In recent years, the biggest change to the search landscape happened when Google chose to withhold keyword data from webmasters. At SEOBook, Aaron noticed and wrote about the change, as evermore keyword data disappeared.
SSL encryption on the web has been growing by leaps and bounds. As part of our commitment to provide a more secure online experience, today we announced that SSL Search on https://www.google.com will become the default experience for signed in users on google.com.
Google software engineer Matt Cutts, who’s been involved with the privacy changes, wouldn’t give an exact figure but told me he estimated even at full roll-out, this would still be in the single-digit percentages of all Google searchers on Google.com
...which didn't turn out to be the case. It now affects almost all keyword referral data from Google.
Was it all about privacy? Another rocket over the SEO bows? Bit of both? Probably. In any case, the search landscape was irrevocably changed. Instead of being shown the keyword term the searcher had used to find a page, webmasters were given the less than helpful “not provided”. This change rocked SEO. The SEO world, up until that point, had been built on keywords. SEOs choose a keyword. They rank for the keyword. They track click-thrus against this keyword. This is how many SEOs proved their worth to clients.
These days, very little keyword data is available from Google. There certainly isn’t enough to keyword data to use as a primary form of measurement.
This change forced a rethink about measurement, and SEO in general. Whilst there is still some keyword data available from the likes of Webmaster Tools & the AdWords paid versus organic report, keyword-based SEO tracking approaches are unlikely to align with Google’s future plans. As we saw with the Hummingbird algorithm, Google is moving towards searcher-intent based search, as opposed to keyword-matched results.
Hummingbird should better focus on the meaning behind the words. It may better understand the actual location of your home, if you’ve shared that with Google. It might understand that “place” means you want a brick-and-mortar store. It might get that “iPhone 5s” is a particular type of electronic device carried by certain stores. Knowing all these meanings may help Google go beyond just finding pages with matching words
The search bar is still keyword based, but Google is also trying to figure out what user intent lays behind the keyword. To do this, they’re relying on context data. For example, they look at what previous searches has the user made, their location, they are breaking down the query itself, and so on, all of which can change the search results the user sees.
When SEO started, it was in an environment where the keyword the user typed into a search bar was exact matching that with a keyword that appears on a page. This is what relevance meant. SEO continued with this model, but it’s fast becoming redundant, because Google is increasingly relying on context in order to determine searcher intent & while filtering many results which were too aligned with the old strategy. Much SEO has shifted from keywords to wider digital marketing considerations, such as what the visitor does next, as a result.
We’ve Still Got Great Data
Okay, if SEO’s don’t have keywords, what can they use?
If we step back a bit, what we’re really trying to do with measurement is demonstrate value. Value of search vs other channels, and value of specific search campaigns. Did our search campaigns meet our marketing goals and thus provide value?
Do we have enough data to demonstrate value? Yes, we do. Here are a few ideas SEOs have devised to look at the organic search data they are getting, and they use it to demonstrate value.
1. Organic Search VS Other Activity
If our organic search tracking well when compared with other digital marketing channels, such as social or email? About the same? Falling?
In many ways, the withholding of keyword data can be a blessing, especially to those SEOs who have a few ranking-obsessed clients. A ranking, in itself is worthless, especially if it’s generating no traffic.
Instead, if we look at the total amount of organic traffic, and see that it is rising, then we shouldn’t really care too much about what keywords it is coming from. We can also track organic searches across device, such as desktop vs mobile, and get some insight into how best to optimize those channels for search as a whole, rather than by keyword. It’s important that the traffic came from organic search, rather than from other campaigns. It’s important that the visitors saw your site. And it’s important what that traffic does next.
2. Bounce Rate
If a visitor comes in, doesn’t like what is on offer, and clicks back, then that won’t help rankings. Google have been a little oblique on this point, saying they aren’t measuring bounce rate, but I suspect it’s a little more nuanced, in practice. If people are failing to engage, then anecdotal evidence suggests this does affect rankings.
