Pengiun Related: Ever Think Of This?



conv3rsion said:
ding ding ding ding ding

Want to rank a commercial term right now?

Don't have an EMD for the term in your url (unless its super hyphenated which doesn't count) + buy lots links with random anchors + buy a few links with the anchor term from relevant authority pages + focus on a page other than the homepage + onsite the term on the page

you win easily.


Want to fix your site?

While I can't confirm this will work yet, go find out which page on your site IS still ranking for the term (hopefully its not your privacy policy) and do above for that page, and build random links to your homepage.
Click to expand...

also focus on links from sites in your niche, that seems to matter as well
 
AdHustler said:
Those that do something to fix their rankings are obvious SEO'ers because the reality is they are trying to manipulate their rankings back to where they were. Those that do nothing are not SEO'ers and will regain their rankings later because they did nothing. Almost like a trap.

I know it seems conspiracy theoriesh, but conspiracy theories are fun.

Your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

No because everyone is doing something about it. Even the non-SEOs that had their website drop in the rankings will want to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. It's just the normal thing to do IMHO. Anyone that had a serious website that they put a lot of efforts and work into will try to salvage it by cleaning their link profile and scaling down the optimization.

Google can't conclude that anyone trying to clean up their link portfolio is a spammer/blackhatter. It just doesn't make sense.

EDIT: Remember that Google doesn't hate SEO'ers, they hate spammers. Matt Cutts loves Rand Fishkin and Rand Fishkin loves Matt Cutts.
 
I've said this on other threads, but it still wouldn't surprise me if this algo isn't multi-tiered, and whatever 'webspam' changes they made get applied at different levels given a set of qualifying factors - a sot of 'If A, then B' kinda thing.

Like if you have a time spent on site of X and bounce rate of Y, you're allowed to get away with A. If you have a time spent on site of A and a bounce rate of B, you're allowed to get away with C.

(Or whatever their qualifying factors are, though user interaction wouldn't surprise me.)

And so on.

No basis for this idea - just a sort of gut feeling.
 
*sigh*

I tried with that white hat SE0 u told me, but it seems it just doesn't work.

I guess I'm back to my black hat practices.
 
SEO is dead. What if we paid Russian hackers to hack Google and manually change the rankings of our sites? Way more effective than SEO.

BRB, writing ebook and creating WSO.




lolwut?
 
OP, your suggestion doesn't stand logic. Google doesn't have the computing powers required to snapshot each site before and after and then crunch the numbers. AND there will need to be a huge exception list of authority sites (define authority), otherwise users will be pissed. Besides, it's expected for people to do SOMETHING about their dropped ranking, so picking out those who act or even those who don't doesn't make sense.
 
dancing_bull.gif
dancing_bull.gif

dancing_bull.gif

dancing_bull.gif
 
I've had a local business site for the past 4 years, slow constant link building for the first year getting links from small time related sites and some bigger authoritative non-related sites (I'd say mix about 80/20 maybe 2-3k links). I haven't touched it (updated content or built links) in 3 years. Site now ranks above huge sites like home depot and other big box stores. SEO is dead.
 
Move thin, irrelevant, garbage sites to the top. Push down quality sites with good content. Lower quality of user experience. Adjust future serp's according to the website's that remain static.

Sounds like a plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom