Inertia in the front of Google core updates

[pgmath]

I am invaded daily with tons of spam coming from SEO agents (or “agencies”) who offer guest posts and links in all kind of sites, advertised as having “good metrics”.
Despite the obvious discomfort, these messages made me wonder why some professions are so inertial and difficult to adapt to change.

I am not asking this from the position of a SEO expert – I just learned some basics from the experts and got informed, as my activity required that. This is what I have learned recently:
SEO has changed dramatically with the last Google core updates. All that counts now is relevant original content, supported by authoritative contextual links. How can someone imagine that in 2025 Google algorithms still count links coming from sites created with the very purpose of selling links and guest posts or links in rubbish blog comments on authoritative sites? Guest posting is dead. Random linking is dead. Websites should no longer write for search engines, but for people, if they want to be visible. Google has all the required tools able to detect that. DR/DA became irrelevant as a site’s metric. It’s a new SEO era and we all have to adapt our policies.

Despite this reality, guest posts marketplaces are still active and trade links. People still get aroused in front of an opportunity to get a backlink from a high-DR site, even if that site has zero traffic. It is also visible on this forum. So my question is: What is the explanation for this inertia? It’s just about the general human inability to change habits, or there is something specific to the SEO business that I am missing?

[PaulEchere]

I think the context matters a lot here. As you pointed out yourself - "supported by authoritative contextual links" still matters and likely will, because it just makes sense. You can still acquire such links for a fee (in other words "guest post") of course both, the place where you get the link from and the content that comes along with that link should be relevant and should make sense.

To be honest I don't really see how an email like "Hey buddy, I here's a list of 100 rubbish sites - buy links from me" might still work, but I guess it might. Occasionally, I do SEO for local businesses where I live and 100% of the time people running those businesses don't know anything about SEO. I could potentially say something like "hey, here's a good idea - let's dump 1000s of Euros on backlinks - all of them that we can find" and quite likely that they would have agreed to that. p.s. I don't do that.


So going back to the original question - I suppose that if you send 100000 emails like that (which costs close to nothing) you might have 2-5 people that actually buy from you.

[universal4]

Websites should no longer write for search engines, but for people, if they want to be visible.

Personally, I think this is not new, but that content should always have been written for people and not the engines.

And as for the seo folks that spam millions of inboxes daily, that will not change. The sad part is that anyone buys from such tactics. 99 out of every hundred that approach you that way, will most often not talk about their sites, and also often won't even show their url.

I don't think you are missing anything, just keep writing on the topics you think are valid and pertinent and continue to write for the reader.

I will spend more time and am more likely to finish reading an article that engages with me more while answering a question I might have had, then one that uses keywords and long tail keywords too much.

Rick
Universal4

[xecutable]

Don't think this is specific to this or any other fields, I think this is human behavior, or more like company behavior in general. Where's digg dot com today? What about Blockbuster? Kodak? Myspace? AOL? Bwin *cough* ? All of these giants once failed to evolve or suppressed evolving and got left behind.

Up until recently, new affiliate managers were trained to check website traffic via ALEXA, the tool that was NEVER EVER accurate because the stats were coming from a third party browser bar that barely anyone had.

There's a lot of outdated information floating around, and for this very reason, people are still trying to spam here to get a signature backlink. Hell there are users here that were banned before, that just changed their names and are around posting to promote their product again. So much futile effort but in their own mind, it's the right strategy.

What about pension funds? Even the younger generations keep on contributing to those government ones that in many countries are half empty or empty, hoping that they are going to get what their grandfathers got. Society is full of people who "inherit" their beliefs and don't create their own.

Bottom line this is perfectly normal and has been going for centuries, nothing new or special for this industry itself

[chaumi]

Vote for eloquent/amusing quote of the year..."People still get aroused in front of an opportunity to get a backlink from a high-DR site"...might bring (to some) a mental image that once you've seen, you can't unsee it!

Why do the spammers still do it? Well, as PE said, occasionally it will still work. Maybe enough to make a few $s. And remember...and this is a generalization, I know...some of these 'spammers' will be doing it to earn a few $s that will keep food on the table, sometimes for sums that ,many of us would (ashamedly) just shrug off as near inconsequential.

Why do the buyers still do it?