Look at the behavioral metrics in GA; if your content has 50% of people spending less than 10 seconds, that may be a problem or that may be normal. The key is to look below that top graph and see if you have a bell curve or if the next largest segment is the 11-30 second crowd.
Either way, we must encourage visitor engagement. Even small improvements in terms of engagement can mean big changes in the bottom line. Getting visitors to a site was only ever the first step in a long chain. It’s what they do next that really makes or breaks a web business, unless the entire goal was that the visitor should only view the landing page. Few sites, these days, would get much return on non-engagement.
PPCers are naturally obsessed with this metric, because each click is costing them money, but when you think about it, it’s costing SEOs money, too. Clicks are getting harder and harder to get, and each click does have a cost associated with it i.e. the total cost of the SEO campaign divided by the number of clicks, so each click needs to be treated as a cost.
3. Landing Pages
We can still do landing page analysis. We can see the pages where visitors are entering the website. We can also see which pages are most popular, and we can tell from the topic of the page what type of keywords people are using to find it.
We could add more related keyword to these pages and see how they do, or create more pages on similar themes, using different keyword terms, and then monitor the response. Similarly, we can look at poorly performing pages and make the assumption these are not ranking against intended keywords, and mark these for improvement or deletion.
We can see how old pages vs new pages are performing in organic search. How quickly do new pages get traffic?
We’re still getting a lot of actionable data, and still not one keyword in sight.
We can also look at what step in the process are organic visitors converting. Early? Late? Why? Is there some content on the site that is leading them to convert better than other content? We can still determine if organic search provided a last click-conversion, or a conversion as the result of a mix of channels, where organic played a part. We can do all of this from aggregated organic search data, with no need to look at keywords.
5. Contrast With PPC
We can contrast Adwords data back against organic search. Trends we see in PPC might also be working in organic search.
For AdWords our life is made infinitesimally easier because by linking your AdWords account to your Analytics account rich AdWords data shows up automagically allowing you to have an end-to-end view of campaign performance.
The silver lining in all this? With voice an mobile search, you’ll likely catch those conversions that you hadn’t before. While you may think that you have everything figured out and that your campaigns are optimal, this matching will force you into deeper dives that hopefully uncover profitable PPC pockets.
6. Benchmark Against Everything
In the above section I highlighted comparing organic search to AdWords performance, but you can benchmark against almost any form of data.
Is 90% of your keyword data (not provided)? Then you can look at the 10% which is provided to estimate performance on the other 90% of the traffic. If you get 1,000 monthly keyword visits for [widgets], then as a rough rule of thumb you might get roughly 9,000 monthly visits for that same keyword shown as (not provided).
Has your search traffic gone up or down over the past few years? Are there seasonal patterns that drive user behavior? How important is the mobile shift in your market? What landing pages have performed the best over time and which have fallen hardest?
How is your site's aggregate keyword ranking profile compared to top competitors? Even if you don't have all the individual keyword referral data from search engines, seeing the aggregate footprints, and how they change over time, indicates who is doing better and who gaining exposure vs losing it.
You can also go further with other competitive research tools which look beyond the search channel. Is most of your traffic driven from organic search? Do your competitors do more with other channels? A number of sites like Compete.com and Alexa have provided estimates for this sort of data. Another newer entrant into this market is SimilarWeb.
And, finally, rank checking still has some value. While rank tracking may seem futile in the age of search personalization and Hummingbird, it can still help you isolate performance issues during algorithm updates. There are a wide variety of options from browser plugins to desktop software to hosted solutions.
By now, I hope I’ve convinced you that specific keyword data isn’t necessary and, in some case, may have only served to distract some SEOs from seeing other valuable marketing metrics, such as what happens after the click and where do they go next.
So long as the organic search traffic is doing what we want it to, we know which pages it is coming in on, and can track what it does next, there is plenty of data there to keep us busy. Lack of keyword data is a pain, but in response, many SEOs are optimizing for a lot more than keywords, and focusing more on broader marketing concerns.
