Category: Google

A post I read recently discussed what you need to evaluate when you get a manual penalty from Google. Some people generally get as many link reports that they can and then scythe through them hoping to cull anything that looks a bit out of the ordinary.

But the post I read was talking about just analysing the links from within Webmaster tools itself. However there are other examples which have shown that just analysing the links in Webmaster tools isn’t enough. Matt Cutts, head of the webspam team at Google, has addressed and recognised this by releasing a statement as follows:

It’s certainly the case that we endeavor to show examples from the set of links returned by Webmaster Tools, and likewise we prefer to assess reconsideration requests on that basis of those links. However, if there’s a really good example link that illustrates a problem, we do leave enough room to share that link, especially because it can help point the webmaster in a better direction to diagnose and fix issues.

So it shows that although Google do try, that is all they can do. Try. So if you’re ever on the receiving end of a manual penalty, then don’t rely solely on Webmaster tools to recuperate. Use other link analysis software and make sure to examine as many links as possible to try and find what is hurting your site.

The short answer is yes. As Matt Cutts goes on to explain below:

Today Google pays homage to Erwin Schrödinger on his 125th birthday. See the Doodle below:

 

The principle itself is quite complicated to understand but I’ll do my best to explain it. You start off with three items; a cat, a glass phial containing a lethal poison and small piece of radioactive material. These three items are put into a box with the glass phial set to detect radioactivity, and If the phial does detect radioactivity (which it surely will) then the glass will shatter, releasing the poison and killing the cat.

At this moment I’d like to explain that this is a thought experiment. No cats were harmed in the construction of this blog post.

As there is an air of inevitability about the poor cats demise you can then apply the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (you’ll have to take me at my word for that) to state that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Alive because not enough time has passed for the phial to smash, and dead because the cat is inevitably doomed.

It’s meant to pose the question of when does quantum superposition (cat both alive and dead) end and when does reality kick in to determine the outcome of the cat’s fate i.e. peering into the box.

Interesting no doubt but how does this apply to SEO? Sit tight and I’ll tell you, we’ll just be making a few simple swaps.

Instead of a cat you have blog post you’ve written. Instead of a box you have someone else’s blog/email address. The radioactive material is instead you requesting to publish a blog, and the glass phial is the blog owner who will smash/publish a post when it detects a request and a blog post.

So, you find the blog you wish to publish on (the box) and put in your blog post (the cat), the author (the glass phial) and your request for the author to publish it (radioactive material).

So as it stands it is inevitable that your blog post will get published on the authors blog. But when you put them in the box together the author still needs to detect the request which will then trigger him to publish your article. So at the same time, again applying the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, your blog post is simultaneously published and unpublished. The same as the cat being alive and dead.

The only way to then stop the quantum superposition of this is to then “peer in the box” by checking the blog.

Simple really. I think?

Blog Post by: Greg McVey

It was recently confirmed that Google have changed the webmaster guidelines when it comes to link schemes. The main rule they have concentrated on is the keyword rich anchor text within press releases and the links should include the nofollow attribute. Similar to that of paid advertisements, this ensures that paid links do not pass on any value to search engines.

The precise line in the updated link schemes guidelines is:

“Links with optimized anchor text in articles or press releases distributed on other sites.”

I researched more about this and have found a Google Hangout video by John Mueller who is the head webmaster trends analyst, it is clear that Google are turning to press releases as advertisements hence the change in link scheme. Press releases will still drive a lot of traffic to your website but take note of these new guidelines and instead of linking with your keyword use brand name, url or generic anchor text as these will still carry the follow attribute, therefore passing on PageRank.

Another interesting point is that in the past Matt Cutts has publicly came out and said that links within articles and press releases do not pass link juice, when many people who work in the SEO world know that it is not true in the slightest!

It seems to me that Google are taking a more direct approach about paid advertising and link schemes but also to the overuse of paid links within articles. Take a look at the Google Hangout video with John Mueller and let us know what you think.

