs on here. Surely Google are the ones who decide what is or isn't a "crap link"?

Yes he is, as mentioned above, Mark knows a thing about SEO, he might be able to offer advice that is relevant and helpful to some people, but his SEO is bog standard.

Re. the link snobbery, this has come about as there are plenty of people about casting themselves as gurus for wheeling out bog standard SEO, which in many cases equates to spam. We just want people to call it what it is, rather than dressing it up.

This is a classic thread illustrating the problem:

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=127253

The SEO company in question picked up a client and dumped the clients site through a really scummy splog network with links in plagiarised content etc. The client didn't know this is what they were getting, had limited info on SEO and were understandably upset.

The company should have said, "Look, we are going to charge you £2,000 and for that we will write a few articles, which can then be spun into a few hundred garbage articles, these will then be feed out onto a load of garbage spam websites that are used just for links and if Google finds them they will de-index them. We will also bundle your site through an automatic direcotry submitter and a few other things. This is all spam. It's what your competitors are all doing and if you do it more than them, you will rank higher."

Instead, they didn't tell them any of this and is one reason why SEO has such a bad rep.

 

[david64]

Really? From memory, I made one comment relevant to your post, which was deleted, so I haven't bothered commenting again... I don't use blog comments for link building, only for commenting on things I might have an interest in. Mostly, I don't even bother posting a link anymore.

It's still in the database. I just don't bother moderating as its all junk.

There are other ways of getting links without paying and without spamming... Perhaps that should be one of the tests for a good SEO

Would agree. Professional SEOs are the ones who can and do build links without paying or spamming. The rest are just spammers.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

Shouldn't making more money, better rankings, more traffic, lower bounce rate etc etc etc, all be the measures. Not just if someone gets a link from the Daily Mail one day.

Nah. It's all about my links are better than yours

Daily Mail? I wouldn't lower myself...

 

[david64]

So would you happily refer to the link work you do for clients as "craplinx"?

I don't think GNU has any clients. He has mentioned before in posts that he works for himself, which is no doubt the reason why he is so open about the nature of common link building - he doesn't have any clients that are being maintained on false illusions.

I can speak for that though. When I have done work for people, they know what they get. I told it like it is and they can choose to do what they want to do, if anything. For this reason, pretty much everyone I have done work for had already got a good understanding of SEO, they just didn't have the time to do it. If you tell it like it is, you will not convert most of your enquiries. If I dig through my emails to former clients, there is plenty of use of the words "crap links", "link schemes" and so on. Newcomers don't want to hear that, but its what most end up getting without knowing it.

I've also worked indirectly (sub-contracted) on a few big companies in some on some of the most compet. terms and they all know what they are getting for their 4-5 figure / month budgets - a load of paid links that break Google's guidelines.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Yes he is, as mentioned above, Mark knows a thing about SEO, he might be able to offer advice that is relevant and helpful to some people, but his SEO is bog standard.

Re. the link snobbery, this has come about as there are plenty of people about casting themselves as gurus for wheeling out bog standard SEO, which in many cases equates to spam. We just want people to call it what it is, rather than dressing it up.

I'd have no problem with that.

But what I'm seeing is people saying "that guy's links are junk" without admitting their own links are also junk.

What they should really be saying is "that guy's artificial links are more artificial than my artificial links".

The company should have said, "Look, we are going to charge you £2,000 and for that we will write a few articles, which can then be spun into a few hundred garbage articles, these will then be feed out onto a load of garbage spam websites that are used just for links and if Google finds them they will de-index them. We will also bundle your site through an automatic direcotry submitter and a few other things. This is all spam. It's what your competitors are all doing and if you do it more than them, you will rank higher."

Instead, they didn't tell them any of this and is one reason why SEO has such a bad rep

Unless it's an SEO hiring an SEO, is the client capable of weighing up the work that'll be done?

I suspect not.

People are buying a pig in a poke. Sometimes it'll be pork. As often as not, it'll be cat meat.

Steve

 

[david64]

I'd have no problem with that.