Google recently announced they were doing away with exact match AdWords ad targeting this September. They will force all match types to have close variant keyword matching enabled. This means you get misspelled searches, plural versus singular overlap, and an undoing of your tight organization.
In some cases the user intent is different between singular and plural versions of a keyword. A singular version search might be looking to buy a single widget, whereas a plural search might be a user wanting to compare different options in the marketplace. In some cases people are looking for different product classes depending on word form:
For example, if you sell spectacles, the difference between users searching on ‘glass’ vs. ‘glasses’ might mean you are getting users seeing your ad interested in a building material, rather than an aid to reading.
Where segmenting improved the user experience, boosted conversion rates, made management easier, and improved margins - those benefits are now off the table.
An offline analogy for this loss of segmentation ... you go to a gas station to get a bottle of water. After grabbing your water and handing the cashier a $20, they give you $3.27 back along with a six pack you didn't want and didn't ask for.
Why does a person misspell a keyword? Some common reasons include:
they are new to the market & don't know it well
they are distracted
they are using a mobile device or something which makes it hard to input their search query (and those same input issues make it harder to perform other conversion-oriented actions)
their primary language is a different language
they are looking for something else
In any of those cases, the typical average value of the expressed intent is usually going to be less than a person who correctly spelled the keyword.
Even if spelling errors were intentional and cultural, the ability to segment that and cater the landing page to match disappears. Or if the spelling error was a cue to send people to an introductory page earlier in the conversion funnel, that option is no more.
In many accounts the loss of the granular control won't cause too big of a difference. But some advertiser accounts in competitive markets will become less profitable and more expensive to manage:
No one who's in the know has more than about 5-10 total keywords in any one adgroup because they're using broad match modified, which eliminated the need for "excessive keyword lists" a long time ago. Now you're going to have to spend your time creating excessive negative keyword lists with possibly millions upon millions of variations so you can still show up for exactly what you want and nothing else.
I added negatives to my list for 3 months before finally giving up opting out of close variants. What they viewed as a close variant was not even in the ballpark of what I sell. There have been petitions before that have gotten Google to reverse bad decisions in the past. We need to make that happen again.
In this particular account, close variations have much lower conversion rates and much higher CPAs than their actual match type.
Variation match isn’t always bad, there are times it can be good to use variation match. However, there was choice.
Loss of control is never good. Mobile control was lost with Enhanced Campaigns, and now you’re losing control over your match types. This will further erode your ability to control costs and conversions within AdWords.
Whenever Google does a major algorithm update we all rush off to our data to see what changed in terms of rankings, search traffic, and then look for the trends to try to figure out what changed.
The two people I chat most with during periods of big algorithmic changes are Joe Sinkwitz and Jim Boykin. I recently interviewed them about the Penguin algorithm.
what it is
why there hasn't been an update in a while
how to determine if issues are related to Penguin or something else
the recovery process (from Penguin and manual link penalties)
and much, much more
Here's a custom drawing we commissioned for this interview.
Want to embed this image on your website?
To date there have been 5 Penguin updates:
April 24, 2012
May 25, 2012
October 5, 2012
May 22, 2013 (Penguin 2.0)
October 4, 2013
There hasn't been one in quite a while, which is frustrating many who haven't been able to recover. On to the interview...
At its core what is Google Penguin?
Jim: It is a link filter that can cause penalties.
Joe: At its core, Penguin can be viewed as an algorithmic batch filter designed to punish lower quality link profiles.
What sort of ranking and traffic declines do people typically see from Penguin?
Jim: 30-98%. actually, seen some "manual partial matches" some, where traffic was hardly hit...but that's rare.
Joe: Near total. I should expand. Penguin 1.0 has been a different beast than its later iterations; the first one has been nearly a fixed flag whereas later iterations haven't been quite as severe.
After the initial update there was another one about a month later & then one about every 6 months for a while. There hasn't been one for about 10 months now. So why have the updates been so rare? And why hasn't there been one for a long time?
