Simple Leveraging Rotating Header Image

Marketing

Article Marketing – Not dead yet

Sep 24th, 2011
by Admin.
No comments yet

Just a quickie as we update and prepare our next Free Members only Monthly Link Packet to be sent out.

One of my colleagues sent through to me a fairly neat little list that I thought might be of use to some of you out there who use Article Marketing as part of your Link Building Programme (and who shouldn’t be?)

Basically it’s a list of 276 Article Directories that are either Auto Approve or publish material extremely quickly. Now the methodology behind the compilation of this list is that a submission project was set up with a larger list via Article Marketing Robot (AMR) and two days later the 276 Directories in this list had been checked as showing that they had published the test article.

Now this list contains a couple of Directories with reasonable Homepage PR and they are as follows:

PR 4 – 4 Directories

PR 3 – 13 Directories

PR2 – 25 Directories

PR1 – 54 Directories

The rest are either PR0 or we couldn’t trace the PR but there might be the odd surprise in there.

Now as to the usability in practice of these, I would use these as follows.

Basically the fact that they publish quickly is an absolute godsend so you can submit and get published very quickly articles with your links in the Author Resource Box. Then via your favourite Back Linking tool, drive links very quickly to these Urls and so start the process towards building up a very powerful link Mountain (as we call it).

The bonus would be that this mountain would consist of in excess of 200 separate IP’s so perfect for “Panda Proofing” your Link Building Campaigns.

Easy really. The hard part is finding the Article Directories that publish very quickly for you to use?

As this is a small list and was supplied to me one of our suppliers, I can’t give the list away free of charge but the list can be bought and downloaded from here for $9:

http://simpleleveraging.com/bonuses/276AAlist.html

Give it a rattle (as we say over here).

Back to you soon with the new Free Members only Monthly Link Packet.

 

Are NoFollow Links any use?

Aug 17th, 2011
by Admin.
1 comment

This question was asked recently at one of the Forums that I participate in and I thought that the reply I gave might be of use here as well.

The answer to this is very straight forward. One of the most important factors that appears to have emerged in the latest Google “Algo” update was that they were now looking at the breadth, strength and variety of the inbound links that appear in your back links “landscape”. The old days of just getting loads of so called “dofollow” anchor links from one site / IP no longer cut it.

Now whilst folks have caught on about the IP diversity (still not to the extent they should have) people still haven’t fully appreciated the fact about “Link Diversity”. By this I mean that Google are looking now for a bank links landscape that as fully replicates that created by a human as possible. To this end they are now looking to see a variety in styles of links such as a mix of dofollow / nofollow, directs, indirects, typos etc in fact anything that looks like it could have been created by hand rather than an automatic submission bot.

At the same time time there appears to have been a re emergence of a concept they first looked at a few years ago called “Trust Rank”. This looks at the site that the inbound links originate from and assesses the “trustworthiness” or “authority status” of the site as it lies within your back links landscape. This is where EDU sites really come into their own and even if they only provide “nofollow” links. As most of these EDU Domains are virtually coming down with authority back links within their own profile, a lot of this is passed on in a way that is quite different to the old and now defunct (in reality) concept of Page Rank.

So to sum up (before I go too much about this) nofollow links from EDU domains are really valuable in a number of hitherto misunderstood ways. There are also a number of other factors that give benefit as well.

Reasons to be Cautious of Google +

Aug 4th, 2011
by Admin.
No comments yet

So, unless you’ve been hiding under a stone recently or have just arrived here from the Planet Zarg then it’s a safe bet that you’ve been hearing loads about Google+

So then why is it that yours truly is urging caution and reticence regarding this one in the latest series of offerings from our almighty Search Engine, the Big G.

Well first up, Google + is operated and run by Google.

Secondly, it’s run by Google…

And so on.

What more do you need here folks?

Lets be honest, Google’s track record in releasing offers like this is not exactly exemplary. Hands up all those who remember Google Buzz, Wave and Voice plus not to mention all those glorious Updates?

No my reasoning is more to do with the fact that I trust Google about as far as I can throw them at the moment but let me explain further.

It’s like this. You have a great website and you want to get some more action in Google over it but as we all know Google frown about all sorts of activities that might in some way give your site a slightly more competitive edge over the competition. So what do you do?  You get all your friends organised into one of these Google+ circles and get them all to “vote” for your site and then sit back and watch as your site climbs the charts?

