It seems that Google is really cracking down on what it refers to as 'unnatural linking', to the extent that some offending websites have actually been de-indexed. One of these, BuildMyRank, in responding to the news states "It had always been BMR’s philosophy that if we did things a bit different from other networks, we would not only have a better quality service to offer our users, but a longer life in this fickle industry." BMR is described as a blog-network but, as I understand it, its system was not all that different from a number of article submission sites except for the fact that it charged a fee and worked somewhat more vigorously on behalf of its authors.
I imagine that Google will also be searching out those links where the sites involved are totally unconnected - where someone has managed to get in a link for his used car business by posting a comment on a gardening blog. I have heard some internet teachers maintain that it is vital to get your links onto .edu and .gov sites. But if your website has nothing to do with education or government, that surely must be an unnatural link. I wonder whether the rooting out of these links will make .edu and .gov links more or less valuable than before.
Overall, my feeling is that these changes could be good for those of us who try to do things the 'proper' way, working hard to achieve appropriate links and not spamming unconnected blogs or websites. But it all depends on what Google decides to count as 'unnatural'. I have a website about the treatment of insomnia. I am also an active member of a forum that has nothing to do with insomnia. But on my profile page I have listed that website. And a few people from the forum who suffer from insomnia have found my website and (I hope) found it useful. But would Google say that was an 'unnatural' link?
The problem is that, as far as I'm aware, Google hasn't actually put down in black and white what is 'unnatural' and what isn't. Remembering my friend Peter's experience with the interpretation of the Google adwords rules, I'm just a little apprehensive.
Google Evolves - Are You Ready?
Showing posts with label SEO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SEO. Show all posts
Saturday, 7 April 2012
Friday, 27 January 2012
A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma - part 1
In 1939, Winston Churchill described Russia as "A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". If he were alive today, he might use the same phrase to describe Google.
Many SEO experts have made a living trying to work out exactly what parameters Google uses to decide which websites appear on its first page and which are relegated to the unseen hundreds of pages that follow it. Google plays its cards close to its chest and, it is said, frequently changes its parameters (no doubt to keep the SEO experts on their toes).
Nothing wrong in that, of course. If everyone knew exactly what to do to get to the top, and proceeded to do it, Google would have to resort to pulling names out of a hat in order to assign places on the first page.
However, Google's secrecy and unapproachability is not always so benign. In recent times, while constantly urging people to advertise on the web using Google Adwords, it has also been banning many others from ever using this method again. Some of those banned have been serious advertisers, spending thousands of dollars a month on their campaigns. So why have they been banned? In many cases it's hard to tell.
Google refers to it as a 'suspension' rather than a ban - but since there is no way of appealing against it and since it means that the 'suspended' person cannot use any of his or her accounts to advertise ever again, 'ban' seems to be a more suitable word.
If you go into Google and search for " adwords account suspended" you will find over 82,000 results. And if you look at the first few pages, it seems that many of these are written by people who do not understand why they have been banned.
Google's Terms and Conditions state that people cannot advertise anything that contravenes any law in the countries in which the ads are shown and that they cannot advertise anything that violates its policies 'as revised from time to time'. The first is, of course, reasonable and sensible. The second is where the trouble lies.
To be continued . . .
Many SEO experts have made a living trying to work out exactly what parameters Google uses to decide which websites appear on its first page and which are relegated to the unseen hundreds of pages that follow it. Google plays its cards close to its chest and, it is said, frequently changes its parameters (no doubt to keep the SEO experts on their toes).
Nothing wrong in that, of course. If everyone knew exactly what to do to get to the top, and proceeded to do it, Google would have to resort to pulling names out of a hat in order to assign places on the first page.
However, Google's secrecy and unapproachability is not always so benign. In recent times, while constantly urging people to advertise on the web using Google Adwords, it has also been banning many others from ever using this method again. Some of those banned have been serious advertisers, spending thousands of dollars a month on their campaigns. So why have they been banned? In many cases it's hard to tell.
Google refers to it as a 'suspension' rather than a ban - but since there is no way of appealing against it and since it means that the 'suspended' person cannot use any of his or her accounts to advertise ever again, 'ban' seems to be a more suitable word.
If you go into Google and search for " adwords account suspended" you will find over 82,000 results. And if you look at the first few pages, it seems that many of these are written by people who do not understand why they have been banned.
Google's Terms and Conditions state that people cannot advertise anything that contravenes any law in the countries in which the ads are shown and that they cannot advertise anything that violates its policies 'as revised from time to time'. The first is, of course, reasonable and sensible. The second is where the trouble lies.
To be continued . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)