buy gabapentin 300 mg August 11, 2022

SEO Tip: Reaseach Before You Write A Newsletter Article

Bill Platt recently wrote an article for SiteProNews talking about the GoogleBomb algorithm update. Being a sitepronews subscriber, I got this little gem in my email.

It looks like sitepronews is letting just anybody with a theory go ahead and write articles now. This one seems to throw out some off the wall theories. Let’s take a look.

First, he quotes Matt Cutts on the googlebomb change.

according to Matt Cutts of Google, the changes in the GB update
were all completed within the Google algorithm. Cutts has always
said that Google does not like to manually rearrange the search
engine results, so an algorithmic solution to the GoogleBomb was
in order. A few of the Google engineers worked together to find
a solution to the GoogleBomb issue

Then he talks about his own research.

Here’s what he claims:

What I have been able to take from the results shown above is
that Google may have targeted only “negative links”. If you want
to review what is shown above, all of the Google Bombs that are
now gone had negative connotations to them. All of the Google
Bombs that survived can be construed as having positive, or at
least non-negative, connotations to them.

Is anybody else shaking their head when reading this? Negative vs positive links? You’ve got to be kidding me.

If he really did his research, he’d have found Matt Cutts comments here that say:

I think this algorithm does successfully minimize the impact of Googlebombs as we define them here at Google. Many of the sites that probably wouldn’t want to rank for these Googlebombs no longer do.

as well as the comment on Google Blogoscoped that really hammers the point home.

Matt says:

The litmus test for a Googlebomb is whether the site in question wants to show up at #1 or whether other people are pushing it up. If a site *wants* to show up, that’s SEO rather than a Googlebomb.

So from the examples you give, [Waffles] would be a Googlebomb, but [french military victories] would not.

So, from the Google Guy himself… the new change seems to focus on whether or not the page actually contains the text that it’s being linked to with. It has absolutely nothing to do with positive and negative links.

Nice try Bill, and congrats on getting your article out there in the newsletter – but next time, please do a little bit of fact checking first. There’s no telling how many SEOs out there digest these newsletters and believe them as gospel truth.

is it ok to buy Clomiphene online About Ryan Jones

Ryan Jones is an SEO from Detroit. By day he works as a manager of SEO & Analytics at SapientNitro where his team performs SEO for Fortune500 clients. By night he's either playing hockey or attempting to take over the world with his own websites - which he would have already succeeded in doing had it not been for those meddling kids and their dog. The views expressed here have not been paid for and belong only to Ryan, not any of his employers or clients. Follow Ryan on Twitter at: @RyanJones, add him on Google+ or visit his personal website: www.RyanMJones.com

Comments

  1. I agree, negative links has nothing to do with any of the comments in that article. I’m sure majority of the websites linking to George were of solid PR thus pushing him to the top. It’s not like it was a success due to some Bot spam or link farms.

    If the page does not reference the anchored key word, then it is probably flagged as GB suspicious

    fixing GB by ‘negative’ link analysis? that would have fixed itself by not making any tweaks to the Goog algo

  2. Yeah, sometimes i wonder if these newsletters are really paid advertisements.

    Visiting this guy’s homepage, it talks about how he writes articles for e-zines to get hits to his website that he turns into profit.

    I guess if that’s your strategy, it doesn’t matter what your article says eh?