But what I'm seeing is people saying "that guy's links are junk" without admitting their own links are also junk.

What they should really be saying is "that guy's artificial links are more artificial than my artificial links".

Hahaha. You are right. Maybe this will refresh you:

I have done loads of artificial link building for myself and others. It's web sewage and it's easy. Loads of other people do it and call themselves SEO experts. I call it link spam.

Saying that, I have also done white hat work, but almost all of it is on 2 of my own long-term sites. The only time you can use white hat and get results in a relatively short period of time is when none of the competition have pumped themselves up on artificial links. As soon as someone stuffs their site with 4,000 keyed text links, your going to need something of the same. Link text and equity (juice) are Google's Achilles heels and in most cases no amount of white hat waffle can do anything about that. It's all link schemes of varying qualities and I like to keep my schemes as genuine looking as possible.

Unless it's an SEO hiring an SEO, is the client capable of weighing up the work that'll be done?

I suspect not.

Not unless they have been in the SEO game a bit themselves. I have worked for people who know the game and you get other enquires just saying they want links, what can you do.

People are buying a pig in a poke. Sometimes it'll be pork. As often as not, it'll be cat meat.

Not many people use that saying these days and probably even fewer know its feline origin.

 

[GNU]

So would you happily refer to the link work you do for clients as "craplinx"?

Steve

I avoid client based stuff as a rule, but when I have done it Im clear about what they are getting.

I tend to use "bottom of the food chain" when referring to such things with clients.

 

I've only had a glance at that site and obviously don't have the in-depth knowledge that you no doubt do on the site and the relevant search; however, if it was my site, I would probably want to get individual pages up for all of the parts and get those ranking instead of having big lists. I'd do in-depth key.d research on each of them, and come up with some decent text for humans on the individual pages that includes all the relevant words I could find.

As the site would be a commercial site that I don't really give two hoots about from an attachment & quality perspective, I wouldn't give too much notice where I was getting the links from.

P.S. I am not trying to attack or insult your SEO method. We have different methods and as we don't share minds can't see things from each other's exact perspective.

David if we take this as an example:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...Valve&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

If I did not have that text on the page its likely that neither the search engines nor the customer would find us for that product.

Take note of what is showing in the meta tag description.

Earl

 

No he is low grade bum marketer charging £500 for inferior information to that which can be gained at theKeywordAcademy.com for $1.

That page David listed used to take any parameter you cared to throw at it. I had a page indexed for "skip hire in cheap viagra" for a while.

I suggested they make a whitelist to stop this, but they did not know what a whitelist was and created a blacklist instead, which means you can still inject stuff into those pages.

Not an SEO expert at all, just a guy in a position to do something with "skip hire" terms... who figured out the secrets of the craplinx.

The man gets results and sells his services.

It may not be my method but its a method that seems to work.

End of story.

This is real life not a boy scout camp.winner takes most.

Earl

 

[OldWelshGuy]

Well some crapshoot this thread has turned into

 

[david64]

David if we take this as an example:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...Valve&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

If I did not have that text on the page its likely that neither the search engines nor the customer would find us for that product.

Take note of what is showing in the meta tag description.

Earl, you have beaten me into submission. Turns out you have a silver tongue, when you choose to use it.

 

Earl, you have beaten me into submission. Turns out you have a silver tongue, when you choose to use it.

Blimey Silver tongue ,next you will be suggesting I am one of them snake oil salesmen.:|

Earl

 

[UKSBD]

The difference between oldschool seo experts/gurus who don't buy links and new seo fly by nights who do buy links, is the oldschool seo experts have built up their own networks where they can "drop" links.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

The difference between oldschool seo experts/gurus who don't buy links and new seo fly by nights who do buy links, is the oldschool seo experts have built up their own networks where they can "drop" links.

Good point.

I suppose the question is, can google tell the difference between the two? Do they even think there's a difference?

Steve

 

[david64]

Good point.

I suppose the question is, can google tell the difference between the two? Do they even think there's a difference?

