One of the central goals of all the major search engines has always been to limit the extent to which manipulative activity could affect the top search results. It's been my general opinion that there's no better place to start this enforcement than our field, search engine optimization, and the SEO companies that offer this service. After all, if you're going to police the practice and claim that "white hat" techniques are effective and permissible while manipulative ones don't garner results, you've got to take the most caution on the results for those seeking SEO services. If you're not careful and those who manipulate wind up ranking in top results for queries related to getting their sites and pages ranking, this could (nay, would) give the impression that manipulation is, indeed, par for the course.
Therefore, it was disappointing to see the following search result at Google for the query "SEO Company:"
If you're a frequent reader of this blog, you know I don't lightly call out manipulative activities in the search results very often (even though I love ID'ing gamers almost as much as these guys). In fact, I usually do it only when it really raises my ire and this is one of those cases for two big reasons. First, I think that the SEO-related results, particularly those on page 1 for popular queries, need to be among the most carefully monitored. Otherwise, you're treating the symptoms instead of curing the disease - allow manipulation in these results and you encourage it everywhere else. Second, I find Google's endorsement of this site via sitelinks (and make no mistake, sitelinks send a definitive message to a searcher that this singular site is not "a" result, but "THE" result for this query) especially egregious.
Here's an excerpted SEW blog post from earlier this year:
This morning I got an email (my tenth) from a company that hadn’t read my rules: National Positions, an “SEO” firm out of California, promising me “five times the RELEVANT traffic at a substantially reduced cost.” The site, which I’ve linked to above using a 302 redirect so as not to give out any of my link juice, said they could place my “website on top of the Natural Listings on Google, Yahoo and MSN” using their “proprietary techniques” and “valuable closely held trade secrets,” without using “link farms or black hat methods.” And they charge “less than half of what other companies charge!” Awesome.
So I checked out their site, and their SEO service includes: Keyword Market Intelligence (umm…keyword research), Meta-Data Optimization (sweet), Title Optimization and a Best Practices Doc. Considering most companies give away most of that info for free, their prices must be excellent. Their “proprietary trade secrets” don’t seem to include, as far as I can tell, any blackhat techniques, so there is no need to worry about National Positions being the next Traffic Power (who cold-called me back in the day), but it’s still a rip-off.
Sadly, while what they're engaging in may not technically be black hat, it is certainly not the kind of SEO I'd like to see rewarded (and not the type I think the engines want to encourage either). Let's take a look at just how they've achieved that position using our new friend, Linkscape, and our old friend, Site Explorer:
SIGNAL 1: Linkscape shows me 757 juice-passing (non-nofollowed) links pointing to the URL from 493 unique fully-qualified domains. Since Linkscape also says that there are 777 links to the pay level domain (*.nationalpositions.com) from 442 unique pay-level domains, that tells me nearly everything points to the homepage.
SIGNAL 2: Anchor text distribution. Linkscape is showing me that they're earning an incredibly disproportionate share of what I'd call "optimized" anchor text. Have a peek:
If, like me, you've run a lot of reports like this on a lot of domains, you've probably noticed that this almost never happens naturally. The homepage of companies that aren't called "SEO Company" don't usually accumulate anchor text that contains "SEO Company" - it's almost always indicative of spurious behavior.
SIGNAL 3: The links themselves usually have a story to tell. Let's look at a few of the ones passing the most value (in particular, those using "seo company" in their anchor text):
Those don't look great - pretty much all low quality directories (and digging down the list of the other 700+ links we've got doesn't help much). These are the kind of links you hope wouldn't help rankings, particularly for such a competitive search phrase. In fact, clicking through to many of these, it appears they have no visible toolbar PageRank (not all, but many), which suggest Google probably already discounts a lot of them. However, a ton of these are in Google's index (and their link builder made it easy by using the same description when submitting to a lot of these) - note SERPs like this one and this one.
If we check out Site Explorer's link list, the prognosis isn't getting much better:
Yahoo! reports about 2X the number Linkscape does, but the samples look pretty much the same: low quality directories all with external links that say "SEO Company." If this is the kind of SEO we should be performing for our clients to help them rank competitively (which is precisely what the engines suggest when they rank them so highly), why exactly do we work so hard on quality content and attracting links naturally?
BTW - Google's not the only one with this issue:
That's Yahoo! above. SEOCompany.ca is, if I remember correctly, Bob Mutch's firm, and they do solid work and have earned a big following with the great lists of SEO tools and resources they put out free to the community. I'm not sure what they did to tick off Google, but I see them ranking around #250, maybe because of geo-targeting to me in the US?
Live doesn't do a terrible job here (seo company SERPs at Live), although the first two results aren't geo-targeted very well and there are some other manipulative folks in the top 10. And poor Ask.com is also putting our friends at #1 (seo company SERPs at Ask).
Let me cut straight to the point. I don't have any problem with what NationalPositions.com is doing. They found a way to rank well, leveraged it and are now getting dozens, maybe hundreds of daily inquiries for SEO help from companies who want to emulate their success in their own markets. Where I struggle is with the engines claiming that SEO in this fashion doesn't work and shouldn't be effective, then rewarding this kind of behavior with clients who are now going to get and apply these exact same tactics. A relevant analogy might find the court system giving out win after win to attorneys pursuing frivolous lawsuits - propping up their background with winning records, thus ensuring that more needless cases enter the system.
I know web spam is hard. We actually tried to build a spam metric into Linkscape at launch and found it to be a real Mt. Everest sized problem. But after 10+ years in the game, to find Google, the leader in this arena, giving sitelinks on results like these just doesn't sit well with me, and it shouldn't sit well with anyone else who employs best practices in white hat SEO.
p.s. If you're planning to report web spam of your own in the search engines (and technically, the behavior we're observing above isn't spam - it's just directory link building), Google likes to receive it from your Webmaster Tools account, Yahoo! appreciates it at their Site Explorer Suggestions Center and Microsoft/Live has a spiffy forum. Many in the SEO sphere have found that, perplexingly, spam gets dealt with fastest when it's blogged about - making sites like YOUmoz and Sphinn havens for this activity.
p.p.s. No, SEOmoz is not trying to rank for "SEO Company" and yes, there are some great results that could show up in those SERPs - like:
- Jim Boykin's SEO Company (WeBuildPages), who has a remarkable track record with success, though they are quite expensive.
- Wil Reynolds and the excellent SEO Company, Thinkseer.
- Jessie Stricchiola's San Francisco SEO Company, Alchemist Media.
- Matt Foster's excellent SEO Company, ArteWorks.
- A fairly decent, if simplistic article from Yahoo! on When to Hire an SEO Company.
- Another good piece by Scott Buresh on Lockergnome about Using an SEO Company.
- And, of course, anyone on our extensive list of recommended SEO Companies.
Just trying to illustrate that it's not a vast wasteland of results - there's good stuff that could be showing for that query.
I don't know if what you've done is outed them on anything - since I can't really see that they've gone against any guidelines.
Google Guidelines says: Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings. A good rule of thumb is whether you'd feel comfortable explaining what you've done to a website that competes with you. Another useful test is to ask, "Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn't exist?"
What, if anything, has this site done that would go against this?
They submitted to directories (where people would go if search engines didn't exist) and they optimized their anchor text to describe the kind of company they are - since their domain name may be a little vague.
Oh - and they are an SEO company. So they aren't misleading any users. Hell, for all I know they could be a great SEO company that actually gets their clients to rank.
I'm of course not vouching for their company and I'm not vouching for every link they have, I'm only going off of what you've displayed here.
Are they following SEO best practices? That depends on how we define a best practice.
Some people might think if it gets you a #1 ranking and site links it may be a best practice. Other people might think otherwise.
I think your statements below show there is a disconnect between how we think (hope/wish) the search engines work and how they actually work.
"Sadly, while [what] they're engaging in may not technically be black hat, it is certainly not the kind of SEO I'd like to see rewarded (and not the type I think the engines want to encourage either)."
"These are the kind of links you hope wouldn't help rankings, particularly for such a competitive search phrase."
I know this kind of link building strategy works for less competitive search terms, I've been lead to believe that it would not work on highly competitive search terms. Maybe I'll have to revisit that.
I think it is a dangerous and slippery road when we try to classify a site like this one as spam - or even spammy - just because we don't like the way they got their rankings.
So in an effort to appeal to their customers and allow them to find them more easily in this age where we all go to Directories for relevant information, then sought out a very strong link from a domain with a ton of relevancy...
www.baby-names-plus.com
Yes. This is the company I want doing my SEO.
Just wanted to say I agree with Vingold's statement.
Rand,
I think the whole article sounded like an SEO novice wondering oh my god I used Linkscape and found out that SEO is evil...I get that you are trying to promote your product as the ultimate spy tool but the things you describe is nothing that you have not done. I hate pirates calling out other pirates as evil (and yes Rand we are all SEO pirates). I know you dont do it now (or forgot to do it with the new design) but did not you use to have an anchor text "SEO Moz"(as two seperate words) instead of "SEOMoz", just because you wanted to rank for the keyword SEO? What makes your approach less evil then theirs? Whose standards do we play with? Is not our job to mess with the search engine algorithm? Is not it why we are called search engine optimizers?
The job of an SEO is to rank in search engines not to do internet marketing. This article was evil I tell you just evil, argghhh (yes I am trying to sound like a pirate with a parrot and a wooden leg).
(Will said below that Rand wrote this to ask Google why dont you do anything about this? I will give the answer to that... Google wants SEO to have a bad reputation that is why. When a company in India doing directory submissions can beat us the agency SEOs in our own turf, I think this works for Google's advantage to claim all SEO to be evil.
Mert I have all the respect in the world for Vin, but in this case (and not simply because I believe in SEOmoz blindly) I think the question posed is actually quite valid.
SEO Company Search Results - An Embarrassment to Google and the other Engines
I think people are missing some seriously key messages and I advise rereading the WHOLE post and not just the fact so and so are bad.
