How YOU, the Web Marketer, are Led to Slaughter by “Industry Leaders”
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I’d like to start this post with a hyperlink to another post that I have come across, since a portion of it is very relevant to the topic which I am about to discuss. A very intelligent woman named Caroline Middlebrook (at least from what I can gather, having read some of her blog posts and having seen more original content in there than I do on 99.999% of other blogs), has written about things that bother her as far as blog post content is concerned. If you believe nothing else I have to say, read her comments and try to apply them whenever possible; they’re very well-thought-out and deserve some recognition.
I must confess to being guilty of a few of these myself, mostly #8 and #11, and I’m about to become guilty to a small extent of #6, but overall these are a good set of rules to follow. They don’t necessarily just apply to blogs, either; they can apply to content on any other site.
There are two rules in particular that have a direct tie-in to the topic of “industry leaders” misleading other web marketers, and I’m going to quote them here to make life easier. Yes, I’m aware that I’m about to be found guilty of #8 again, but in this case I have to be in order to bring a greater problem to light (in other words, I’m about to say some negative things, but with a bigger purpose):
8 ) Bashing the Latest Big Thing
I see so many posts these days bashing Google, or bashing Digg, or Facebook, Microsoft etc. I’m not silly and I realise that many of these are linkbait and are actually popular but is that what you want to become known for? How are you providing real value to your readers by just slating other services? It’s one thing to provide a genuine critique to protect your readers from a potential scam but general Google bashing is simply boring.9 ) Unfounded Speculation
This is similar to the previous one - posting some kind of rumor or speculation about what is happening or what might be happening. Again these are often aimed at the big guys like Google, Facebook and so on. How is that kind of post going to help me in my work? Tell me the news after it’s happened. Actually don’t bother because I probably read it on 20 other blogs already.
So how are these points relevant?
The Initial Comments
“Industry Leader #1″ Danny Sullivan decided to “officially post” about how selling links can hurt both PageRank and Google rankings in general.
Two comments in particular stand out to me:
Part 1:
Last week, I noticed the Stanford Daily had dropped from when I wrote the above in April to PR7 today. That’s a huge drop that has no apparent reason to happen. Some others were also reporting PageRank drops. So I pinged Google, and they confirmed that PageRank scores are being lowered for some sites that sell links.
In addition, Google said that some sites that are selling links may indeed end up being dropped from its search engine or have penalties attached to prevent them from ranking well.
Part 2:
Google stressed, by the way, that the current set of PageRank decreases is not assigned completely automatically; the majority of these decreases happened after a human review. That should help prevent false matches from happening so easily.
To most of you out there, this is pretty straightforward.
- Google sees site selling links.
- Google manually penalizes site by lowering PageRank.
- Google may manually penalize site with ranking penalty and/or removal from the engine.
So all the facts are there, everything is clear, and Google is imposing manual PageRank penalties on sites that sell links, including the Stanford University student newspapger, right?
WRONG. Very, very, very wrong. (If it were right, there would be nothing to write about!) The problem is that the post leaves some very obvious questions unanswered:
Who at Google, if Anyone, Confirmed This? And did Danny Even Ask?
Danny says that he “pinged” Google and that “they” answered back. But who answered? And was this question asked in the first place? There are many cases of “online journalists” that have simply made up information for the sake of publishing an article. Who’s to say that Danny didn’t? And who’s to say whether or not Danny received an answer that was vague and which he put his own spin on for the purposes of writing an article?
(Note for Danny Sullivan fans: I’m very aware of who he is and what he represents, and have been aware for about ten years. But before you judge me or anything I have to say, evaluate it in its own context, as if I were talking about a complete stranger.)
Which PageRank?
Sullivan seems to suggest that Toolbar PageRank is the value which has been declined, since:
By using PageRank decreases (something Google first experimented with in the SearchKing case in 2002), Google can hurt the perceived value of buying links from a particular site without harming core relevancy.
While I would agree with the speculation, it remains speculation. The possibility also exists that both external/toolbar and internal PageRank are negatively affected. This would actually assist Google as well, since a decrease in internal PageRank would in turn have some effect on search engine visibility, and therefore traffic and ad sales by comparison.
