Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Guest Posts 'n Stuff


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#1 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2659 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 10:22 AM

Oh wow, the cr** people come out with.

 

I've been doing friendly guest-blogging outreach these past weeks to see what kind of response I could get from people that are looking for people to write for their websites. I'm locked into a few networks and but wanted to support that with a few other home grown initiatives.

 

Google would be so unhappy to learn that I have found websites that are charging £3,100 for a guest blog. I found another that was charging £450 for their guest blog.

 

What really gets me (well not really, everyone is entitled to shoot what they want, just don't expect a reply) is the cheek of some of these people. Their websites are cra**, their content sucks and yet they are of the opinion that you would be prepared to pay a fee on top of providing them great content. Just one of the creatives that I'm sharing on their website will essentially double their domain value in some cases :)

 

I think I am going to have to implement more factors into the vetting process. At the moment I only let PR5 and greater sites through, with more than 1000 FB likes. It's not a great metric but at least it filters out a very large % article directory owners that simply moved to guestblogging platforms. To say those networks put out a footprint is a little bit of an understatement.

 

My email bite rate is currently 3%, which considering the amount of work involved in the setup is perfectly acceptable.

 

Thank god for software plus brain.

 

:)

 

 



#2 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13681 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 10:34 AM

This is new to me.  Guest bloggers have to pay a fee to be accepted?  This is absurd.  Freelance writers in the non-web world are paid for their work.  

 

I don't get the logic of what you describe  :dazed:



#3 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2659 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 10:45 AM

Yes, it's classic isn't it. You provide the content, photos and make a payment and they will publish you.

 

 

:)



#4 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4449 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 11:00 AM

Funny isn't it. Before SEOs jumped on the guest posting / content marketing bandwagon, people used to advertise using advertorials, and for these, advertisers would provide the content, photos and make a payment, and most of the time not get a juicy link. SEOs feel that the removal of that rel="nofollow" code alone means that they should not pay ..... publishers are probably most rather bemused by this new trend of people expecting to use their business as a free advertising platform.

 

And of course, good content should be paid for too ....

 

It is all rather confused. 

 

I very rarely accept guest posts, but I do accept good ones. Most (about 99%) are not good enough though. It takes a lot of time to read those 99% which are discarded, which is why I mostly now ignore requests completely. 



#5 seosmarty

seosmarty

    Dream Catcher

  • Site Administrators
  • 57 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 01:07 PM

Funny isn't it. Before SEOs jumped on the guest posting / content marketing bandwagon, people used to advertise using advertorials, and for these, advertisers would provide the content, photos and make a payment, and most of the time not get a juicy link. SEOs feel that the removal of that rel="nofollow" code alone means that they should not pay ..... publishers are probably most rather bemused by this new trend of people expecting to use their business as a free advertising platform.

 

And of course, good content should be paid for too ....

 

It is all rather confused. 

 

I very rarely accept guest posts, but I do accept good ones. Most (about 99%) are not good enough though. It takes a lot of time to read those 99% which are discarded, which is why I mostly now ignore requests completely. 

 

I think you are describing guest blogging history from a bit different perspective from what I see it. To me guest blogging started as the concept when a blog owner invited a talented writer to make his/her blog *better* by adding writer's article to the blog. That's how I was first introduced to the concept: I started getting invited to guest post!

 

That's when it wasn't about the links but about expanding your reach (both sides got benefits). Yes, I got a link back (if I wanted to) but that was not an advertorial!

 

Then, at some point of time (when Google said all other techniques were risky), guest blogging became the only way to link to yourself and thousands of link builders decided to do that. That's when businesses started "scaling" it to the point when the whole article evolved around that link it was written for... But that's NOT guest blogging any more because the other part is broken: There's no benefit for the site owner to publish a weak article.

 

Unless the publisher is interested in the content because it will benefit his/her site, we can't refer to that content as a guest post

 

If the publisher wants money for that content, that's when it becomes advertorial (versus editorial)

 

If the writer wants to pay money for the article to go live somewhere, again, it's advertorial.