See for instance:
Sadly, while they're engaging in may not technically be black hat, it is certainly not the kind of SEO I'd like to see rewarded (and not the type I think the engines want to encourage either).
Its admittedly NOT a blackhat technique, just not one that is encouraged anymore, infact google amended their webmaster guidelines not too long ago.
If search engines want good behaviour, they should stop awarding bad behaviour, especially by those denizens of the web that are responsible for educating good and bad practice to site owners (SEOs).
Hi Rishil,
My point is, this is why Rand is employed. This is why i am employed. This is why 99% of the SEOMoz members are employed. Google has weaknesses and we know how to use them to our advantage. Google is like a pool made out of loose fabric that cannot hold the water it has in it. Google always tries to fill it with water and patch the holes but as the holes are patched the fabric is never strong enough and other holes open up. We the SEOs, simply wait under this pool with buckets gathering water from these holes (and probably cut the holes to make them bigger). The name of the strategy might change but the game remains the same. That is our job not only for ourselves but for our clients.
Google has weaknesses and we know how to use them to our advantage.
That implies that we are all black hats. We arent. There are clients who dont care if their sites diosappear, as long as they had a short burst at the top, and then there are those who believe in and build their brand. They would not want to be involved in any dodgy scenarios, or be listed in irrrelevant directories.
I am a marketer first and an SEO second -I believ in picking the right tactic for the "client" and not just to rank them.
Completely agree with you here Rishil!
Another point is that clients go to agencies with short contracts - and if we as an industry want to encourage clients realising its not a "quick win" industry and that it's a long term area then this has to be addressed.
If a company picks an SEO from that list, gets burned then what will they do? Come back for more? or go to PPC only?
Since when is any directory submission for an SEO company irrelevant?
The three purposes of directory links as I see them are:
1) Build domain authority
2) Build brand awareness
3) Drive traffic
Anyone that has a website is a potential customer for an SEO company, so what's wrong with having a link with relevant anchor text on any directory or webasite for that matter, since anyone that sees that link and happens to have a website, is a potential customer.
I have to agree with both statements, certainly because SEO exists, my paycheck exists, that goes without question. What I disagree with is the statement about taking advantage of holes in Google, honestly I have spent my entire career trying to follow what Google wants, not because I am afraid of consequenses, but because I feel it is a better long term plan. I really haven't spent 1 minute of my time looking for any type of short cuts.
That said, sadly the world is not perfect and companies with crummy tactics may outrank me, but I have to believe that those rankings wont last, and efforts to do it right will still prevail long term.
I completely disagree with this logic that Google has weaknesses and we know how to use them. My thinking goes entirely the other way - Google and all the othe engines have ideals to which their algorithms aspire. If we pursue the "weaknesses" we will eventually lose - fighting against teams of some of the planets smartest people with some of the planets best resources (Google Web Spam, et. al) seems like a terrible idea and a poor way to generate ROI for our customers.
Instead, we should be focusing on what, in a perfect world, the engines would want to count, and building sites, content and links that embody that ideal. With this kind of strategy in place, you won't fall out of the results just because Google updates their algorithm or gets better at their job.
The reason I'm employed and the reason everyone else here at SEOmoz is employed is to pursue those types of tactics.
And why do you think google updates / changes their algorithm? When they see that their algorithm is being manipulated and their is a black hole which deprives its power to the website to rank it high google makes some tweaks which prevents such loop hole leakage.
What was first considered as a good tactic is now not that good. Every time a new trend is set there is exploitation and overuse which gets it degraded and become a old fashion tactic. A newer one emerges and same goes on.
Rand, while I do agree in part with you, I would say that Google does have weaknesses and they are not perfect. It's just how you view it. Mert says that we use these weaknesses to our advantage. But putting it in another way, we actually analyze what works and what doesn't. And if we think about what works now but may not work in future, then we have to consider the line between what brings a penalty and what doesn't.
Google's algorithm is not a human. It does what it has been programmed to do. In the case of National Positions, they analyzed Google's algorithm and saw how it has been programmed to rank currently. They probably found that the type of directory links (they currently have) would give them the #1 position in Serps for a competitive term that would bring them business. They went for it. They were successful. We can't blame them for this.
The important question is: Did they do something which Google explicitly states you shouldn't do. I don't think so. Google changed their Guidelines to remove the 'add your site to directories part' but that doesn't mean Google will penalize this, now or in future.
So suppose Google figures out that directory links are not a good factor and they don't take that into account anymore. So what will happen to National Positions.
OK. Their ranking may go down. But then, National Positions would again analyze Google's algorithms and how it ranks. Suppose they are again successful and find that now factors X and Y have more vaue, so they will then work on optimizing their factors X and Y. And if they are successful, they will come up again at the top of the SERPs.
Now, we don't know for sure when Google will change their algos such that directory links (like the one National Positions has) will not work. It may be tomorrow or it may be another year. But during all this time until they change their algos in such a way, National Positions will get business from clients search for an 'SEO Company'.
So saying that National Positions and the like should forget about their directory links is the same as saying that they should forget about those many prospective clients until Google changes it's algorithsm the way their SEO team anticipates.
I think the most important point to note here is that you shouldn't cross the line where you can get penalized if your tactics get discovered. Other than that, it just means you can enjoy the #1 position until Google's algorithm stops counting factors which made you rank on top.
And when the algo changes such, then start with the analysis again, focus on the new ranking factors.
One more thing I would like to add here. National Positions results is a type of transactional query where the user may probably want to buy SEO services. But suppose I use this tactic to get my site ranked #1 for a navigational or informational query. You know what that means.
When the next blogger out there writes a post and wants to link to a relevant site, he will search on Google, find my site on top (because of directory links), and will link to it naturally. So for as long as I remain on top, I will also keep getting natural links, which will help me even if Google changes it algo to completely discount natural links.
Phew. That was long!
I think the key problem is in the presentation of this post Rand, as you admit in the post this is not a black hat technique, and yet this has been posted to the 'Spamming and Black Hat' category on the blog.
I agree that so called 'bad behaviour' shouldn't be rewarded but I just think you've jumped the gun a bit on this one.
Good point. This post is actually about Google and their inconsistency with what they will/won't reward with rankings and, in this case, site links. Changed to the "Google" category.
Hey Scott,
Thanks for following that up, I realise it's annoying when Google's ambiguity lets others cheat their way to the top - but with a post stirring up as much controversy as this one it need to be presented fairly and accurately.
"Its admittedly NOT a blackhat technique, just not one that is encouraged anymore, infact google amended their webmaster guidelines not too long ago."
That is a fair point - this is an area that Google should clarify their position on, as while they have removed their recommendation for directory submission, they have not actually said 'Do not submit to directories'
As such it's foolish to jump to the conclusion that they should penalise everybody for it, when they have not made their position explicit.
@Rishil
If I write "Simon may not technically be robbing his Mother", it definitely implies that I think he is. Also worth noting this post is in the section entitled "Spamming and Blackhat".
I think the company here got unfair treatment. Obtaining low quality links and concentrating your anchor text may not be great SEO practice but it's not Blackhat in my book. I wish the same point had been made without reference to this specific site.
Pats comments were spot on though.
Nick I respect that sentiment, not least because its coming from you.
My argument is with those who say that this is "good" SEO behaviour. Its not, even though it works.
And I am not saying I am above these strategies, I will game if I need to.
<i>SEO Company Search Results - An Embarrassment to Google and the other Engines</i>
Are adwords search results also an Embarrassment for Google? Because, if they are, they (G) don't seem to mind much the money coming their way.
@Mert, with respect, I couldn't disagree with you more on this one. I think the job of an SEO is absolutely to do internet marketing. Or rather, it should be if you want your work to have real value and return on investment for your client.What's the point of ranking #1 for keyword A or B if you dont have a plan of what you want people to do post-click? Is it really worth the money you've charged your client to get there if 90% of searchers are just bouncing straight off?
Maybe I'm going off topic here (another one to scribble into my 'potential youmoz posts' list), but for me this is a crucial discussion to be had in the SEO industry and a major failing of many SEOs that they dont see their work in the context of an overall marketing strategy.
Don't take my word for it, Ammon Johns is 100% on point with this one, take 20 mins to read that interview, trust me!
LOL! I'm so glad you mentioned that. I was thinking the same thing as soon as I saw the list.
Thanks for the link to We Build Pages. I look forward to the day (coming very soon) when we can start talking about our new direction :)
It is interesting to me the link profile for your example. One of the first things I look at is where are links coming from and what the ratio of links to the home page and to internal pages.
Also interesting is the low quality of those incomings, as you pointed out, they aint too pretty.
There is a very important question in SEM and with Google particularly which is the main point IMO of your article. It is a question many firms and companies across the globe are asking.
Why stop doing what works?
I can tell you a little of why We Build Pages has dramatically changed it's direction and it's plans for the future. We have extraordinarily successful models for ranking websites.Yet we have changed those models, even though these models still work fabulously.
We do not believe it is best to use some of our old methods because even if they work now, they will not work in the future.
We have changed things and will continue to change things as we watch our industry and the search engines. We want what is best for our clients.
Right now Google is ranking this company number one and they are receiving traffic from people seeking SEO advice and services. If the techniques being used by them to get that ranking are overtly manipulative and against the Google guidelines, or if they are not a useful resource then I am pretty confident that they will lose that ranking. Which brings us back to that question again. Which I will answer with my own opinion...
Why stop using manipulative methods it it works and gives you rankings?
The answer in a nutshell is this... It will stop working eventually.
Manipulative linking techniques are not the future of rankings. There is a transition going on, Google continues to lead the pack in identifying links schemes, yet there will still be instances where people using bad techniques are still ranking high.
If 90 percent of your SEM strategy is getting paid links, then you are going to have a problem.
I tell my clients that and I have been telling people that for quite awhile.
