Your take on SEO in 2013

[andrew.macfarlane]

Hey guys,

As casino affiliates SEO marketing is usually the cornerstone of making your site a success (or is it?!). Anyway, with the Panda updates and relevancy of links and social signals playing an impact, what is your take on SEO for 2013?

For example, should link building be phased out and replaced with focusing on good quality content? Have the spammy techinques of the past such as drip feed blog commenting, auto directory submission softwares etc all died?

Let us know your views on SEO marketing in 2013!

[Nibor]

Hey guys,

As casino affiliates SEO marketing is usually the cornerstone of making your site a success (or is it?!). Anyway, with the Panda updates and relevancy of links and social signals playing an impact, what is your take on SEO for 2013?

For example, should link building be phased out and replaced with focusing on good quality content? Have the spammy techinques of the past such as drip feed blog commenting, auto directory submission softwares etc all died?

Let us know your views on SEO marketing in 2013!

With regards to your last question I would say yes!!! Those spammy techniques are all but dead, if you want to sustain a real affiliate site. Some sites can get away with it for a bit maybe but not for long. I would say the future to secure a place for your an affiliate site is to make sure that google perceives your site as a strong brand. It is becoming more and more apparent that Google are doing there very best to eliminate affiliate sites from the SERPS (at least from the first page when searching for brand terms). So to still appear, being perceived as authority within your casino or other gambling niche is vital.

Link building can be done in the traditional sense, quality links are perceived still very important.It should be done in conjunction with the creation of quality content which is then outreached (in other words quality link bait). This is far more laborious, but can be very fruitful. A site called PlayingBingo.co.uk did this with a series of artistic photos of people playing bingo. They commissioned a photographer to do this, outreached to the Guardian newspaper (http://www.theguardian.com/uk), who were then obliged to put a link to the site, because they had published the photographs in the Guardian newspaper online. That link is gold, no amount of money could ever get you a link of that quality.

Social signals will become an increasingly important factor, and its worth implementing in SEO strategy. The obvious problem is that gamblers tend not to want to demonstrate their love of a particular game in public. This has been a problem for us, and we are slowly overcoming it. Nonetheless, regardless of whether or not gamblers like to share their exploits Google doesn't care about that, they just need social signals - how you get them is up to you.

I would add more, but I fear this will become too long, and I must be going now.

[andrew.macfarlane]

Great contribution Armit!

I've always found getting naturally 'none-built' links in the casino niche has always been very tough. I do however think it is a lot easier in sports betting, for example, Wayne Rooney signing to Chelsea for £50 million is easier to gain links for than the news that Net Entertainment have released a new slot.

Nevertheless, I think people should mix it up and think twice before they try links that could harm their site. Google are only getting better at weeding out these kind of links so people should be looking to the future.

[Nibor]

I do however think it is a lot easier in sports betting, for example, Wayne Rooney signing to Chelsea for £50 million is easier to gain links for than the news that Net Entertainment have released a new slot.

I completely agree, it is difficult. In my opinion it is best to do normal stories like 'Net Entertainment have released a new slot', and to try and make special features or other kinds of creative content as part of a wider project. In this way you will be getting the benefit of the regularly updated content (perceived well by Google), and hopefully the creative content will build quality links for your site. Of course the actual implementation is easier said than done. I find with our 'creative' pieces it is hit and miss on whether or not they work in generating links and social signals.

Ironically, the 'boring' content that doesn't get shared, is arguably often more useful to the users of the website, than the creative content we put out required to make noise for Google. Which sort of defeats the purpose of the principal of quality content, and what Google wishes to achieve for their users. One rule for all does not always work best.

[Scampi]

Backlinks IMO are over-rated. Content has always been king, and with over 200 search algorithms working to index your content, an incoming link has to rate pretty low.

[Storebuilder]

Backlinks IMO are over-rated. Content has always been king, and with over 200 search algorithms working to index your content, an incoming link has to rate pretty low.

You need both to rank - particularly for money terms. Some of the guys and girls who are top ranking in the "free bets" sector are spending a good wedge every month to keep their site at the top of the rankings.

For many long tail and niche markets you can get by with good content alone but as soon as you try ranking for some serious money terms you start to encounter resistance to your effort.