 

Guest blogging can only be editorial...



#6 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4449 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 01:12 PM

Yes, I think I am feeling a little hard done by after some recent bad guest blogging experience.

 

Maybe we should all be focussing on finding some great authors for our own sites, and less about finding great sites to guest author on? 

 

Maybe time to do something radical. I just need a table, some beer and laptop....... 



#7 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5521 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:29 PM

From my experience I see several different content types. 

 

===========================

 

A) In-house content  (this content is as good as you decide to make it limited only by your ability)

 

B) Outside authors who you recruit and pay based upon their expertise in a particular content area  (you should get really good stuff here if you have seen samples of their work, you can get best-on-the-planet authors or crap depending upon who you ask and how much you are willing to pay.   They do a better job on the content than I could have done because of their level of expertise.  They also often bring a well-known name to your site.)

 

C) Hobbyist authors who simply want to share what they know with others.   These folks are simply motivated by a passion for a subject. (content quality here is usually as-good-as or better than my own)

 

D) Content from other websites that you license, request permission to republish, or use because it is public domain or free syndication  (here you are picking what you want but you usually have duplicate content concerns)

 

E) Content providers who come to you because they "want to get a message out" (these do not require payment or an attribution link, these people just have a message they want to share with your traffic, they are often nonprofit, university or government sources)  (content quality here is usually  very very high but usually comes with duplicate content concerns)

 

F) Content providers who have advertorial that includes a method of conversion or a link to their website (content quality is usually very high here but it is commercial in nature (which my visitors really don't want to read)  and often has a very bad odor)

 

G) Content providers who hope to get attribution links in exchange for their content  (this content is usually so bad that it is not worth reading because these people are trying to "scale" a linkbuilding effort, you will usually have duplicate content concerns and linking to bad neighborhood concerns)

 

My site is.....

 

(A) 80%

(B) 5%

© 5%

(D) 5%

(E) 5% (usually posted on my site as noindex/follow)

 

I have no interest in (F)

 

And, I have wasted a lot of time trying to get good content from (G) but have decided that this group is mostly made up of incourigible scammers, spammers and weasels.  I can usually read two sentences and tell that they don't know WTF they are writing about.


Edited by EGOL, 28 June 2013 - 02:32 PM.


#8 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4449 posts

Posted 28 June 2013 - 02:42 PM

As far as the other way goes - posting on other sites - a large percentage of what I submitted in the last 2 years is now either offline or the publisher removed all mention of me and claimed the work as their own. Although in light of Penguin I should probably be thanking them.

 

One of my tasks for next week is to go through my files and find all the posts I wrote that are no longer online and find new homes for them. These will mostly be on my own sites now.



#9 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2659 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 04:27 AM

I come at guest blogging with a healthy dose of link-building and SEO
behind me. What Ann describes is the right way to go about guest
blogging, and it makes complete sense. The problem is scaling that
within a service where you are attending to a number of different
clients. It's not impossible by any means, but it is not easy. EGOL's
alright he's doing his own thing on stuff he owns. Same with John (I
think).

 

The idea that a client is going to be happy
that you spent all their monthly service allocation getting one decent
post on a website, frankly won't buy it. In fact a look around how many
service providers are delivering their services, is not eye opening to
say the least. This is where I think the services of SEO have had to
change. I spend less and less time doing link-building per se, because
frankly the value added is so unknown that unless you can peg a direct
relationship between your activity and the outcome, you make yourself
look like an idiot. Still the cost of adwords means that there is soooo
much other stuff you can be proposing it's actually better.

 

Guest
blogging supports personalities and that is what the web is very good
at proposing. Equally 10 things about X. Y or Z for a company post is
probably something that they are not going to be interested in either,
and simply to perpetuate the fact that in the end you get a link. I do
think that there were some that truly believed the whole I will blog for
you and you blog for me, but it kind of turned into a blogging mafia -
how many recommendations were made for Thesis inside this reality - and
at the end of the day most of these happy bloggers knew that they were
also getting a link that was going to help them in Google.

 

What
I have noticed in the past weeks is that Google is starting to tweak
their algo to take into account guest posts. How do I know this? Because
I've been monitoring the impact of guest posts on sites the past
6-months and I can see that they are starting to bottom out as a
methodology.

 

I don't mind paying for putting up a guest
post, if there is some value added in doing so. What I do like doing is
writing back and asking people, sure I'll pay you 3K, what do i get for
that?

 

Love to hear examples of how service providers are making guest blogging work as a service for them.

 

 

G.



#10 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5521 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 09:24 AM

Most people don't think about content and linkbuilding long-term.

 

If I publish an article it has a tiny chance of attracting a link each day.  They accumulate slowly.

 

A linkbuilder can get faster results.

 

However, after I have five hundred quality articles up, each one of them has a tiny chance of attracting a link each day so I am going to get a few high quality links each day - that might be the production rate of a skilled linkbuilder.

 

So, in the long term, the publisher of quality content will be able to outperform a linkbuilder.... and in some niches the work of the linkbuilder becomes more difficult over time because he eventually will have picked all of the relevant low-hanging fruit.   Publishers in a tiny niche encounter a similar problem with content options but in some topic areas the content options are almost infinite. 



#11 seosmarty

seosmarty

    Dream Catcher

  • Site Administrators
  • 57 posts

Posted 29 June 2013 - 09:48 AM

Love to hear examples of how service providers are making guest blogging work as a service for them.

 

That depends on what you promise when providing that service. As a service provider, my service included:

  1. First month: setting up. Reach out to good blogs in the niche offering free monthly columns; running each one by the client... By the end of the month there should be at least 10 solid blogs who replied and agreed + Contributor accounts for the client there
  2. Month #2-XXX: Monthly articles to the approved blogs using approved client's bylines (some clients want to review or edit content; but many stop doing it after a couple of months)
  3. If any of the approved 10 blogs drops (client doesn't like it in terms of traffic / interactions, etc), we are looking for the approved replacement
  4. We try to link to older guest posts from newer guest posts throughout the course of the campaign to bring them up and create more powerful linking platforms...
  5. The client is usually on 6-month 1-year retainer, and if he quits, he gets all the login and contact info and can go on without me (I usually don't care much: That work is not easy to scale and they are usually back in a couple of months of trying to do that on their own :))

It has worked nicely to me and I've developed good relationships with bloggers I contributed to for the client as well...


Edited by seosmarty, 30 June 2013 - 12:27 PM.


#12 test-ok

test-ok

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 376 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 01:11 AM

#4 is interesting. I've never thought of that. Depending on the blog structure, that's a damn good idea. with a read more to other relevant blogs with-in that niche on the same site.



#13 tam

tam

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2084 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 04:33 AM

I can understand why site owners want to be paid, 99.9% of the requests I get are people that want a link (to advertise) and are caging it as doing me a favour by providing content for my site. They'd expect to pay those prices for an advert, throwing in some free content (aka the cost of a copy writer) does not add up to the same value.

 

I actually got into discussion with one the other day, usually I trash the emails but he'd implied actually read my site which was novel enough for me to reply. I agreed on the grounds the content was unique (info you couldn't read elsewhere) and not something I could just write myself - which might be an equal value swap with advertising. We agreed on something based on some stats from the company, but it sounds like they wouldn't agree so he came back with a very nicely written article but didn't meet either of my two criteria so I turned it down. I'm wasn't surprised, why would a company give me the lovely unique interesting content instead of posting it themselves and generating multiple links from people writing about it.

 

Those that want to 'get the message out there' send an email (usually long and rambly and without the benefit of a marketing company) with their message and leave it up to me if and how I spread it.



#14 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2659 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 02:56 PM

Mine in 5 lines...

 

And thanks for sharing a process smarty :)


Edited by glyn, 01 July 2013 - 07:49 AM.


#15 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1717 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:43 AM

For the most part I don't pay attention to these emails and simply ignore them all the time.  Having read this thread I did receive the following email recently for one of our smb's requesting a guest post opportunity:

 

Its copied below (except where i pulled out references to the site):

 

Frankly I thought it was well written and personalized, though I know they could have set up fields in a well written template for customizing the bus name and the url.

 

The email is associated with palatino.org.

 

.....and I'm still not responding   :D

 

 

Hi there,

 

I hope this email finds you well. Having visited your website, I am contacting you to see if you would like some fresh content for business name. If so, I would love to contribute to your site.

 

After graduating in Art and Design, I began working with an advertising agency before motherhood got in the way. Now I work from home as a freelance writer and cover topics as diverse as the latest exhibitions, reviews of art, books and music, self-help articles for beginners and also a topic close to my heart. Personal experience and work with the Coalition Against Drug Abuse has taught me how useful art and literature can be in helping both addicts and the victims of addiction, so when possible, I write on this positive message, though I know not everyone shares it.

 

These examples show you how diverse my (often ghost written) work is:

 




 

As you can see, they are all tailored to the needs of the site I am writing for. This content that I would like to produce for business name would come at no cost, if I am able to mention one of my business clients. Any link to them would be subtle and in line with the content of the article. All my work is 100% original and would only be submitted to your site for approval and nowhere else.

 

If you have any ideas or burning topics you would like me to write about, let me know; otherwise I can produce something for you to look at. This also applies to any other sites you might run as well as for website url. On the other hand, if you do not want my content, I will leave you with my best wishes.

 

Best,

Lisa

 

ps. You are NOT on any mailing list and if you do not want content from me, I will not contact you again. Of course, I hope you are interested!
 


#16 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5521 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 03:07 PM

Good article here on Guest Blogging by Marie Haynes.

 

http://www.hiswebmar...-you-penalized/



#17 seosmarty

seosmarty

    Dream Catcher

  • Site Administrators
  • 57 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:04 PM

Good article here on Guest Blogging by Marie Haynes.

 

http://www.hiswebmar...-you-penalized/

 

Well, actually it can be re-phrased {Put anything here} can get you penalized :)

 

And that has been that way for ages: You can do nothing, build good content and wait (in most cases, your competitors will do much better than you in that case) or you can do *something* and no matter what you do, the above phrase will be true (especially if you get damn good at what you do)

 

I am not playing a Devil's advocate here, nor am I encouraging everyone to stop caring and go guest blogging btw :)



#18 test-ok

test-ok

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 376 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 06:22 PM

IMHO what makes a natural looking link  is the anchor text that's used (which is what google is tying to decipher) I think it's that simple.



#19 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1717 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:11 PM

Google's algo's are freakin tough these days!!!   :D   Damn.  I read through the Marie Haynes article on guest blogging, scanning parts yet read in depth two of the "high quality" guest posts in two of the sources that carried the posts.

 

Those were thoughtful, articulate, well written articles with valuable information.  While Marie Haynes pointed to them as "potential" problems, she didn't go into depth to state with certainty, or even to suggest that they may have caused problems, and I didn't go to the author's sites to ascertain if they were problems of any sort.

 

Its daunting to imagine that an article of depth, thought, and helpful accumulated information that took considerable time to assemble and write would result in a penalty that could hamper the site that received the link and whose author generated the article.  If anything that seems to devalue what Matt Cutts said a bit ago about Google's attempts this season to ascertain authority and quality.   The writers expressed quality information.   The hosting sites demonstrated editorial choice in providing the articles.  They were helpful, showed depth of thought and research, were well structured, and provided insights.   They should be of value to readers.   They were to me.   One touched on an area with which I'm familiar and have used to good advantage.  The advice was excellent and would be useful to many people.   Years earlier that advice assisted me and my endeavors.

 

I think Marie Haynes' advice and comments about the high quality articles would be more telling if she both addressed the "high quality" examples and subsequently showed the recipients of those links suffered penalties, and then went through a link disavow process addressing the particular links from the hosting sites and subsequently had a positive google ranking bounce.

 

....and frankly, were that to be the case, I'd suggest the process google is using to discredit certain links would need a lot more refinement.