Steve

The new kids on the block (link buyers) have less experience. Lots of paid links will disappear over time, some link drop spots will get delisted etc. These lot tend to make a bit of a mess with paid links and as such they can have less bang for their buck.

The older operators tend to realise this and don't want to be in these link spam ships going down. So, they will come up with better strategies like buying links that don't look like they are paid (of such links their is a good provider on here) or running their own, well disguised network of sites.

However, I don't know anyone who relies solely on their own network of sites for rankings, its just part of the pie.

Google probably can't tell the difference programitically, but they do de-list and attack a lot of these site that are obviously selling links, the type that new boys buy into. This is particularly true for these grubby splog networks where you can mercilessly spin out loads of garbage sites on a bunch of sites that will be de-listed if found by Google.

People who have been doing SEO for a while find out that some of their earlier, gregarious link schemes start to peeter out as Google improves its system and de-list more site. So the SEOs change their game, what before was link spam, now become what appear to be real links in genuine content.

A classic example is in about 2006-2007, two link spam brokers came to prominence called PayPerPost and Sponsored Reviews. Plenty of people who had little of SEO experience blasted their site up the SERPs for a few grand on links and nothing more. They didn't know that Google would eventually clamp down on that link racket. Although it still works, its devalued and a lot of the sites get de-listed.

 

[UKSBD]

However, I don't know anyone who relies solely on their own network of sites for rankings, its just part of the pie.

When I said network, I didn't mean network of sites, but network of like minded people who help each other out.

 

When I said network, I didn't mean network of sites, but network of like minded people who help each other out.

Thats what makes the world go round.

Its usually quite easy to get relevant links from relevant sites from distant lands as you are not so likely to be in competition with them even if selling similar products.

But often best to phone people for a cosy chat about how you can help each other.

I always try where possible to make the competition associates.

Earl

 

[headshotlondon]

Agree, you need to get as much information as possible and get a second opinion if you are not sure. Reputation is everything in SEO and I believe in practicing it in an open way.

I have to say it is good that you know how to use the keyword tool. If you did not know anything about SEO, you could have made the wrong choice. So, it is good to make an informed decision.

I have to say though on the internet and in life you may meet all sorts of people - good and bad...and unfortunately the bad guys are spoiling it for many who actually may know what they are doing.

At the end purchasing SEO services is like purchasing anything else, you have to look around and make an informed decision.

 

[trebor8]

I had a similar discussion with a guy that promised page one and then did not want to know anything about my site, but was very keen on me committing £400 a month for his services. It is very hard to see what they are doing for their money and after 4 months of research I have managed to get my Corporate photographer London blog into 3 position on page 1. Its quite easy to do but takes time, backlinks and getting your site onto directories- nothing clever just a bit of research- once you have done this you can see how easy it would be to do it again for someone else. Grant

Coincidentally i was also quoted £400/mnth and presumably by the same guy for my ADULT website.
I didn't take it any further when he started using the word "mate"

 

[UKSBD]

I always try where possible to make the competition associates.

Earl

I believe that is the biggest difference in SEO between now and pre Florida days.

I'm sure back then SEO was more friendly and people worked together better, coindidentaly I wrote a blog post about it only last week.
http://www.podline.co.uk/info/?p=940

 

I believe that is the biggest difference in SEO between now and pre Florida days.

I'm sure back then SEO was more friendly and people worked together better, coindidentaly I wrote a blog post about it only last week.
http://www.podline.co.uk/info/?p=940

Your blog possibly sums up the changing attitude across the board not just SEO.

I work with people who have an unwritten rule that we try not to step on each others toes.

I.E if I am selling the same thing as someone else they will not get links from me for that product and I don't expect links from them ,they understand that without taking offence.E.T.C.

We help each other out when its possible to do so without impacting our own projects.

I suspect you are right that there are far more paranoid twerps about these days.

Earl

 

[GNU]

I always try where possible to make the competition associates.

Earl

I think you have to do that, some people dont really get it though, they just see everyone else as their competitor, never mind the fact that there are 5 sites sitting above which you both have to get past, but it works very well once you find a couple of decent people to work with.