maxaxiom.net

18Apr/17Off

Link Building Packages – For The Advantage Of Your Small Business, Read Through The Upcoming Journals In The Matter Of Link Building Packages.

As we’ve expanded the company, I used to be finally able to use our internal resources to create out & rank our very own projects. I’ve always had the mindset of “drinking our personal Koolaid”, and as we’ve gone down this path, Recently i stumbled right into a rabbit hole that gave me a massive burst of excitement and a rise in expectations for the purpose we might do in the future. But it came at the cost: paranoia.

When the dust settled around the improvements we made, I took a serious step back and realized that what we were building was pretty much on the fault brand of a tectonic plate.

It could possibly all come crashing down in an instant, all because of one critical assumption that I’ve created to date: that links continue to matter.

I quickly realized that I needed to get a better gauge on the longevity of links beyond the tweets I happened to see on that day. I’ve never had much cause for concern through the years regarding this issue (evidence of how come listed later), but if I would produce a major bet across the next 12-24 months, I found it necessary to be aware of parameters of the items could go wrong, and also this was one of many items on top of their list.

I finished up discussing things over by incorporating trusted colleagues of mine, and also contacting a few other experts that I trusted the opinion of with regards to the way ahead for SEO. So I wanted to express my thinking, along with the overall conclusions I’ve drawn based off the information available.

The primary way to obtain “facts” that the industry points to overall are statements from Google. Yet, we have seen numerous instances where what Google is telling us is, at the very least, misleading.

Below are a few recent examples to illustrate in what way they can be misleading:

1. Within their “Not Provided” announcement post in October 2011, Google stated that “the change will affect simply a minority of your respective traffic.” Not actually a couple of years later, Danny Sullivan was told by Google that they had begun work with encrypting ALL searches. Others is history.

My thoughts: even though we obtain the simple truth from Google, it needs to be labeled with huge, red letters from the date the statement is made, because things may change very, quickly. In this instance, it had been probably their intention all along to gradually roll this to all searches, as a way to not anger people too greatly all at once.

2. Google’s John Mueller made this statement a couple weeks ago about 302 redirects passing PageRank. It implies that 302 redirects are OK for SEO. As Mike King quickly noted on Twitter, that’s very misleading based off most SEO’s prior experiences.

My thoughts: will it be challenging to believe that 302 redirects pass a minimum of .01% of your PageRank in the page? I don’t think so. So really, this statement isn’t saying much. It’s a non-answer, as it’s framed compared to a 404 (no PR passes) rather than 301 (~90% of PR passes), the direct alternative in such a case. So really, it doesn’t answer anything practical.

Take those two examples & know that things can alter quickly, and therefore you should try to decipher what exactly is actually, concretely being said.

So, knowing that, here are several recent statements on the subject with this post:

1. March 24, 2016 - Google lists their best 3 ranking factors as: links, content and RankBrain (even though they didn’t state an order of your initial two; RankBrain is unquestionably 3rd, though).

My thoughts: this isn’t anything new. This list lines with what they indicated inside the RankBrain initial news article in Bloomberg once they stated RankBrain was #3. Everything that was left to speculate, until now, was what #1 and #2 were, although it wasn’t too difficult to guess.

2. Feb 2, 2015 - Google confirms that you don’t necessarily need links to rank. John Mueller cites a good example of friend of his who launched the local neighborhood website in Zurich as dexhpky71 indexed, ranking, and receiving search traffic.

My thoughts: this isn’t very surprising, for 2 reasons. First, that this queries they’re ranking for are probably very low competition (because: local international), and since Google has gotten much better throughout the years at considering other signals in areas where the website link graph was lacking.

3. May 5, 2014 - Matt Cutts leads off a youtube video having a disclaimer stating “I think one way link building have many, many years left in them”.

My thoughts: just as much of any endorsement as that may be, a haunting reminder of methods quickly things change is Matt’s comments later from the video speaking about authorship markup, a project which had been eventually abandoned inside the following years.

4. Feb 19, 2014 - Google’s Matt Cutts stated that they tried dropping links altogether from their ranking algorithm, and discovered so that it is “much, much worse”.

My thoughts: interestingly enough, Yandex tried this starting in March 2014 for specific niches, and brought it back annually later after finding it to be unsuccessful. Things change awfully quick, but when there’s any evidence with this list that could add reassurance, the combination of two different search engines like yahoo trying & failing this is probably best. With that said, our main concern isn’t the complete riddance of links, but rather, its absolute strength as a ranking factor. So, once again, it’s still not all the that reassuring.

Filed under: Liberty Comments Off
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Trackbacks are disabled.