Hmnnn, let’s think about it folks. You’ve been using a service run by Google to actually help in your intended aim of “gaming” Google.

The best bit of it all is that sooner or later some clown will come out with a WSO or E-book claiming that this is all one big Google Loophole and that this is going to be the next killer application and this is how you make it much better.

Just how dumb can we all get?

It’s like taking a big stick and standing there somewhere in the heart of the Congo Rain Forest and poking a big Gorilla with it. Folks, this, like the Google scenario, is not going to end well. Someone is likely to end up needing fairly intensive surgery and let me take this opportunity to say “it ain’t going to be Google…or the Gorilla.”

I mean, how clever is it to scheme up some really smart plan of actually creating a structure that is designed purely and solely for the purposes of getting round Google’s filters and structures….and then telling Google how we are going to do it…and when?

Let me finish this short newsletter with a quote taken from “The Filter Bubble” by Eli Pariser. In this short extract he describes the end of a conversation with a “Google insider” in which the subject of the Company Mantra “Do Not Be Evil” comes up:

“I once explained to a Google Search engineer that while I didn’t think the company was currently evil, it seemed to have at its fingertips everything it needed to do evil if it wished. He smiled broadly. “Right,” he said. “We’re not evil. We try really hard not to be evil. But if we wanted to, man, could we ever!””

Please treat Google+ with a huge amount of caution, especially if you are trying to use it as a form of SEO Weapon?

Panda 2.2, Trust Rank and 50 EDU Properties to place your own copy and Links

Jul 1st, 2011
by Admin.
No comments yet

Recently I wrote about some information we had gleaned about the latest Panda Update and touched upon the concept of “Trust rank” and as such have had quite a few emails asking could I elaborate on this further?

Well the story behind Trust Rank is this.

As a concept it has been researched by two separate organisations, Google and Yahoo. As a concept behind the scenes it had been around for some time in the Google camp but it was actually Yahoo who first went public about it really when one of their researchers alongside some research personnel from Stanford in 2004 put together a Paper entitled: “Combating Web Spam with TrustRank”. For those who want to pursue this matter further the paper has been retrieved and put online and can be found here:

http://www.vldb.org/conf/2004/RS15P3.PDF

Apparently at the same time Google had been doing some behind the scenes work on a similar concept called Trust Rank and registered the Trademark “Trustrank” as Matt Cutts (the public face of Google) explains here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8mUXQzwEvs

Now where all of this falls into place with my feelings in my last Newsletter are this. Google has been searching for some time to further provide more background analysis on the “worthiness” of Web Sites and how they stack up.

Initially this was to be provided by using data from their Page Rank analysis but since Page Rank has been generally accepted to have been on the slide for the past few years (Google themselves downgraded it from being the “jewel in the Crown” in the Search Algorithm now to being “one of 200 other ranking factors” – bit of a drop in emphasis I think you’ll agree?) they have had to look further afield.

They then decided to expand the Trust Rank concept further in 2009 when as well as having the Trademark registered they registered the Patent as well. Now things were getting really serious and it is only now some 2 -2 ½ years later that we are starting to see the true manifestation in this with the Panda Update.

Looking round for methods to try and help them get some sort of handle on the generally accepted worthiness of a site, they hit upon the idea of seeing how a site was viewed by virtue of how a site was viewed by its peers hence the appearance of the “+1” concept. Now this, as in all things, can be gerrymandered such is the good and bad side of human endeavour but it goes some way to showing where they are going.

The other parts of the Trust rank concept lie in an old view of “you are known by the Company that you keep” or who links to you. Now we know also that Google tried to control this with the much vaunted “rel=nofollow” attribute but once again this has now also turned into a dead duck so where does this all lead us?

Well as I said in one of the newsletters of a month ago that I felt that with Panda, Google were turning back the clock to almost the days of the late Nineties with their views on inbound links etc.

Now my views on this are as follows. I think that there are certain aspects of Linking that Google are trying to downplay in the algorithm but with the absence of any credible alternative they cannot nor ever will truly be able to remove data from Link Building entirely. So the upshot of that being is that for the time being we are all safe there folks as far as our Back Link building efforts are concerned but what I think Google are placing more emphasis now than perhaps they have done before, is the nature of the IP spread of those links.