Jim: Great question. We all believed there'd be an update every 6 months, and now it's been way longer than 6 months...maybe because Matt's on vacation...or maybe he knew it would be a long time until the next update, so he took some time off...or perhaps Google wants those with a algorithmic penalty to feel the pain for longer than 6 months.
Joe: 1.0 was temporarily escapable if you were willing to 301 your site; after 1.1 the redirect began to pass on the damage. My theory on why it has been so very long on the most recent update has to do with maximizing pain - Google doesn't intend to lift its boot off the throats of webmasters just yet; no amount of groveling will do. Add to that the complexity of every idiot disavowing 90%+ of their clean link profiles and 'dirty' vs 'clean' links is difficult to ascertain on that signal.
Jim: Most people disavow some, then the disavow some more...then next month they disavow more...wait a year and they may disavow them all :)
Jim: Then Google will let them out...hehe, tongue in cheek...a little.
Joe: I've seen disavow files with over 98% of links in there, including Wikipedia, the Yahoo! Directory, and other great sources - absurd.
Jim: Me too. Most of the people are clueless ... there's tons of people who are disavowing links just because their traffic has gone down, so they feel they must have been hit by penguin, so they start disavowing links.
Joe: Yes; I've seen a lot of panda hits where the person wants to immediately disavow. "whoa, slow down there Tex!"
Jim: I've seen services where they guarantee you'll get out of a penguin penalty, and we know that they're just disavowing 100% of the links. Yes, you get your manual penalty removed that way, but then you're left with nothing.
Joe: Good time to mention that any guarantee of getting out of a penalty is likely sold as a bag of smoke.
Jim: or as they are disavowing 100% of the links they can find going to the site.
OK. I think you mentioned an important point there Jim about "100% of the links they can find." What are the link sources people should use & how comprehensive is the Google Webmaster Tools data? Is WMT data enough to get you recovered?
Joe: Rarely. I've seen where the examples listed in a manual action might be discoverable on Ahrefs, Majestic SEO, or in WMT, but upon cleaning them up (and disavowing further of course) that Google will come back with a few more links that weren't initially in the WMT data dump. I'm dealing with a client on this right now that bought a premium domain as-is and has been spending about a year constantly disavowing and removing links. Google won't let them up for air and won't do the hard reset.
Jim: well first...if you're getting your backlinks from Google, be sure to pull your backlinks from the www and the non www version of your site. You can't just use one: you HAVE to pull backlinks from both, so you have to verify both your www and your non www version of your site with Google Webmaster Tools.
We often start with that. When we find big patterns that we feel are the cause, we'll then go into OSE, Majestic SEO, and Ahrefs, and pull those backlinks too, and pull out those that fit the patterns, but that's after the Google backlink analysis.
Joe, you mentioned people getting hit by Panda and mistakenly going off to the races to disavow links. What are the distinguishing characteristics between Penguin, Panda & manual link penalties?
Joe: Given they like to sandwich updates to make it difficult to discern, I like this question. Penguin is about links; it is the easiest to find but hardest to fix. When I first am looking at a URL I'll quickly look at anchor % breakdowns, sources of links, etc. The big difference between penguin and a manual link penalty (if you aren't looking on WMT) is the timing -- think of a bomb going off vs a sniper...everyone complaining at once? probably an algorithm; just a few? probably some manual actions. For manual actions, you'll get a note too in WMT. With panda I like to look first at the on-page to see if I can spot the egregious KW stuffing, weird infrastructure setups that result in thin/duplicated content, and look into engagement metrics and my favorite...externally supported pages - to - total indexed pages ratios.
Jim: Manual, at least you can keep resubmitting and get a yes or no. With an algorithmic, you're screwed....because you're waiting for the next refresh...hoping you did enough to get out.
I don't mind going back and forth with Google with a manual penalty...at least I'm getting an answer.
If you see a drop in traffic, be sure to compare that to the dates of Panda and Penguin updates...if you see a drop on one of the update days, then you can know if you have Panda or Penguin....and if you're traffic is just falling, it could be just that, and no penalty.