Of course, the aforementioned possibility exists that nothing at all is affected.
Why Did Danny Publish the “Get a PR6 .EDU Backlink” Google Ad?
If Danny was simply reporting on the paid links situation in and of itself, then his stance and the issues being presented should be strong enough on their own and generate enough of a positive view of his article. However, he not only feels the need to publish a screen capture of the “PR6 EDU Backlink” Google ad, something which generates revenue for him by the way, but he also feels the need to offer the following commentary:
See the “Get A PR6 .Edu backlink!” ad? Expect those firing back at Google over the selling links issue to poke at the hypocrisy here.
Not only did he feel the need to post the ad, not only did he feel the need to talk about the ad, but he did so at the very end of his “article”. What would that accomplish, besides getting people who are affected by link selling and Google’s policy even more agitated than they already are?
This Isn’t “Official”
Until it comes from Google itself, or is at least verified by Google, there is nothing to suggest that this is official, and many things to suggest that this is just another attempt by Sullivan to maintain a loyal, largely uninformed, subscriber base.
Of course, it only took a day for Sullivan’s “official post” to be picked up on, and even more distorted, by another noted SEO “leader”
Aaron Wall says “Google Becoming Wikipedia Without the Talk Page”
I normally don’t read WebProNews much, but in this case I came across Aaron Wall’s article on Google’s “paid links” situation, which expands on the points made the previous day by Danny Sullivan.
To Aaron’s credit, he doesn’t even bother to try to pass off anything he is saying as “official”. Aaron simply resorts to what Aaron Wall does best, and that is to post inflammatory rhetoric geared toward those who are having problems getting search engine referral traffic from Google. This allows Wall to gain a customer base among those who are disenfranchised with Google and too inexperienced and/or lazy to attempt to deal with many of the website issues that Google indirectly exposes.
One particular snippet of the “article” illustrates Aaron’s agenda very clearly:
With this news of more hand editing, Google also shows that they are biased against small webmasters are and actively trying to screw over small webmasters to increase their corporate profits.
There is absolutely nothing, other than Aaron’s other rhetoric, to suggest this to be true. If anything, it would make more sense for Google to encourage small webmasters with altruistic intentions to continue to build content and reward as many of them as possible with at least some search engine visibility, in order to ensure that these same webmasters will continue to supply more of the same content that will in turn help them build a more comprehensive, higher quality index.
Evidence of Aaron Wall’s Ultimate Goal
If you don’t believe that Aaron Wall posted his anti-Google sentiments at least partly for his own personal gain, consider some of the hyperlinks within the article itself.
http://www.seobook.com/archives/002364.shtml
http://www.seobook.com/archives/002422.shtml
http://www.seobook.com/3-ways-get-screwed-social-media-marketing
There are a total of 6 (SIX!) links to Aaron Wall’s blog posts. This doesn’t count the article signature link itself. If he truly believed what he was saying, as opposed to posting with a hidden agenda, these six links wouldn’t be necessary.
WebProNews Is Partly to Blame, Too
WebProNews should have done a better job at editing the article itself, or at least reviewing it before it went live and ensuring that the links contained within didn’t contain an obvious personal bias.
Conclusion: Be Very Careful About What You Read
If Danny Sullivan and Aaron Wall were in any way concerned with webmasters as a whole, and the issues that real webmasters face with their SEO, such as site architecture, quality code, and the ability to attract real, organic links, neither one of them would have said anything about the paid links situation. Danny wouldn’t have been monitoring the external PageRank value of the Stanford Daily, since external PageRank is a non-factor, and Aaron would have had nothing to pick up on. Both of them posted comments designed to take direct aim at a large company in an effort to curry favor with the “little guy”, rather than focus on the little guy’s real needs.
If you’re a web marketer, you should take every piece of advice, regardless of who says it, into its own context. Analyze the situation logically and objectively. Look at what was said, and not who said it, and you’ll be very surprised at how much clearer website marketing and SEO will become.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
I’m curious why you think Aaron’s linking to his own posts is a bad thing or manipulative in any way. You do realize WebProNews republishes content that originates from the bloggers blog. So Aaron just linked from one post on his blog to other posts on his blog. Is there something wrong with that I’m unaware of?