I wish it wasn't so because I have had several good sites like sixhanded.com killed off for link exchanges and as it stands at the moment buying links is no longer an option.

But in saying that, remember that you are getting "lifetime revenue" (whatever that means) for your effort. So the players you sign up today could be still producing revenue for many years to come - is that worth taking a risk on buying links?

If you get shafted for link buying you just set up on a new domain and 301 redirect the old domain to the new.

This is where we stand with SEO - you either buy links and run the associated risk, having a minor heart attack every time you see your site disappear from the listings, or you do something special to obtain the links you need - like Robin pointed out.

The problem with saying "oh I'll just set up on a new domain" is what if you have a really good domain name to start with? You don't want to lose that do you?

That is the conundrum to be solved - how can you get links to your site in a market where the people that do the linking i.e other webmasters in your niche, have very little reason to link to you. To buy or not to buy? How can you devise cloaked linkbait?

Getting those links means making something special above and beyond what everyone else is doing and as the years go by it gets harder and harder to do that.

Striving to gain links too early in a sites life is a waste of time though. The "overnight success" that comes to many sites is borne out of consistency of effort over a number of years. When you look at a site that has three or four years posts you know you are looking at a mature site that has been honed and refined. Trying to get links and rank very early is a mistake I think.

If you have something really special to offer you will attract links, if you don't then you are fighting an uphill battle and if you are buying links in any quantity you have a converting site but you have to live with the fear that one day you will wake up and see your site gone from google.

But does that really matter? If you are signing up players madly today - who knows where we will be in five years time?

Personally - I've put too much time and effort into my current site to put it at risk by buying links. But I'd dearly love the traffic that it would buy and I'm confident I would come out well ahead on the deal.

You have to make something people want to read and come back to - and that is definitely not easy. It's a ton of work but the alternative is to produce samey samey where you are doing the same as every other webmaster trying to scratch a living.

Good content + a couple of links gained through some serious thought put into how to get those links and a site worthy of people actually giving you that link.

That's where we are at in 2013.

[edgarf76]

I do not think link building is dead but I think that it has changed a lot. PR means nothing and relevance, and MOZ DA are the most important thing IMO. However content supersedes link building. And post content on a consistent basis is important for a webmaster ranking and more importantly their readers.

I think Google is going to continue to change things up to drive the prices of their adwords up. IMO focusing of content is the best way to rank. Another thing is social media sharing is very important and I believe it impacts results.

[andrew.macfarlane]

Some very interesting posts guys, one qualm I've always had with the 'content is king' argument is, with the internet being so saturated, just producing good content alone will not increase rankings if there is no one there to read it! It's not a 'build it and they will come' situation by any means.

I've some top quality content in the casino and sports niches that have been lost underneath a cacophony of spammy articles that have ranked higher due to their webmasters buying links to influence ranking.

What I'm trying to say is, you could be a modern day Shakespeare but if this content features on a brand new domain which no incoming backlinks, the articles featured on it will never be given the appreciation or backlinks it truely deserves.

And that is why I believe link building isn't dead, by any stretch of the imagination.

[edgarf76]

Some very interesting posts guys, one qualm I've always had with the 'content is king' argument is, with the internet being so saturated, just producing good content alone will not increase rankings if there is no one there to read it! It's not a 'build it and they will come' situation by any means.

I've some top quality content in the casino and sports niches that have been lost underneath a cacophony of spammy articles that have ranked higher due to their webmasters buying links to influence ranking.

What I'm trying to say is, you could be a modern day Shakespeare but if this content features on a brand new domain which no incoming backlinks, the articles featured on it will never be given the appreciation or backlinks it truely deserves.

And that is why I believe link building isn't dead, by any stretch of the imagination.

I hear you on that, many people claim if you write amazing content that the SE comes to you and you rank higher(this is debatable). While I do focus on content I do build backlinks very slowly.

[andrew.macfarlane]

I hear you on that, many people claim if you write amazing content that the SE comes to you and you rank higher(this is debatable). While I do focus on content I do build backlinks very slowly.

Yeah it's a gripe I have with the 'ethical seo' community that argue link building isn't needed and just producing good content will see you fly up the SERPS.

[-Shay-]

Producing quality, original, and truly unique content is certainly enough. The problem is that most writers and webmasters have no clue what that means.

