Matt Cutts Shows Up, Panelists Freeze
Posted 05 December 2007 - 09:17 PM
Matt Cutts Ruins "Link Buying" Session at PubCon
Posted 05 December 2007 - 09:32 PM
Added to my feeds.
Posted 05 December 2007 - 09:41 PM
The session was being live-blogged.
Not exactly a 'secret' event.
Apparently the 'best' tip was Jim Boykin saying 'stay under the radar and don’t p*** off Google'. The others said much the same obvious common sense stuff in rather more words.
Mr. Cutts is a convenient out for a session that never could actually give up link building 'secrets'. Makes the presenters sound like they just might 'know' secret stuff though. That should be good for business.
Jon Henshaw does a nice humourous writeup about a non-event and the bloggartsphere goes gaga. Amazing...
Posted 06 December 2007 - 03:50 AM
and people assume it's because they have secrets?
Obviously I'm more cynical than I believed, as to my mind that would have suggested they didn't havea clue, and someone they knew could shut them down showed up.
The real gigle is it isn't like it was a suprise... anyone could have checked his site and known he was going
Posted 06 December 2007 - 04:16 AM
I generally expect to hear about 90% of what I already know, 5% of a reminder of something I forgot and 5% of something totally new that I've never thought of. I was hoping to get that from this session – as were many other people I've talked to since then – but what we ended up getting was a complete waste of time. I only wish I had left the session earlier.
Posted 06 December 2007 - 05:49 AM
(Anybody with any sense would have known it, at any rate.)
I found the session to be very enjoyable, in that it effectively portrayed the whole debate about the concept behind paid links: what they are, how they're identified, and how much it matters to the web marketing industry as a whole. Jim Boykin's comments were clever, in that he acknowledged that the only real value to purchased links is to ensure, as best as possible, that they aren't readily detectable.
But if anybody seriously believed that the point of the session was ever to provide helpful tips on tricking search engines they were deceiving themselves. Wasn't going to happen; won't happen. Any serious link building secrets are far too valuable to give up in that kind of context in the current anti-paid link environment.
Posted 06 December 2007 - 11:26 AM
Posted 06 December 2007 - 11:32 AM
stop trying to bring reason to a tabloid story
Whoops. My bad!
Is anybody else cringing as much as I am that I wrote "my bad?" Eeuw.
Edited by joedolson, 06 December 2007 - 11:33 AM.
Posted 06 December 2007 - 11:38 AM
I actually had an internal self debate before even posting to the story...knowing it was likely link bait for the writer and all.
Bad Kimmy won!
Posted 06 December 2007 - 11:46 AM
Still, nice to see others using bad syntax/grammer... makes up for my renaged hands making it look klike I canont type
I'm inclined to agree with your view (not the you being bad ), but about the tips... then again, if paid links are considered as bad/wrong... how comes they seem to get seminars and attendee's?
Posted 06 December 2007 - 12:03 PM
I do trust that is a retorical question?
if paid links are considered as bad/wrong... how comes they seem to get seminars and attendee's?
Or shall I sit you down and explain
It is a tale of excitement and woe, of secret handshakes and loose lips, the drama of good and evil writ large and played out on the seminar floor...
Now it's a genuine tabloid screamer - all that had been missing was the bad girl...
Bad Kimmy won
Posted 06 December 2007 - 12:06 PM
Bad Kimmy Won
Shall I sit you down and explain the birds and the bees the webmasters and the SEs?
Yes, you're bad.
Anybody with any sense would have known it, at any rate.
Posted 06 December 2007 - 01:30 PM
Damn! My invisibility cloak is malfunctioning!
Posted 06 December 2007 - 01:37 PM
Only partially a legitimate question That being, if we all know it's pants... why pay attention?
It would be little different than someone hosting seminars on how to build sites that suck... and having people show up for it (then again, you could at least obtain positives form the those negatives).
Posted 06 December 2007 - 02:14 PM
Matt *could* be making the ASL sign for "yes."
"Say, Matt, is that chocolate?"
Make the letter S, a fist with the thumb going across the front, and then nod the fist like a little head that's nodding "yes."
Now you know one of my 20 words/phrases of ASL.
Posted 06 December 2007 - 02:34 PM
Had I been on the panel, I would have been offended as well heh
Posted 06 December 2007 - 02:51 PM
that other thing.
(thinks Wit is an, um, interesting personage)
Posted 06 December 2007 - 03:19 PM
Yes it can look as rude, crude, and Brit as the term itself.
A deaf friend once upon a long time ago spent a lot of our date-time explaining the nasty mean signs...I don't remember the alphabet or much except some 'bad' words...strange that
Posted 06 December 2007 - 07:20 PM
As a matter of fact, what secrets could there possibly be? Link building == getting wiomeone to put <a href="http://www.example.c...e.com">text</a> on a page accessible to, and indexed by, SEs. Anything beyond that is just execution, effort and spotting an opportunity first.
The agriculture analogy is actually pretty accurate. There is no secret to what makes a good glass of wine: Terroir (which means a combination of climate, soil and outlook). Finding a good site for a winery isn't a secret, it is just hardwork. I am not sure that hard work is much of a secret, but given the ammount of top ten this, ecret way to that %#$%#%# writen about SEO, perhaps hard work is the ultimate secret that very few people get?
Posted 06 December 2007 - 08:11 PM
Jim Boykin is up and says he doesn’t have a presentation. He doesn’t want to get any search engineers upset. The main thing he has to say is stay under the radar and don’t p*** off Google.
Matt Cutts on Paid Link Reporting:
Do it because it’s in your best interest to see your competition receive lower rankings
Do it because you want the Web to be a better place and make the search engines’ jobs easier
The argument of “honor among thieves” is a fallacy – no one can/should legitimately believe that paid links made the Web a better place.
Send reports through your Webmaster Central account for faster response time.
Aaron Wall, one of the panelists, expresses more of his thoughts on the topic in his blog today - An Unjust Fear of Link Buying
If your business model is entirely reliant on Google 5 years from now, your user experience is sub-par, and you haven't built up any brand equity after ranking for 5 years then there was not much effort put into building a legitimate business, and it deserves to fail.
Posted 06 December 2007 - 08:29 PM
It looks like he's opened it and eaten some of it (at least, some of what I presume is a candybar is missing). I don't see any crushing/crushed-ness, and he's looking to his left, rather than toward where I presume the panel is sitting.
Am I missing something?
Posted 06 December 2007 - 08:41 PM
In the back of the room — as this picture clearly captured — Matt Cutts took out a candy bar and crushed it in the palm of his hand, obviously signaling to the panelists that they would be next if they said the wrong thing.
However, I, too, sat and pondered the same thing. Where in the heck is the crushed candy bar?
From the comments:
That’s me sitting beside him. He’s demonstrating how he inserted the knife into Aaron’s back.
Posted 08 December 2007 - 08:45 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users