Whereas in the past, conventional wisdom was that with a few PR5 – PR 6+ links from a couple of websites you could drive a site up the serps, now that is no longer true in the same way. What Google now want to see are links, but instead of a few folks voting i.e. just one or two sites they want to see loads more and those votes need to come from as wide a section of the Internet population than before.

So the upshot of all of this is that you need to have your links coming from a much wider variety of sites than before.

So what about Authority and Trust?

Now to further this and aid the overall Trust and Respect for a site, if you can throw as many links to your site from as many different types of sites as possible – so much the better especially if those links are from perceived trusted domains such as .Govs and .EDU’s.

Google’s love affair with .EDU’s and .Govs lies not as most folks think, in a fixation with the domain suffix but rather with the nature of the sites themselves. Indeed we have found in our own research that a great many Education / Academic sites that are not .EDU’s for instance are just as powerful if not more so at times.

For instance in the UK, the domain suffix .EDU doesn’t exist rather the academic suffix is .ac.uk and this is a the case in a great many other territories worldwide so as we have seen the power and authority doesn’t necessarily stem from the suffix, rather the nature of the site itself and that fact that these sites (as Matt Cutts himself has been quoted) tend to have loads of authority links pointing at them as well so this in turn gives their outbound links out more power.

So where does this leave rel=nofollow links from .EDU’s?

Exactly as where it left them before to be blunt. Just as powerful but with a different dimension i.e. the fact they originate from where they do carries a different set of weight rather than any PR juice that folks think they might not be able to impart.

For your own back links profile and authority status the fact that you might be able to count as many quality EDU links in your profile goes a long way to help confer “trust status” as far as the Search Engines are concerned.

To further this we have been running an associate program to our main Bookmarking Program and this has been centred round locating development spaces within various EDU properties where you can insert your own content under your own editorial control. Called the Lost Art of Conversation we have now reached Module 4 and in Module 4 we now have 50 EDU properties that you can insert your own Links and copy. Now these properties include a mixture of DoFollow and NoFollow links but as has now been conclusively proved for Trust and Authority status the NoFollow attribute is by and large of no consequence.

As with before we will only be releasing limited copies of this Module to the general public and I wanted to notify members of my Newsletter first. The uptake of previous Modules was such that they never actually made it to public release as they were all snapped up by readers of this newsletter and members of Simple Leveraging. The cost of Module 4 of The Lost Art will be $75 and if anyone is interested then send the $75 to info@simpleleveraging.com and I’ll forward the zip file with the contents through to you straight away.

 

Panda 2.2 – It’s a matter of Trust?

Jun 30th, 2011
by Admin.
No comments yet
I’ve been quite busy today trying to fathom out the fallout from the latest in the Google shake ups and it reminded me of a variation on an old joke and it goes like this:

A man is walking down a beach one day looking at the sea shore and also at the other side of the bay where he has to drive to work every day and also thinking about how long it takes him to drive to work and back every day and suddenly spies a bottle half submerged in the sand and his gives the bottle a kick.

There is suddenly a loud explosion followed by lots of smoke and a Genie appears looking very unhappy;

“What’s your problem mate? I’ve been asleep for thousands of years and you have to go and wake me up like that but as I’m here I have to follow tradition and give you a wish. Your wish is my command master?”

The man ponders on this and then comes up with an idea.

“I’d like you to build me a bridge joining this side of the bay to my place of work thirty miles away across the bay?”

The Genie looks at him incredulously and replies “Are you serious? Do you know how much steel and concrete that would require? The man hours, the materials, the environmental impact. Totally impossible but as this is not the answer you were looking for or expecting I’ll grant you one more wish?”

Now prior to going out for a walk that day the man had been spending some time at home on his PC trying to find a present for his wife using Google as a Search Engine with no luck and he thought:

“OK, I’d like you to tell me exactly how Google works and how they rank items as I couldn’t find a suitable present for my wife today”

The Genie looks at him slightly puzzled and then puts his arm round the man and starts to walk him down the beach and replies:

“Now tell me about this bridge you want me to build? Do you want one lane there and back or two….”