There are many companies who are looking at the short term, and for those companies, they can indeed sometimes do very well using manipulative techniques. But....
Overall however, I encourage companies who are planning for the long term to take part of the whole wide portfolio of search engine marketing techniques that are availible to them.
Linkbuilding is just a part of that portfolio, it certainly should not be the whole pie.
I just wanted to say thank you to Pat for speaking what is the reality.
It's not what works and what doesn't right now, it's what is right and what works at any point in this "game."
Take a look at my company's backlinks and you'll find the same kind of links. Not of my doing, but are they going away? Nope. Do they work? Yes.
So what am I doing in the future for them? Building the right links and the right content so that when the Search Engines (please stop making this about one of them, as Rand noted the other big guys are just as bad or worse) figure out how to really discount all the crap, then it will come down to who really is the better result, not who spends the most time building links that mean nothing.
For those of you in this "game" for the money, then by all means, these tactics work right now. Find an SEO that doesn't know that, and you'll find a newbie. But that doesn't mean that we all do it. I enjoy this industry and this profession because its fun. Building crappy links isn't fun. The fun is in the understanding of human nature, why people search, what their intent is, and working toward that ultimate goal of returning the best product for what someone is really looking for.
I am not sure that the "database of intentions" that John Battlle has been talking about for years is a possibility. That computers will completely understand intentions someday, but hey, who knew that we would all be working in SEO 20 years ago? No one.
Long story short, thanks Pat. I can't wait to see what WBP has in store and I am glad to see another great SEO/M company focusing on what's right.
Edited bc it was going to be short, then I wouldn't stop typing. So had to take out the top part asking Rand not to kick me for a "yeah, you're right" post.
While your post is very informative, and I applaud the ideals behind it, I really don't think that most SEO workers are thinking of the long term when it comes to their work. Do we even know how much SEO energy is devoted to "two weeks at the top" for gambling, rx, real estate, ring tones, etc? Or the fly-by-nighter's or "my friend's cousin" who get someone near the top by whatever means only to take the cheque and run? From a pay out and earning perspective though it wouldn't surprise me if of those categories 5 are in the top 10 total for SEO activity and movement.
Of course this isn't all SEO, and it isn't even the SEO Rand is criticizing. But I think we have to acknowledge that there is a large, active contingent out there that is only concerned with the very near future, and they will continue to abuse these loopholes for as long as they are able. And as long as the short game is rewarded, this will be a problem. So to say "slow and steady wins the race" is somewhat facile, because of course it should; aside from using cheat codes in video games it's how most of us were raised. But is it how Google is operating, and hopes to operate? They have communicated their ideals many times, but delivery is often lacking.
I guess I'm saying I agree with you in principle and in spirit but I'm concerned that a "don't worry, things will change soon" attitude isn't pro-active enough. The maddening thing is, there really isn't an attitude pro-active enough unless you're willing to do what these guys do or have your finger on the button at Google. I'm not going to switch to using these tactics (the majority of which seem to mostly be used for geo-neutral abstract terms anyway) but I really wish there was something to do.
I guess, in a way, that we're already doing what we can, which is put our heads down and keep our clients as happy as possible in the face of these frankly perverse results, and keep our eyes open for the next big change. But it is frustrating nonetheless.
ps-feedthebot I started in response to your comment but kind of rambled around, so please don't take anything personally.
OK, 1 - Thanks for the shout rand.
More importantly feedbthebot'spost is spot on. While many of us go back and forth on things that don't matter like why site explorer has 2x or why they're "outing these guys". None of that helps you do your jobs better. Go back and read what feedthebot is talking about.
He's talking about florida update type of changes brewing, you know they type that when a switch is flipped, many people's rankings go to crap.
Lets start being forward looking, while these tactics do work, we know google probably doesn't wish they did as much as they do, so we should all be looking to change our processes to strike more of a balance in how we do linking.
The directories are the quick easy low hanging fruit that EVERYONE should go after to start and build your foundation, but after that you can start to work on more creative linking to prevent you and your clients from being so dependent on one tactic.
We should all be looking for how to diversify our linking efforts so we're not all so dependent on tactics that could be severely less valued tomorrow.
Right now it is worth the pain, we are changing our processes here too, and its painful, clients are asking us why we are aksing them 100 questions abotu the biz instead of "just going out and getting links".
This example to me is just fuel to the fire of the algorithm engineers to build a better mousetrap, whether it is Google, Yahoo, MSN (or the next Google), this type of manipulation is something they want to fix.
Now with that said vingold still has a great point...They are NOT being misleading they are an SEO company, are they the most recognized? Nope. But does recognition = greatness?
Is starbucks the best coffee or do they just spend the most ad dollars?
All in all I think we should all be spending time determining how to get better at our jobs so that when the switch is flipped, our clients won't get crushed.
This is a great point!
@seopractices When did submitting to directories become spam? Obviously, Google doesn't think it is or they wouldn't be ranking that site highly.
I completely agree with Rand on the fact that if Google is going to reward sites for things like low-quality directory submissions, it sends a bad message to everyone. However, they obviously do put a lot of stock in this (if Rand's tool is telling us the whole story), so it is what it is.
This is nothing new. SEO sites that do all the things many of us recommend against have often done well in Google. Certainly since I've been watching the SEO SERPs. Perhaps Google has their own agenda when it comes to these SERPs? They do hate SEOs you know! :)
I just don't think it was fair or very nice of Rand to call out one particular company by name. He could have made his point with generic examples. But that's just me. I'm not one to "out" companies by name. Point it out to Mr. Cutts if you don't like it. But publishing their name here just seems mean and unnecessary. ('specially cuz they're just giving Google what they want.)
Jill - I disagree on this point and I think I will for the future. Outing manipulative practices (or ANY practices for that matter) that put a page at the top of the rankings is part of our job. Disclosing tactics that work (and sharing my opinion about whether they should or not) is something I'll continue to do in the future, and I don't feel particularly bad for anyone who's getting "outed." If you don't want people finding out about your tactics, don't rank #1 for competitive phrases. It's always going to make you a target. I've never liked the "thieves code of honor" - it implies that as SEOs, we're thieves and that's the last thing any of us should want.
Except that according to what you've written, the company in question isn't doing anything wrong. And are in fact doing everything right (according to Google) since they rank #1 and have sitelinks for a highly coveted keyword phrase that surely any one of us would love to have.
Please note that I haven't looked at the site in question nor their links, I'm just basing this on Rand's original post and the info he obtained about them via Linkscape. If they're actually doing other stuff that would be considered search engine spam, then perhaps I'd be singing a different tune as well.
If they aren't doing anything wrong then it could hardly be considered 'outing' them as you said. Lets all bask in the glow of this shining example of the SEO community.
Now I'm really confused - I thought you were criticizing me for outing them, but now you're saying they're not doing anything wrong, which would mean there's nothing to "out" them for.
My blog post suggested that this isn't the type of activity the engines have encouraged in the past and, I strongly suspect, not the type they'd like to see practiced. My follow up to your response was to say that I believe in outing all techniques - good and bad, manipulative and natural, legitimate and deceptive because it makes all of us smarter about the job that we do and better at identifying and employing (or avoiding) strategies in the future. If I'm pointing out positive things people are using to rank well or negative things they're doing, those should both, in my opinion, be fair game for a blog post (after all, both provide value).
You are making it sound as if they are spamming their way to the top. And since directory submissions is something Google encouraged until about a week ago, they're obviously not. That's where the outing comes from, which is in fact even worse...outing a company for spamming when they're not even spamming!
I believe Google promoted "QUALITY" Directories such as BoTW and Yahoo. Thinking that this short statement suggested you to find links to your SEO Company from baby-names-plus.com is just silly. Especially if you notice its listed in the oh so relevant Online Shopping category.
I think he's "outing" them less and outing Google more. Wasn't the point of this whole article that Google says it rewards one thing and actually rewards another? In most areas, case studies are considered perfectly acceptable.
I see this as a case study of how one site made it to the top of the rankings which then draws the conclusion that Google rewards practices it says it doesn't. He could have redacted their identity, but that would have made the whole thing incredibly boring.
Some people will draw the conclusion that we should use the techniques since they work, others won't because they feel it's unethical or not best practices.
Rand:
"If we pursue the "weaknesses" we will eventually lose"
Then I strongly recommend you revise certain sections of your ProTips,
I don't make the arguments for black hats. They have a different agenda. I know that we have to learn to be marketers (p.s. I am a marketing MBA). I assure you I do marketing for significant companies, universities and hospitals but on the other hand in a world like Google's where the big corporations are allowed to spam and small guys are not; the talk of a sense of justice remains as hallow as it can be.
Hiding knowledge (whether it's best practices or not) shouldn't be something that's encouraged, and I believe we typically do a solid job of exposing when we feel a tactic is white hat, gray hat or black hat and assigning levels of risk. If there are examples where we've ignored this directive, please let me know and I'll be happy to make edits - I know we're not perfect, so I'm sure there are a few.
I will email it to you as the tips are not meant to be public.
Yep.
Hey Rand,
I think your trending on ice with this topic.
Personally, I really don't care. It's something you feel thats 'right'.
Business wise, I think this is a very unwise choice. Because, what if someone goes and literally takes extensive time and tries to find your paid links and then opens a case with Google citing all your paid links.
Rand, your clearly not blameless. Unless you think Google is gonna change their stance on paid links.
Your seriously setting yourself up for de-listing. Not by me, nor any of my friends/enemies. You don't bite the hand that feed you bro. And your doing that.
Get away from 'specifically' outing and just refer to people/company's as 'them, they' etc.
Or, ask the company/people first. If they don't care.....then you shouldn't.
I like you Rand, I really do. Moz has been a great deal in help to me learning the art of SEO. I don't want to see it get de-listed because you pissed off a bunch of SEO's, who collectively could get you banned.
