[deleted]
Google SEO Starter Guide [pdf]
51–60 of 62 posts
Re: Google SEO Starter Guide [pdf]
#52I would love it if Google published an official answer to the perennial client question: "Why can't you get my site to the top of the SERPs for [insert competitive keywords here]?" My answer is usually along these lines: "Your site is competing for placement with many other professionally-built sites. If I'm doing my job properly, and so are the other web developers, none of us is or should be entitled to top placeme…
Thanks for the suggestion. Here's a related video we've done to educate people about why they shouldn't care as much about trying to rank #1 for trophy phrases that might not even convert that well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21BF_IVU10I But your suggestion is slightly different and a good one.
Hey Matt, one question m8! If You/Google are against people building links that aren’t earned, why do you/they allow advertisers to use the add words platform to sell “link building” services? These links aren't "earned" or natural, or are they???
Google “link building” to see adds that state "Guaranteed Page One Ranking"!
Im not a smart guy (not at all) but to me, logically if you/google allow this on your addwords platform then "link building" must be okay, but only from these specific addword companies? right? What am I missing?
Re: Google SEO Starter Guide [pdf]
#53Yeah, this is all good and everything. But to get to the top in a competitive market, there is usually very little option but to buy high quality links.
That's a really bad long-term strategy.
Better to have a "bad" long term strategy than no short term strategy at all.
Matt you know very well that small businesses that want to compete now HAVE to acquire some non-donated links, as NO ONE is donating dofollow links anymore, yet you still use them in your algorithm.
When and if you start to ignore links because you have enough usage and social signals, great! But this is a couple years off no? So other than them getting a penalty, which is a risk they just have to take, they have no choice but to acquire some non-donated links that look donated.
Re: Google SEO Starter Guide [pdf]
#54Re: Google SEO Starter Guide [pdf]
#55I would love it if Google published an official answer to the perennial client question: "Why can't you get my site to the top of the SERPs for [insert competitive keywords here]?" My answer is usually along these lines: "Your site is competing for placement with many other professionally-built sites. If I'm doing my job properly, and so are the other web developers, none of us is or should be entitled to top placeme…
Your answer should be quite clear: that's not a developer's responsibility. Tell them to consult a digital marketing or search specialist.
Agreed. I think most of us tell clients this when it comes up. But still, some clients view that response as a way to weasel out of "building a good site." Clients don't always understand the distinctions in roles. Some of them see "making a website" as a monolithic task. To them, adding a blue background to a page and moving that page up in the SERPs are equally difficult--for both, you just have to know how to code.
Re: Google SEO Starter Guide [pdf]
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything in particular on that page you'd like to highlight? I'm putting myself in the shoes of a client who just wants "my site to be ranked higher." From this client's perspective, it's the web dev's job to make that happen. I don't see anything on the linked-to page that directly dispels this notion. Just to be clear: I recognize that the web developer plays a role in improving Google rankings. I.e. the web dev sh…
Everything, did you read it? It's exactly what you were asking for. It's a clear outline of how Google works on a basic level. It uses signals from keywords as well as popularity. A web dev alone cannot affect the popularity. You can follow all the technical guidelines but if no one is linking to you, you won't be number one. In the unlikely event two sites have the same weighted links, quality and technical relevanc…
Yes, I read it very carefully. It does not discuss the role of the web developer, or how much power a developer has to affect rankings.
The closest thing I can find is this: "Not every website can come out at the top of the page, or even appear on the first page of our search results." But many web dev clients are likely to respond: "I know not everyone can be first. But why can't I?" To which I reply that the client's competitors also have perfectly competent web devs.
It does say a (very) little about how relevance is determined. But to a client who doesn't want to be bothered with implementation details, this will come across as noise.
Re: Google SEO Starter Guide [pdf]
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything, did you read it? It's exactly what you were asking for. It's a clear outline of how Google works on a basic level. It uses signals from keywords as well as popularity. A web dev alone cannot affect the popularity. You can follow all the technical guidelines but if no one is linking to you, you won't be number one. In the unlikely event two sites have the same weighted links, quality and technical relevanc…
Yes, I read it very carefully. It does not discuss the role of the web developer, or how much power a developer has to affect rankings. The closest thing I can find is this: "Not every website can come out at the top of the page, or even appear on the first page of our search results." But many web dev clients are likely to respond: "I know not everyone can be first. But why can't I?" To which I reply that the client…
That's because the web dev has as much to do with the ranking on Google as an architect has to do with the success of the business inside the office he designed.
You can make the most well structured perfectly semantic website in the world, and that doesn't mean it will even get indexed by Google. That's where the marketer, and the business you are designing for come into place, which is what that link described.
Re: Google SEO Starter Guide [pdf]
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the suggestion. Here's a related video we've done to educate people about why they shouldn't care as much about trying to rank #1 for trophy phrases that might not even convert that well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21BF_IVU10I But your suggestion is slightly different and a good one.
Hey Matt, one question m8! If You/Google are against people building links that aren’t earned, why do you/they allow advertisers to use the add words platform to sell “link building” services? These links aren't "earned" or natural, or are they??? Google “link building” to see adds that state "Guaranteed Page One Ranking"! Im not a smart guy (not at all) but to me, logically if you/google allow this on your addwords…
Google organic and paid resutlts are 2 different things even though both showing up together on the same page, probably completely different departments and at least different rules and regulation apply. You can advertise for anything you want as long as it complies to the adwords terms and conditions.
Re: Google SEO Starter Guide [pdf]
#59Re: Google SEO Starter Guide [pdf]
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a really bad long-term strategy.
TravelSupermarket have been doing this as a long-term strategy and get away with it. http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!searchin/webmasters/... I'm hoping someone from Google can explain, or at least commit to investigate why the leading brand in our niche (travel) has escaped a Penguin 2.0 demotion. It may come across as sour grapes as yes, we were demoted following Penguin 2, due to links built by an SEO agenc…
Algorithmic penalties could be already in place for this domain. I would be surprised if google places any weight on these type of links you posted. However due to their overall activity they may be getting a lot genuine stuff their way too, which could be a reason why they still rank above others in this "black-grey-heavy" industry.