Such is life with Google at present but the one thing that is starting to appear as a constant is that Google is looking for quality content and also links from sites with authority and trust. This it would appear is almost more important than Page Rank. In fact it would appear that the much vaunted but never fully implemented concept of Trust Rank might at last be appearing again. Now this also touches upon another one of the supposedly “Sacred Cows” of the Internet – the “Nofollow Link”

Now to understand this fully you have to take a slightly more “holistic” view towards Link building and this was best described recently by a quote I found on another site recently:

“A link is not just about PageRank anymore, but trust and brand awareness. In fact, even though search engines do not carry PR through the no followed link to your site, they record it and they take notice that your site has been cited in a site. If that site is an authoritative one or a trusted seed, somehow its aura will reflect on your own web site, which will gain trust and relevance to the eyes of the search engines, therefore better rankings.”

Now taking this further, of the many important factors surrounding Links (and Google reputedly calculate up to 200 different factors in their current algorithm) the following three factors I think are of tremendous importance:

1.      There is More Than Link Juice That Determine Link Value

Going on the assumption that nofollow links don’t pass much link juice, they still pass relevance. Just because Google doesn’t “count” the link, doesn’t mean that they don’t see what anchor text is being used. The anchor text is still showing the search engines what your site is about and is passing relevancy.

2.      Some NoFollowed Links Are Very Trust-worthy

I (and others) also believe that nofollow links pass trust. If you have a link on Wikipedia or a major Academic Establishment for example, do you really believe that the search engines won’t pay attention to that link? If you can get links on highly trusted domains, whether they are nofollow or not, they will be taken into consideration by the search engines.

3.      Keep It Real (and Natural)

Lastly, if you’re building incoming links to your site and almost all of them are dofollow links, your link profile is going to look very unnatural. A natural link profile will have nofollow links, dofollow links, different domains (.info., org, .com, etc.) and various types of anchor text (brand name, url only, keywords, “click here”, etc). This is how a link profile should look and this is how you build a trusted domain.

To support this hypothesis I came across the following Blog Post from quite an eminent SEO Practitioner recently and it rather interestingly supports this theory:

http://www.socialseo.com/blog/an-experiment-nofollow-links-do-pass-value-and-rankings-in-google.html

There are more recent blog posts and discussions but I thought this post from late 2010 was still fairly relevant but now more so with the antics of our big Panda shaped friend.

So I believe that the upshot of all of this is that if you can get a link or series of links from a fairly trustworthy source then it is going to do wonders for your Link Building.  Link Building should not all be about how you can gerrymander a profile using just tightly focussed terms and only DoFollow links but other aspects as well.

Get some links from some trustworthy sources regardless of the attribute and you’ll be surprised at what they can do.

Just like waiting for a Bus – Nothing happens then along come two at once!!

Jun 28th, 2011
by Admin.
No comments yet

We have saying here in the UK (and I’m sure it’s the same all over the world with different regional variations) and it goes like this.

“It’s like waiting for a London Bus – nothing happens for a long time and then along come two at once”

Well folks such is life with Google at the moment. Not only did they shake the world big time earlier this year with their not so cute and very definitely not so cuddly Panda Update but they’ve just gone one (if not two times definitely worse) better by now not only hitting us with “Panda The Sequel 2.2 – The Search Engine fights back” followed by the latest in their PR Updates which to be honest if you follow these things carefully is nothing short of a joke.

Sadly this one’s “a joke with a jag” (as we say over here in Northern Ireland) as the joke has left a bitter and sour taste in the mouths of web developers the world over.

To be honest it’s a bit early for a full report and understanding of what is going on and certainly as far as the PR Update is concerned as that is still ongoing according to Industry types the world over but “Panda the Sequel” or “Return of the SEO’s” (how many Star Wars gags can a guy crack – answer loads if needed?) is going to cause almost as much grief as the original one caused if initial feedback is concerned.

Watch this space and we’ll get some feedback live as soon as we can.

Index Schmindex..who cares and another $324 good reasons to be a member of Simple Leveraging.

May 24th, 2011
by Admin.
No comments yet

OK, well just in case anyone out there thinks I’ve finally lost my marbles and that the present Mrs Morgan (“she who must be obeyed”) is hastily calling for the ambulance whilst I type let me explain.