October 9th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I was aware that it was on Aaron’s blog originally (as I checked there after I found the article). I’m also aware that WPW republishes content rather than generating its own (I’ve had stuff linked to me on more than one occasion from them). That in itself is fine. The reason I linked to WPW is because that’s where I found the piece originally.
Even self-referencing, to a small extent, is fine. But come on…6 times in a single post? That’s extremely excessive.
It’s not like he’s linking to crucial, significant information to make his point, either. He’s linking to other rants that he makes. That’s the point here…whether WPW republishes it or not is only relevant in the sense that they should have proofread it, and therefore prevented the stupidity from spreading.
October 9th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I guess I don’t see anything wrong with linking back to your own posts 6 times. I’m not sure it’s excessive. I link back to my own posts all the time. I write a post and sometimes I’m specifically referring to something in another post and other times I just recognize the opportunity since my text is related to a particular post.
I don’t really count how many times I link in each post so maybe I’m not going as high as six, but I can tell you that most every post I write is going to link to 2 or 3 other posts I’ve written.
Would the links be excessive if they were all to external pages?
October 9th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
[...] Adam Senior and Peter Petera have written a very good expose on the similarities between [...]
October 9th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I don’t think that would be excessive. There are plenty of examples of blog posts that are nothing but links to 120 social media outlets, and these are hailed as great compilations.
To me the bigger story here is making things up and reporting them as fact. If “bloggers” want to be taken seriously compared to “the main stream media” (or MSM) this needs to stop.
October 9th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Well said, John. I couldn’t have put it any better myself.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
I think it’s pretty common knowledge though that Danny does know people inside Google and they give him information. Admittedly just because he says they did doesn’t make it fact, but neither would it automatically be fact if Matt Cutts were to say this or if Google put it up in their guidelines.
I don’t see any reason to disbelieve what Danny says. John I don’t think anything is being made up in Danny’s post. I suppose technically he shouldn’t use the word ‘official,’ but I think everything he’s saying is the truth.
You also know that using the word ‘official’ in the title simply makes for a better title. The same way you used ‘led t slaughter’ in this title.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
There’s a difference between the two titles, though, Steven. I’m not portraying this as “official”. It’s one thing to use a word in a title to grab attention, and I wouldn’t have a problem with that in and of itself. But to suggest something is “official” requires far more than what Danny has provided. That’s something that needs to be qualified in far more detail, and he’s really provided nothing. He has taken a vague and ambiguous piece of information, which may or may not have been provided to him by Google, and turned it into something that he knew full well would generate anti-Google sentiment for what should have been a non-issue.
Whether or not it’s true, and I’m still not convinced that it is or isn’t, Danny is still playing his audience like a cheap fiddle and they keep going along with it. It’s mental conditioning in its purest, simplest form: take a vague piece of information that may or may not be correct, strike an emotional chord and you don’t even need to be accurate or truthful. You just need to appeal to the disenfranchised.
Let’s put it another way. Let’s say that you read on a forum post that Google was lowering PageRank manually for selected sites because they sold links. Let’s say that it came from a complete stranger with no reputation one way or the other. And let’s say that no evidence was supplied.
Would you believe it? I know I wouldn’t.
But, because Danny is an A-lister, we’re just to accept what he says in blind faith? This is exactly what gets most SEOs into trouble…blind faith acceptance without real examination of the issue in its own context.
Again, take the name out of the point, and look at the point. See what is really being said. As I said before, it’s strangely illuminating.
October 11th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
[...] How YOU, the Web Marketer, are Led to Slaughter by “Industry Leaders†[...]
October 12th, 2007 at 9:41 am
My first reaction to this was “no, man not another post about paid links.”
But your post is probably one of the best ones I’ve read on the topic, as it raises some serious questions without holding any punches, and without resorting to personal attacks.
First, Danny Sullivan have been wrong on at least a couple of occasions. Now, I like Danny and I often find myself agreeing with him, but that doesn’t mean I can’t be constructively critical.