Think long and hard. Ask your employees what they think. This isn't going to be good Rand.
Rand, you know I love you guys, but this one smells bad. Really bad.
"You know, I'm not actually *saying* that Obama is a socialist/commie, but I want to keep bringing it up, in context of quoting Marx, because it's interesting and I'm currently thinking about how much I'm disppointed with Marxism."
Ouch. Regardless of your politics (I'm a Canadian so this isn't partisan on my part), calling someone out in a manner and form ordinarily reserved for outing true spammers, especially when they are in your competitive space, and then distancing yourself by saying that you are not really calling them a spammer, you just think it's interesting, is highly reminiscent of negative campaigning.
It's not about the company in question - it's about your choice to discuss the company in this manner. If they were clearly spammers, that's one thing, but this "feels" like a drive-by to a competitor, and if that isn't what you are intending to do, then you failed to make it sufficiently clear, IMO.
If the disappointment was truly about Google, then there would have been no need to so clearly identify the company in question, just the tactics.
Finally, adding in a "here's the places where you can submit spam to the search engines" as the final paragraph of an article where you say you "don't have any problem with what NationalPositions.com is doing." is so transparently awful I'm not sure where to start, except that I'm very, very disappointed.
Ian
Oh Rand...:(
Had you chosen to "out" a success story and used Linkscape as an example, the outcome would have been different.
But you chose to ream a site, without their permission (I gather), as a teaching tool, but also selling Linkscape as incentive. This was like a demo of what the tool can do, using a negative case study.
The crux of the backlash against Linkscape, for me, was that SEO's instantly realized it could be used to manipulate, hurt, injure and destroy reputations and "out" strategies.
Building your temple while creating fear and doubt in those who for years helped roll the stones to build it is dangerous.
There's a different way to lead. No one will listen to those who demand ethics and yet show no integrity.
Hmm, all sorts of opinions going on it seems and some of those down to 'morals'
Rand trying to show that it is morally bad to get top rankings by using in his opinion poor directory links with the same , altho very relevant and accurate, anchor text. Yet at the same time trying to say that it is morally correct to point out to the world the business practices of competitors businesses along with criticising Googles serps.
That doesn't sit very well with me personally. I am not one for 'grassing' on other people unless the crime is of such a serious nature that it cannot be ignored. Grassers are usuallypeople that instead of worrying about there own house decide to spit thier dummy out of the pram into someone elses.
Why couldnt this particular site that managed to get to the top be ignored? I dont think anybody really sees anything particularly bad that they have done.
If these links are going to be diluted eventually then why worry? Yet of course at the same time, some directories are very useful. I get sales from what you may class crappy directories yet how can they be crappy to me if they bring me sales? How do you know how many sales these directories are giving to the company mentioned? You don't. You have no way of knowing this information. Who says that some of these directories wont eventually become a quality repected resource in thier own rights? Yes the majority probably wont but there are always exceptions.
Perhaps Google looks at its analytics and it shows that this website only has a 5% bounce rate? Wouldnt that be a good reason to rate it high? There are of course hundreds of these factors still that cannot be measured by outside parties.
We all manipulate the serps by the very nature of our business. The fact that you agree that Google likes frequent content or blogs or backlinks or edu mentions etc etc means that over the years you have done these very things. If Google liked websites whose content never changed then I doubt you would be writing on here so much.
I also dissagree that it is our job as seo people to inform companies like google to procedures that we dont agree with. We dont all give advice to British Airways about how to improve the company or to Microsoft on how to improve growth and Ferrari and McClaren, well, spying is frowned upon lets say?
Here you are trying to build your own search engine of course, a paid one kind of. Soo is it actually Google you are trying to slate as oppose the the mentioned company or was it meant as that double edged sword?
Oh yes we all want only websites ranking top that are dynamic, living breathing, whitehat, created with good design and navigation, have content writers and linkbait creators dont we? cos I mean 99% of our small, medium and family business websites are all like that and should be made in this manner right? Wo betide anyone that manages to rank high without spending 500 man hours a week working on it.
Basically, there is no way one can criticise the top ranking website for chasing links that work in thier individual case for that particular term in that particular instance. Particularly when your major souce of income on this site is related to selling link building information.
Use linkscape and see what links are valuable so you can add your site there, as oppose to finding it naturally, is 100% as unethical as hitting a thousand directories, (in fact it could be feasibly argued that submitting to a directory has more value cos you sought it out by hand and thought it may send a lead not moztrust or pagrank) so why on earth should Google rank any website found using it?
Amazing that you're willing to "out" a company for simply giving Google what it obviously wants/likes.
I don't think there's a lot of 'outing' going on here - G has far more data on this than Rand could ever have (even w/ linkscape). They *already know* about this. I don't want to put words in Rand's mouth, but it appears to me that he is more saying "Google, why do you think this is the right answer" rather than "here's something you didn't know"...?
Will, that's not really how "outing" works. Yes, Google probably already knows about them but that's not the point. Once a SERP or a naughty company becomes a public embarrassment, it then gets "cleaned up". Google can't be seen to be gamed. There's an element of politics involved.
Respectfully, Nick, I disagree. I don't think there was any outing (I think that does require it to have been 'in' before). I think Rand *was* intentionally trying to shame the search engines into changing, but because he feels (again, don't want to put words into his mouth) that a better set of 'SEO company' SERPs would be good for the industry - not because the search engines don't know what this company has done / not done. I personally doubt that they will take any action on this SERP (through hand-editing) though I am (along with a lot of people) betting that different kinds of backlink profiles will result in better long-term rankings.
Oh, and thumbs up - I disagree, but it's a very valid PoV.
I'm not sure if Jill Whalen is approving these type of spammy practices nationalpositions is doing, are you?
The comments and post have been most enlightening and interesting to read. I was really beginning to believe that the majority of successful SEO people were against link buying, but now I see there are two sides of the fence.
I had to chuckle when I saw their phone number though: 519-666-6666 ... an admission of some sort perhaps?
Ha! I didn't notice that - SEO techniques of the beast I tell you!
The irony, for me at least, is that I (nor anyone from my company) has submitted to a directory in at least 3 years or so. And I've been recommending against them on my forum because I figured for sure Google simply discounted them these days.
But now that Rand and Linkscape has just proven to me that they do indeed work, I'm going to rethink my strategy.
Of course I'm a big fan of the work we are (including me) doing on Linkscape, and maybe this is just the academic in me talking, but I would not say that this has "proven" that directory listings drive rankings across SERPs, industries, etc. Also, this says almost nothing about long-term relevance.
These are very interesting data points, and it's clear that we're getting a better picture of what's going on with the link profiles of these sites. But trying to guess exactly what's getting these guys rankings at Google seems like a losing game to me.
Using this data tells me that these people spend a lot of time submitting to directories. And we can quantify a raw contribution those links are giving. So maybe you decide that's valuable for you to do too. Hopefully you'll measure the impact of that using tools like Linkscape, search traffic via analytics, etc. But that doesn't mean that other things don't contribute to ranking too.
As we continue to work on our own relevance models (rather than trying to game the SE algos), we're going to uncover more and more why anyone, including Google, Yahoo!, Live, but most importantly users would think a site is relevant. And we'll probably uncover some shady things which we don't think add to relevance also.
It never has and most likely never will. Well, except for the original content part.
Jill,
I am so glad there is a real SEO left out there. Thank you for keeping it real. I always thought women do better SEOs than men because they keep it logical. Thanks again.
You know, Mert, just because you disagree with how something works doesn't mean you don't understand how it works.
Hi Scott,
My point was not questioning Rand's knowledge (this is not rocket science) or expertise but towards the overall post's attitude taken towards that knowledge. May be I have been in this business for too long but is not an SEO's job to get your client higher by tweaking on weaknesses?????
If the entire playing field was level only the ones with the most money or most content writers would win.
Thank you, Mert. And I agree completely with your posts in this thread.
This a classic case of how the "nofollow" attribute will kill it for those building natural links. I think with the overuse and misuse of many sites usage of the "nofollow" attribute it may have made it an easy road for this company to rank high for "SEO Company" using low quality directories since most directories do not use the nofollow attribute and directly link to you. While the good companies who attract natural links suffer because their natural links unwittingly have nofollow attribute attached. I am sure this is not the last we'll see of manipulative ranking due to nofollow exploit.
In any event, I do not know if I would constitute this as web spam, since they didn't do anything outside the guidelines nor are they ranking for an unrelated term. They just got over like a fat rat and are ranking high for a competitive term when they put little effort into their campaign. Even if you don't agree with their strategy or methods for ranking, they didn't do anything wrong -- so, good for them!
Could have at least linked to the site being outed in the post.
*hides*
thumb me down now
Hey! Hooley's back! See buddy, you don't get censored...unless you use language that you know will get censored ;)
Holy effin'* shootballs* that happy* bottomed* comment made it through?
Gosh Darn it to Hades!
*censored by Scott
Lol. I saw that, that's why I gave it a thumbs up. (Misses the original version) :P
Rand, you said "SEOmoz is not trying to rank for SEO Company" but instead of calling them out why don't you?
Yep calling them out may get the site yanked, then what? The next domain pulling something similar will take it's place that's all. I believe the best thing to do here is build a page that's useful to users explaining all the good traits they should look for when choosing a SEO Company and take their spot.
You are only reaching out to the SEO's here, not to the end user who knows nothing of SEO that's subscribing to their Super Mega SEO Package as we speak.
I was #1 for a while before National Positions, and before that i think seocompany.ca was until a geo tweak knocked them back. The traffic isn't that great and it's not hard to rank for, but you will make a bigger difference throwing up a page then complaining about it.
Just something to think about ;)
Wow this is one hell of a discussion. This post obviously touched a nerve within the SEO community.
Quite honestly, I understand Rand's point - getting ranked with this kind of tactics may not be blackhat, but it's not really in line with the spirit of the Google webmasters guidelines (and we know what Google wants from us, ideally; they just have a tough time phrasing it in such a way as to close all loopholes).