 

But that is simply my opinion and $0.02  :D



#20 seosmarty

seosmarty

    Dream Catcher

  • Site Administrators
  • 57 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 07:40 PM

IMHO what makes a natural looking link  is the anchor text that's used (which is what google is tying to decipher) I think it's that simple.

 

That's just for now... Do you think they will move away from this in the future when we get too good at varying anchor texts and making links natural? :)

 

On a serious note, on Twitter Marie said she saw people being penalized *even* for excessive use of brand name in the anchor text which seems weird to me: https://twitter.com/...589174512779264 and https://twitter.com/...600641744113666


Edited by seosmarty, 08 July 2013 - 07:41 PM.


#21 test-ok

test-ok

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 376 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:06 PM

Do you think they will move away from this in the future when we get too good at varying anchor texts and making links natural?  :)

 

IMO I think it'll last quite a while...why?

anyone who has a profile with a ton of exact match anchors (obvious link buyers)  will need to diversify their profile to approx 20/80, which could mean they need a crap load of read more or single anchor text links, anchor text that they really don't intend to rank for. How long will that take? depends on how crazy one went with the exact match links.

example:

Lets say you had 300 exact match anchors...that means your going to need approx 2400 links to dilute it to get to the 20/80. And if you get too many links too fast, you set off another flag. So it really hinders the people who jumped into spam link building over the last few years. Hence the reason why it's easier to start a new url in some cases. 

 

That's just for now

That's true it's just for now and I agree, it's hard enough figuring out what they did and impossible to figure out what they intend for the future.

 

Now whataUmean...On a serious note??? I was being serious.  :rolleyes:



#22 seosmarty

seosmarty

    Dream Catcher

  • Site Administrators
  • 57 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:16 PM

On a serious note??? I was being serious.  :rolleyes:

 

If I am too serious, I'll start ranting about how I am tired of disavows and confusion, so I am trying not to :)



#23 test-ok

test-ok

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 376 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:24 PM

I was just messin wit ya. :)



#24 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1717 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:57 PM

Boy:   This entire topic is getting provocative IMHO.  Ann:  I can fully understand and appreciate your defense of guest blogging.  Makes sense for you to do so.  As with so many methods to gain links and enhance google rankings...it is at least surprising if not deeply problematic that google could be penalizing that which worked in the past.

 

Some of the commentary really astounds me.  The tweets between you and Marie about brand name, gaining links to the brand name, and suggesting its problematic (albeit based on scale) are sort of astounding.

 

If a site gets linked to a lot naturally, its going to get a lot of url links and a lot of links by name.   That is natural.  There is nothing unnatural about it.  Its incredibly more natural to link to Macy's or Macy's' url then to link to anchor text such as NY Department store.   If a site like Macy's was penalized for too many links using the term Macy's...what the hell is google looking for?????

 

The process is quite befuddling if not upsetting.

 

Think I'll have a scotch.   :D   my $0.02


Edited by earlpearl, 08 July 2013 - 08:57 PM.


#25 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2659 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:33 AM

Well isn't this fun?

 

We have a piece of link-bait (Marie_Haynes) article - This is a pure sales piece design to sell copies of a book that's no doubt spoon feeding more paranoia down the throats of people without actually any science (but send me a review copy and I'll put it in the bathroom for reading material - it might actually help with the job that needs to get done in there).

 

 

Step 2: Hit up a recognized spokesperson on Guest Blogging and try and get some traction (I think it's kind of an IM version of trolling, see it all the time)

 

When we actually get into the meat of the article it's all the people will believe what they want to believe. They want to believe that Google is going to frown on everything that is not natural. It is not natural for people to give so much time to a parsing agent. I really don't like people who claim to understand Google who then tell us that

 

 I am not able to take on monthly SEO clients as the majority of the work
that I am doing is helping sites with penalty work. If your site has
been affected by a Google penalty or algorithm change such as Panda or
Penguin, then you can contact me for assistance.
Source

 

 

I bet you do dear.