For example, Danny once reported that Matt Cutts’ blog was hacked:
“The Dark SEO Team has had a bit of a beef with Google’s Matt Cutts from back in 2005 over URL hijacking. Looks like they’ve pulled a prank on him today. Matt’s blog is down, hacked”
It wasn’t hacked - it was an April fool’s joke.
Second, I believe Aaron Wall’s anti-Google rhetoric is, like you said, highly calculated. He knows that out of 1,000 webmasters (give or take a few) that may compete for any term, 990 of them are unhappy about their rankings. To build a large subscription base, why not target the 990 dissatisfied webmasters?
People also prefer to blame an outside force instead of taking control of their own destiny. Blaming Google is convenience at its best.
Aaron also knows that to build an army of subscribers you need a common enemy. If it did not exist you would have to create one. That common enemy is Google.
It doesn’t take a genuis to figure any of this out. Michael Gray brilliantly capitalized on Google Bashing - now anytime someone writes a paid link post he either gets a link or a mention.
On the one hand, that’s marketing at its best, and on the other hand we are stuck in a world filled-to-the-rim with propaganda.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Thank you, Halfdeck. These are precisely the points I was trying to drive across. What effectively ends up happening with industry leader rhetoric and misinformation is that we end up with too much propaganda and too little real information (if any is to be found).
I agree 100% with your point about blaming outside forces as well. The hardest thing we as individuals can do is to look in the mirror and say “I just screwed up”, particularly when outside forces make such an easy scapegoat.
Great comments, dude.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Just for the record, you thoroughly convinced me you have no idea about search. First of all, you’re right, any blogger can make anything up. However, we have a long track record with which to judge both of the individuals and the fact is they have proven to be both accurate and reliable. You basically say people are fools to assume they are right, but you then present NO evidence, proof, or anything else to even suggest that they are wrong! You’re essentially asking your readers to assume they are wrong because you say so. How about rather calling two of the industry’s top authorities liars, you present some evidence to suggest they are wrong?
Halfdeck’s comments are about what I expected of him. Using an April fools post to question Danny’s credibility? We all knew it was an April Fools joke, it’s called playing along. For crying out loud, get a grip. I’m not saying Danny has never been wrong. But your “example” is a joke, both literally and figuratively.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
And you just convinced me that you can’t read.
Did I actually say they were liars? No, I didn’t. Someone else did, and the trackback is linked…so your issue is with that person, and not me. But I didn’t.
What I said was that they took something vague and ambiguous that Google may or may not have said, and turned it into an anti-Google propaganda piece, knowing full well that they would continue to garner support from the vast majority who would accept everything that they say in blind faith rather than look in the mirror, as Halfdeck quite rightly pointed out. The burden of proof in this case doesn’t lie on me for questioning it, but on Danny for making the original statement. (No real burden of proof lies on Aaron, because all he did was turned it into yet another anti-Google piece to try and curry favor with his subscriber base). There isn’t a single fact or shred of evidence to suggest what Danny is saying is actually true. It’s all speculation.
Have we heard an official statement from Google on the matter?
Has anyone else mentioned it at all besides Danny (and people referencing Danny’s post?)
Again, if the names associated with the comments weren’t Danny Sullivan and Aaron Wall, everyone, including you, would have brushed the comments off as unfounded speculation, since there’s absolutely no corroborating evidence, and more importantly insufficient evidence to eliminate all other possibilities. But because they’re Danny and Aaron, we’re all supposed to just accept things rather than question them.
The same logic goes both ways. A complete idiot can make a perfectly valid point, but we may often ignore it because we see the idiot. Examine the point, not the source.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I have to admit to having the same question as Adam:
“Who at Google, if Anyone, Confirmed This? And did Danny Even Ask?”
Aaron Wall? As that dude who hacked the SEO blogs said, “Whatever dude”!
Adam - You are smart to question popular belief, don’t expect to gain many friends in the “social media marketing” crowd. They all are smoking from the same pipe.
Hi Skitzzo!
October 17th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Oh, I don’t expect to gain friends through all of this. In fact, comments like Skitzzo’s only serve to validate the point. Point the lemmings in the direction of a cliff and march ‘em off.