I also agree that hey, whatever works. I'm sure these guys have a few more domains they optimise using other techniques, and when this one fails there will be a backup.
I still remember a famous case, with an Aussie company that used to rank no 1 for "search engine optimization" by distributing a free website hits counter that included a backlink to the said company, with, predictably, "search engine optimization" and variants in the anchor. One day Google caught up (after lots of muttering within the industry, and, I'm quite sure, quite a few spam reports). Next thing you know, the domain was nowhere to be seen in rankings, not even for their own name.
So where am I going with this: in my experience, Google always catches up with these questionable practices, and when they do, the offending domains are penalised out of existence.
So I personally shake my head when I see such SERP anomalies and wait for the day when I can have my little chuckle. And in the meanwhile, I'll just go on doing what I consider is in line with the spirit of the Google laws (law background showing through, never mind me :)). More often that not, it pays off.
Exactly - well put Limeshot. And dont forget, 'penalisation' can still effectively happen when you're not quite kicked out of the results, but bumped down 10 pages or so.
When a large part of your business strategy depends on that #1 ranking, thats gonna hurt. It's like building a castle on quicksand.
Agree Limeshot. I too only practice what feels right to me. Sticking with using the basic guidelines, keeping the purpose of the site and the interest of the visitor in mind, I've so far almost always been rewarded with the ranking. Granted we are not talking about ranking for "seo company"...
From Italy i see seocompany.ca too at the top spot. Nationalposition is the second result. This is one example of how tools like yahoo site explorer and linkscape can be bad if not used correctly. Let's say you are trying to beat the competition and rank for "seo company",first thing is trying to get the same links your competitor have and once Google will dismiss all this poor links your ranking will fall like your competitor. One more reason to carefully select your link building strategy
First I want to thank Rand for the post. Insightful, as usual. I would recommend you spend more time recovering from things if this is the kind of rabid comments that it provokes.
To the Moz,
It is obvious that this one is close to home. Yes, we all want the work we do to have the right effect, right now. However, and I say this with as heavy a sigh as everyone else, it is painfully obvious that it is not yet that day.
I agree with Pat and Rand, and others here that feel, that because we can see it, Google and the other Search Engines can see it and are working on the solution/tweak/remedy that will adjust the power/juice of some links.
Fast and easy will eventually go as fast as it came. Not that what is being done in this case is unethical, it just should not out rank the sites that have a more natural, higher value, higher total link profile.
I wonder if the goal of this post is to rank for "seo company", lol. Just kidding I think.
I Just noticed this post.
Well We have geo targeted ourselves for Canada. Now we get more targetted leads that "matters" (converts). As for traffic, even though they are ranking for "Seo company" in some major states of US, I don't really think it gives them a lot of traffic. You can see the traffic trends:
https://siteanalytics.compete.com/seocompany.ca+nationalpositions.com/?metric=uv
https://trends.google.com/websites?q=seocompany.ca%2C+nationalpositions.com&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
But anyway I think this debate should end because it really doesn't matter, I'm sure every single business in this planet has its own purpose of existance. If things are working good for them, then so be it :)
@Rand - Your new tool looks pretty good. So from where exactly are you fetching the link profile from? How far back can it go?
I really have no trouble with the "outing" of a site that is crossing the line, that's fine with me and honestly I'd like to see more of it. But of all of the somewhat spammy/black hat sites that perform well in the SERPs, this one doesn't seem particularly eggregious. They've got a lot of directory links? That's it? It wold take two seconds to find better examples, that's what concerns me. This particular example seems like it was chosen not b/c of the techniques used but b/c it competes with SEOMoz. Gotta be honest, that makes me a little uncomfortable.
Lets be honest here, we would all like our jobs in SEO to continue to be a big mystery and a black art so that traditional marketers are amazed when we do a Google Dance and it rains organic rankings. But the reality of it is that the basics of SEO are fairly simple. And when someone makes it look easy, it gets us mad. It certainly got me mad!
Clearly many people are viewing this post differently, but it seems to me that this is quite distinctly a criticism of Google, not National Positions.
Rand noticed Google ranking and providing site links for a site using tactics that they've railed against in the past and thought it was hypocritical. They threaten, criticise, and discount these types of efforts as things that can cause penalties and rankings drops, but then go and give site links to a site using them...which is it Google? Is this now a legitmate strategy, or should we still avoid it for fear of penalty?
Unfortunately, it's impossible to discuss this phenomenon without showing the SERP in which it is clearly occuring and without discussing the site involved in the curious rankings and site links. This is demonstrative and there's no secret tactic in here that's not publically visible (via Y!SE).
National wasn't outed here. Rand clearly agrees, as stated, that he has no problem with their tactics. It's just that Google has said that they do, and in this example they clearly don't. Rand didn't call National spammers...Search Engine Watch did back in March. They were "outted" back then for practices SEW thought were less than savory. Rand didn't expose hidden, or paid links. He pointed out legitimate directory links that are clearly passing value and wondered if Google's now changing the "rules" again.
Perhaps it wasn't discussed as eloquently as possible. Perhaps that's why some folks seem to think this post is intended to be critical of National. But I think if you look closely at the arguments put forward in the post it's pretty clear that this isn't a critique of National or their practices, it's a critique of Google and their inconsistency and FUD practices.
I didn't create the post, but I apologize to those who interpreted the post to be critical of National or in any way "out" them. I can assure you that wasn't the intent behind the article. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations happen. Maybe they can't always be completely rectified, but we'll move and and do our best to continue to be an honest, open advocate of the search marketing industry and a source of education and information to those who are a part of it.
Thanks and sorry for any hard feelings this post may have caused.
-Scott
Hey Scott (you rock by the way!!!),
The issue isn't with Rand. Nor with National Positions. Nor with their tactic (directories).
PLEASE NOTE: That Michael (Graywolf) did this too and then Graywolf said sorry for doing it.
Neither Rand NOR Michael (Graywolf) had ill intent. It's the act of using someone (a real name/company). The crowd/linkerati/your fellow friends (by majority) don't like the idea of calling someone out, even if the intent wasn't there.
Google actually said recently 'why' they removed the 'directory' links and that THEY STILL PASS WEIGHT.
Google, from that video (35:37-37:13), says the whole reasoning behind everything.
Side note: the comment box isn't draggable any more (im in safari on a mac) it hasn't worked since the new design update...
So. I'm not against Rand. NOR Graywolf. And I don't think most are against them either. (hoping others will back me......)
So, can Google be gamed? Yes. With Directories? Yes. With Paid links? Yes. With paid links and not get penalized? Yes. With Doorway pages? Yes. Google isn't perfect, we all know this.
The problem lies when you put another company (a real one) up and under the microscope. So. Rand could've (and Graywolf for that matter) made their point WITHOUT saying a REAL NAME. You can show their backlinks, all of them....say where they are ranking. JUST DONT USE THEIR NAME and I think 80% of the people would be fine with it. :D
I'm thinking about doing a video on it (ethics wise). I'll try to post it tomorrow on YOUmoz, I hope this helps and don't sound critical of Rand nor Graywolf.
Josh,
You make some good points. I really appreciate your logical, well thought out analysis and response.
I think Rand may have assumed that since National had been called out by SEW and already had a somewhat dubious reputation among many people that folks wouldn't react so harshly (i.e. it would be like calling Fox News out for being conservative...big shock).
Nonetheless, you may be right that the better way to go would've been to present all of the same evidence, but never name the actual site in question. There are plenty of SEOlock Holmes folks out there that could've/would've figured it out if they wanted to.
What? Seriously. Man, I totally thought they were liberal. (Falls out of chair) :D
There are plenty of SEOlock Holmes folks out there that could've/would've figured it out if they wanted to.
Yea but that's kind of the point. Let others figure out the company/person. It seems we are in a culture now (not like it was 20-30 years ago) that people don't like negative judgement calls. And in this specific case, "the culture", wouldn't be offended if a Google rep said something against them or Yahoo or MSN but not a fellow SEO. Graywolf had the issue just a few weeks back.
Plus, having the Linkscape 'controversy' (ugh, hatters!! :D) didn't help Rand either.
Finally, I'm hoping I can have a video/post up by the end of today, if not, it will be up ASAP. :D
Sorry Scott, but you don't rock. With Aaron and SugarRae doing some counterpolicing, your arguments aren't very solid. You can read Rae's comment here:
https://sphinn.com/story/81937#c56855
Also, Graywolf was humble enough to publicly apologize but all we see here is you apologizing. I feel that if Rand could have cometo Sphinn and publicly apologized, that would have undone some of the harm this caused to his reputation.
It's not about hard feelings. It's about trust. The SEOMoz blog is supposed to benefit users, not use them to influence Google.
I offered my perspective on the situation. You, Rae, Aaron and others are allowed your perspectives as well.
I tried to give Rand the benefit of the doubt on this (even though it's not his first publicized bout with outing) until I saw this post by him:
https://forums.seochat.com/seo-professionals-57/opinions-on-starting-a-search-spam-exposing-site-19437.html
Infer what you will.
SEOchat in 2004...those were the days. I'm glad to see my humor hasn't changed; publically outing is still not the best idea in the world and doesn't have its place amongst discussions of WH. Even in the BH community though, outings are dealt with swiftly.
I try to stay out of the politics of SEO as much as possible, but I'll weigh in for the giggles of it all, in the form of a Ben Franklin analysis on whether this outing made logical sense.
Pro1. That serp gets heavily cleaned up, improving SEOmoz rank.2. That serp gets heavily cleaned up, providing a self-fulfilling prophecy which can be referenced to assert additional authority.3. Linkscape gets more publicity.4. SEOmoz gets a bunch of links for this phrase to this page, which is passing back on through to the index.5. More trust from key search engineers?
