aaronwall

11 ms·

31.
by aaronwall 12y ago
>That's a good thing right?< That really depends on your perspective. If it were impossible for others to throw trashy links at your site in bulk for cheap it could perhaps be a good thing. If Google didn't change policies o
32.
by aaronwall 12y ago
Your thesis would be true if Google didn't have monopoly marketshare & continue buying default (search / browser) placements in other software.
33.
by aaronwall 12y ago
Affiliate marketer & spammer are not natural synonyms. Some entities might try to say it is six of one & a half dozen of the other, http://www.seobook.com/brand-vs-affiliate-vs-spam but those same entities do not v
34.
by aaronwall 12y ago
As long as we are concerned about the organic structure of markets... How do you feel about Google sponsoring educational seminars for market regulators where they do not disclose their sponsorship, actively conceal it, and request the enti
35.
by aaronwall 12y ago
I would bet Matt's IQ is easily far north of 140. He's one of the most perceptive people I've ever met. Think of some of the stereotypes of engineers. Many can code but struggle to communicate. Matt can code, has his name on
36.
by aaronwall 12y ago
Best of luck staying off of Google properties. It gets more challenging by the day. http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/google-has-most-of-my-email-bec... Don't like YouTube's copyright claim issues on video game p
37.
by aaronwall 12y ago
Links which are nofollowed are still seen by users & can still impact that user's experience with the website. Yet those are fine, even if they point at spam, because they don't have a significant impact on Google. So then wha
38.
by aaronwall 12y ago
When monopolies distort markets, the impact of those distortions have outsized impacts on the rest of the ecosystem. Ask Google engineers how they feel about centralization of power in telecom or finance or politics & they will tell you
39.
by aaronwall 12y ago
The cost of building a quality website & promoting it can easily hit deep into 6 or 7 figures. The cost of throwing scummy links at a website is under $100. And if their first $5, $10, or $20 test doesn't work? Then so what for t
40.
by aaronwall 12y ago
>prefer psychology over technology< yup. >Nearly everything that's come out of Matt Cutt's mouth in the last 18 months or so has been a scare tactic.< the bizarre thing is the gap in perceptions internal to Google vers
41.
by aaronwall 12y ago
Even if the sites are not relevant, the existence of a link does not mean the site which the link points at was responsible for creating the link. In some cases (especially with website hacking) those who create the spam will link to innoce
42.
by aaronwall 12y ago
Do they (along with the personalization aspects of the relevancy algorithms) boost aggregate awareness & CTR - which in turn further drive rank? A look at Ask.com's history on a tool like SEMrush makes this line of thinking rather
43.
by aaronwall 13y ago
Funny you should mention TripAdvisor. Go back about 9 years and guess who was one of the biggest SEO link buyers?
44.
by aaronwall 13y ago
"I doubt any of the much smaller niche/hobby or family business type sites I know about would suffer greatly if Google vanished tomorrow either." Many existing businesses already have awareness built through a variety of chan
45.
by aaronwall 13y ago
Great public relations campaigns make people think they are reading the news without even thinking of public relations. http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html SEO is sort of the same way in terms of there being a range of
46.
by aaronwall 13y ago
A couple issues with this: many topics tend to bleed across niches sites themselves will change purposes over time how sites are monetized (and other user experience choices) may change over time people buy and sell sites sometimes the desi
47.
by aaronwall 13y ago
Commercial intent is more important than how broad / generic the term is. A query like "sports" or "news" may or may not have an ad in the search results. Keywords like "credit cards for people with poor credit
48.
by aaronwall 13y ago
It looks as brand related searches were not that significant until the Google penalty happened. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rapgenius%2C%20rap%20... According to Compete.com about 5% of their searches were
49.
by aaronwall 13y ago
Another way to look at it is if Google detonates start ups from VCs they co-invest with, will their own internal venture arm get squeezed out of some deals? And if implicit or explicit risk protection (and back channeled information about p
50.
by aaronwall 13y ago
So does this mean when Google talks about these same topics & uses the same sort of black-and-white framing (while encouraging "feeble minded" spam reporting and so on) we should consider them to be intentionally lying? If no,
51.
by aaronwall 13y ago
This is already happening to some degree, however it has generally mostly been the smaller & weaker players who have been soaked first. And in many cases the web & search ultimately helped build up a lot of these players before late
52.
by aaronwall 13y ago
"in 2003 when Denise Griffin, the person in charge of Google’s small customer-support team, asked Page for a larger staff. Instead, he told her that the whole idea of customer support was ridiculous. Rather than assuming the unscalable
53.
by aaronwall 13y ago
Nice try. Removing 200 links out of nearly 200,000 links in a holiday week is not a lot of work. In fact, Google has told others waiting to be reconsidered that the wait time is multiple weeks. https://twitter.com/Marie_Hay
54.
by aaronwall 13y ago
Didn't Google do this same sort of "recycling built trust in channel" when they bought Frommer's, gutted it, sold it back to the original owner, BUT kept the social media accounts Frommer's built up (with the old followers) and rebranded th
55.
by aaronwall 13y ago
So the competitor who paid the SEO is a spammer, the person who paid Google AdWords is an angel & the person who has no exposure has no traffic nor revenues, but is virtuous with great content (that almost nobody cares about other than
56.
by aaronwall 13y ago
The hard part about building a sustainable publishing business model online that avoids the largest single channel is that margins matter & if you have 5% margins or such, a competitor that clones your model AND is in Google's good grac
57.
by aaronwall 13y ago
What's correlated? Are you saying that pages with great content typically have few spammy links? If so, the jury is out on that thesis, as many of the most popular sites have hundreds to thousands of spam sites that scrape just about everyt
58.
by aaronwall 14y ago
>>If you're shopping for something, the paid and Google shopping results are often more relevant than the organic results since a lot of them incorporate real time price feeds or promotion codes.<< In many cases such feed pr
59.
by aaronwall 14y ago
In some cases Google has reduced the organic search results to 7 listings per page. On some of the search results where Google has done that they have also added 3 AdWords ads at the top & the bottom of the organic search results. The r
60.
by aaronwall 14y ago
>>The difference between Geico, Progressive, All State et al is just the ad price and CTR, in sum how much money you make from them. The best site for the user would be a comparison site or maybe a CNN Fortune article that compared

More ›