Matt Cutts on kw in your URL

[skitzzo]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

I'm not fond of that tool for purely technical reasons. Don't use it.

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

Non-competitive keywords in a highly competitive query? How do you explain that?

Michael I know you don't want to reveal too much but I don't think you're giving enough info to support your position. What is competitive to one person might not be competitive to another. Are we talking a term more like [real estate], [real estate marketing], or [real estate marketing tips] (for example)? Also, I think faremax's mention of the new site bonus (which has been well documented) is quite valid. Are you also claiming that good content and onsite optimization can defeat the sandbox?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by skitzzo

Michael I know you don't want to reveal too much but I don't think you're giving enough info to support your position. What is competitive to one person might not be competitive to another. Are we talking a term more like [real estate], [real estate marketing], or [real estate marketing tips] (for example)? Also, I think faremax's mention of the new site bonus (which has been well documented) is quite valid. Are you also claiming that good content and onsite optimization can defeat the sandbox?

It's not as competitive as real estate, gambling, insurance, or adult entertainment. Nor is it as competitive as, say, Paris Hilton.

The Sandbox Effect is largely a myth, in my opinion, in that sites that get trusted links quickly don't report any Sandbox-like delays in ranking.

I had a new domain rank for its targeted expression (not very competitive) in two months earlier this year, but it also ranked for other expressions I didn't target.


And there is really no such thing as a "new site bonus". SEOs tend to hypothesize that their inability to accomplish something must be due to an algorithmic filter or penalty. Always putting the burden on the search engine's failure to recognize the value of a link campaign is a telling stroke against the conventional wisdom of the SEO industry.

As far as what my new site will accomplish, it's too early to say. Maybe I'll lose all ground. Maybe it will continue to improve. There is no content coming online for that set of expressions every day, and new links.

[skitzzo]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

The Sandbox Effect is largely a myth, in my opinion, in that sites that get trusted links quickly don't report any Sandbox-like delays in ranking.

So it really does all go back to links then doesnt it? Should you have said that sites that have good trusted content?

Content and onsite SEO is more important than links and there is no Sandbox Effect... got ya

[faremax]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

Non-competitive keywords in a highly competitive query? How do you explain that?

I hope you don't mean that "Michael Martinez" is a competitive query LOL. Looks like you are against all common SEO beliefs. Things like "new site bonus", "sandbox" and power of links. I wonder how you are doing in a real world and how many site were you able to rank in top 10 for any of the competitive keywords (like the ones skitzz mentioned before). Or you put all your SEO knowledge on paper only for others to read and get confused?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by skitzzo

So it really does all go back to links then doesnt it? Should you have said that sites that have good trusted content?

I have seen no indication in any reliable sources that Google is judging content on the basis of trust. But requiring links for validation is not the same as requiring links for ranking.

They got burned by being too liberal with their treatment of linkage and made an adjustment in what they do with links. Suddenly, people who thought they should be ranking on the basis of (usually cheap, worthless) links found their sites weren't showing up at all.

Google was just looking at the inbound links and saying, "Okay, impress us."

Content and onsite SEO is more important than links and there is no Sandbox Effect... got ya

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I've been amused by all the squirming and gnashing of teeth over the Sandbox Effect the past couple of years because reported Sandboxing times are growing longer.

As people continue to repeat the mistakes of the past, I suspect reported Sandboxing periods will begin extending to two years eventually.

That doesn't change the fact that Google doesn't rank by linkage, and has never ranked by linkage. Ranking-by-linkage remains the most inefficient means of achieving high rankings possible.

Of course, I'm well aware that some people here are very good at getting a lot of links. When you can scale up your link building quickly, missing out on pertinent facts is not only easy, it's irrelevant. Eventually, you should get enough trusted links one way or the other.

I don't expect to see people who successfully automate link building to change their methods. If what you're doing works, what is your incentive to change?

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by faremax

I hope you don't mean that "Michael Martinez" is a competitive query LOL...

Be patient. I'll announce the query set when I'm ready.

...Looks like you are against all common SEO beliefs.

I'm against the huge amount of nonsense that gets passed around the SEO community. These myths have been repeated endlessly until they have become more believable than verifiable facts.

While I don't particularly care about any individual SEO's ability to work with facts or myths, as someone who has been involved in the community for many years, I am concerned about how much this pervasive lunacy impacts people getting into the field now and in the future.

These bad ideas influence methodologies that have a direct impact on all of us, and indirect impacts.

If people hadn't abused Google's link-friendliness, there would most likely not be any trust filters today.

