JL Forums

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - wwday3

Pages: 1 2 3 4
Oh, the videos weren't great by any means. Nor were they crappy. I'm not going to whine and say "Ooooh, Youtube terminated me for no reason - I wasn't doing anything... etc. etc". No, I know that what I was doing was "on the edge" of their TOS - using them as a parking place and giant video player for one of my sites.

The point, however, is that YouTube (and Google for that matter) have an unspoken PARTNERSHIP with people who contribute to to their services. In other words, they need us as much as we need them. Without OUR content, THEY would not be in business. Certainly, I think they have a right to filter crappy stuff out as they see fit, and if I'd received an email that said "We'd rather you didn't keep those videos here - you've been warned" I would have taken them down and gone on with something else. I'm not unreasonable.

(And, I did receive an email informing me I was terminated and it referenced the video in question, so I know email warnings could be done quite easily).

But, absolute termination without any kind of warning or real explanation borders on nazi tactics, in my opinion. "Vengeance is mine saith YouTube." Not only are they dismissing me and slandering me in a way, but now what happens when a visitor clicks on a completely innocent video I have uploaded to one of my sites? "Sorry, you can't watch this video because we TERMINATED this user (for something completely unrelated to this)".

This is just one more example of how Google has basically gotten too big for their britches.

Over the weekend I uploaded several review videos to Youtube. I really didn't do much more than upload them, add a title, and tags. The idea was to get the uploading out of the way, and work on the videos later in the week (today).

To my surprise, when I tried to log into Youtube (owned by Google, you know) today, I discovered my account terminated.  I contacted YT, and was told one of the videos (of 8 I uploaded) violated "community guidelines". When I clicked on the video link I saw a note with "Sorry, blah blah blah spam, blah blah deceptive commercial content".

I did some research. This has been happening to a lot of people lately - in fact some very influential people like Darren Rose of Problogger. Some get their account terminated (note - NOT suspended), and then get it back again in a few days or weeks (depending on how much they bitch, I guess).

This post was eye opening, however (http://howtobuildyouronlineempire.com/blog/my-youtube-account-terminated/). In it, Josh Zamora reveals something that jibes with some of the conspiracy theories regarding Panda/Penguin. He suggests that 1) Youtube has a MASSIVE advertising platform with their PAID embedded ads in videos, and 2) they don't make money off of affiliates who are essentially advertising on Youtube for FREE. In other words, they want us to  buy advertising on little Susie's cute puppy video rather than creating our own promotional videos.

Makes sense to me. And makes me look at Panda/Penguin in a new conspiratorial light. If Google has decided that affiliates should not be making money using Google's services for free (organic search, youtube), then we are all screwed.

Search Engine Optimization / Re: 800 x 600 format
« on: May 28, 2012, 08:35:05 PM »
But what, exactly, is the correct definition of "√§bove the fold"? On a given page that can vary, due to screen size and shape and maybe resolution used.  The word is that Google's "standard" for viewing and deciding what is above the fold is that which is seen in a 800 x 600 window.

So true. When I use Firefox for development, I've got it packed with so many toolbars, the fold is waaay up the page. In Chrome and IE it's pretty much the same. Opera is so minimalistic, the fold is almost at the bottom of a lot of pages.

Using 800x600 as a "guide" makes sense (yes, there are still a lot of websites that use that resolution).

Search Engine Optimization / Re: Blogroll Backlinks?
« on: May 27, 2012, 07:02:49 PM »
wwday3, install Commentluv plugin and you are good to go.
I second this.  There is a free version and a paid version.  It is worth getting the paid version as that allows you to get do follow links on other sites.

I will try CommentLuv. Thanks for the suggestions.

I did try an experiment with a blogroll on a fairly well indexed and trusted dog blog. I added a blogroll link pointing to the local site - a catering site. Prior to this Google had zero backlinks for the site (although SemRush, Alexa, and Bing all said there were backlinks). Now, today I noticed a Google backlink. I clicked on it, and it's from the dog blog.

Tentative conclusion: Google recognizes blogroll links, especially from a trusted site. We'll see if the fact that it's a "fairly" unrelated site hurts or helps. (In fact, stretching it a bit - both fall under the "home & garden" category. Or, maybe I could just reference corndogs or hotdogs since Google is so messed up right now).

Basically, right now I'm just trying to bump the site from the #2 to #1 position for the main search terms. Once there, I figure my client's (brother-in-law actually :) ) business will double over the summer. Their site was down around 5 or 6 before I got ahold of it, and moving from there to #2 improved their business dramatically.

Search Engine Optimization / Re: Someone wants their links removed!
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:48:10 AM »
In my case, it took all of 1 minute for each one. Find the author, click delete author, done. I figure if it is the requester they are done with my site anyway. If it is a competitor of theirs doing something fishy, I don't want that behavior on my site, so they are done. If it's something else, then "sorry, it's collateral damage".

Search Engine Optimization / Re: Blogroll Backlinks?
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:19:00 AM »
Post comments on your own blogs.

Actually, I had thought about that. I built some software that lets me "manipulate" comments. I might explore that a bit further.

The reason I haven't done that yet is that most of my sites are nofollow comments (the best strategy, I think, for affiliate sites).

I may just start adding dofollow links to existing, good ranking articles and see how that works (like "A big thank you to *link* for inspiring this post" or similar at the end of an article). If done correctly, even a human reviewer would not think twice.

For the love of God, do not use blogroll links.  A sudden increase in links will mess you up.  They have been manipulated a lot and G does not like them.  I added some that linked to MY other sites, for traffic purposes.  The site I linked to dropped rank.