They either follow another writer's format or they go to another webmaster's site in the name of "research" or "checking facts" (this plays similar to copying content).

Another big mistake I see writers/webmasters make is that they develop content with the purpose of obtaining links. Anything beyond writing content in a unique voice intended for the visitor is a big fail in my book.

[Nibor]

Another big mistake I see writers/webmasters make is that they develop content with the purpose of obtaining links. Anything beyond writing content in a unique voice intended for the visitor is a big fail in my book.

I agree with this, writing content intended for the visitors is paramount as well as content curation. Everything else one does in terms of SEO must be done around that, and will in fact fall into place much easier. IMO for now, there is definitely still a lot of value to be gained from quality links (not random spammy ones), if a proper site links into your content naturally, there is immense value in that.

Over time, links will become less important as Google authorship and social signals take precedence. Until the day that webmasters find ways to massively skew that data, and Google will force us all to disavow our FB page likes and Google +'s

[justbookies]

. . and Google will force us all to disavow our FB page likes and Google +'s

I think you have neatly summed up the insane world google has created.

[universal4]

Until the day that webmasters find ways to massively skew that data, and Google will force us all to disavow our FB page likes and Google +'s

I think this already happens to a degree.

To me I find it quite ironic that many that would not even think about exchanging links on a website will go crazy for a facebook like exchange or a google plus exchange as they are nothing more than a link exchange in their own format. (IE: You link to me and I'll link to you OR You like me and I'll like you OR You plus me and I'll plus you)

Rick
Universal4

[thebookiesoffers]

I think this already happens to a degree.

To me I find it quite ironic that many that would not even think about exchanging links on a website will go crazy for a facebook like exchange or a google plus echange as they are nothing more than a link exchange in their own format. (IE: You link to me and I'll link to you OR You like me and I'll like you OR You plus me and I'll plus you)

Rick
Universal4

I never do either, was thinking the other day when I saw a thread, think it was either G+ or FB like exchange and thought 'you really think google can't spot that?'

[Scampi]

Facebook Likes do not have any effect on search engine rankings, positive or negative. I asked for Likes in my last post to get the number higher to encourage more Likes. It's like a tip jar, people contribute more if they see others have before them. The end result been more readers seeing the site and crossing over, not to directly influence Google Search.

[IACorey]

Nevertheless, I think people should mix it up and think twice before they try links that could harm their site. Google are only getting better at weeding out these kind of links so people should be looking to the future.

I think you're absolutely right Andrew. I just stumbled upon this article about some of the latest changes to Google's link scheme. To me it seems that Google amends their best practices almost daily. I'm just surprised you guys can keep up and continuously implement these changes.

Here's the article I was referring to http://searchengineland.com/understa...l-links-169156

[Nibor]

I never do either, was thinking the other day when I saw a thread, think it was either G+ or FB like exchange and thought 'you really think google can't spot that?'

Yes you're right! I thought the same when I saw that. Although the amount of likes and G +'s obtained from this seem relatively small, as you say it isn't a great idea. I didn't know if to mention it, as there seem to be quite a lot of forum members that have no problem with it. I didn't want to upset anyone

[thebookiesoffers]

Yes you're right! I thought the same when I saw that. Although the amount of likes and G +'s obtained from this seem relatively small, as you say it isn't a great idea. I didn't know if to mention it, as there seem to be quite a lot of forum members that have no problem with it. I didn't want to upset anyone

i dont care who I upset, just couldnt be bothered to post about it, prefer to leave them to it, each to their own and all that

[-Shay-]

Wait, the "you follow/like me and I'll follow/like you" tactic is not "natural" and thus far from a "great idea"?

I'm totally upset that such things have been implied.
#sarcasm

On a more serious note, exchanging shares/likes/follows ranks right up there in my book with link exchanges and guest blog posts using content with little value to the reader and a whole lot of very specific anchor text.

I don't understand why people (in general) do not take a common sense approach to SEO. We try to treat ours similar to a math exam - where if we're required to "show our work" - there's no questionable steps taken to achieve the results/right answer we're after. If Google were browsing the forums looking at share/like exchange threads, would they mark it off as a -1 for that portion of the equation or would they continue looking at how you "solved your problem"?