When ı search about a topic the first page results are not very high quality material, ordinary stuff. Then what makes them on top page?
Exactly - and that is the problem for Google and all of us.
SEO schemes are fooling Google into promoting less than stellar content to top SERP. That is not good for Google or for searchers,
If Google cannot find a way to improve, they have a lot to lose.
SEO doesn’t fool search engines, it gives them what they want. SEO's don’t make the rules, search engines do.
Yep, in my eyes one of the biggest things that people don't understand about SEO is that you have to provide a certain level of quality. SEO is in it's essense pandering to the search engines by giving them what they want.
If you don't give them quality, you don't get the rankings.
Am I correct to assume that this is why some pages will rank well at first and then quickly lower once the bounce rate and view times prove that the page is useless?
I do everything I can on my blog to make sure people stay around and read for longer periods of time and even though my PR is only 0, Google is very nice to me!
If a human reader would decide that page A is a better choice than B, but SEO schemes have caused it to present B as the best result, then the search engine has been fooled.
But then another reader might think the exact opposite. It’s subjective and as you say a choice. Anyway I don’t market words, I use words to market products and services. People buy for many reasons, price and status for example. Both require different kinds of words and either could be seen as a better choice depending on the reason for buying. It's subjetive.
The goal of SEO is to find the best words to motivate the sale, lead, opt-ins etc. There is crap out there that has little chance of doing this, but if you class that as SEO then you are completely missing the point.
Then make it every human reader except the one who wrote the lesser page.
I'm not missing any points. Almost all of the so called backlinking advice that floats through these forums has to do with fooling Google.
Amusingly, some of it warns not to do too much too quickly, because Google might realize that the links are not real.
If the intent were not to fool Google, why would that caveat be necessary?
There is nothing wrong with on-page SEO. There is nothing wrong with honest linking of related material. There is something wrong when it crosses the line into deception. Exactly where that line is, I do not know. Unfortunately, Google has just as much difficulty.
Look at the page rank of the website and if it's low then you are good to go.
Besides, who says that only the very best products, services or 'stellar content' should qualify for SEO or be given preference in SERPS. This type of subjective assessment is not expected in any form of traditional marketing. Should newspapers refuse advertising to one company because they think a competitor offers a better service for example?
It's marketing plain and simple.
You are missing the point, you are talking about search engine spam not SEO.
No, I'm talking about the backilnking advice given here. I am talking about why page B can be seen as better even when it is not. Nothing says A is junk, although it could be.
If you want to pretend backlinking "techniques" are not part if SEO, fine. Go on pretending that. But these games are interfering with Google's ability to deliver honest SERP.
That is a problem for Google and searchers.
As an SEO I work with the medium at hand. One Press Release through PRWeb can produce 2000 backlinks, is that spam? You don’t seem to have a good grasp of ethical backlinking or SEO for that matter. So I see little point in continuing a conversation under these circumstances.
Obviously a PR release that generates backlinks is not a link scheme.
You want to pretend that link schemes are not both promoted and practised here, fine. The reason you see no point in continuing the conversation is because you know very well that they are and you also know that the purpose is to fool search engines.
I can't imagine how many hubs and threads I could point to on that subject. But of course I had the affrontery to disagree with you, so that automatically makes me wrong.
I have no idea what techniques you use in your business, but SEO isn't defined by what you do. The reality is that SEO commonly involves deceptive gaming and it is a problem for Google and searchers and you are wrong in your insistence that it is not.
Thanks for your input.
Google taught us SEO.
They told us how we should present our work so that they can best find, index and rank it.
They created webmaster tools and forums so that we could present information in the way they want it to be presented.
Your failure in discussion here is in your vocabulary.
Your wrong because you are wrong. Not because you disagree with any more knowledgeable in the field than you.
Every business in this world should promote themselves - sharing your business and your work is a smart practice. If you are proud of what you create then you share it.
Do techniques exist that are blatantly attempting to fool search engines? yes .. but as peter said you are referring to search engine spam not seo.
Those that practice SE spam and "black hat" practices usually have short lives on the top and then are destined for deindexing.