Con1. Who knows who owns that other site and what their and their friends' resources are to do something nefarious as retaliation (this can't be emphasized enough IMHO).2. Certain % of community objects and ostracizes, reducing market potential of linskcape and paid community.3. Fewer insider tips are shared with SEOmoz staff.
The proper way to do the above would be to assign weighted values and then determine the proper course of action. For me, personally, I wouldn't have done it, but perhaps it weighed heavily enough for Rand to greenlight the idea...doesn't matter much to me since this is a retrospect discussion.
I'd be remiss to not close by mentioning SEOchat again, but really, what's the point. Most of the best contributors of that age went dark and decided to make money instead of talk about it -- when's the last time one of you chatted with seoguy, pksynth, or relaxzoolander? Those really were the days.
Its a topic that wont go away, but its important to point fingers sometimes.
However the most amusing part of this post rand was the fact that those companies that you made sure get targetted anchor text links. More of us should do the same when we feel that there is a misjustice in positions...
This is where directory submissions come in handy. Maybe this is the reason why people prefer individual services like this then SEO packages. Low quality link building with preferable achor text. It still countsand works well.
I am assuming you missed the whole gist of the post?
This comany isnt offering any personalised work apart from tradional directory submission from mostly irrellevant directories, gaming results using anchor text links.
This is what i meant, this company is gaming results using anchor text links and that through directory submission.
Edit : "This" meant "directory submission services" in my above comment. Not anthing about "this" company services.
I don't see anything wrong with just hitting a lot of directories if thats all it takes to get you to the top but as we all know 99 times out of a 100 that approach won't work (any more).
I think the only conclusion which can be drawn from all these comments is that there's still no right or wrong in SEO, just the standards we set ourselves and what the search engines advise us on. personally I like the fact that different companies go in different directions with their SEO tactics, it keeps things fresh- when we stop doing that we may as well all get jobs as accountants!
Now i'm off to purchase 10,000 directory links for $200;-)
But Rand's tool has just proven that it does indeed work.
The only people that will care or will notice are those in the industry themselves. The public don't see how they got there, don't know how to do the research on backlink profiles and don't understand the basic principles behind SEO.
To be honest, ranking highly for SEO terms might bring in some measure of sales, but generally I find it brings in dozens of Indian spammers asking to build links for you.
The best marketing for SEO businesses would seem to be NOT to use SEO.
On another note; What if the algorithm changes. What if Google removes 95% of backlink values. The rich will get richer, and those that are new will not have a chance of ranking at all. Instead, businesses that have been around for 10+ years who slowly add a handful of links each year will be ranked 1st - why? Because they're bigger.
I think it's a dilemma the Google team faces every day. Atleast with the current setup, the system (while flawed) rewards those that are purposefully making an effort to promote themselves in search engines.
I don't see an easy fix, one way or another.
Beyond their link tactics - here's what else I see on site (after spending a whopping 5 minutes) that should be (negatively) affecting they way they rank
1. messy code that doesn't validate (w/ lots of JS in the head)
2. words/menus wrapped up in images
3. No H tag structure (no H1?!?! Come on! That's a gimme!)
4. Stuffed meta keywords
AND
From the looks of it either they are being copied (even the template) a LOT or they are part of some templated pyramid scheme. Go to copyscape.com and run them through and click on some examples.
I guess I feel a little frustrated and confused to the point that good page structure, clean code and original content should count for something. But the crappy links card seems to trump them here, and in many other examples.
And since I don't see any comment from them yet here their reputation management doesn't seem all that stellar either.
goodness gracious.
/Ashley Berman Hale
Meta Keywords? Not likely to be important
I like Pat's view above, but I do think it's very interesting to look at SERPs like this (that Google have definitely seen - as opposed to longer tail results that are purely algorithmic). I have a post idea working its way to the surface about that comparison. Following this, maybe I'll work on it a little harder ;)
It is funny you say that, this post actually has me thinking of a couple posts I want to write as well.
It never ceases to amaze me or frustrate me that Google gives guidelines, then ranks such sites as np.com so highly, ironically for such keywords as "seo company". It certainly sets a great example for others.
One of my competitors is using similar techniques, when they begin the top me for certain keywords is often tempting to go with the philosophy of "If you can't beat em, join em".
It's similar when "the good guy" see's the bad guy always getting the girl. Though at times it doesn't appear to pay to be the good guy, patience, perseverance and being true to yourself will prosper. There's only so long before karma catches up.
My advice to anybody temped in "joining em", is to continue creating quality content and network.
At our Company my boss said: We have to do what that other Company is doing because they are doing great (First places for several highly competitive keywords). I've told him we should not do it because we will get penalized at the end, but he has insisted, he wants fast and cheap results: submissions to Directories, spammy blog comments and abuse of anchor text, because he has been told by others that it works and it really does unfortunately.
... and then, on the day it stops working, whatcha gonna do?
Something else.
I watch my football team play, when the opposition has a slow defence they play quick atackers. When that changes they change strategy. While one should be mindful of the future, nobody builds a football team for tomorrow. But are sure to be nuturing that behind the scenes.
Wow, I just read through this article and some of the responses. It seems like what's happening here is, the exact techniques National Positions is using for their clients that this blog is bashing are being used to catch up with their ranking, in some type of attempt to give them bad press.
I understand SEO is a competitive market, therefore I am very intrigued to see what happens if this jealousy-opinion loaded blog reaches the top of the organic results and how much more business this company is going to get due to the fact that this is nothing more than a blog entry from a competitor bashing on another competitor.
One thing I have learned in marketing is, the company that does the bad mouthing, is usually the competitor who has no other way to stand out from the crowd than to attack their competition directly and hope to take some of their spotlight when theirs is dim. A simple example of this is the food service industry where McDonald's never bashes on other companies in it's marketing campaings, while Subway uses their menu to compare to on everything from their commercials to their napkins. Who's the bigger company?
Now I'm not saying I don't like Subway, I order the #5. All I am saying is, this blog, where the CEO of an SEO Company picks apart another SEO Company in such an analytical fashion... I wouldn't be surprised if they are already using this blog as an example of companies that wish they had discovered this formula before they did.
I personally think it is pathetic for the CEO of SEOmoz to write such an article. Funny thing is, National Positions' methodology works for more businesses online than any other method. If it didn't why are they above google for their keyword 'seo company'?
Very interesting case study. But why does Site Explorer show 2X the links that Linkscape does?
Site Explorer has a far bigger WWW index than Linkscape at the moment. While we have ~30 billion URLs, they're probably closer to 100 billion (or more). Obviously, one of our big goals is to get an index that more closely resembles Google & Yahoo! in size and scope, but it will probably be at least a few months until we're there.
Just gonna say it now before anybody goes haywire about verb usage: By, "get an index," Rand means, "continue to build our index."
That's all, carry on.
I'll drink to that. :D lol.
While on the 'bad search engines' trip, I would think a paragraph or two on that number 2 result would also be in order.... how many inlinks does google have to that page with 'company' in it? And yet they rank for that term?
One of the best ways to manipulate the search result is through buying high value links, aye boys ... how could you randfish ....
https://www.text-link-ads.com/testimonials.php
Congratulations to all the members who participated in this Post and making this post hot n famous.
Now SEOmoz is Ranking on the 16th Page for "SEO Company" for this post. Keep up with the hard work and it will be ranking on Top 10.
That was my first thought. This page has got all the on-page opt. stuff done for that term. Page 11 and climbing!
Whoa. Would you look at that.
First off, I'm stoked that I can rip out all my link building campaigns now in no time, as I was really getting a big @ss headache from finding inbound links for my niche service clients.:)
I agree with Art that Google did this to themselves. By promoting the use of no-follow everywhere, valid links had to come from SOMEWHERE!
I look at this the same way as a teacher explaining javascript to a new student. They're not going to start with 3 or 4 lines of jquery commands, they're going to show you the LONG way.
Once you know how it works, you start to realize that there are QUICKER ways to get to the same result. Neither way is WRONG, and each has it's own distinct advantage.
If jquery starts to break, and that's all you know - well then you're screwed, while the person familiar with writing long javascript can probably look at it, see what happened, and modify his code to fix it relatively quick.
I think that pretty much everything you discuss about performing Search Engine Optimization the right way is still valid, and should still be done. But SEO is pretty cut-throat, and NOT doing what's working for the other companies (within reason), would be foolish also.
I have to say that while I agree with the sentiment of this post, it does seem to be more a reaction to the marketing of these companies rather than their tactics.
As pointed out in the post -
"Their “proprietary trade secrets” don’t seem to include, as far as I can tell, any blackhat techniques, so there is no need to worry about National Positions being the next Traffic Power (who cold-called me back in the day), but it’s still a rip-off."
"Sadly, while they're engaging in may not technically be black hat, it is certainly not the kind of SEO I'd like to see rewarded."
- there isn't anything Black Hat here.
Yes it is annoying that these companies are perhaps less scrupulous in their behaviour than we would like, but that's the same in any industry.
Ultimately SEO is a rapidly changing industry, and anyone who can't keep up gets left behind pretty rapidly. If the big G decides that this type of linking is no longer acceptable, then anyone selling it as a service will have a lot of unhappy customers and a lot of catching up to do.
I wonder what's going to happen after Matt's statement at SES. Great article Rand, it still lives on 4 years later.
Hi, I just started working for National Positions about 60 days ago, and I just want to say that i feel this is a great company that provides great results, weather or not you like or understand why. And I give a challenge, why have we been in the top so long?
Over the Atlantic I see seocompany.ca as the top result and these guys as number 2/3 depending on my settings for google (logged in/off, English language/local lang).
That is pretty bad but goes to show how easy you can manipulate SE's with low quality sites.
This technique still works particularly well in non-English languages. French and Spanish are the ones I've noticed most often. The directories that are obviously glorified link farms are probably the most frustrating (see al the 0tec subdomain links).