Joe: While this interview was taking place an employee pinged me to let me know a manual action that was denied, with an example URL being something akin to domain.com/?var=var&var=var - the entire domain was already disavowed. Those 20 second manual reviews by 3rd parties without much of an understanding of search doesn't generate a lot of confidence for me
Jim: Yes, I posted this yesterday to SEOchat. Reviewers are definitely not looking at things.
You guys mentioned that anyone selling a guaranteed 100% recovery solution is likely selling a bag of smoke. What are the odds of recovery? When does it make sense to invest in recovery, when does it make sense to start a different site, and when does it make sense to do both in parallel?
Jim: Well, I'm one for trying to save a site. I haven't once said "it's over for that site, let's start fresh." Links are so important, that if I can even save a few links going to a site, I'll take it. I'm not a fan of doing two sites, causes duplicate content issues, and now your efforts are on two sites.
Joe : It depends on the infraction. I have a lot more success getting stuff out of panda, manual actions, and the later iterations of penguin (theoretically including the latest one once a refresh takes place); I won't take anyone's money for those hit on penguin 1.0 though...I give free advice and add it to my DB tracking, but the very few examples I have where a recovery took place that I can confirm were penguin 1.0 and not something else, happened due to being a beta user of the disavow tool and likely occurred for political reasons vs tech reasons.
For churn and burn, redirects and canonicals can still work if you're clever...but that's not reinvestment so much as strategy shift I realize.
You guys mentioned the disavow process, where a person does some, does some more over time, etc. Is Google dragging out the process primarily to drive pain? Or are they leveraging the aggregate data in some way?
Joe: Oh absolutely they drag it out. Mathematically I think of triggers where a threshold to trigger down might be at X%, but the trigger for recovery might be X-10%. Further though, I think initially they looooooved all the aggregate disavow data, until the community freaked out and started disavowing everything. Let's just say I know of a group of people that have a giant network where lots of quality sites are purposefully disavowed in an attempt to screw with the signal further. :)
Jim: pain :) ... not sure if they're leveraging the data yet, but they might be. It shouldn't be too hard for Google to see that a ton of people are disavowing links from a site like get-free-links-directory.com, for Google to say, "no one else seems to trust these links, we should just nuke that site and not count any links from there."
we can do this ourselves with our own tools we have..I can see how many times I've seen a domain in my disavows, and how many times I disavowed that...ie, If I see spamsite.com in 20 disavows I've done, and I'd disavowed it all 20 times I saw it, I can see this data... or if I've seen goodsite.com 20 times, and never once disavowed it, I can see that too. I'd assume Google must do something like this as well.
Given that they drag it out, on the manual penalties does it make sense to do a couched effort on the first rejection or two, in order to give the perception of a greater level of pain and effort as you scale things up on further requests? What level of resources does it make sense to devote to the initial effort vs the next one and so on? When does recovery typically happen (in terms of % of links filtered and in terms of how many reconsideration requests were filed)?
Joe: When I deliver "disavow these" and "say this" stuff, I give multiple levels, knowing full well that there might be deeper and deeper considerations of the pain. Now, there have been cases where the 1st try gets a site out, but I usually see 3 or more.
Jim: I figure it will take a few reconsideration requests...and yes, I start "big" and get "bigger."
but that's for a sitewide penalty...
We've seen sitewides get reduced to a partial penalty. And once we have a partial penalty, it's much easier to identify this issues and take care of those, while leaving links that go to pages that were not effected.
A sitewide manual penalty kills the site...a partial match penalty usually has some stuff that ranks good, and some stuff that no longer ranks...once we're at a partial match, I feel much more confident in getting that resolved.
Jim, I know you've mentioned the errors people make in either disavowing great links or disavowing links when they didn't need to. You also mentioned the ability to leverage your old disavow data when processing new sites. When does it make sense to DIY on recovery versus hiring a professional? Are there any handy "rule of thumb" guidelines in terms of the rough cost of a recovery process based on the size of their backlink footprint?