I think you know very little about how complex and devious the real "black hat" seo is.
Your philosophy may be correct but you continue to phrase it incorrectly and you often offer advice that would be disadvantageous to new users and those who are interested in earning from their writing in a reasonable amount of time.
Google is a business , with 99% of its revenue generated by advertisers (like me), I am sure they are happy that you swallow their PR message and pass it along freely.
I have a time share in Florida, interested?
As usual, you twist and ignore what is said and your arguments all boil down to your saying that I don't know what I am talking about.
If you consider link schemes black hat, fine, we agree. Others insist otherwise, but regardless of the color we assign, the techniques are in use and NOT just for spam.
Denying that is extraordinarily naive, but of course you will once again close the conversation with some nonsense as you have in every other thread where we have disagreed. Will you pull out your fallen Cupud again? I can barely wait.
This is from Sunforged's page:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Easy-ways-to-pr … to-my-site
Of course, this weird system of “backlinking” isnt what google intended to be the measurement of a good site – SEO professionals just figured some of the obvious factors that are considered by google and many other Search Engines for their ranking system.
It wasn't what was intended? Then it is deception.
He goes on to recommend link wheels and notes:
There are a lot of Adsense Revenue Sharing Social bookmarking sites springing up. Most work by allowing you to create a summary and title for each of your submissions, set a few keywords and publish. A small caveat is that it is very possible that use of the same adsense id at your backlinks may lead to less importance being given by Google. For those participating in the 60DC, we have a way to avoid this possibility, further discussion will ensue in the private forum during our promo phase
Wouldn't avoiding that possibility be fooling Google? Of course it is.
But I don't know what I am talking about. Yeah, right.
I am not the protector of Googles honor, nor do I accept that they "know whats good for me"
Do you see our main disagreement?
Trust in something outside of our control that has effects on our success..and in my case livelihood.
Would you like to purchase licensing rights for that snippet? Next Time be sure to accredit any appropriation appropriately.
(say that 10 times fast)
I would appreciate an anchored backlink
Perhaps my answer was a bit aggressive.
I tend to think it is you who does not respond to facts and experience and I state that..Im open to anything you could say that would change that impression.
I will tell you why I take offense at your general "Dont do SEO , I dont SEO , SEO is evil attitude"
First off, for lack of a better word, and because it is a common terminology... You are a dinosaur.
You have been active writing in a very niche field since the internet was accessed by dial up (if not sooner)
Your main site that you frequently reference is 13 years old and is in a niche subject. you are lucky to have expansive knowledge in a field that is not "pop".
The very same factors that new sites and authors must take into account to hope to ever be seen in a search result are already inherent in your experience..
Domain Age - Related material - backlinks - over a decade of backlinks.
Theoretically, another Unix expert ..perhaps someone more cutting edge, more familiar with what the industry is and the questions people in the industry would want to know could design a site, they could even use your info as a spurce.
They could aggregate your info , create a more organized and timely resource and for arguments sake be a writer with a more enjoyable voice or stronger design skills or any number of factors that makes their new site "better" and having more quality than your own.
They would have l;ittle or no chance to stand up against you with the current algorithms - forget your silly LSi argument - you two have the same content - the only difference is the newer site is more factual, more coherant and designed to create a better user experience.
With the current algorithms - you would win - you would come up first - you have domain age - you have thousands of backlinks. The new site has that much less of a chance of being seen - there is little chance for "natural" backlinks - its not being seen by the light of day.
You are walmart. you are the incumbent. You are protected by your history more than your "quality" particularly in a field such as yours.. older often means outdated - but google doesnt see it that way.
As a business owner, a creator of quality content and someone who wants to see returns so he can continue to focus on creating what he enjoys.. In order for this to become possible the new Unix expert must compete - must use every tool at his disposal. He is proud of his work..so he sahres it with his friends at facebook and Twitter, he has created a new site or covered an emerging technology so he releases a PR blast , he wants to access real humans..not just throw his hatto the google gods and accept any handouts that come his way so he visits related forums interacts - shares his work when relevant - proudly displays links to his articles and sites within his signature, he writes at Hubpages and lets his readers know that he has other and related work at other sites, he accesses other networks of people through sites like Infobarrels or teh examiner, always pointing out his authority and experience by sharing other potential readings.