 

Also, in defence of the thing that she's saying is going to get banned, yes she does post content to the usual band of culprits like MOZ & SearchEngineWatch the two authorized outlets for safe Google practices. Or put another way, it's the 10,00000 words when 100 will do community and the Press release distribution service for Google et al (no offense Danny, it's still in my RSS Demon).

 

So once you've filtered out all the waffle which in substance is just nicely written words, what's left in terms of alternatives? Yes that's right what is the alternative to Guest Blogging? Well of course, just follow Marie's Twitter feed of course...what did you expect?

 

Now it's time to do some work.

 

:)



#26 seosmarty

seosmarty

    Dream Catcher

  • Site Administrators
  • 57 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:48 AM

Who said I am Spokesman of guest blogging? :emo_gavel:



#27 Dr.Marie

Dr.Marie

    Light Speed Member

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 582 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:05 AM

Hey guys.  I just wanted to clarify a couple of points, especially about the Twitter conversation between Ann and I.  

 

A site is not going to be penalized because lots of people link to it with the site's brand name.  What I am seeing are sites that have been penalized for excessive use of guest posting regardless of the anchor text being used.  There's nothing wrong with getting the occasional post published on another site.  You're not going to be penalized for that.  But, if guest posting is done on a large scale as a tactic to gain links then it can get you a manual penalty regardless of the quality of the sites hosting your post or the anchor text used.  



#28 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4449 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:48 AM

I agree with Marie. It seems that the location of the link (as in the domain, not position on page) is more of an issue than the anchor text being used.

 

I did some guest posting for a while and on reviewing the sites they often looked good, but now many look awful.



#29 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2659 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 08:52 AM

So basically what you are saying is don't use a single source linking strategy. That makes sense, always has.



#30 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4662 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:05 AM

Ann: with MyBlogGuest you are the avatar of guest blogging. :)

 

glyn: you do love to go just that little bit extra over the top...

In a sense any content one publishes on another's site that links back to one's own is unearned and so unnatural in Google's academic mindset. In another, of course being invited to do so implies it's being earned and thus natural. In between the two is the fog. And peering at it all, and largely unable to distinguish the differences is Google's algorithm. And so, when they decide to toss the bathwater often the baby goes as well.

I have done a number of external marketing driven articles over the years - mostly not on blogs - and have noticed a difference between my linking to myself and most others.
Note: this is a minuscule portion of my backlinks and I am drawing no conclusion as to Google's interpretation, valuation, or even whether they notice them.

Many guest posts/articles do one of:
* Glyn of WorldDominationInc with the company name being a link to the company's home page.
* How to Scrape Google, by Glyn with the author's name being a link to one of:
---their personal blog home page
---an author's bio on the publishing site containing links to personal blog home page and/or social media accounts and/or company home page.

As I write anonymously mine are variation of published courtesy of example.com and the link whether directly or indirectly through that site's author bio page is to example.com's About page. Not the home page. In essence I use publisher as if it were rel=author (which I do NOT use, nor rel=publisher). I'm saying this is 'me' not this is a link to my site.

I was doing this long before rel=author simply because I thought it made sense. Does it make sense to Google? Who knows. It is similar behaviour to what they say they prefer but it is outside their parameters. And that may be enough for the algo to either ignore or kill.

However, I am NOT going to follow the suggested route of linking to a G+ profile that in turn links to my site. Sorry, Google, I dislike strong arm tactics especially without reciprocal value. Your algo limitations are showing. Again.



#31 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2659 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:25 AM

glyn: you do love to go just that little bit extra over the top...

 

I admit that my delivery sometimes sucks but that has a lot to do with the time and patience I have at hand.



#32 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1717 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:29 AM

Good topic.  

 

Glyn:  Nice work in escalating the issues and working through some of the fluff to get to real info.

 

Ann:  I agree with Iamlost.  You are an "avatar" in the context of guest blogging.

 

I tend to rely on personal experience and overwhelming information or hard studies before acknowledging changing algos. Sometimes the information seems dubious.  

 

I have a teeny bit of experience in interacting with google personnel on a couple of issues.  I also have interacted with some others that have similar experiences to a greater or lesser degree.

