Fair pointQuote:
Originally Posted by thebookiesoffers
Printable View
Fair pointQuote:
Originally Posted by thebookiesoffers
I'm sure a lot of you have seen this already but there was a good post on Moz recently with results of a survey to see which features correlate to better rankings in 2013. Heres the link to the graph http://moz.com/rand/wp-content/uploa...ions-13big.gif. I've found it quite useful for comparing my own site with competitors and scoring myself against them. It then makes it easy to work out where I need to improve.
It was no surprise to me that I fall down on links. It seems to me that the spammy link building techniques are still working as just recently I have seen several spammy sites pop up from no where with a PA and DA of 1 yet still ranking quite high for a fairly competitive keyword. I've worked hard over the last few months to really improve all aspects of my site including content, UX and page speed. Yet other sites that are building spammy links including web 2.0's are still outranking me. So I don't believe its all to do with good quality content at all. The only time that case rings true is when you're in a niche where your users are likely to want to share your content, for example tutorials or research. In the gambling sector all our users want is to land on your site, find the best deal and move on. They aren't going to be liking or tweeting your excellent content because they just don't give a s**t about that kind of thing.
As much as I'd rather it wasn't, I feel it's still a case of buying links and building web 2.0's in gambling. Yet I try to remind myself this is a marathon and not a sprint.
I've not bought a link, blog post, directory listing, or anything that "plays" similar in well over three years. While I can always find something in terms of my rankings that I'd like to improve, I'm quite happy with my rankings across the few websites we own and actively work on.
My focus is 100% content based. My content has never been an issue. Well, that isn't totally accurate as there was a time when the quality of what we were publishing dropped - but that was intentional, as 300-400 word content was outperforming/outranking the more lengthy and thorough content at the time. When that changed, so did the standards for what we published.
Now, whether I write or I have a writer writing for me, I go through the content with a fine tooth comb. At times, I think it is counter-productive to even have a writer working for me because the final product is so different from the submitted work after I've edited the article/review. Whatever we publish - whether a review, a how-to article, or on a general topic is done 100% for the visitor - not for the search engine, not with the purpose of adding another category to a "rate sheet", not so others will "share", "like", or "plus 1", and certainly not for "link bait".
I don't mean to sound arrogant, but my standards for what I publish are much higher than anyone else's in our niche that I've come across. I don't do guest blog posts because quite frankly, the content is better used on my own site rather than bringing visitors to someone else's site - of which some will click on to me whilst others will move around the site I've guest posted on. Plus, if my rankings begin to tumble, the first thing I'm going to think about is that link/guest post. For that reason alone, eliminating the guest posting and link buys helps me to sleep better at night.
People have tried this tactic per my suggestion and dismiss it as rubbish. However, to me it is either their definition of quality content does not come close to matching mine or it is that their resolve runs a bit short (i.e. - I've tried this for two whole weeks and I'm still not ranking. It doesn't work, time to buy links because so and so's site is ranking and they have 2500 links to their 1 page **** site).
Shay, are you able to outrank others for medium-high competitive terms through the tactics you employ? Or do you generate traffic through long tail keywords? Does the content you create attract likes or shares?
I generally hit "at least" page 1 (not always ranking #1 but top ten/top seven) in the SERPS for medium-high competitive terms that I target and I outrank most all of my competition. I also generate traffic through long-tails.Quote:
Originally Posted by benji
I've earned likes or shares for 2 or 3 pages that I'm aware of. Same can be said for links. I've never asked for any of them though nor have I published the page thinking to myself "lots of people are going to like/share/link to this page".
I would be interested to know why you are against sharing Likes? They have no effect on Google ranking, and are totally different to sharing links.
It is not that I'm totally against them. As a person, I've never been one to show off or play the "look at me" game, so showing someone something with the intention of "getting a like" is not my style. From a professional standpoint, there is better use of my time going out to seek or obtain or swap likes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambling Joe
That's fair enough, but each to their own otherwise everything would be identical.
you have to look at the bigger picture. saying facebook like have no effect on rankings is looking very 2 dimensional at itQuote:
Originally Posted by Gambling Joe
Now they want no follow tags on all widgets look at this http://www.seroundtable.com/google-n...nks-17217.html
Next week they will penalize sites with no follow tags on widgets.
A like is a link. It is one facebook page liking (linking to or voting on) another facebook page. For many MANY years links were sold with the same terminology, that being that the link (do follow) is a "vote" for the page being linked to.Quote:
and are totally different to sharing links
To say these are not links is incorrect thinking in my opinion.
Like link exchanges, some people do it and some do not.
Rick
Universal4
Saw this article discussing ranking factors for 2013 http://www.searchmetrics.com/en/serv...-factors-2013/ this seemed like the right place to post this ;)
SEO has been changed totally. Link building is still important to create quality back links rather than quantity.
seeing as you are bombing every SEO for some reason can you give some insight to this post? What are your reasons for this belief?Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahangel
I also have this belief and further believe a Google +1 holds even more weight than a Facebook like. I remember once I wrote a piece of content that went viral, it got 60+ likes on Facebook (way more than I'd ever had before on this particular site, my best number to date was 19) and the search engine traffic to that particular post for the next month or so was very high. So I believe social signals are indeed playing a bigger part in ranking these days although I think 'social links' don't have the longevity that normal backlinks have. Possibly because social media is about what's happening in the 'here and now'.Quote:
Originally Posted by universal4
Thoughts?
Wow that's a big development but do they really have the technology sophisticated enough to pick out these kind of widget links?Quote:
Originally Posted by edgarf76
Grrr Matt Cutts is such a party pooper :punch:
We've been discussing G+ on this thread https://www.gpwa.org/forum/google-1-...gs-213137.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by andrew.macfarlane
I have the same approach to SEO in 2013 as I did in 2012, quality content. It'll be the same approach in 2014 too, and so on...
I want to share an article about SEO tips 2013 http://www.forbes.com/sites/dansimon...tips-for-2013/
I think that the most valuable metrix are Trust Flow and DA now.
Linkbuilding became a litte bit more complicated as there are more requirments for backlinks and it's more difficult to get it.
Content is the king))
Also I think that role of social networks was overestimated, everyone use them and evenyually they turned into spammy marketplace where more marketers then potential customers, besides social networks don't have influence on seo.