You must login or register!
Inbound.org uses Twitter to register and create accounts. Your Twitter handle will also be your username here on Inbound and registration/login will enable you to submit content, post comments and create/edit your Inbound profile. Use the button below to verify your Twitter account.
Login or Register
Okay, so what is the point you are trying to make?
Advanced ego bait so to say.
I don't think this was a misdiagnosis by any means. Rand had challenged someone to do negative SEO with anchor text as the technique, not a 301 redirect. Anyone would have assumed the negative SEO was due to the recent challenge that had been made.
I don't think this is related to the negative SEO request by rand. Someone mentioned this was happening weeks ago?
Right, that's where I think the "miscommunication" is from - it seems to be a total coincidence, but I would have assumed it was related to the challenge put forth.
I thought the challenge was to prove negative SEO. What does this prove?
Here is what I do not get... He mentions that this was only caused from a the 301, NOT anchor text. Of course those ranking anomalies are caused from the anchor text to that domain. Maybe he didn't specifically build those links, but the result is basically the same. A quick report in MajesticSEO shows 36 external backlinks, from 6 domains, with exact match anchor "snuggie dog bed." For a low volume keyword phrase, this really doesn't prove much of anything, other than the same speculations of exact match anchor text can still be used to help sites rank without any relevancy. I am very curious to see how long it takes Google's algo to figure this out, if it does, and stop ranking Moz for those terms. Either way, I'm not all that impressed as it doesn't really prove anything new...
There are way more than 36 links at play. It is important to remember that no link tool will show exactly what google sees. Some are getting close, even ahrefs can't compute / crawl / store the volume and way that google does. (hell even bing can't).
Of course there are... That wasn't my point though... Take away those links with exact match anchor text and I could almost guarantee that Moz would NOT be ranking for said term. Like I said, not impressed at all by this...
If you did some research, you would see that it's not simply the anchor text causing the rankings. There is a lot higher level stuff going on that you're not going to see in Majestic, OSE, or ahrefs. Have to get out your Google-fu and do some advanced searches.
Quit outing! Next thing you'll suggest folks look at Viagra campaigns or other non-sense!
*Breaking News* Google bombs still work....
Not only was he pretty harsh on Rand, he didn't prove anything. Everyone knows that anchor text is a heavy signal (apparently some thought it was less weighty than it was). Saying that it wasn't the anchor text that did it was also stupid...of course it was. The fact that it was passed through a 301 doesn't change the fact that the anchor text was passed. Anyway, I don't understand the black hats hating on SEOmoz and Rand - both camps exist and no need to be hatin'.
AJ, There are likely more misconceptions about the "grey / blue" hat SEO community than the other way around. The "white hat" community has a tendency to put down the rest, or at least that is how it seems. One of the most frustrating things about being on the "darker" side (for lack of a better term) is that what we are doing now is a lot more complex than "building links". We are reverse engineering the current link spectrum, testing/replicating it and then applying findings as calculated risks. Further more, Grind and many of the others in this part of the industry are building quality sites and have a firm grip on inbound marketing. If we tend to get a bit defensive/offensive, it is likely as this is the best way to be heard in the over all SEO community, one which some of us are still willing to partake in. On a side note, I commend Rands interest in the grey hat world of SEO. It is obvious that in his current position as a mega brand SEO and leader in the industry, he has to practice white hat SEO, lets not forget that he, like most "white hats" dabbled in the grey and eventually made a choice. At least he was willing to dabble.
It was harsh. Just like Rand consistently mislabeling anyone who builds links to improve their SERP position as "blackhats" is unduly harsh. Blackhats are the guys that hacked my server last month and injected hundreds of thousands of SEO related pages into 20+ sites. Blackhats are the guys from Russia hacking into high authority university .edu sites and dropping hidden CSS links across every page. Labeling anyone who builds links to improve rankings in the same breath as those types of behaviors is both unfair and quite frankly, hypocritical. You self named "white hats" build links to improve your rankings too, you just bury it under a pile of self justification so you feel better about yourself. As far as proving anything, I disputed the erroneous claims that I quoted in said post. I actually have a ton of respect for Rand as a businessman and a brand builder, I also strongly feel that as an SEO with so much influence, he should be held to a higher standard with regards to his SEO assertions. Especially when the assumptions he made illustrate less than competent understanding of the situation. Perhaps he wasn't thinking it through, maybe he just wanted some linkbait for his google+ wall, either way, I only responded when my site got outed publicly. At that point it was all about owning up or hiding in the corner. I chose the former and blew off some steam in the process, Rand's seemingly endless supply of condescending remarks towards those who view SEO different than him must have finally hit their threshold. ;) "Saying that it wasn't the anchor text that did it was also stupid...of course it was." Anchor text played a part in it but is only part of the puzzle, otherwise he'd rank higher for the terms the original site targeted, no? "Anyway, I don't understand the black hats hating on SEOmoz and Rand - both camps exist and no need to be hatin'." I don't personally know any true black hats (I'd like to throat punch a couple for time lost cleaning up servers though) but certainly, Rand and SEOmoz hate much more on anyone who doesn't toe their SEO line than the reverse. Not here to stir up problems, just thought your comment deserved a reply.