Well written sir, I am having same issue with one of my competitor website. to me they are winning clients by just doing this black hat techniques and by the time Google relies that they are cheating or Google change their algo they already have good number of customer through these ranking, so what is point just try to build natural link and stay well below first page or first position, back links still have the power and especially anchor text in back links is a powerful attribute in ranking well, i know many website which are using same techniques. Can any body tell me why this link (www.sitenumberone.org.uk/luxury_holidays.html) is first in (google.com) with keyword luxury holidays
Some may not agree with submitting to directories but what's the harm really in having your site submitted to them. Let the search engines judge a site how they have to, you do what you need to do. Let's assume there are two sites, site A and site B, both competing for the term "seo company". Now if both of them submitted to directories with the same anchor text, I'm thinking that the other factors and links will automatically come into play.
My point is here that when submitting to directories isn't such a difficult thing to do, why all the fuss.
Next question would be, is this site ranking only because of directory links. No I don't think so, I'm quite sure there must be a few links from other relevant sites somewhere. Are you saying that this site has no other links that you'd consider "quality" links?
Totally agree...in fact we advocate submitting to relevant directories. We even build and maintain a list of quality, juice-passing, niche directories as a feature of PRO.
However, we don't suggest people rely on it as their primary strategy because Google has suggested they don't value directory links very much and they look at sites with lots of eerily well-crafted directory links as manipulative. The findings in this post, however, suggest that maybe Google doesn't think that way anymore...which would be fantastic! It'd make it a lot easier to push up new sites and make those "we'll submit you to 10,000 directory" SEOs very happy.
The UK results don't exacly inspire confidance either. The #1 spot seems to have it from the same footer link on every clients website. Not even any mention of Distilled ;)
I think it's pretty obvious how importantly Google rates optimized anchor text. Has been for years.
Type in "seo company" into 'googs' - then type in the old chestnut: "allinanchor:seo company" : note the correlation between the normal results and the sites with the most anchor text links pointing at them which read "seo company".
Identical.
I see this time and time again - it's an easy game and these guys will keep doing it until Google adjusts the algorithm - which it will soon I'd hazard to say.
I'm not sure if any one has mentioned this yet ('cause this post is SO outta control) but Google's asking us to create optimized anchor text links in the webmaster tools section. Under the "Statistics" - "What the Google Bot Sees" there's this message under "How do I use this data?"... It simply reads:
These statistics show you how Googlebot sees your site. Each listed word or phrase is the anchor text of a link to your site. This information provides good insight into how your site is seen by others. Anchor text gives Google additional information about your site, so if it's not descriptive or useful (for example, the link in the text "Click here" provides no data to Google), you might want to work with the owners of those sites to update it.
These guys are simply following instructions.
Hmm, sure it's not pot calling kettle black? Also then you might aswell 'out' all other high profile companies which have links on ethiopian blogs for car insurance when they are based in the UK.
LOL we should all talk about JC Penney again though in their case they got punished the tactics worked long enough for the Christmas frenzy. Your right though I've seen high profile companies do it...cough Viacom cough cough. It works and it sucks it works, but it's also a pain in the butt to keep up with a lot of links will get taken down so you have to go back through hide your ip and constantly run the automated tools and work with people in India to keep it up. White Hat methods just last longer which is why sites like Sephora and such will always rank high even if they lose those non relevant linked sites.
For an even bigger, spamtastical kick go to nationalpositions.com, click on sitemap, then scroll down to articles. Page upon page of keyword stuffed nonsense with hidden links to the various internal pages of the site. Good stuff indeed!
Wow! a lot of comments here! There's not much I can other than I read a great response to this blog post at https://www.clickfactory.com.au/seo.html keep up the great work Rand, your posts are alwatys on-point!
Thanks for this info on anchor text i believe it has important influence on seo
but i prefer to manage my blog seo by myself as most seo companies may spam my site also i prefer to know every thing about my blog eseo and doing it my self
thanks again for your great info
Ha I love the fact that Google doesn't hide the fact that they can't really stop black hatters from working their search engines. I use to work for a black hatter and oddly he showed up at an SEO panel in LA (wow that was annoying to say the least), but the thing is his tactics do still work and his website ranks first using a lot of spamming type methods. It's not fair and it's ugly, but I also learned reporting spam doesn't help much. The issue is in the algorithm and the fact that links are still a huge resource for all SEO's even the low level links. I don't practice Black Hat myself at least not anymore, but I do go to their forums. I find that a lot of them like to leave bad advice they probably leave it in comments sections like this just to make White Hat SEO's do things to get the de-ranked.
I think when your going to see a change is when social takes over a lot of the search results, but then we will be left with the question of can they stop the fake accounts out their that are running on automated tools from counting or will they actually prove to show better results with this method? I don't know myself, but I am curious. What's hilarious about this post is I totally know a company in LA that uses National Positions they were okay, but they couldn't help rep management. I ended up helping them more with that by putting them into two affiliate programs getting a reputable management company to run them and then eventually the affiliate links pushed off the bad press and I was able to get some of the complaints board and pissed consumer off myself through actually talking to the websites. I also did some reviews for them on high ranking websites with partial linking and bam what do you know it took about 6 months, but sales are up complaints and paranoia are down.
Thanks for sharing the info, but it's not a surprise want to have fun look up Greenscreen LA that's another one that's not at all using white hat methods. Though I think the site as of right now is ranked 2nd on Google at least it shows that for me it does change at times.
I wonder how the anchor text holds up today.
It's funny but National Positons email spmmed me the other day at my work email (I work for an SEO company). They said I could rank #1 for my keywords...lol
HI! I used National Positions, they charged us $600 a month an DID NOTHING AT ALL! We were on page one (on the bottom) from page two for a few key words in the first month, but quickly dropped form there. DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY!!! TOTAL RIPOFF!!!
Link text weight has been a pet peave for me since 03.. so I can't disagree with parts of this article, however, what was done is easily done without realizing it because:
1. Many directories index the home page for the title/description resulting in spammy looking link text. Rand... did you check any of the directories to see if that is the case? That maybe something to add to the list of things your tool tracks or you could just say it does...
2.If you are doing a link dev campaign you likely have 2-5 Title/link text versions and 3-5 descriptions to use for the submission. SEOBook has pretty much the same profile for SEO Book.... mind you he isn't a one trick pony like Rands' guys but.... to name an SEO without contemplating/understanding how it could happen innocently is trashing us all.
It's easy to point fingers... real "SEO industry" leaders don't trash the industry to make a point.
Its December 31st, 2 months since your post and Google has made no move to correct the issue. National Postions is still the top ranked site for seo company.
Looks like no change in the other serps as well. Clean up your act guys. Don't penalize us for not using black hat seo tactics.
Cygnus,
I like your logical way of looking at things.
Nice article...interesting that ThinkSeer is unavailable - it displays Joomla "This site is temporarily unavailable." screen :)
Mario, thanks for pointing that out darn log files took up too much space on the server - on phone with rackspace thanks!
Very interesting blog. You got me thinking. I've traced back some backlinks from one of my competitors in hopes of asking for links myself. What I found was a lot of directories that had a SUBMIT URL that just go nowhere. I wondered if they could be bogus directories set up for the sole purpose of creating backlinks for this site?
That's probably what I take issue with most. I've seen this technique countless times in non-English SERPS. After the first 4 or 5 directories a very large portion of the "directories" are subdomains on a single, questionable domain.
I call them PLFs (private link farms), and they shouldn't work, but overwhelmingly do work. I didn't think it would work as well in English, and for such a competitive phrase, but it absolutely does work at the moment.
A lot of things that shouldn't work still do. It can be difficult to convince someone to stick with linking that would fall in line with Google's preachings when what works in practice is a bit different.
I wonder how many of us have actually read this post and thought: 'sh*t, it works that way! I am off to do some directory submissions right now'! : ) I am totally appalled at seeing how rankings can still be earned on easy SEO techniques, can Mr Cutts shed some light on this PLEASE???
Very well Manipulated Anchor text used along with directory submissions. SEs sure gives more importance to Anchor text and its secondary to what is the title of the webpage it links from (Very few Directories have well organized categories and title text accordingly).
I honestly don't have anything to add to this conversation that hasn't been said already. I just want to be on the page that is going to rank #1 for 'longest page of comments on a blog post ever'
Im surprised this article has received so much attention. Every search engine algorithm iteration has cracked down on low quality links.
Does SEO have a future? Yes, but like Television advertising, the online advertising/marketing game will be very different in 5 years.
This post is merely telling SEO firms to adapt or else.
Thumbs down for suggesting change? Business emulates life and life is change. Remember when no one though altavista.com could ever fail?
Guys,
For your info www.seocompany.ca is #1 in google canada. Google seems to be better at geolocalization than Yahoo. duh.
Concerning this post, i am not worried about the SERPs as Google will show cleaner results in a not-so-far future.
However,in a no-so-far-future, i do not believe that directories will signicantly decrease in popularity. The World wide web's evolution is slower outside of the US and G must take that in consideration in order to remain the world's top search engine.
An interesting analysis Rand... and great reply comment from "We Build Pages" guys on the "long term"prospect of the future SEO.
I dont agree with what they have done, and think that it just makes our job harder when we are trying to be ethical about SEO.
@richardbaxterseo
Why would you say that the directories linking to them should be "disqualified?"
What does that actually mean?
I received a sales call from National Rankings and the gentleman began by pointing out the success of their organic search results. He was offering 10 links for $800 for each of our sites. He didn't go into specifics of what that involed (didn't seem like he knew much about search anyway), but he also mentioned how National Rankings has "partnered" with other vendors unaffilated with search. He offered "Sale in a Box" promotions. (You pay $500 for sales balloons, signage, and more). So completely unrelated.
When I asked how he got my phone number, he cited our company was looking for SEO help on our website. So he basically prospected us because of a job listing.