This is natural behavior of a proud producer - this is seo
google may be your God, but i write for human beings and i share that writing in many places and many ways.
I cant fathom how you would trust anyone but yourself to judge quality nor stay quiet about what you produce.
I stray away from nonsense, I tend to share my working experience (in context) and share the knowledge garnered by a successful industry of focused people, It is you that I currently judge as sharing 'what will be" or you wish will be (without context)
I spend significant time writing and producing sites that include knowledge and experience where I have specialized experience and or have enjoyed intensive research. I choose to earn from that time expenditure and I approach how to earn by reacting to the very real world of what is happening right now and what has effects - your stories and advice have been up to this point pure conjecture.
I have never ignored what you said, I have reacted and since you never replied within context once or added any factual or authoritative sources or experience i had to assume you were less than thorough in the formulation of your theories.
I feel that was a rather passive reply with real factors ripe for detailed disagreement should you still fail to see why your often met with rabid disapproval for your statements.
I dislike misinformation and at this point I feel your full of it.
What you claim I say is not what I say at all, and anyone can go read my hubs and see that you misrepresent the facts.
As i have demonstrated here, anyone can read your hubs and see that you recommend the very techniques that you labeled as black hat and the province of spammers.
The rest of your rant is more nonsense. Address the facts: you fool Google, you teach others to fool Google. Casting mud at me doesn't change that.
i did no such thing - I clearly pointed out the legitimate nature of the need for promotion for a young site or page in the battle against more established dinosaurs.
This battle holds true on and offline, as I stated I am not the night in shining honor for Google nor do I claim that its honor is worth defending. It is currently a tool that helps connect seekers and respondents, that is all.
Which shoe company deserves to rank highest for "shoe company" ..will the magic google bot make that quality decision for you. pick one and insert .....
I havent read your hubs, I am only reacting to your comments in the forums and direct conversations to me.
i have seen your site and do not disparage it, i believe I just pointed out that it had merit.
Considering the depth of my response and how you responded I must also bow out of any sort of reasonable discussion with you as those wiser than me did much earlier
Yes, of course. Bow out. That doesn't change reality.
I get real real tired of this. Folks, if you want to learn how to deceive Google, i recommend Sunforged hubs. There is no sarcasm there - many people see nothing wrong with that, so if you are among that group, he can teach you.
I see many things wrong with it, but I am in a minority.
In order to for "deception' (optimization) to be wrong, one (thats you)must support why the defended enterprise is the bastion of correctness and quality and the controller of my online business fate.
This may help you in your discussions with humans in the future
http://www.google.com/search?q=format+f … =firefox-a
The top results are two sites designed in the netscape era with information that has not been updated in 7-10 years.
This is what should appear? I can comfortably state that SEO was not intentionally used to inflate these pages ranks.
I still would really like to see a single focused response from you - what do you think about my theoretical competition between your aged site and a newer better designed more informed site?
is it SPAMMiNG to compete. must I wait 13 years to catch up ?
i think I am seeing the other side of your 10,000 monkey approach
I don't care about discussing my site. We are talking about deception here.
I would like you to explain the two paragraphs quoted from your hub. Explain how those are not advocating deception?
You say that you will disclose a method to avoid the lessening of value Google would otherwise assign to the link wheels you advocate. How is that not deception?
With your help, the pages will rank higher than they should. Google quite rightly devalues links obviously made by the same person - so any technique that interferes with their knowledge is deceptive, isn!t it?
PCUnix--I have to agree with Peter, Sunforged, Oli, et.al. I spent 20 years in market research and brand marketing for some very big brands, and what you are disparaging here in terms of SEO, as someone pointed out, is just marketing--plain and simple.