 

One thing has been constant.  All the google personnel of which I'm aware are incredibly opaque and non responsive with giving away any trade secrets.  When one does emerge it makes public appearance via some ex Google employee or via some deep effort that pulled out a "trade secret".

 

Having read Marie's article above and gone through in depth two of the referenced "high quality" articles, it would seem to me to be an incredible shame and disservice to readers, the websites, the recipient websites if those guest blogging links were the cause of a penalty in any way.   

 

But I'm not google, nor am I the person writing the warning, nor did I then analyse the websites that were the recipients of those guest blogging links (probably amid thousands of other links).

 

The entire concept seemed incredibly stupid, in fact the opposite of what should reflect quality, higher value, and enhanced user experience.

 

Google is the one creating this cloudyness.   Google, for once should make some authoritative statements, claim responsibility and accountability and clear up some of the confusion.

 

...but they won't.  They never do.  They are a huge completely unaccountable monopoly.



#33 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9023 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:25 PM

They are a huge completely unaccountable monopoly.

... and many of us would agree. The FTC is supposed to protect the citizenry from such predatory practices.



#34 jonbey

jonbey

    Eyes Like Hawk Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4449 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 04:59 PM

Is it possible to break them up though? Telecoms etc get broken up and people get moved to new providers, if Google was broken up people would still Google wouldn't they?



#35 earlpearl

earlpearl

    Hall of Fame

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 1717 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 05:07 PM

Is it possible to break them up though? Telecoms etc get broken up and people get moved to new providers, if Google was broken up people would still Google wouldn't they?

 

Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer over at Microsoft like to say  "Bing em on"



#36 test-ok

test-ok

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 376 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 05:23 PM

Is it possible to break them up though? Telecoms etc get broken up and people get moved to new providers, if Google was broken up people would still Google wouldn't they?

 

Those are service providers,  search engines would be more like voice-mail, you don't have to have it to connect to the web and if you want voice-mail you can use any product you want, your not tied to using google.  Besides In a way google is broken up...by location.



#37 KernelPanic

KernelPanic

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:12 AM

Good article here on Guest Blogging by Marie Haynes.

 

http://www.hiswebmar...-you-penalized/

Hey Egol, I would love to see some of the many recoveries you've seen from people who followed the instructions in this book. There must be a lot! or not any?



#38 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5521 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:31 AM

KP.... great to see you posting here.

 

I can't say how many people who purchased the book had recoveries.... but Marie has a pretty good success rate when she does the work on a site with link problems. 

 

I had two sites hit by panda and both recovered a few weeks after taking action.  One was republishing academic and government press releases - noindex/follow on those pages fixed the problem.  The other had duplicate content in .pdf to control print format.  Using rel=canonical via htaccess fixed that one.

 

Are you seeing any sites recover from Panda and Penguin?



#39 KernelPanic

KernelPanic

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 08:47 AM

Thanks Egol, I have not seen any evidence at all of a Penguin recovery. Not one. For this reason I am turning down work from potential clients. Other SEOs come to me and ask what to do and I have no answer for them. I have to sleep at night and stealing sort of keeps me awake.

 

The reason I asked is because the title of the book is how to recover from unnatural links, a step by step guide on penalty recovery. I am interested to see any evidence at all of a recovery for obvious reasons. I'm afraid the Penguin recovery "experts" out number Penguin recoveries by around a million to none.

 

So to ask again, can anyone show me proof of a Penguin recovery?



#40 glyn

glyn

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2659 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:04 AM

I saw a 20% drop in traffic on one site, after key date. Then I did my job and got that 20% back......(I just filled in a good recon request).

 

That was it.

 

No disavow, blah blah blah. No no-follow stuff....Not necessary.

 

I had an awful backlink profile, I mean real cr** in there (what SEO would I be otherwise! Riding that wave like the rest of the industry). Guilty as charged and now a good boy.

 

I know others thats have never recovered, and have started again on a new domain. I think that is a waste, but it depends how good your recon request is in my book ;)

 

So I hope that helps.

 

Glyn





RSS Feed

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users