4 ms·
The big issue here is that if you don't get other people to link to your stuff then Google has little way to distinguish quality vs non-quality, source vs copy,
by aaronwall 16y ago
The big issue here is that if you don't get other people to link to your stuff then Google has little way to distinguish quality vs non-quality, source vs copy, lower quality rewrite, etc.
While many people find push marketing tasteless and annoying (and perhaps a signal of poor product quality), the truth is that most successful sites have relied on the person launching them already having some combination of status + influence + distribution + connections, or they used push marketing for a while to build that following and awareness.
The easiest SEO answer to obscurity or lack of awareness (assuming the on-page SEO & site structure are solid) is to think territorially & dominate a niche where you can own the idea. This is a great article on that front.
http://www.copyblogger.com/how-to-dominate-your-niche/ http://www.copyblogger.com/how-to-dominate-your-niche/
- zone411 16y agoRight, I understand technical reasons why Wikipedia outranks this site. Google started by being terribly arrogant in thinking that they are smarter than SEOs and their search engine would be so hard to game, that they made the Page Rank values publicly visible. It went downhill for them quickly, necessitating introduction of no-follow, which is why my site gets no benefit at all from any of these Wikipedia links. Wikipedia also benefits from all other content on their site (some of which is admittedly good enough, especially in topics of interest to programmers).
- aaronwall 16y agoHere is another great article for understanding the Google / Wikipedia ecosystem http://www.johnon.com/399/google-las-vegas.html http://www.johnon.com/399/google-las-vegas.html