[embedplusvideo height=”356″ width=”584″ editlink=”http://bit.ly/18MXfpn” standard=”http://www.youtube.com/v/z6p7vO04Vsc?fs=1″ vars=”ytid=z6p7vO04Vsc&width=584&height=356&start=&stop=&rs=w&hd=0&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=” id=”ep6174″ /]

 

Blog Post by Jordan Whitehead

Well as I’m sure you all know by now Google has yet again been making big algorithm changes to the way they rank the websites, or should I say YOUR website.

The most recent being the penguin update. In short (risking over simplifying it) the manual checking, where people were hired to view websites, had finally come to an end. Google finally was able to take that information which they had gathered form this manual reviewers and put it into a computer program; now all websites can be automatically “critiqued” without a human eye even glancing over your page. I’m sure there are still some manual reviewers, but they have been cut down by a large amount, so once again the algorithm rules the roost!

So whats new?, how have these big penguin and panda processes now being put into the algorithm itself changed things?

Well if we go back 18 months to 2 years ago the internet was full of all kinds of rubbish, or spam you might call it. People were throwing out “Auto-blogs” which automatically “scraped” the internet looking for content which suited a keyword they were programmed to search for, then it gets posted automatically to their website, it worked very well for some people aswell!

However the panda update put an end to that. To sum up the goal of the panda it was created for the main purpose of cutting out any pages or posts which offered no value. This meant no duplicate content, no “thin” pages or websites. Basically, if what you was submitted wasn’t yours, or wasn’t benefiting the user then you’re “outta there!”.

There theres the Penguin update. Once again to sum up the objective of this algorithm change, Google went after backlinks. By now Im sure they are fully aware what natural looking backlink profiles look like. Im sure every niche and every market has its own little quirks, but Google probably has the information which all websites must adhere to.

If your not behaving in a proper manner in terms of how you market your website, this means collecting backlinks “genuinely, or if your not backlicking to any other websites with any weight or relevance, than you to risk being “slapped or penalised. Pengiun wanted ot make it harder for the average person to buy a backlinking tool and throw out hundres if not thoussands of backlinks to their website, (getting nearer the end of grey hat and black hat ways) and they have certainly succeeded!

The Algorithmic Conclusion

So you may think, game over! We can never rank for anything now, the bar has been raised to high!

You know what I say?? Good rid-dense! We have just come across a time in Googles existence where I see opportunity. Chances are the competitors who you would be competing against have either slipped down the rankings or have dissapeared completely. So to capitalise on this, all you really need to do is follow the rules. Don’t try and con Google, itll never work, write for the user and let Net66 worry about getting you ranked…That my friends will give you the best possible chance of succeeding whatever market your in.

Google’s Matt Cutts has given us an update on the latest Algorithm Changes. In a tweet responding to an SEO company that had highlighted what appeared to be unnatural linking practices, Matt Cutts stated:

On the face of it that’s a pretty big update. But thinking even deeper, this algorithm has to be pretty big considering they’re having to roll this out over several weeks. This doesn’t really surprise me to be honest. There’s been a lot of talk in the SEO community about strange changes and fluctuations in Rankings and Traffic. One of the strangest claims to be rankings moving up in the SERPs but traffic reducing, which defies logic.

So what do you think these new updates are for? Is this the new Soft Panda algorithm update? Have they released another anti spam update?

Blog Post by: Greg McVey

For a while now Google’s official advice on how to improve your rankings has been stated as the following:

Ranking

However, these have changed recently to put the onus on creating a quality site and user experience, rather than building links. The new text has been edited to read:

They’ve also changed the link offering advice on how to maintain and improve your visibility in search engines from their Webmaster Guidelines to their new Webmaster Academy.

Change is a natural part of Google but what is different about this change is that Google kept it relatively quiet. Usually there’s a buzz around the latest updates from Google but this time it’s as if they have stolen in in the midst of the night and quickly changed a few words. The sly lot.

What do you think to the new changes?

Blog Post by: Greg McVey