Are you this disgusted when you go into a grocery store and see BOGO offers, huge shelves full of product that don't deserve the space or candy shelves at the kids' level at the checkout? How about all of the cereal aisles where the worst sugary cereals are placed where a child in a shopping cart can reach them? What about putting milk, bread and eggs in the way back of the store so that shoppers have to pass through the whole store to get them, upping the chance of an impulse purchase?
What goes on in Internet marketing is just a teeny tiny piece of what really goes on out there in the world of marketing, and it's pretty darn respectable compared to some of the other stuff.
I don't care if every one of you agrees. His own hubs promote the very activities he earlier claimed are not done by legitimate SEO practictioners.
You can call it marketing, but it is deception - and that is where we started. Go back and read the whole thread - assuming he hasn't deleted posts by now, of course.
I have been reading the whole thread since it was started. I'll say it again--what goes on with SEO and what folks have been talking about here or in their hubs fades in comparison to what goes on in retail marketing, pharmaceutical marketing, food and beverage marketing, etc. If you don't believe that, then I have swampland AND a bridge I'd like to sell you.
I guess I'm just having trouble understanding why it's only Internet marketing that you're so ticked off about, when in reality, just about all marketing practices could be construed as "shady" or "deceptive."
I'll second that....Marketing and Advertising are gimmick tools for business to draw consumers. It makes no difference if it is online or offline.
Both Marketing and Advertising are specially crafted groups of sentences, streamlined to make consumers react to a given ad.
And that has zero relevance to the matter under discussion.
We are talking about link wheels built to deceive search engines, not the anchor text they might use.
And that's nice Pcunix. I wasn't talking to you in the first place.
Secondly, I can agree or disagree with anyone of my own choosing. I responded to someone else's comment, that which, is NOT YOU!
Don't like it, too bad.
And I in turn am simply trying to help other readers. As for your opinion on anything, I have no use for it.
For the newbies: this is typical. The entrenched gang defends one another at all costs.
Sunforged advises deception. You can see that plainly in his hubs.
There is nothing illegal about that and most consider it quite necessary. I don't argue that - it might be necessary. I also don't argue that far worse is done by others.
However, it is deception when you are making content that appears to Google to be genuine organic links that would indicate genuine value. If that doesn't bother you, explain to me why Google says trading links is verboten - it is actually the same behavior.
What happened here is typical. Rapid hand waving, lots of misdirection, parries to change the subject and of course plenty of veiled insults, but no admission that they intend to deceive and no understanding that we would be better if we could eliminate it.
People like sunforged are heros here. I find that more than funny.
And isn't nice of you to make a mockery out of my post, like I said, that I wasn't even TALKING TO YOU!
Get a life.
To be very succinct, PcUnix, all of the hand waving is on your end. You failed to respond to even one of my questions about legitimacy, about taking a passive interest in your success, about competition.
My pride tells me that out of a dozen questions, theoretical situations and broader inquiries about business and promotion for a start up enterprise, at least one would be relevant and capable of being used for a legitimate discussion on your side.
In the scheme of things, it is you who are entrenched, you are entrenched and protected by the current valuation system that gives more authority to your dated works.
How does the new compete with the old?
Obviously you think the new should compete by building link wheels.
You KNOW you are gaming Google and you admit that over and over and over in your posts and hubs about this very subject. You know and admit that Google never intended for you to be able to manipulate them like that.
You and every other person who writes about this junk warns that you have to be careful not to tip off Google with "footorints". Why would you worry about that if you were not fooling Google?
(Folks- do a Google search for "link wheel footprints" to open your eyes as to who is telling the truth here and who is not)
Some people argue that you have to do this because everyone else does it and worse. I understand that, but I do point out that not "everyone" does. I don't and plenty of others don't. But I understand your argument of fighting fire with fire.
Some note that all advertising is deceptive. True, but we do have laws that try to limit that, and Google also wishes to limit deception by SEO. Google does not like linking schemes and link wheels are just another in a long line of schemes used by SEO people.
I do not respect people who use schemes like this. Most readers think they are heros; I do not. Are they doing anything illegal? Absolutely not. Unethical? I think so. Not grossly unethical, but not something I would do.