I was sitting monitoring a conversation on a particular Skype group this morning and the subject about indexing and de-indexing came up and what was really sad was the amount of disinformation that was being spread about what was going on so I thought I would throw my hat into the ring and explain a little about how Google especially reports data.

It’s easier to explain via a Video so I’ve put the video live on our YouTube Channel for those who want to take a look.

The bottom line is this. Google is arguably the most unstable of all of the Search Engines with the upside of this being that it is also possibly the most reactive. It’s probably quicker to get a site into Google – if you know the system and work it correctly then getting a site into Google can be like taking the family dog for a walk and getting it to come back onto the lead when you go home. Whistle at the right time and the faithful family mutt will come bounding along just in time to be taken home for tea.

Google won’t always come round for tea but if you go through the right procedure then getting good old faithful Googlebot to trot along to your site and index you can be easier than you think – especially if you have gone through the very basic Link Building 101 and have your own site map profile set up in Webmaster Tools.

Anyway, the video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oca8LMv3_o and it explains in very simple language how Google result can change and vary from territory to territory i.e. when a No 1 in Google isn’t always a No 1 across the board.

Lastly a bit of “SLS chest throwing out”. I was looking at the Warrior Forum the other day and thought that one particular WSO seemed to be good value for money etc. It was one of those discussions streams where you could get 101 Blog Urls where the PR was on the page where the comment was and not the domain. 101 Blog Urls for $27?

Not bad eh?

Then I looked at last Month’s Free Link Packet from “the leveragers” and saw that it contained 184 Blog Urls:

PR 6  7 Blog Urls

PR 5  22 Blog Urls

PR 4  31 Blog Urls

PR 3  67 Blog Urls

PR 2  51 Blog Urls

PR 1  3 Blog Urls

Included in the above are 24 EDU Urls of which 3 are PR1, 5 are PR2, 10 are PR3, 5 are PR4 and there was one PR6 EDU Blog Url for commenting upon.

And the above was free if your membership was in good standing.

So there you have it folks..$324 good reasons to be a member of Simple Leveraging. Not only as a full member do you get access to the largest Do Follow Social Bookmark Directory Network on the Internet but you also get more than $324 worth of Link Building freebies thrown in throughout the year.

For those considering upgrading their membership then we are still running the promotion whereby we discount the fee to $269 if you donate $30 to the Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice so even more of a saving.

Get in touch if you are interested.

Usual deal gang, any questions ask away either in the Forum or email directly to me.

Cheers

Steve

In Search of an Authority Link?

May 9th, 2011
by Admin.
No comments yet

I’m perhaps going to be fairly controversial in this post but then perhaps not, I’m not too sure?

I’ve just received an email a few minutes ago from another marketer who I know quite well and wouldn’t want to criticise publicly because I think that would be unprofessional but the email made me fairly uncomfortable and that is going some…

The email revolved around the concept of .mil links and the concept of authority links. Now I think if we’re not too careful we all stand the chance of missing the plot big time over this.

Firstly let me state my position and background in this and you will then at least see that this isn’t some shameless “lame brained” attempt at jealousy because someone else has “beaten me to the jump” over this.

I’ve been sitting on a substantial four figure database of .mil domains for the last few months now and those of you who know me really well will have known that I’ve discussed the prospect of this with you. I’ve not done anything with them as to be honest I’ve been completely at a cross roads with what to do with them.

Sure, it would have been very tempting and the easy way out just to unload the database or release elements in snippets and just exploit the living daylights out of it but for the first time in my life I just never found my way round to doing it and that after a few months has told me something.

The turning point came the other day when I ran a test piece of research as to what exactly there was out there in possible link inventory and unearthed a whole series of blogs that were open for comments. I thought OK let’s give this a go and see where we go from here and then I read the blog (always a good idea) and thought (as we say over here in Northern Ireland) “catch yourself on here Steve”.

The Blog was an exchange between a Lieutenant General and an old soldier who was discussing the merits of basic training at Fort Benning amongst others and related to the basic training and merits of modern methods over the old. Now as I say this was a blog, that was unmoderated, open for comments and was dofollow, it satisfied all the criteria necessary for technically a good inbound link.