And it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that there will be more filters and anti-spam measures in place a year from now, two years from now, etc. Thus, everyone's job will become harder.

... I wonder how you are doing in a real world and how many site were you able to rank in top 10....

I do better in competitive SERPs every day than most SEOs, actually. I just don't put "come and compete with me" signs on those sites because I don't care to engage in unnecessary competitive link-building campaigns.

You don't have to believe that any more than I am obligated to believe the incredible nonsense you do believe.

It looks like the informative nature of this discussion has come to an end. I'll keep my eye open for some serious comments, but otherwise will ignore all further followups.

The bottom line is that Matt Cutts was right and SEOs need to stop patting themselves on the back for their imaginary cleverness and take notice. People who work on volume may not care about losing a percentage of their effort, but most people don't work on volume.

[okguyjames]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

I do better in competitive SERPs every day than most SEOs, actually. I just don't put "come and compete with me" signs on those sites because I don't care to engage in unnecessary competitive link-building campaigns.

for a truly competitive term the sign would be unnecessary, you will be attacked by default.

[faremax]

Be patient. I'll announce the query set when I'm ready

Ok, I would love to see it ASAP but I can surely wait. Afterall it would benefit all of us.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by okguyjames

for a truly competitive term the sign would be unnecessary, you will be attacked by default.

One can always hope the brigands in the fortress are sleeping, however. There is no point in making loud promises of success that may not be certain. After all, there are many competitive expressions out there.

I, personally, do not compete for them all.

[mvandemar]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

That doesn't change the fact that Google doesn't rank by linkage, and has never ranked by linkage. Ranking-by-linkage remains the most inefficient means of achieving high rankings possible.

I'm sorry... by "ranking-by-linkage" do you mean ranking by getting links? Or are you switching meaning by adding the -age at the end? Just making sure...

If so, which of these statements are you disagreeing with?

1) As far as On-page optimization goes, there is a perfect balance. While there may be more than one way to achieve that balance (x number of uses of H1, TITLE, ALT, etc. tags and based on where they occur), there is still a max benefit you will achieve.

2) Due to the size of the internet, it is much harder to hit the max number of links to a site, ie. you can pretty much keep piling them on.

If you are saying that links are unimportant, then you must be saying one of those 2 statements is wrong.

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

I do better in competitive SERPs every day than most SEOs, actually. I just don't put "come and compete with me" signs on those sites because I don't care to engage in unnecessary competitive link-building campaigns.

Ok, my question here is much along the lines of what okguyjames was saying... do you understand what the word "competitive" even means? It has nothing to do with you avoiding making it competitive. It has to do with others out there already competing for it. It sounds more like you are talking about niche markets or phrases that are worth going after that have yet to be discovered or exploited. Big difference. Really big. Really, really big.

It also sounds like, to me anyways, that you seem to think that everyone who touts links is saying by default "any link by any means". Your opinion is flawed big time if that is your assumption. Most people on these boards who do rank well for competitive terms do know the difference between a crappy link and a good one. If you think the people here believe that getting tons of absolutely any kind of link will get them ranked, then I'm pretty sure that you are talking to the wrong crowd. I mean, I can't really speak for everybody, but I have been hanging here for a while and can guess pretty well that most here already know what to look for.

By the way, it's very easy if you want to prove your point. Build a site with about 150 perfectly (to the best of your ability) optimized pages, setting the bulk of the pages 3 levels deep (homepage, second level, third level). Put only 1 PR0 link to the homepage, nothing else. Don't bother trying to get the site ranked, just try and get it indexed as non-supplemental. If on-page optimization is that important, this should be easy enough to do. After all, you can't get ranked if Google won't index you, so this could be seen as the pre-ranking step.

Last note - I think you have a seriously screwed up way of looking at Google. You talk about doing things Google's way, which is completely ass-backwards. It is Google's job to rank websites, not in any way, shape, or form to tell webmasters how to build them. If Google wants to penalize a particular site, fine, their call, but most of the time when they do it algorithmically they take down innocent sites at the same time. It is not a matter of Google put too much weight on links and got burned, that's bs. Google chose an algo, and it got figured out. Once it was figured out, people exploited it. It wouldn't have mattered if the exploit was Google ranked all sites who used a particular meta tag, or who used nth percentage of keyword density, or anything else... whatever they use, people will eventually see a pattern and repeat it. That doesn't make the webmasters wrong for doing it, nor does it make Google wrong for using it in their algo in the first place.

Just my 2 cents.

-Michael