Do all SEO people do this? No. But too many do. It would be refreshing if those who don't try to deceive Google would speak out against it, wouldn't it? Don't hold your breath.
This thread started with someone wondering why SERP is sometimes flawed. I answered that it can come from SEO deception and manipulation. That is simple fact.
The hero complex, followed by...
...the conspiracy theories, right on cue.
My posts will proudly stand as testaments to your inability to respond to a single point.
I may have occasionally ribbed you for your unexplained trust in a corporation to direct human beings to your business enterprise but I stand by my statements and my body of work.
I believe in backlinking because I believe in sharing my effort
Blackhat nowadays is a $5000 piece of software that will scrape every word on your site. garble and spin it and republish it on every web 2.0 site you can imagine all while creating unlimited numbers of wordpress comments ..while you sleep.
That is our competition - wake up.
When attempting to paraphrase me, try referencing the appropriate locations in context - that is the mark of quality and well researched online communication.
Remember, I appreciate anchored backlinks to any of my source material.
Now smile - its just the internet
As a complete newcomer who listens to all of you, and the recent Nellie Hoxley thread -
SEO clearly works, I have proved this already myself in minor but certain ways, so IMO optimising text and titles for SEO does 'fool' the Google setup in exactly the same way that marketting and advertising does. This is where Pcunix is right, although good quality informative etc etc etc stuff can get high rankings so can well marketted garbage.
When the web is saturated with SEO it becomes a war of who can optimise the best, and of course being good at it must pay dividends, but the net is also saturated with garbage. Google must address this at some point to sort the wheat from the chaff or the system becomes as bland and hard to fathom as modern politics.
Nobody is going to stop using the advantages of SEO while they work so the sooner Google et al start sorting it out the better or they will decline when someone else does it better. The answer to a complete newbie like me would appear to be producing good quality, informative and well researched material - optimised with SEO.
Peace, love and jelly babies all round eh
Your question is irrelevant at the moment.
What does "rank higher than it should" mean? (by whose measurement ...do you accede the control of your own destiny in all areas of your life)
Respond to my clearly stated question.
In order to for "deception' (optimization) to be wrong, one (thats you)must support why the defended enterprise is the bastion of correctness and quality and the controller of my online business fate.
in my previous example - it doesnt matter that its your site...how do you feel about the newcomers right to compete accepting that your site has the advantage in current algorithms without making a decision which has more "quality"
Of course. Anything I say is irrelevant in your mind.
We already covered "by who" at the beginning of this thread. But this is one of your favorite techniques, too: ignoring what was already said.
And continuing to ignore your own words which clearly show deception. Keep on dancing: you deceive Google and you teach others to do the same.
The deception might sometimes put better content on top. That doesn't change that it is deception or that Google would work better if it didn't exist.
It seems that you are once again unwilling or unable to respond to a valid question
I think its about that time.
Point for logic and a fair competitive information marketplace.
you do not compute..
1 Operation not permitted
2 No such file or directory
3 No such process
4 Interrupted system call
5 Input/output error
Sunforged, that picture is a winner, and I might have to steal it from time to time.
For those of us who like to write but can't understand half of what you two are saying: Before I quit writing a few months ago, I was rated in the 90's. Marketing, backlinks, keywords, not a clue and still don't. I finally have enough time to come back here, and I can tell you, I'd love to have someone who could take over those aspects of this process for me. I hardly have the time to write (Re my multi month abscence ) much less any additional work. If I knew I could count on someone to handle that, I wouldn't consider it "cheating."
There are thousands of authors on HubPages who link to their hubs in ways that could be consider as gaming Google’s algorithms, blog comments, forum posts, profiles... This linking plays a significant part in the rankings every hub enjoys. HubPages is well designed and the benefits of all those links are distributed throughout the site. Anyone who has a moral or ethical problem with this type of linking should remove their articles at once. Maybe stick them on a blog somewhere and sit back and wait for fresh links to appear. Or you could just leave them here and enjoy the benefits that HupPages and many others are providing for you. If, However, you have made it known that you see this type of linking as wrong, unethical and gaming search engines and you are still prepared to leave you articles here, well, that’s the real deception as far as I am concerned.