GrindStone....I Ruv Rue....Teh End... P.S. Don't be hatting on Dog Snuggie, Affiliates and Adsense need to eat too! =( P.S.S. People make SEO out to be more complicated than it is. So called Black Hats are far more well informed than self-proclaimed white hats. Why? Because they do all the testing and digging. Without the "black hat" community, I would argue there would be no such thing as SEO Best Practices since most of these practices originated from that community; something many people seem to overlook or conveniently forget. P.S.S.S. (If that is even a thing) Black Hat and White Hat are horrible terms to describe the marketing tactics of SEO. Rather it should be in terms of moral/ethical or immoral/unethical...like most other sales and marketing tactics are viewed. Best Regards, FlakHound
Doh...Silly Twitter Login.... =P
P.S.S. Anybody reading this that wants to rank for big terms and has a big budget, well hell, dog snuggie…need I say more? LOL
Why did so many vote this up? This is the same mentality that keeps Jersey Shore on the air. Stop watching!
An open letter from a "black hat seo" to Rand in response to a topic that became popular on twitter and google plus? I think it deserves to be upvoted more than "23 best blog title writing tips for 2012" (and yes, I am biased as I know the guy).
This has nothing to do with Rand's negative SEO challenge. This is not negative SEO at all. This is just Grindstone proving to that it's really easy to "game the system" especially for a low-competition keyword. Believe me, it's done every day for highly competitive keywords too. A little research will tell you that Grindstone is highly qualified and very experienced at helping webmasters rank for very difficult keywords. This conversation also proves that either Rand is quite clueless, or he just didn't think this through. Rand's comments are quite naive. But hey - that's a typical "white-hat" mentality. People who have no real knowledge repeat what they have been told, and believe it absolutely. Only through experimentation and testing, can you learn what really works. Try a different color sometimes, white is very limiting.
Says the guy hiding behind the "Free Wal-Mart Giftcard" Twitter account...
where can I get one of those?
I quite frequently forget to logout of a twitter account and the twitter login on this site doesn't give you the opportunity to choose explicitly an account to use if you're already logged in elsewhere. Also when you post your comment, it doesn't say "Post as iaindooley" the same way Disqus does so I don't think you can necessarily claim he was "hiding"
Yeah. Rand the clueless guy. The one with the brand that has revenues pushing 30 million yearly. Who are you again?
Rand and his team are Brilliant, no doubt about it, they took SEOmoz and made it into the HUB of SEO. Everyone in the field reads it. Also, look at this place...Inbound.org is amazing! Grindstone seems to be coming more from the point that others are blowing his experiment out of proportion and are escalating the issue. In all actually all Rand did was take a quick look and make an assumption and then the groupies jumped on the bandwagon as quick as possible to try and suck up and gain some "respect" and hopefully attention from Rand. The fact that Grindstone had to tell everyone what it was that he actually did, means it was not very easy to deduce. I mean you figure link authority carries over, but the fact that anchor links from an abandoned site carry over too is quite cool! So I don't think anyone is saying that Rand is dumb, or clueless. In fact Grindstone compliments him, the fact is that Rand made an assertion without investigating, or at the very least investigating deep enough into what was going on behind the scenes. That ^ is what I think Grindstone is talking about! Anyways I in no way consider myself an expert in the field nor in the tech department, but I think anyone with half a brain can see how this information is really valuable if you know what to do with it....(and grindstone told us what to do with it in his post). That is of course until next month when the algo changes. Best Regards, FlakHound
This thread needs ly2
I thought it was really interesting. I like to see people take some initiative and prove it like grindstone did