|
hawkwind dave
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2009, 12:08:51 PM » |
|
...why would throwing red herrings around help them?
Call it a weapon of mass distraction. As long as there are search engines, there's going to be search engineers... and were staying put whether 'they' like it or not. They soon realised that so they put together a little public relations team to 'inform' us what a good website is, and that structure is important, and inbound links can help and hey... try our keyword tool! For the most part they simply parrot the good advice which has been circulating forums for years, and every now and then there's a hint to something specific that they look for. How long were people worrying about duplicate content before matt cutts hinted that no such filter ever existed? They could have said that years ago, but instead they chose to let a certain chunk of the SEO community to chase their tails and needlessly worry for a while instead. If one needs to keep information hidden, the best way to divert prying eyes is with mis-information. yes I am paranoid  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Seo'ers - UK SEO, Internet Marketing and Webmaster Forums
|
|
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2009, 12:08:51 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Boogaloodude
|
|
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2009, 02:23:54 PM » |
|
How long were people worrying about duplicate content before matt cutts hinted that no such filter ever existed? They could have said that years ago, but instead they chose to let a certain chunk of the SEO community to chase their tails and needlessly worry for a while instead.
Choosing not to correct misconceptions is not the same as deliberately issuing a red herring. Can you give me an example of something they've said that was a lie or incorrect and on purpose? If people worried that there a dup content penalty then they would be less likely to plagearise content which means that Google's index is better quality. I wouldn't have told people either. They couldn't penalise for dup content, it would create a syndication nightmare so they encourage it's practice appropriately and discourage plagearisers. The question is why did he talk about it at all? Can you post your specific source? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
www.ImgWebDesign.co.uk - Web site design, Buxton Derbyshire "Scientists have proof but no certainty, religions have certainty but no proof"
|
|
|
|
hawkwind dave
|
|
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2009, 04:29:38 PM » |
|
Choosing not to correct misconceptions is not the same as deliberately issuing a red herring. no but it is deliberately misleading. Half the truth is the same as a lie. Can you give me an example of something they've said that was a lie or incorrect and on purpose? no. Can you post your specific source? http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/duplicate-content-question/ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Boogaloodude
|
|
« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2009, 05:16:38 PM » |
|
Choosing not to correct misconceptions is not the same as deliberately issuing a red herring.no but it is deliberately misleading. Half the truth is the same as a lie. Come on..... they're supposed to respond to every rumour or theory regarding their algos? I don't think you need me to explain why that would be an unworkable situation for them. Half the truth is not the same as a lie and in any case they simply didn't say anything so how is that half a truth? Nowhere in that can I see anything where he acknowledges that people may or may not have thoguht that there was a dup content penalty so where is he admitting that they could have told us all along but didn't? He just basically says what they always say, do it if it's useful for your users and in ways that helps them identify the orginal article so you don't fail to rank whne you actually deserve to. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
www.ImgWebDesign.co.uk - Web site design, Buxton Derbyshire "Scientists have proof but no certainty, religions have certainty but no proof"
|
|
|
|
hawkwind dave
|
|
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2009, 05:45:26 PM » |
|
...so where is he admitting that they could have told us all along but didn't?...
I never said he said that. I said 'they could have told us sooner'. ...he just says what they always say, make it useful for users...
 sorry, I nodded off then... often happens when i start reading matt..... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Boogaloodude
|
|
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2009, 06:25:44 PM » |
|
sorry, I nodded off then... often happens when i start reading matt..... Something of a handicap for you as far as SEO is concerned I imagine. Google's unofficial (official) conduit to the community of people who are trying to manipulate their index who never ever says anything without there being a good reason, you'd think you'd pay more attention to what he says. I Of course you could subscribe to all the conspiracy theories, see Google as 'big brother', imagine that they lie to us and delibertately change their algo just to spoil our fun, or you could see them as business trying to provide a quality product and needing us to do it.... this is my whole point in that other thread, if you get what Google wants and how they hope to acheive it, SEO becomes much much more simple. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
www.ImgWebDesign.co.uk - Web site design, Buxton Derbyshire "Scientists have proof but no certainty, religions have certainty but no proof"
|
|
|
|
hawkwind dave
|
|
« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2009, 09:54:57 AM » |
|
you'd think you'd pay more attention to what he says.
SEO is as simple or as hard as the keywords you're aiming for; i.e. 'tiling services in High Wycombe' is easy, 'golf equipment' is hard. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Boogaloodude
|
|
« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2009, 10:31:09 AM » |
|
SEO is as simple or as hard as the keywords you're aiming for; i.e. 'tiling services in High Wycombe' is easy, 'golf equipment' is hard.
