Matt Cutts recent video about tiered linking
spunko2010
Isle of Man
I wondered if anyone was slightly worried about the "Penguin 2.0" update that Cutts posted yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xQmQeKU25zg
Seems to be talking about tiered linking. Should we be worried?
Do you have any plans to mitigate risk ? Or just ride it and see? My own analysis of it is, they are going to see which domains/networks provide link spam on lower tiers then demote/penalize any links found. Could be wrong though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xQmQeKU25zg
Seems to be talking about tiered linking. Should we be worried?
Do you have any plans to mitigate risk ? Or just ride it and see? My own analysis of it is, they are going to see which domains/networks provide link spam on lower tiers then demote/penalize any links found. Could be wrong though.
Comments
Both of which could mean anything
Of course he's as vague as ever. But that does at least sound like tiered linking is on their radar, no?
He was specifically referring to google.co.uk serps, which are overrun by sites relying on hacked sites for links.
Cue scary Muwahahahahaha and lightning flashes
By the way, Jim, the moderator on GOY's forum SEOSUnite wrote up an excellent summary of Cutt's video at:
http://seosunite.com/f2/google%92s-matt-cutts-black-hat-link-spammers-less-likely-show-up-search-resul-2041/
Quite honestly, about going upstream, I could easily envision a very simple algo that could catch tiers, and I'm not going to say it out loud here. Then again, they have every PhD on their team from Asia, so I'm sure they have something cooked up on that.
What I found interesting was the circuitous admission that PR matters, else they wouldn't be going after paid links and advertorials with high PR. You don't go after something if it doesn't matter.
Again, this is a situation where if you build a worthwhile site, and you invest a respectable effort to provide visitors a good experience, and you have a diverse base of links, you should be just fine.
I actually agree with your statement, but I also can easily see how it can be applied even a few levels further down, and across any platform. In fact, I don't even think the platform matters. I don't really want to say more because this is where public forums will hang every one of us. It should be self-evident.
It happens every time and is mostly whipped up by all the well known "SEO Experts" that all get a bit carried away with themselves on their blogs...it's all just propaganda
(@seagul Personally, I do think that Google would care about potentially millions of sites manipulating their results which takes away from the so-called UX and thus affects their bottom line if people don't trust their results as much. I think it comes down to, as another said, if they can detect it, I asked ron for clarification but maybe he wasn't interested in sharing. Guess we shall just wait and see)
I've been busy. I sort of agree with those that have the attitude...'here we go again, more disinformation to scare and rattle the troops'. For sure Matt is full of crap most of the time. The guy should be in politics. But Panda wasn't full of crap. And neither was Penguin. Occasionally the goons in mountain view come up with something that flips the apple cart upside down - usually once a year - and we are about due.
Look, they have all links in the universe. Google = All Links In The Universe. Majestic only has some. Ahrefs only has some. When you have the universe, you have total knowledge in one database. A fifth grader could write an algo that looks at when your links were built, and when links linking to those links (upstream) were built. This does not require a PhD from India.
The problem that always arises when they write an algo is that good, clean, choirboy sites get whacked. They really don't want that. So they have a big ass computer that parallels the stuff the public has, and they look at what happens to the serp database - with a new algo - to the best of their ability. This is how you would test anything with a big ass database. You copy the real database offline, and perform your testing.
There is nothing that Matt says that will change my behavior or anyone else that is serious about making a living in this industry. But if you don't think that it is incredibly easy to hunt down tiered linkbuilding or other stuff, you have a vacuous space between your ears.
The issue is what can you do about it - in a continuous manner - to minimize or negate the effects when an algo hits. Hint: Diversity of link building approaches and sources. Will you get whacked over the head like many did when Penguin hit, and leave the business? Or will you smarten up and actually do things to lessen the chance of damage?
Who knows if it is just another disinformation video. It didn't scare me. But it did remind me that a big flip of the apple cart is overdue. And I honestly believe this time it will be something new. Not a lame part 2,3,4 of a previous algo. I believe it will be a completely new algo, just like penguin was completely different than panda.