I see three main reasons:

1. They think it still works (and tbh no one knows for absolute sure that it doesn't, we just have common sense knowledge that it very likely won't).
2. They think they know it still works (perhaps thru testing and recent experience)
3. They just think (have heard, been told) they have to get backlinks, and don't know how to work out if what they're getting has any (potential) value.

[pgmath]

I will spend more time and am more likely to finish reading an article that engages with me more while answering a question I might have had, then one that uses keywords and long tail keywords too much.

Rick
Universal4

User's experience and engagement seems also to be part of the new Google algorithms - translated in time spent, this would imply a comeback of the long articles.

[pgmath]

Indeed, my question should have been posed with respect to sellers and buyers separately. Since the sellers' motivation seems now obvious (regardless of whether they are or not aware of the changes), the buyers' motivation is still debatable. Your options in epistemological terms are nice, but still not reflecting the entire picture. I would also suggest an addictive-like behavior - backlinks are something desirable and rewarding and chasing them goes sometimes beyond a rational strategy. Just a thought.

[baldidiot]

Guest posting is dead.

It really isn't. Huge sums of money are changing money every day for guest posts.

Whether it works or not is another matter, but the act of paid guest posting is very much alive. If anything I'd say it's probably bigger than it's ever been. It would probably be hard to find a commercial site that ranks well in a competitive niche that doesn't buy them (or some other kind of links).

DR/DA became irrelevant as a site’s metric.

DR and DA have always been irrelevant. They're nothing to do with google. Even googles own metric Page Rank wasn't really relevant to ranking.

I don't personally pay much attention to them, but people use them because they feel the need to put a comparable score on a site. And brokers and link sellers need to come up with a way of justifying the cost of links.

All of these metrics can be faked btw.

Despite this reality, guest posts marketplaces are still active and trade links. People still get aroused in front of an opportunity to get a backlink from a high-DR site, even if that site has zero traffic. It is also visible on this forum. So my question is: What is the explanation for this inertia? It’s just about the general human inability to change habits, or there is something specific to the SEO business that I am missing?

People need links to rank, especially for commercial terms. The problem is that sites that sell links to you also sell them to other people. And sites that don't sell links to other people won't sell them to you either.

So whilst you may want to go and buy links from the BBC or New York Times, they don't sell them. So the choice is buy links from sites that do sell links, or don't buy links and hope to get them organically.






...or build your own sites for your own private use.

[pgmath]

I was saying that guest posting is dead with respect to the SEO results of such strategy. Of course it is alive from a commercial standpoint. This was actually my question: why is that? Perhaps it is a matter of time for things to get settled down and aligned with Google rules for both buyers and sellers.

[baldidiot]

Of course it is alive from a commercial standpoint. This was actually my question: why is that? Perhaps it is a matter of time for things to get settled down and aligned with Google rules for both buyers and sellers.

Because people need links and they don't know how to guarantee link placements without paying for them, especially if they need to build them in any kind of volume.

[chaumi]

this would imply a comeback of the long articles.

Yet the evidence is (or seems to be) that 'answer the query in the simplest (accurate) way' meets Google's (apparent) need to serve responses (ie web documents) to searchers at the lowest cost to Google. This would conflict with 'long form' articles, which may well answer the query, but (in many cases, but obviously not all) not in a way that meets that requirement.

The answer (or trade-off, perhaps) is likely in structure/quality, in combination with unique factors that might set the long-form piece apart.

The 'problem' with long-form is...it doesn't necessarily result in increased time on page (I know you know this, PG). It can actually be a turn-off for visitors...particularly if it's not 'answering the query' quickly enough. Hence where structure and quality (and unique aspects) comes in.

[baldidiot]

Yet the evidence is (or seems to be) that 'answer the query in the simplest (accurate) way' meets Google's (apparent) need to serve responses (ie web documents) to searchers at the lowest cost to Google. This would conflict with 'long form' articles, which may well answer the query, but (in many cases, but obviously not all) not in a way that meets that requirement.

Yes, exactly - google even made the comment after the HCU that content shouldn't be longer than it needs. They also specifically stated that length isn't a ranking factor, it's about what the content says.

So if something can be answered perfectly in 300 words, it should be 300 words. Don't pad it out to 2000 for the sake of it.

We're looking at you, recipe sites! No one needs to hear about your summers in Tuscany with your second cousin Alberta in order to make some focaccia.