Do you know for sure that it is an issue with Google? Your experience suggests as much, but can you be certain it was adding the blogroll links that did it, and not something else (causation vs. correlation). Did you remove the links and the ranking went back up?

Search Engine Optimization / Re: Someone wants their links removed!
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:01:53 AM »
I'm having the same thing happen with a couple (Wordpress based) articles directories I own. Now, I know that those articles/links were most likely posted by them, or by someone working on their behalf. There is a *small* chance someone stole the article from another article directory, and an even smaller chance it is a competitor trying to do evil SEO. But, I'm sure in 99% of the cases, it can be tied directly back to the requestor.

I don't care. If they want the link removed, that's fine. What really chaffs by ass (excuse the term) is that they are LYING about it. Almost every single request that comes in says something like "You have a link on your website. It was posted there without our permission or knowledge". Bullcrap!

I want to tell them "Look. I don't report to Google. So, playing the 'I don't know what happened' game with me buys you nothing. Just ask me to remove the link, and I will". So stupid.

As it is, I just find the author who posted the article/link, and delete them. That deletes all of their posts, and any possible other links disappear as well. I'm not messing around anymore.

Search Engine Optimization / Blogroll Backlinks?
« on: May 19, 2012, 11:24:25 AM »
Does anyone use successfully use their blogroll for backlinks?

I have several blogs that I'd like to use for backlinks for some local projects I'm working on. I thought of using their blogrolls, but I'm concerned about a couple things - does Google really pay attention to blogrolls, and if so, does having the link appear in the sidebar on most or all of the pages present a problem? I could see links suddenly appearing on several hundred/thousand pages get quickly labeled as "unnatural".

The positive aspect of this strategy is that I already know the pages are indeed, and the new backlink would be found by the SERPs almost immediately.

I realize I could accomplish the same thing by just adding links to existing posts, but I don't really want to do anything that might be "suspicious".

It would seem to be an easy slam-dunk strategy, but I've never tried it before. I tried a couple searches to see what others might be doing, but most of what I found was really outdated.

Here's the study I'd like to see. Do the same thing for some COMPETITIVE local search phrases. Local can be easy for long tail in general, but not for COMPETITIVE search phrases for a specific city, especially a large metro area. If you could get a high ranking for something like "'Big City' Wedding Catering blah blah", or similar, I'll be impressed.

Search Engine Optimization / Wordpress Tag Pages
« on: May 10, 2012, 11:14:58 AM »
Not sure if this has been covered, but I have noticed recently that Wordpress tag pages have been getting a lot of Google's attention. I have several tag pages ranking high that were not to been seen prior to Penguin. Is this a ranking anomaly like the geocities and tripod crap, or could there be something more to it?

My first thought was that Google perhaps thinks tag pages are more "natural" by default. When I think about it, I would always highlight my primary keywords in the content with H tags, meta description, and in the title tag. Then, I would add longer tail keywords and LSI oriented tags, almost as an afterthought.

I can see Google thinking along the same lines...

Tag pages - by their very nature - also randomly change a lot. That could also enter into this.

Or, it could be just an anomaly.

Instead of "moderation in everything", seems it's now "randomness in everything".

Spread links out to as many sites as possible, ignore PR, randomize anchor text to the nth degree, randomize number of words in articles, randomize topic,  sometimes add pics or videos - sometimes not, sometimes post a personal observation-type post.

Do everything in your power to make it look like some "Joe Schmoe" just discovered out he could have his very own blog. Not only will it seem "natural" to Google, it will make it impossible for the penguin to track anything. Controlled chaos.

I'm stripping the affected sites completely down to just content (de-optimizing / no ads) to see how clean you have to get your on-page... 

Keep in mind, geocities sites generally had ads plastered all over them. A "naked" geocities-like site might be suspect

Search Engine Optimization / Re: Major Google Update (April 24th)
« on: May 05, 2012, 08:05:34 PM »
For those who want to go Back To The Future and learn what folks are going to be selling for hundreds and thousands of dollars, here is the download page for one of the most useful documents you'll find:

Wow, trip through time. I remember reading this back then, but I "forgot" the contents (well, not forgot maybe - more like overlaid by newer crap :). Thanks for reposting, and the trip down memory lane.

In a word, No.

Most of the time you can't tell one WP from another by looking at the source. The vast majority of themes are just modifications of already existing themes. I would say that the only way you could kill your ranking is by switching from a well-designed theme to something poorly designed - and that's doubtful.

What I would worry about is the people factor. If your visitors like your theme they are more likely to be "engaged", and that's what Google likes. If you lose stickiness, well... that could be a problem. And, if visitors absolutely hate your theme and exit as soon as they get there, then you lose Google points and possibly sales.

Search Engine Optimization / Re: Major Google Update (April 24th)
« on: May 04, 2012, 11:35:28 PM »
The second part of their analysis goes right to the service I am offering through my sig link - small, decent quality websites that are run as businesses, not throwaway disposable sites but sites that are revenue centres in their own right.

Good strategy, and one that is mentioned in the MicroMaster blog post Chris Rempel posted.

I wonder, will that be the next trend (and how long before Google tries to shut it down)? I'm willing to bet that next year at this time the buzzword will be "private blog networks" (like 3WL but far more secret and niche-y). Heck, Pinterest exploded in just a few months time by being an "invitation only" social network. Hmmmm... small groups in specific niches creating their own virtual trade unions....

Pages: 1 2 3 4