Hoorah, my fellow SEO comrades! It looks like Search Engine Academy needs to do a fairly major update on linking! One of my very favorite SEO writers, Barry Schwartz put this out onto the blogosphere – Google Webmaster guidelines has changed the advice on how to rank.
I think it’s about time. For those of you who read our blog, you’ve heard me gripe about link building, and how little return I get when trying to get new links for my clients in this brave new post-Google Penguin world. I have felt like a failure with my link building efforts. I know every SEOer has her fave things she loves to do for clients, but I have to tell you that link building is not high on my list. I like to see results and get some return for my link begging, and I have tried and I have tried and God knows, I’ve tried every strategy and tactic out there that’s white hat SEO, but my ROI is dismally low.
In the last couple months, I’ve just about thrown in the towel on link building, and have felt horribly guilty about it when explaining to my clients why I think trying to find new links is a waste of my time and their money. Well, it looks like I can relax and sleep a little better at night!
Apparently, this change was made pretty quietly in late May. From the good old Wayback Machine, here’s what the guidance used to be:
Now it reads like this:
It’s a good day here in the SEO world, kids! I’m gonna celebrate!
Don’t get me wrong…I’m NOT saying that inbound back links (IBLs) shouldn’t be pursued. No, like others are now saying, I understand that it’s important to have your business listings links in the reputable directories, as well as local business organization links, like your Chambers of Commerce, BNI, etc. Obviously, linking your blog posts to your site and sending followers from your social media platforms to your relevant interior pages are still good linking strategies.
You know…if Google Penguin and Google Panda caused this change, then I think it’s good.
And in keeping with what Google has said all along, a natural link profile of “follow” vs. “no follow” links is still OK. But at least now, I feel as if I’ve been let off the hook to comb the internet for reputable linking partners, crafting a very personalized email, and hoping for the best, when mostly what I get is no response or a response that is completely off target along the lines of “Google says I shouldn’t do links anymore.”
What do you think? Let us know in the comments below.
Until next time, keep it between the ditches and stay mellow and copasetic, umkay?
All the best to you,
Nice find Nancy! I’m sure your frustration, especially post Penguin, is shared by countless others.
I think the operative word in the new verbiage is “share”. It’s important to keep in mind that linking is a form of sharing and that it should always have been viewed as a “social signal” as Google itself says in describing PageRank, each link is a “vote”.
“We assess the importance of every web page using more than 200 signals and a variety of techniques, including our patented PageRank™ algorithm, which analyzes which sites have been “voted” to be the best sources of information by other pages across the web.” (http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/).
But what is most important about this recent change is not that linking is a form of sharing, but that the newest social signals (G+, FB, Twitter, and the rest) are having more of a role in off-page factors. I think that this change in their Rankings article reflects the increased role that social media plays.
I have a Penguin 2.0 case study (to be released in the next several days) in which some fairly extensive research also bears this out.
Michael, thanks for your comments. I look forward to your case study; please let me know how to get a copy of it. I have had more professional heartburn with Penguin than any other algo/ranking change put out by Google. The point you make about what defines a “share” is significant with the increased social signals.
“Creating high quality sites that users will want to use and share” could be measured by links. Sharing can be accomplished by providing links on a website, as well as linking through social media. I’m not sure how Google could measure sharing, other than by analyzing links to a site. I am really not sure anything has changed.
This is totally awesome news Nancy! Great find and thanks for sharing it. I couldn’t agree more that it’s a welcome change. I’ve always felt the focus should be on content not on link building – after all, if you don’t have good information to share, no one’s going to want to link to you 🙂
Cheers!
And the fact that Google Penguin has squeezed link building strategies into narrower and narrower funnels makes it that much more difficult. People are running scared of link requests. I’m relieved because now I can get my clients to produce more content.