You've pointed out a problem that you're seeing on a search term that is very near and dear to all of us in the SEO world. The more annoying problem is that it's not just limited to "SEO company" but also includes most search terms, at least in Google. I've noticed it to be increasingly difficult to find what I'm looking for by using the Google search engine. And the whole point of their algorithm is to give me relevant results so I find what I want, like that I can find it, and then continue to go back...then they get to report traffic numbers to their paid search adversisers and so on and so forth. Because I'm not finding what I'm looking for easily, I've been starting to use Yahoo! lately.
Agreed. I've been sending queries via Yahoo! lately as well (but I still always check Google first!)
I fail to see how they are manipulating results any more then any other SEO company would be manipulating results. I don't know whether they can SEO a clients site but since they evidently rank their own using their "proprietary techniques" ha ha, I suppose its reasonable to guess that client sites are getting decent service.
I guess another point is the "calling out" nature. Most other industries have bodies to regulate them or distinguish professionals from cowboys. With Digital Advertising now a huge chunk of the market in the UK and elsewhere - is it not time to have bodies like the Chartered Institute of Marketing, Advertising Standards Authority, RIBA etc that can moderate this kind of area?
Google obv cant do this, SEOmoz and SEO companies obv cant either. Perhaps the IAB?
I think this was the crux of it for me, when I looked at that site I knew that they weren't going to build a search engine presance that was good for me, as a client, in the long term. Yet to the average marketing bod in a large company the fact that they are at number 1 means that they are the best at what they do (My marketing director recently told me that this was her belief when I was pitching SEO)
So company A decides they need some SEO, they have heard that link building is good, they do a search, find this company, and with no other place to go for info, decide that as these guys are #1 and cheap that that's who they will go with.
6 months later when the algo changes, company A are a few thousand down, with a Google penalty, where is the recourse for them? If the SEO industry isn't going to deal with this who is. It's not saying, you have to do it this exact way, but I'm sure that Rand (and most people) wouldn't feel the need to do this if we knew that SEO's would have issues doing business if they don't take the utmost care of their clients websites.
quickly summed up, don't live for the moment or the now, live for the long term, old techniques that some of us use, will die and we will get left behind the companies that do things correctly all of the time.
have you considered this is a 'red herring' - they got all of these low quality links to throw you off the technique that is actually working for them?
Maybe these links are also a part of their strategy as well to get the chatter going about their company.
Paul
Outing someone for submitting to directories, right, because that is so much more unethical than buying links, which you all do.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
An insightful comment, and well argued. How you manage it at the tender age of 24, I'll never know. ;)
Flora will beat me up tonight if I expand on it.
Interesting, I think that Google should police these results more, simply to reduce their own hassle later on.
Simply put - if Google ensured that the listing for SEO reflected white hat techniques accurately then customers would more often see the benefits of this and utilize white hat agencies, thus reducing the amount of spam (not saying spam seo wouldnt work - it just wouldnt be as popular) thus saving Google a bit of hassle and resources.
HI
I have a question. I don't know if this is the right place to post but I think it's related...:
We've been visiting SEOMoz every now and then and we've applied most of the techniques of "fair" SEO in our site. We're very aware and concerned that content is for users and not for robots, but sitll, Google and other Search Engines seem to reward tricky sites.
By tricky I mean that there's an abuse of keywords... something like:
"If you like ice cream, you'll find that our ice cream is the best ice cream. This is beacause our ice cream has the best ice cream ingedients and we've a lot of ice cream - making experience. You want ice cream? We got ice cream."
This is a made up example for... ice cream! ... but it obviusly has not that much sense for a user. I would expect that someone chooses us over a buggy, ugly, tricky, non-standards compliant site but:
How can they ever find us if Google is rewarding that kind of behviour?
I've seen a lot of improvement while refininf our techniques, but it's impossible for me to beat them out. Is this inevitable? Is our fault for being begginer SEO's?
Thanks!
It always comes back to the same thing, the quality element of the links algo. Bottom line is, there's always a few who will take link manipulation to the max. Hopefully that list of link directories will be disqualified soon.
Someone should have fun analysing the tactics these guys use: https://www.livingroom.org.au/searchengineoptimization/. They rank no 1 on search engine optimization (with a z) in Australia. Interesting little site.
Here we go, more outings...sigh...
Jill, it's not an outing; I don't know these guys, search engine optimization is not a keyword I personally try to rank for (you wouldn't in Australia anyway, you's use the "s" version) and have no reason to out them as SPAM (as defined above: sites positioned above mine).
But I think we should discuss sites and tactics we don't particularly approve of, the same way we discuss good tactics; dialectics is a healthy practice within any industry.
And we do use examples when praising a tactic, don't we? Then why isn't it fair to use them when our opinion is less than positive?
Jill - I can't understand why you'd be worried about exposing information about how other sites and pages achieve rankings. Isn't that why we have SEO blogs and forums? To look at strategies and tactics publicly?
Limeshot - Well, the domain livingroom.org.au has 75K+ links pointing to it, so it's a very powerful domain. As for the individual links to that page... Linkscape's showing me links like:
Lots of anchor text with "search engine optimization tips," too. Can you tell I'm kind of addicted to this right now :-)
I agree with your statement Rand on sharing strategies in a general level. The only issue I have with it is. what would be the value of an SEO/internet agency if every single online marketing/linking strategy that has been built custom for every single client by the agencies I work for becomes public information. Trade secrets are trade secrets at the end of the day. Pointing to individual companies and victimizing them can be done on a private level as well as public level (as done on this blog post or by simply copying the same techniques for free which devalues the strategy). No agency SEO can permit what you did with this blog post (aiming an individual firm) to happen for any of its clients (in a private or public format) no matter how white, gray or black hat that strategy is. This only causes people to hide their actions more and more. Even linkscape can't get to some of those hiding tactics. Your presentation of your tool makes the tool seem like not a useful tool but a nuisance for professional online marketing agencies.
Mert - unless you're doing some really, really shady cloaking stuff, it's all public anyway. Isn't the goal of a successful web marketing campaign to build a strategy that is legitimate to survive a manual review by the engines and strong enough to be defensible even to those who peer review or investigate?
I just don't understand the "don't show my links" or "don't show how we achieved success" philosophy can be intellectually honest. You can't be doing great SEO for your clients and still be intimidated by the idea that someone would investigate their on & off page tactics. Only someone who knows they're either A) going to be banned or penalized by the engines or B) has a strategy that's easy for competitors to reproduce without much effort should/would be espousing these anti-disclosure viewpoints, right? Otherwise, you've got nothing to worry about.
I think it is about marketing strategy not blackhat.
The issue is not about black hat. I run online marketing campaigns for my clients not SEO campaigns. We run certain publicity campaigns, brand marketing campaigns, micro site campaigns, social networking campaigns, and other small campaigns that I honestly don't want to associate with the main site. Not everything here is about SEO or Google Blackhat. We are internet marketing agencies now Rand not SEO only. It is about value protection in terms of strategy. And no I will not share private info of my clients with anyone. Anyhow I am swamped today to discuss this more. Have a nice day.
There are a lot of good points being made in this Sphinn thread about this topic you may want to take a look at:
https://sphinn.com/story/81937
Rand,
It seems it is a Darren Rowse site, that's why he's probably soliciting content there.
From the homepage: https://www.livingroom.org.au/
...this isn't an "outting" I just wanted to confirm
Yes Rand, it is. Some people just don't get it, and it's useless to try to convince them otherwise. The old adage "don't confuse them with the facts" comes to mind.
I'd take a wild guess and say that it's because everything on that page is focused at the term "optimization" with a z. As you mention in Australia they are more likely to use an "s". So in theory it's an easily targeted search phrase? No?
well I've gone through the comments some are amusing, some pose a good point and some are just plain stupid. You decide which is which.
Lets face it, what's wrong with doing something that Google seems to like? And my favourite one there is that it's not in the spirit of Google. hahahahahahaha... I mean really?! WTF? :) Spirit? when did that ever have an impact in business? In this particular case you can't even say that the business in question are making false promises as their technique seems to work (for now). For how long? Who knows. But it's worth adding that most techniques have a shelf life.
By purposefully creating a website one way or another you intend to "game" the search engines. Like it or not. The real point is most are trying to do it within the rules provided. The rules may/will change and you hope that your site still conforms to those rules when and if they do. These guys found a winning formula.
As for the spirit cup...well sing while your winning!
As for the outing of this company? Why? That's the real question. Is it because their service which promises much and seems to deliver is considerably cheaper than Rands? I wonder...
Shall we all take bets as to who will be the next SEO company that Rand outs.
So who's ranking #1 for search engine optimization these days? I hope Rand likes them because if not...they better watch out.
In the UK, that'll be Wikipedia followed by Google - if you spell with a Z.
With an S, Wikipedia still gets the #1 spot.
I'm pretty sure Rand is not too fond of wikipedia, lol. Rand, get rid of them, and you ARE a superhero, tights or no tights!
It still amazes me the amount of spammy/bad sites i see in the top 10 listings for various search queries and you can blatently see the techniques that they are using. Come on Goole sort it out
I'm amazed that Google has the ability to leave out a Wikipedia entry from the top of a results page.
Dont worry google has gotten Matt Cutts some new tools to sort out this whole mess....
"Where'd you say the number 1 result was?" "California, yep Matt thats within range.."
Matt Cutts new toy!
Hi There, personally l say black or white hats off to seo's who position good websites at the top of googles serps what ever method they use, in fact it's small time seo's that use this blog to moan about these TOP guys because they just don't NO what to do!
Dude your such a snitch and a complete dweeb! Why oust someone to try and promote your shitty linkscape tools....linkscape isn't even great or knowwhere near it....heck you can get all the same info that linkscape has just by getting a few plugins on firefox and using yahoo site explorer...
SNITCH!!! I dont own the company nor am I involved with the company you ousted I just think that it isn't very cool at all to be Googles bitch!