The usual ideal criteria were present i.e. massive inbound links amount and all from the usual domain suffixes i.e. plenty of .Govs, .EDU’s and so on but then I thought, does this comment I’m about to make and link I’m about to place actually contribute constructively to the “Food Chain” here?

I know damn all about basic training in the US Military, heck I wasn’t even a good Boy Scout when I was kid so what am I doing here? Then it all made sense.

Get the heck out of here and then think.

What was it that made me go there in the first place and it all suddenly made sense about what is going on and we’re all chasing the wrong dollar in the wrong arena.

You see what was it that supposedly made me go there? It was part of the endless quest for an “Authority Link” and then I realised that by and large we are all getting this massively wrong and by doing so giving the Search Engines a massive laugh at the same time.

You see the initial criteria was, this must be an authority domain as it was very rare, had lots of inbound links pointing to it from very “sexy” and “desirable” domain suffixes i.e. .Gov’s, .EDU’s etc etc but then I thought hang on here Steve, you’re chasing the domain suffix here not the site or content itself.

Now I am sure that if you run a site based around selling US Military Memorabilia or Army Surplus equipment then it all perhaps made sense though I am still not too sure how this old soldier and Lieutenant General would react when they saw my so called meaningful contribution about Training with a link through to a client site about Fitness Equipment.

Now there are certain web domains and categories that you can get away with this i.e. it’s fair game on most .EDU’s and .Govs as in most cases they want to set up some sort of exchange of dialogue and as long as you comment properly and enter into the exchange of communication responsibly then it doesn’t actually make that much difference as to what the domain you are using as your target link is…as long as it’s legal.

Now inbound links from somewhere like Kings College in Cambridge, The Physics Lab at the University of London or Yale, Harvard, Stanford etc are true Authority links because of the nature of the site themselves and the kudos of the domain suffix involved i.e. the .EDU suffix.

I am not too sure whether the same applies to .mil suffixes. Sure they are rare but then so is a four leaf shamrock but that doesn’t make a site about Irelands very own native vegetation an authority site or source (unless of course you have a site about rare forms of Flora and Fauna).

Also in the current climate with world events being what they are I am not too sure whether I fancied arousing the wrath of the US Military and a certain Lieutenant General.

I don’t think this is the case, it is more a case of just thankfully being able to step back and take some time out and re evaluate my thinking and criteria about the search for an Authority Link.

Rareness of a domain suffix does not grant it “Authority Status”, 100% top notch gold plated content from an independent source with no axe to grind does.

Therefore in my mind, .EDU’s and .Govs still rank top of the pile not because of the domain suffix but because of the nature of the sites themselves and the content by and large to be found on them.

The Hidden Potential Darkside of Googles latest activities

Apr 18th, 2011
by Admin.
No comments yet

On Monday April 11th, Google announced officially to the world that the Panda Update now applied to Google results outside of North America.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/04/high-quality-sites-algorithm-goes.html

Now on the face of it the new update has by and large seemed OK so far to us here at “Leveraging Central”. If anything the only thing we have noticed is that the average SERPS level of pages has risen and that for some reason the Nett Yield on the Adsense units has also increased. We’re not too sure whether there is any correlation here or whether this has more to do with the start of the Advertising Second Quarter and hence more budget being freed up but nonetheless any increase in revenue is gratefully appreciated in these “inclement economic times”.

So back to what Google have been up to.

As we have mentioned before, the update appears to be concentrating very much on ensuring that quality reigns supreme but then Google go and do what only Google do best and that is to push things so far that ultimately they screw up.

When you consider matters pertaining to Google I’m often reminded of the old sixties classic duet between Frank and Nancy Sinatra “Something Stupid” where the line goes “and then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid….” only in this case it’s doing something and that stupid thing in our books is the new addition of the facility within the new Google Chrome Extension that allows viewers to block domains from their results if required. Now this in isolation is not necessarily a bad thing if handled ethically and correctly but therein lies the rub. This facility has other features and aspects too.

In a couple of comments that I found disconcerting Google via Matt Cutts let this one slip out of the bag:

” If installed, the extension also sends blocked site information to Google, and we will study the resulting feedback and explore using it as a potential ranking signal for our search results.”

Another Google insider also stated:

“While we’re not currently using the domains people block as a signal in ranking, we’ll look at the data and see whether it would be useful as we continue to evaluate and improve our search results in the future.”

