Google Changes

DangerDave · 2005-11-23, 06:21 PM

Bill...

Sorry but we don't have to "explain why".. ....

The poster and the article writer should "HAVE TO".....

Shit... I could write articles all day long on Google, and make it all up as I go along.... and they would get reposted all over the net! That does not make them right, valuable, or worth the energy it took to type them..

Almost every statment in that "article" is unsupported.. thereby making it nothing more than an opinion... and we all know about opinions..

The most basic is the first statement - Just like hurricanes, Google updates have names. - No they don't..... that is just a name made up by a website owner who DOES NOT work for Google.

Even the original article that this article was skived from is nothing more than unsupported opinion.

I think I might start an SEO Newsletter - the only thing it would say... is "Ignore All SEO Newsletters"

DD

Bill · 2005-11-23, 07:43 PM

For those that don't follow these things, the source material for this article is this fellow who claims to be a web analysis expert. He says he has a set of sites that he uses just to measure the google algorithims.

Part of these test sites are based on reciprocal linking. He says the reciprocal linking pages crashed in the serps in the middle part of the latest update.

There's a bunch of other details, but they're mostly only interesting to se people.

This is I think the link to the original article:
http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/2005/nov/9.html

Anyway, from these test sites he comes up with a list of things he thinks have changed in the algo.

It's an interesting article, worth reading.

Now, it's easy to see there could be a bunch of problems with his method and conclusions.

But, I don't disagree with his main conclusions.

2005-11-23, 06:21 PM	#1
DangerDave Bonged Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: BrisVegas, AUSTRALIA Posts: 4,882	Bill... Sorry but we don't have to "explain why".. .... The poster and the article writer should "HAVE TO"..... Shit... I could write articles all day long on Google, and make it all up as I go along.... and they would get reposted all over the net! That does not make them right, valuable, or worth the energy it took to type them.. Almost every statment in that "article" is unsupported.. thereby making it nothing more than an opinion... and we all know about opinions.. The most basic is the first statement - Just like hurricanes, Google updates have names. - No they don't..... that is just a name made up by a website owner who DOES NOT work for Google. Even the original article that this article was skived from is nothing more than unsupported opinion. I think I might start an SEO Newsletter - the only thing it would say... is "Ignore All SEO Newsletters" DD __________________ Old Dollars >>>> Now with over 90 Hosted Free Sites <<<< DangerDave.com.au - Adult Links to Free Porn

2005-11-23, 07:43 PM	#2
Bill Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip! Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,914	For those that don't follow these things, the source material for this article is this fellow who claims to be a web analysis expert. He says he has a set of sites that he uses just to measure the google algorithims. Part of these test sites are based on reciprocal linking. He says the reciprocal linking pages crashed in the serps in the middle part of the latest update. There's a bunch of other details, but they're mostly only interesting to se people. This is I think the link to the original article: http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/2005/nov/9.html Anyway, from these test sites he comes up with a list of things he thinks have changed in the algo. It's an interesting article, worth reading. Now, it's easy to see there could be a bunch of problems with his method and conclusions. But, I don't disagree with his main conclusions.