SEO has become state of the art. So many ways of promoting a website now. Unfortunately it is almost necessary because of Google itself. They make it so hard for people to get on the 1st page UNLESS you buy their ads. Enough said.
As Oli said before the thread was hijacked, it comes down to SEO and in particular links. However, visibility isn’t everything you still need quality content. Content is king and always will be, SEO is a means to leverage that content so that it ranks well and gets eyeballed by the right kind of customers. Visibility without the credibility that great content delivers isn’t worth much, nor is credibility without visibility.
PCUnix, I agree with some of what you say here, a lot of backlinking is intended to artificially improve your score with Google. Even if you game the system by creating high quality links, it is still an artificial creation of backlinks, not a natural growth of backlinks from other sources.
However it is not the only factor, site trust and quality play a big part, so you have to game the system by creating good content, and by that means, you are actually creating the good content which Google wants at the top of the search engines.
This does not of course always work. There have been a few occasions where I have seen the top three google spots occupied by utter dredge.
The fact of the matter is though that for the most part Google has won, it has made internet marketers spend time creating relevant, high quality content. Even if it is boosted artificially by backlinks, for the most part the backlinks do very little unless the content is also matched to Googles specifications.
I feel as if this thread was blown out of proportion incredibly quickly, I think it is important to point out one thing though,
Most of the people talking on this thread are Internet Marketers, what we do is use a variety of techniques to get to the top of Google, and get traffic to our websites. Some of these can be, as PCunix pointed out, contrary to how Google originally intended a ranking factor to be used.
However Google does exect you to market a website with links. Matt Cutts pointed out in a discussion about backlinks that if somebody builds a site you would expect them to tell people about it. It is infact advised by Google that you create related backlinks to drive traffic to your website.
Where people often go wrong however is spamming links on unrelated sites, or creating structures (Such as the link wheel) which are designed to create a linking system which sometimes goes beyond marketing your own work.
Despite this you still have to play by Google's rules to succeed, and that means doing a whole lot more than backlinking!
I think I am going to finish this statement off by just pointing out that I am not taking sides here, since this thread got pretty heated, I think good points were made on both sides, some of which people overlooked. I think my two major points are,
Backlinks are used to game Google's algorythms
Writing Good Content is also gaming googles algorythms
Googel expects, and even wants you to do this
It is incredibly hard to get bad content to the top of Google simply by trying to game the backlink system.
Bad content does occasionally beat good content
But for the most part Good Content beats bad content.
Everything we do in SEO is marketing, it is getting our product to the top, even if it may be worse than the product above us. What this means though is that generally we have to improve our product.
Is this ethical, maybe not, but unfortunately the person marketing the product above us is probably not ethical either, chances are they are doing the exact same thing as the rest of us.
I do not disagree with most of that. You are being silly when you say that providing good content is manipulating Google and you are stretching the truth with your comments about Matt Cutts, but at least you recognize reality.
So why does Sunforged reject reality? Why does everybody else who insists that link wheels are fine?
If link wheels are fine, why do they all worry about footprints? You know why as well as I do: if Google realizes what is going on, they will take away the juice. As I noted above, all you need to do is search "link wheel footprint" to see linkmeisters talking about how to keep Google from noticing.
The thread got heated because SF doesn't want to admit he is trying to manipulate Google to affect results. It is as simple as that. I understand every one of the arguments that attempt to justify the behavior, but at the end of the day every practitioner knows they are in shady territory.
No honest person has to worry about leaving footprints that Googke might spot, do they? Good content doesn't have to worry about footprints, does it?
Google does NOT want you building links for deceptive purposes. Worrying about footprints, as SF dies, demonstrates that his intent is deceptive. Sugar coat it all you want, that is fact.
I create good content to manipulate Google to display my page first, I am definitely using good content as a way to increase my ranking within Google. It is not artificially increasing my ranking, but neither is a good backlink!
Matt Cutts has talked on several occasions about backlinks in videos, and in several he suggests that you work on backlinks as a way to improve your search engine rankings.