Now as Chris Crum in Webpronews.com said:

“One has to wonder how Google would use such a signal in a way that could not be gamed by people getting their competitors’ sites blocked. There are other potential abuse scenarios as well. Personal spite comes to mind.

It’s possible that it could become a ranking signal and nobody will ever know for sure. Google will not reveal its entire list of signals. They may keep this one close to the chest, although that doesn’t mean it won’t still get abused based on hunches.”

Overall the new “algo” change could be a good thing but to be honest, my advice to all of our Clients in our SEO Division is to really consider diversifying all of their SEO Promotion and to proactively go after good results in Yahoo and Bing as to be honest no one knows where this new Google Direction is going to end up.

Lastly, we have a few copies of the FUDForum and Nabble Lists (both $15 each) that were available last week still available so if anyone is still interested in positively diversifying their IP Back Links structure (and who shouldn’t) then get in touch.

Pandas Still on the Loose plus new Links Service available

Mar 14th, 2011
by Admin.
No comments yet

Hi Gang,

May I preface this newsletter / email with a few words to those
of our readers and members who are either based in Japan or have
Relatives / Loved ones affected by the events of the recent few
days.

May I just simply say this? You are in our thoughts and prayers
and from all of those here may I wish you respite and care from
the tragedy and if you are one of those unlucky enough to have
been affected by personal tragedy then may whatever deity it is
you worship, may they look after you in the days and months ahead.

Without wishing to sound facetious at this point, to the matter
in hand and that is, further analysis of the Panda Update.

No doubt like you all, I appear to have been inundated with material
and information about this and to clear up some confusion about
possible conflicts may I just say that there was only just one
update form Google and that the “Panda” and “Farmer Updates” are
on and the same.

The official term for the update as far as Google are concerned
(well Messrs Cutts and Singal anway) is “Panda” but as the main
thrust of the update was to redress the situation primarily
surrounding Content Farms and/or issues of  excessive Dupe Content
the Update has become unofficially known as the Farmer Update.

As I said, this can be confusing and misleading and all of those
new products that have arisen from many a so called expert proclaiming
the upside and opportunities of the Farmer Update should technically
not be so confusing (makes you wonder what else they’re getting
slightly out of kilter but….) more misleading to the rest of
us.

Onwards with our take on it however (Free of charge ?). Now
today’s contribution comes by and large from some information
gleaned from Word tracker and our aim on the days and weeks
ahead is to try and bring to you information from as many sources
as possible to help you work your way through the update

Apparently, the aims of Panda are noble: to remove poor quality
sites from the top of Google’s results pages. Or as Matt Cutts,
Google’s head of spam, puts it in a blog post announcing Panda:

“This update is designed to reduce rankings for low-quality
sites–sites which are low-value add for users, copy content
from other websites or sites that are just not very useful.
At the same time, it will provide better rankings for high-quality
sites–sites with original content and information such as research,
in-depth reports, thoughtful analysis and so on.”

The last thing Google wants is searchers being unhappy with
what they find. They might try another search engine if that
happens.

Few people other than the low-quality sites’ owners and their
investors will have a problem with that.

But all major Google updates leave ‘collateral damage’ behind
them: sites that just don’t match the target or deserve to be
penalised. Google are aware of this and so have asked those with
“a high quality site that has been negatively affected by this
change” to let them know about it here.

So if you have a high quality site that’s been adversely affected
by Panda Farmer then let Google know.

So what Factors are likely to trigger off a Panda Attack?

- A high % of duplicate content. This might apply to a page,
a site or both. If it’s a site measure then that might contribute
to each page’s evaluation.

- A low amount of original content on a page or site.

- A high % (or number) of pages with a low amount of original
content.

- A high amount of inappropriate (they don’t match the search
queries a page does well for) adverts, especially high on the page.

- Page content (and page title tag) not matching the search queries
a page does well for.

- Unnatural language on a page including heavy-handed on-page
SEO (‘over-optimization’ to use a common oxymoron). Eg, unnatural
overuse of a word on a page.

- High bounce rate on page or site.

- Low visit times on page or site.

- Low % of users returning to a site.

- Low click through % from Google’s results pages (for page
or site).