You've gone backwards a step or two. Let's assume the keywords have been chosen, how do you then acheive the ranking? Now we're back where we were before your post. What can I say, you can lead a horse to water..... you can't make them even recognise that it's water sometimes let alone get them to drink it. MC isn't the only Google source, just the most well known, I also pay attention when Susan Moskwa & John Mueller say things about Search too. Even when Eric Schmidt talked about 'Branding sorting out the cesspool of the internet', have you thought about the impact on SEO if that actually happens? It's listening to them that helped me understand why Google say the things they say, because utlimately they revealed their own perspective on SEO to us, but as always, it's because doing that helps improve the quality of their product. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 10:39:39 AM by Boogaloodude »
|
Logged
|
www.ImgWebDesign.co.uk - Web site design, Buxton Derbyshire "Scientists have proof but no certainty, religions have certainty but no proof"
|
|
|
|
hawkwind dave
|
|
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2009, 04:51:40 PM » |
|
Now we're back where we were before your post. This post? Every time I've come across slow loading pages I've always done whatever I can to speed them up. I assume most surfers are impatient bastards like myself, with the mouse hovering over the back button like an itchy trigger finger!!! and in response to an earlier point, No, I don't think I'm at a disadvantage by not following Google's blog, instead I follow what's being said in the forums, I read peoples POV of whats going on in the industry, rather than the spin doctors. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 05:03:02 PM by hawkwind dave »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Seo'ers - UK SEO, Internet Marketing and Webmaster Forums
|
|
« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2009, 04:51:40 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Boogaloodude
|
|
« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2009, 06:57:00 PM » |
|
and in response to an earlier point, No, I don't think I'm at a disadvantage by not following Google's blog, instead I follow what's being said in the forums, I read peoples POV of whats going on in the industry, rather than the spin doctors.
Wow, you're even more paranoid than I thought. Spin doctors? They're not a political party, they're a company and there is no political analogy that works since we don't have the power to influence the way that politicians implement their policies the way we can influence the content of Google's index. Ok, you continue to follow speculation, best guesses, under-informed opinion, complete lunacy, myth and smoke and mirrors, and I'll read what Google themselves have to say and because I understand what they want, I can usually figure out what the actual message is, it's not hard. Even those closest to Google like Danny Sullivan and Aaron wall et al can do nothing better than speculate. Whether you love or hate Google is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether or not you undertsand them and you're missing vital information in SEO if you don't pay any attention to what they say. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
www.ImgWebDesign.co.uk - Web site design, Buxton Derbyshire "Scientists have proof but no certainty, religions have certainty but no proof"
|
|
|
|
hawkwind dave
|
|
« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2009, 09:38:49 AM » |
|
...you continue to follow speculation, best guesses, under-informed opinion, complete lunacy, myth and smoke and mirrors...
well if that's your opinion of forums such as this one i'm left wondering why you're here. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Boogaloodude
|
|
« Reply #26 on: December 24, 2009, 02:26:23 PM » |
|
well if that's your opinion of forums such as this one i'm left wondering why you're here.
Oh come on Dave,what kind of crap is that... you having a bad day? I expect people like Bill O'Reilly to use lines like that, not you. Disappointing. In the absence of actual facts, then speculation, opinion swapping and info gathering is all I have, it's all any of us have. BUT, when Google speak, I listen, because they give out actual facts and I use that info because I don't see them as some big brother evil corporation like some people seem to, I see them as a business trying to succeed like any other business and I get their business model. I get it, and I apply it to what I do. Anything we discuss here or on any other SEO forum is at best speculation, except for those rare occasions when we have had speculation either confirmed or denied by Google. Who? Oh yeah, Google. Most of SEO discussed online is myth and fantasy, pure and simple. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 24, 2009, 02:28:48 PM by Boogaloodude »
|
Logged
|
www.ImgWebDesign.co.uk - Web site design, Buxton Derbyshire "Scientists have proof but no certainty, religions have certainty but no proof"
|
|
|
Matts
Newbie
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 6
|
|
« Reply #27 on: December 24, 2009, 04:29:03 PM » |
|
I don't see the big news here. It's always been a factor, not confirmed maybe by Google, but it was a common sense factor for the last years. Not sure what this confirmation means, but is not such a big news!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
*Link Removed*
|
|
|
|
MayaLocke
|
|
« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2010, 03:09:58 PM » |
|
Many dynamic sites draw from a large database and as a result are slightly slower to load than a simple static website. I think this will be a factor, but not a big factor, Google is not going to penalize big sites that are up to date (dynamic) because they are slightly slower.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
January 18, 2007, 04:25:31 PM