Hi
Awsom in deed that Google’s initial patent exclusively focussed on link votes (a.k.s. Back Link Algorythm) finally gets the boot… so they say. Funny how changing things in such an “unannounced” (sneeky & hiddeen) way says volumes on what little Google knows about actual content value & valuation. Content is eternal. BL algos are always temporary & more or less black hat when it became the main issue to get listed properly in their SERPs… (Like Google’s financial doings in Europe and the US… if you follow their black hat financial practices all over the planet.) Sooner or later, virtues become a darkened force – Do no evil is soooo childish and now its become idiotic. No content there.
Robert
Robert, thank you for your comments. I’m not sure what’s going on Google – who ever knows? I have a feeling that this was coming because of the Penguin implementation. There will always be discussion and controversy about what Google considers good content. Thanks for posting!
Right. Nobody knows, or ever knew “what’s going on (at) Google”. That’s the whole issue. One thing for sure, their PPC revenue is constantly rising in the face of all the SEO mumbling they deliver regularly. That’s enough to get people frantic about what to do and not to do. And that’s the point. Google has again succeded in using mixed messages and fright to manoever worldwide businesses into buying into their PPC cash cow. The only thing that matters, is if you look at what they do, NOT what they say they do. In that sense, for years now, Cutts has been saying “we try to…” do this and that… which includes everything they’ve never been good at doing (Remember the Florida Update?) or other stuff they never got right in the first place. Banks, Wall Street & Religions are the other institutions than can say one thing while doing another… 🙂 If Google was a nobody, that would be cute. Since they’re controlling worl commerce, jobs and a major part of the worl economy growing every year… shouldn’t we be freaking out and do like Europeans (& some american) government agencies… break-up the ogre eating up the world’s financial attenpts to get out of the (last) american rut started by other great believers in DOING NO HARM?
Good points made. I’ve been saying for years this is why Google is a billion-dollar plus company. I think we Americans have a different view point than Europeans do regarding Google, which has helped the company’s bottom line.
Almost nobody agrees with me, but I think the day will come when another search engine will rival Google. I don’t think it’s Bing, it’s certainly NOT going to be Yahoo!, but I hope there’s a person or group that’s studying what Google has done and will develop a search engine that won’t mimic them, but will be just as useful, if not more, to make grabbing searchers more competitive. We all pretty much dance to what Google plays.
Yes, absolutely. But first… as was done with MICROSOFT in the 90s… a breakup is needed and revelation of Google’s illegal, anti-american or anti-Market behaviours must be put into light more, as it’s starting to be done now…
As with all monopoly, 0% accountability is the best way to power and to riches. Thank the Internet for exposing faster all these manipulators. If only the public was aware that they’re being manipulated, robbed of their freedom of choice by G and others… Americans would be more in line with their real constitution and its spirit. For now, everyone that counts is cashing in, one way or-and another. Seen from outside the USA, americans are loosing and have lost much of their luster… Things have to break openly to get openly fixed. 🙂 That’s the modern life I guess… Robots included. No wonder few people agree with you! That’s what manipulation is and does… !!
Nancy,
thank goodness for you. I have never ever, used a link strategy to get my clients sites where they need to be. I have always relied on good, relevant page titles, relevant content and page snippets (even before they were ‘big’ news). I have always used canonical redirection and maintain my clients sites as if they were mine If you care about what you put out there, others will too.
Of course, we have very competitive keywords sometimes and it takes a little bit longer for organic SERPS but, none of my clients have been delisted, penalised or even lost any placement they have due to any updates Google have done. A website is an organic property, it is never finished and it always needs a refresh.
After all, you wouldn’t have a high street shop front with dirty windows, so that no one could see in, would you?
Hi Andrew,
Good points, and I agree. I keep stressing the basics, because they will always be necessary. I’m a big fan of schema.org to help boost pages. Thanks for reading our blog, and let us know your thoughts on other SEO issues!
Hi Nancy,
This is a helpful article for me, I really appreciate you efforts 🙂
Glad you enjoyed reading it! Thanks for stopping by!