What Matt Cutts vilifies is spam methods of creating backlinks.
Link wheels are classed as Spam because they bring little value and are designed for nothing more than artificailly increasing a websites rankings.
A good self promoted backlink on the otherhand provides value, it provides information to an audience.
I would be the first to admit that my backlinking campaigns definitely fall in to both of these catagories, but I also avoid things like linkwheels, which are easily denoted as spam.
SO - is what you are calling a link wheel the thing that someone earlier in this 'bloody good row' was describing as
linking one article to 3 others and those 3 to 2 others in turn and them back to the first article
Explain to me where you think I disagree with what you have said here?
The only place I see us where you talk about content. Again, does good content have to worry about "footorints"? Are we ever worried that Google will not give us SERP because our content is too good?
But you DO have to worry about these things when you build link wheels.
What Google and Matt Cutts have said over and over again is summed up in the last sentence of http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … swer=66356
Before making any single decision, you should ask yourself the question: Is this going to be beneficial for my page's visitors?
Neither Sunforged nor Misha nor anyone else on the other side of this can give any reason for a link wheel except to fool Google.
When you link within your site, you benefit visitors. If you tell people at your camera site that they can find your pages on camcorders at your other site, you are helping your visitors. When you make link wheekls, you are only trying to fool Google.
Misha regularly calls me a troll when I bring up these facts. Guess why?
What you accept and I do not, is whether Google or any outside business enterprise has a protected right to "rank, or judge" my own business.
Its absolute bollocks that I have in any way shied away from admitting that my personal business interests are my main priority.
Ive gave you a dozen scenarios as to why its legitimate and ethical to promote your work offline and on.
I only get heated because you are questioning my honesty and ethics ..in person, I would remove your silly wig for such statements.
Do you stand around at McDonald's and suggest that each customer should be happy with only 2 ketchup packets per order?
Your stance is alien to me.
The works you reference have helped real people make real money and acquire more readership to their writings. My ethics and honest writing are on the side of actual humans and families and artists, your seems to be with corporate interest.
I start to wonder if you fall into the Programmer category - a disconnect with humanity and the needs and goals of real people. Too much time reading code and interacting with electronic devices and computers screens can cause issues with practical social interactions and conceptions of reality.
Do not question my honesty until you can answer how ethics are related to supporting googles business interests, a corporation to which I have no ties. After you have done so, still do not question my ethics as you have proven time and again that you are no friend to logic. You make statements that you assume to be self evident and they are not.
You are not practical.
not once have I stated that one should not pursue quality - I just am trying to (over and over again, like a fool) understand how and why anyone would passively allow anyone, in this case Google, to judge what quality is.
Maybe its a wiring issue - Im into creative expression, fine arts...I know taste and quality are subjective.
You seem to believe "quality" can be programmed, I know it is not.
Perhaps the use of proper English and punctuation could have something to do with it.
Perhaps focusing on content before worrying about making money might factor in there somewhere.
I don't know. I am just putting that out there.
by Jim Laughlin3 days ago
Does anyone have good suggestions for forums, widgets, websites or software for SEO and creating 'good' backlinks and/or other suggestions? This is for my Hubs as well as a Wordpress.org blog. I want to gain traffic and...
by easyspeak7 years ago
I know it fluctuates depending on a billion variables...but for you hubbers here who are making decent money, how many backlinks do you create for each hub. Please specify between social bookmarkting, article...
by Jason Menayan4 years ago
There is a lot of bad SEO (search engine optimization) advice out there, and the use of automated services that procure backlinks to your Hubs is one particularly egregious example. Using services to get backlinks can...
by Beth1003 years ago
Alright, this is a very basic question (yes, I know it is, but.....) I thought I understood this but the other night, someone told me that indexing has no affect on page ranking. He went as far as to say that he...
by Tony Lawrence5 years ago
I havent watched the clip yet, but this ought to make one folks squirm: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-573994 … zed-sites/
by LucidDreams4 years ago
They are just driving home the point that user experience and quality is point one!http://www.eddale.co/google/beware-google-bearing-gifts
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.