[Mattbar]

Indeed, my question should have been posed with respect to sellers and buyers separately. Since the sellers' motivation seems now obvious (regardless of whether they are or not aware of the changes), the buyers' motivation is still debatable. Your options in epistemological terms are nice, but still not reflecting the entire picture. I would also suggest an addictive-like behavior - backlinks are something desirable and rewarding and chasing them goes sometimes beyond a rational strategy. Just a thought.

I do think there is a level of addiction to getting backlinks with some people, it definitely lights up the reward centers in your brain when you get a "good link" or if you've paid less than you think it should be.

The problem with that is most of the links sold are to big companies. Most of the links we sell are to large bookmakers, casinos, law firms, big comparison sites, etc, (via agencies). They are not doing it because it gives them a buzz. Many are spending six figures each month buying links across the board. If they are spending that much doing it then they see value in it and then smaller sites will copy what the bigger sites do and on goes the cycle. The agencies themselves perpetuate this and of course they will as that is their business.

I agree with baldidiot, guest posting is bigger than ever and it is largely driven by these big brands with big budgets. If the big brands stopped buying links then the whole landscape would change but if anything they are buying more than ever. Whether it actually helps with SEO is debatable but I don't see the tide changing any time soon.

[allfreechips]

Links are still the largest part, no doubt no matter how much Google and professionals keep preaching content is king. Content is needed og course for SEO and user engagement but without links it will never be seen.

[pgmath]

Content is needed og course for SEO and user engagement but without links it will never be seen.

Sure, it's just that Google is able to detect now if a link really serves the site hosting it and not the target site. Our Citation-based academic link building program (CBALB) provides such Google updates -compliant backlinks in the form of citing summaries of the cited articles.

[eenzoo]

I dont think google gives a fu*** on academics ... otherwise all edu links would still work. But they dont.

EEAT is what matters and this is (with enough resource) good to fake. Math is not helpful unfortunately. Links are, and i would bet on, currently the very much most valuable ranking signal for google.

Edit: Maybe Google WOULD gives a Fu** on an academic approach - but people dont. They want bonuses and nice promises, bling and all that cool gambling stuff. I dont think that the masses are really interested in Education gambling-wise. And IF Google is looking to fulfill user intend ... here we go ...

[baldidiot]

Sure, it's just that Google is able to detect now if a link really serves the site hosting it and not the target site.

In what way does a link serve the site that's hosting it?

If you're talking about providing additional information / references, this is down to the context of the page. A paid link could be made just as relevant as an organic one.

To be fair, normally they're not, they're crowbarred in, but they could be.

Our Citation-based academic link building program (CBALB) provides such Google updates -compliant backlinks in the form of citing summaries of the cited articles.

Adding paid citations to an edu article is no different to adding a paid citation of the same style to any other article.

The quality of the site hosting the link and how many paid links there are on the site would vary, but in terms of the actual link there's nothing special about it compared to an equivalent link on another site.

[pgmath]

This was also my point: People may not give a f... on academic content, but Google came to give. It is also reflected in their recent core updates.

[pgmath]

In what way does a link serve the site that's hosting it?

Adding paid citations to an edu article is no different to adding a paid citation of the same style to any other article.

The quality of the site hosting the link and how many paid links there are on the site would vary, but in terms of the actual link there's nothing special about it compared to an equivalent link on another site.

If you had the chance to explore that program: Actually such a citation link (to a summary) serves the reader and not the host site. This is its main virtue and this is what Google is looking for. Journal articles are not an easy read, including for the academics familiar with their field. Linking a citation to a summary is helpful for the reader.

[pgmath]

They want bonuses and nice promises, bling and all that cool gambling stuff.

Ok, so if thousands and thousands of gambling sites write about bonuses ("what people want") in the same words and with the same patterns again and again, how will they get visible in Google searches for the keyword 'casino bonuses' or anything similar? Don't you think that including (even marginally) an academic approach to bonuses will make a difference? As you admitted, Google "likes" academic content. This is applicable to any gambling topic. Besides, give them "bonuses, promises, and all that cool gambling stuff" to have what they want, but they will stay one minute on that page and then click out to the link to the recommended casino. You get your commission, but the condition is to have that visitor, that is, traffic. To have traffic you need content different from your competitors (if, somehow, they rank higher than you). For a visitor to land on your page, that page must be visible. To stay on that page, it's about content. Not staying will downrank the page, per the recent updates. So there is a vicious circle.