Joe: It comes down to education, doesn't it? Were you behind the reason it got dinged? You might try that first vs immediately hiring. Psychologically it could even look like you're more serious after the first disavow is declined by showing you "invested" in the pain. Also, it comes down to opportunity cost. What is your personal time worth divided by your perceived probability of fixing
Jim: We charge $5000 for the analysis, and $5000 for the link removal process...some may think that's expensive...but removing good links will screw you, and not removing bad links will screw you...it's a real science, and getting is wrong can cost you a lot more than this...of course I'd recommend seeing a professional, as I sell this service...but I can't see anyone who's not a true expert in links doing this themselves.
Oh...and once we start work for someone, we keep going at no further cost until they get out.
Joe: That's a nice touch Jim.
Jim: Thank you.
Joe, during this interview you mentioned a reconsideration request rejection where the person cited a link on a site that has already been disavowed. Given how many errors Google's reviewers make, does it make sense to aggressively push to remove links rather than using disavow? What are the best strategies to get links removed?
Joe: Really though, be upfront and honest when using those link removal services (which I'd do vs trying to do them one-by-one-by-one)
Jim: Only 1% of the people will remove links anyways; it's more to show Google that to you really tried to get the links removed.
Joe: Let the link holder know that you got hit with a penalty, you're just trying to clean it up because your business is suffering, and ask politely that they do you a solid favor.
I've been on the receiving end of a lot of different strategies given the size of my domain portfolio. I've been sued before (as a first course of action!) by someone that PAID to put a link on my site....they never even asked, just filed the case.
Jim: We send 3 removal requests..and ping the links too..so when we do a reconsideration request we can show Google the spreadsheet of who we emailed, when we emailed them, and who removed or no followed the links...but it's more about "show" to Google.
Joe: Yep, not a ton of compliance; webmasters have link removal fatigue by now.
This is more of a business question than an SEO question, but ... as much as budgeting for the monetary cost of recovery, an equally important form of budgeting is dealing with the reduced cashflow while the site is penalized. How many months does it typically take to recover from a manual penalty? When should business owners decide to start laying people off? Do you guys suggest people aggressively invest in other marketing channels while the SEO is being worked on in the background?
Jim: manual penalty typically take 2-4 months to recover. Recover is a relative term. Some people get "your manual penalty has been removed" and thier recovery is a tiny blip -up 5%, but still down 90% from what is was prior. Getting a "manual penalty removed" is great. IF there's good links left in your profile...if you've disavow everything, and your penalty is removed...so what...you've got nothing....people often ask where they'll be once they "recover" and I say "it depends on what you have left for links"...but it won't be where you were.
Joe: It depends on how exposed they are per variable costs. If the costs are fixed, then one can generally wait longer (all things being equal) before cutting. If you have a quarter million monthly link budget *cough* then, you're going to want to trim as quickly as possible just in order to survive.
Per investing in other channels, I absolutely wholeheartedly cannot emphasize how important it is to become an expert in one channel and at least a generalist in several others...even better, hire an expert in another channel to partner up with. In payday one of the big players did okay in SEO but even with a lot of turbulence was doing great due to their TV and radio capabilities. Also, collect the damn email addresses; email is still a gold mine if you use it correctly.
One of my theories for why there hasn't been a penguin update in a long time was that as people have become more afraid of links they've started using them as a weapon & Google doesn't want a bunch of false positives caused by competitors killing sites. One reason I've thought this versus the pain first motive is that Google could always put a time delay on recoveries while still allowing new sites to get penalized on updates. Joe, you mentioned that after the second Penguin update penalties started passing forward on redirects. Do people take penalized sites and point them at competitors?
