Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Same Song, New Duet


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 iamlost

iamlost

    The Wind Master

  • Site Administrators
  • 4629 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 02:05 PM

I just read the Aaron Wall interview of Jim Boykin, SEO Book, 04-September-2013, (think Chuck has mentioned it elsewhere) and while it was a nice fluffy marketing piece there were a few points worth pointing out (for the n-th time but perhaps coming from Jim via Aaron will add gravitas).

Jim: I feel there's really been a tipping point with the Google Penguin updates. Maybe it should be "What works best short term" and "What works best long term"...


Tipping points have always existed. What happened with Panda then Penguin was that the allowed 'tilt' was markedly decreased such that it impacted more than just a truly egregious few.

Today it's much more involved to send natural signals to a clients website.  To send in natural signals you must do things like work up the brand signals, trusted citations, return visitors, good user experience, community, authors, social, yada yada....SEO is becming less a "link thing"...and more a "great signals from many trusted people", as well as it's a branding game now.


The real kicker is that last one: branding. It could be seen coming what with the string of patents discussing named entities, the 2009 'sewer out there' comment by Eric Schmidt, etc. That so many paid so little attention to the overarching theme and were 'surprised' by Panda in 2011 and Penguin in 2012...

Despite it having become common to hear 'brand' and 'branding' bandied about by webdevs it is surprising how few have a solid understanding of what they speak. This is especially true of 'branding', as if it is something that is actively directly done...

Each of the other mentions, return visitors, trusted citations (linked and unlinked), etc. is, as with brand, worth entire books although there are certainly sufficient quality threads here at Cre8 going back years to get one well started. Try doing some research and reading.

Every website owner has to measure the risks, and the time involved, and the expected ROI....it's not a cheap game any more....doing real marketing involves brains and not buttons...


Yup. And when a toolmaker says that the tools should support the brains and not the other way... Jim, from what I see, created tools to assist, to make easier, to automate existing requirements. Rather different from those who find a tool and do what it allows them to do without considering whether it's a good idea...

I wonder what percentage of webdevs even consider in passing the associated risks with what they are about to do? I suspect it is in the low single digits. ROI? Sheesh, another term many/most webdevs don't really understand and certainly don't consider.

Every website owner needs to treat their online business as a business. Or stop complaining about a lack or cessation of traffic/revenue/etc.

Remember cheap/fast/good, you can have any two? It applies. Keep it in mind while planning your business and while executing that plan.

Aaron: In terms of recoveries, are most [Penguin] penalized sites "recoverable"? What does the typical recovery period look like in terms of duration & restoration?

Jim: oh...this is a bee's nest you're asking me..... are sites recoverable....yes, most....if a site has 1000 domains that link to it, and 900 of those are artificial and I disavow them, there might not be much of a recovery depending on what that 100 links left are..


This is the part that seems the most difficult for many webdevs to get their heads around. Disavowing (or having them discounted) a significant percentage of backlinks may make your site squeaky clean again (there is debate about this) but it does not pop you back where you were!!! After all, a great many of the reasons why you were there are now gone. Sheesh, some people.

To get back on top requires more and better (for some definition of better) content than competitors (Panda) and new better (for some definition of better) links to replace all those now disavowed (Penguin). Plus it requires thought about quality on and off site: quality that attracts traffic, quality that converts traffic. It requires thought. It requires time. It requires effort. Three things that many webdevs seem to lack or actively avoid.

For some webdevs getting hit hard by Google has been a wakeup call. They took a good look at their site(s) and worked to improve existing visitor metrics while finding new marketing opportunities. A number have found that as their site is resurrected by traffic from new sources and increased visitor activity and conversion there has also been a slow up creep in their Google status as well. Yup, doing well elsewhere often brings Google along for the ride, where doing well on Google means simply doing well on Google.

 

Hopefully it doesn't take a great Google whack to wake you all up...

Ah well. Maybe someone will listen. After all it's Aaron and Jim singing...



#2 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 04:03 PM

Aaron has always said the things you say.  The difference is, he recognizes reasons not to do what you say or why a business can't do what you say.  Aaron is a realist and understands online business better than most.  I highly respect his advice in this area because of it.

 

As they discuss above, there are -- risks vs rewards.  There are reasons for doing what you say and reasons for not doing what you say.  Just as there are good reasons to have body parts removed so you don't get cancer, there are good reasons why you wouldn't want to do so.  The cure presents real problems too.

 

Bottom line, Aaron sees it through the eyes of a businessperson that is held accountable for generating profits and is able to tell it like it is, for that group.

 

Having said that, what you say is true and important.  You have acquired a wealth of knowledge and insights that are valuable and you freely share them with others here at Cre8 which is much appreciated.

 

Just keep in mind that people have reasons to not do what you suggest, though.  That doesn't make them idjits.  On the other hand, what you say is perfectly sound advice, for many.    I believe they consider the consequences and go in with "their eyes open" much more than you believe.

 

Just take it easy on calling people idjits, it's not becoming.  Except g#####, that is. ;)


Edited by chuckfinley, 07 September 2013 - 04:08 PM.
grammar


#3 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 04:07 PM

This is a really good post, btw.  Two of the top minds (and very sharp minds) in the industry sharing their vision for the future of SEO.  I believe they're onto something here.



#4 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5462 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 07:14 PM

if a site has 1000 domains that link to it, and 900 of those are artificial and I disavow them, there might not be much of a recovery depending on what that 100 links left are..

 
What this really says is..... the site was s.hit

Edited by iamlost, 07 September 2013 - 09:33 PM.
Returning meaning


#5 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 07:32 PM

What this really says is..... the site was "number 2"

 

Problem is -- without the links, g##### would have ranked it 200.



#6 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5462 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 08:16 PM

I think that the bad word filter is getting in the way of communication. 



#7 clandestino

clandestino

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 985 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 08:39 PM

I think that the bad word filter is getting in the way of communication. 

 

Ooooooooohhhhh....... :)





RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users