- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So we deduce that SEO is necessary bullshit. :3eyes:
SEO is bullshit, the whole industry is a farce. You have so called SEO specialists and google engineers lying to the public. They claim content is king, when content is almost irrelevant and 75% of the game is links.
Well content + links is king :santa2:
Although there are blogs which boost to PR2 within few weeks without any backlinks
Google has even admitted, I cant remember where the document is but in their own words, 25% of a websites ranking is based on content and 75% on links. That’s because content is too easy to manipulate.
If content was important you would not have these websites ranking top 20 for online casino as they are using simple redirects:
realife.p2a.pl
nor this site another redirect:
segasonic.100foros.com
Oh here is another redirect:
ogutfm.smfforfree4.com
and lastly another redirect:
blogs.browning.edu/wp-includes/js/?Free-online-casino-3
None of the sites linking to the last domain are gambling sites. All you have are spammed links.
So to summarize… websites have no content, no themed links, all spammed links. I found these URLs within 2 minutes of searching. I can bet there’s a lot more.
I remember seeing one guy who accidentally ranked his casino website in the top 3 in google for the word phentermine. That keyword is worth at least 60k a month. He ranked that high because he screwed up his back link spamming. Phentermine is also pretty competitive. So if content is so important how does a casino website rank for phentermine which is a diet pill?
Which gets me back to what I have been saying from day one, google is deceiving everyone, its all about links. This is why they want us to report paid links. They want us to focus on content (which I agree is somewhat important especially if you want to convert traffic) because they can easily detect if we try to manipulate rankings using content.
So this is why I say SEO is bullshit.
What I don’t get with Google in particular is how the listings swing wildly up and down and how some sites with no updated content and next to zero links can rank number one whilst other sites pumping in loads of new content and backlinks can go up and down in the rankings. I would love some kind of tool which could tell me exactly why Google was penalising a particular site. For example I can remember one of my sites taking a nose dive in the google serps going from position 3 to position 63 overnight before gradually recovering WTF?? :madat:
I don’t agree about content not being important though as I have seen sites get slammed for duplicate content etc, even if they are the ones with the original content. I have also seen too many cases of sites with hardly any backlinks rank really well so basically I along with most of you have no frigging idea what makes Google tick but I’m starting to think that the algorithm is getting worse on Google and not rewarding the good sites.
Maybe the people that have SEO companies are bsers. Because really, if they were so good at that, they could make a lot more money easily building their own sites.
But SEO itself is not bs and is necessary if you want to rank anywhere where customers can find you for things that are not primarily related to your unique web site name.
My own experience is that links are very important for highly competitive keywords.
Good content and design is king for words/phrases related to highly competitive keywords.
It’s all manipulation but some forms are more embarrassing than others