Joe: Yes, they do. They also take them and pass them into the natural links of their competitors. I've been railing on negative SEO for several years now...right about when the first manual action wave came out in Jan 2012; that was a tipping point. It is now more economical to take someone else's ranking down than it is to (with a strong degree of confidence) invest in a link strategy to leapfrog them naturally
I could speak for days straight in a congressional filibuster on link strategies used for Negative SEO. It is almost magical how pervasive it has become. I get a couple requests a week to do it even...by BIG companies. Brands being the mechanism to sort out the cesspool and all that.
Jim: Soon, everyone will be monitoring they backlinks on a monthly basis. I know one big company that submits an updated disavow list every week to google.
That leads to a question about preemptive disavows. When does it make sense to do that? What businesses need to worry about that sort of stuff?
Joe: Are you smaller than a Fortune 500? Then the cards are stacked against you. At the very least, be aware of your link profile -- I wouldn't go so far as to preemptively disavow unless something major popped up.
Jim: I've done a preemptive disavow for my site. I'd say everyone should do a preemptive disavow to clean out the crap backlinks.
Joe: I can't wait to launch an avow service...basically go around to everyone and charge a few thousand dollars to clean up their disavows. :)
Jim: We should team up Joe and do them together :)
Joe: I'll have my spambots call your spambots.
Jim: saving the planet from penguin penalties. cleaning up the links of the web for Google.
Joe: For Google or from Google? :) The other dig, if there's time, is that not all penalties are created equal because there are several books of law in terms of how long a penalty might last. If I take an unknown site and do what RapGenius did, I'd still be waiting, even after fixing (which rapgenius really didn't do) largely because Google is not one of my direct or indirect investors.
Perhaps SEOs will soon offer a service for perfecting your pitch deck for the Google Ventures or Google Capital teams so it is easier to BeatThatPenalty? BanMeNot ;)
Joe: Or to extract money from former Googlers...there's a funding bubble right now where those guys can write their own ticket by VCs chasing the brand. Sure the engineer was responsible for changing the font color of a button, but they have friends on the inside still that might be able to reverse catastrophe.
Outside of getting a Google investment, what are some of the best ways to minimize SEO risk if one is entering a competitive market?
Jim: Don't try to rank for specific phrases anymore. It's a long slow road now.
Joe: Being less dependent on Google gives you power; think of it like a job interview. Do you need that job? The less you do, the more bargaining power you have. If you have more and more income coming in to your site from other channels, chances are you are also hitting on some important brand signals.
Jim: You must create great things, and build your brand...that has to be the focus...unless you want to do things to rank higher quicker, and take the risk of a penalty with Google.
Joe: Agreed. I do far fewer premium domaining + SEO-only plays anymore. For a while they worked; just a different landscape now.
Some (non-link builders) mention how foolish SEOs are for wasting so many thought cycles on links. Why are core content, user experience, and social media all vastly more important than link building?
Jim: links are still the biggest part of the Google algorithm - they can not be ignored. People must have things going on that will get them mentions across the web, and ideally some links as well. Links is #1 still today... but yes, after links, you need great content, good user experience, and more.
Joe: CopyPress sells content (please buy some content people; I have three kids to feed here), however it is important to point out that the most incredible content doesn't mean anything in a vacuum. How are you going to get a user experience with 0 users? Link building, purchasing traffic, DRIVING attention are crucial not just to SEO but to marketing in general. Google is using links as votes; while the variability has changed and evolved over time, it is still very much there. I don't see it going away in the next year or two.
An analogy: I wrote two books of poetry in college; I think they are ok, but I never published them and tried to get any attention, so how good are they really? Without promotion and amplification, we're all just guessing.
Thanks guys for sharing your time & wisdom!
About our contributors:
Jim Boykin is the Founder and CEO of Internet Marketing Ninjas, and owner of Webmasterworld.com, SEOChat.com, Cre8asiteForums.com and other community websites. Jim specializes in creating digital assets for sites that attract natural backlinks, and in analyzing links to disavow non-natural links for penalty recoveries.
Joe Sinkwitz, known as Cygnus, is current Chief of Revenue for CopyPress.com. He enjoys long walks on the beach, getting you the content you need, and then whispering in your ear how to best get it ranking.