- High % of boilerplate content (the same on every page).

- Low or no quality inbound links to a page or site (by count or %).

- Low or no mentions or links to a page or site in social media
and from other sites.

If any of these factors is relevant to Panda, it is unlikely
that they will be so on their own.

Combinations of factors will be required to get ‘Panda points’
(and points do not mean prizes in this game). Panda points will
be added up. Cross a threshold (Panda’s redline) and you are
‘blocked’.

‘Blocked’ is Matt Cutts’ word, used in that Wired interview:
“Whenever we look at the most blocked sites, it did match our
intuition and experience”. This suggests that …

… if a site gets defined as low quality then a penalty is applied
(it is ‘blocked’).

Google have since said that “low quality content on part of a
site can impact a site’s ranking as a whole.”

But ‘Low quality’ sites are not always ‘blocked’ (Matt’s use
of ‘most’ tells us this). So there must be exceptions to this
site-wide penalty.

Anyway enough of this at present and as and when more research
and information becomes available we’ll pass it on through.

Lastly we had a few questions sent through to us about our latest
initiative..”Precision Related Marketing”.

Precision Related Marketing” (hereinafter PRM) relates primarily
to drilling down and researching from one main keyword or phrase
an associate network of terms via Google’s Wonder Wheel and then
taking that list and data mining as many Blog Urls we can find
that fall within this keyword list and that are also available
for commenting upon.

We further refine this list until we are primarily left with
Blog Urls where the Page Rank is PR2 or greater for the Blog
Url itself and not the domain. This as you can imagine therefore
gives you a list of immense power in two categories. Firstly
the Blog Url for commenting lies within the direct theme or is
semantically linked to your main theme so is ideal for Google’s
purposes and secondly the actual Url itself for commenting upon
has been recognised by Google through its Url Page Rank as being
fairly noteworthy.

We’ve been using this technique within our own Client SEO Division
for some time now and the clients love it and as far as “Panda”
is concerned this ticks all the boxes. The comments are on relative
thematically linked pages and also pages with previously assessed
power as far as Google is concerned.

We will be rolling this programme out to our members shortly
but in the short term are going through presentations to clients
several times a day. This means that we are generating huge
surplus data sets that we cannot use within the short term
future and have been letting these go “at cost” to those members
of SLS who have blogs or networks of sites that suit whatever
particular Data Set we have available.

To give you an idea of how it works and the costs the Urls are
sold on a pro rata basis. The more powerful the page i.e. the
greater the Page Rank then the more expensive the cost. The
rate card is at present as follows:

PR7 Pages $700 per thousand Urls

PR6 Pages $600 per thousand Urls and so on down to PR 2.

One member recently bought one list from us and whilst the theme
must remain anonymous the list comprised of 8,579 Blog Urls and
the cost breakdown was as follows AT RETAIL PRICE:

PR    Unit Cost No    Total

8    800    1    0.8
7    700    3    2.1
6    600    64    38.4
5    500    360    180
4    400    1804    721.6
3    300    3157    947.1
2    200    3190    638
8579    2528

The Retail total price that we charge our clients would have
been $2,528 for 8,579 Urls for links which at a unit price is
an average 29 cents per link Url which is a steal. As this was
data generated for demo purposes we sold this particular batch
for $500 which was effectively at cost.

As this is all data that is generated by our suppliers we cannot
give this away for free but even at cost is one heck of a steal
(as they say). There is a minimum fee of $100 and if necessary
the member could have just bought the PR5-8 links if they so decided
and the charge for this would have been $221 but they decided
to go for the lot and as such we were able to pass these on at
a massive discount.

Anyway before I go on too much about this we have a few data sets
left over in the following subject themes:

Finance

Health

Iphones

Smartphones

Real Estate

Television

Technology

Stress

Anxiety

So if there are members out there who would like Urls for Links
plus Keywords in any of the areas above then get in touch and
we’ll see what we can do. Also we have an expanding list of
presentations coming up in the next few weeks and if there are
any members out there who would like additional areas covered
not mentioned above then now is the time to let us know as the
subject area matters not at all to us, this data is purely for
demo purposes and we are more than happy to pass this info through
at cost if the SLS member so wishes.

Let me know if anyone is interested.

Speak soon

Steve

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes