RECENT COMMENTS ON SEARCH ENGINE ROUNDTABLE

Comment ID #1888342366 at 03/04/2015 10:12 pm:

Dave Fogel commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

This really sounds stupid. How do you rank sites that have nothing to do with facts. Oh that's right, links.

Comment ID #1887887141 at 03/04/2015 06:31 pm:

James Woods commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

Fox News is about to disappear from Google search. Along with any mention of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, & the Tooth Fairy.

Comment ID #1887881422 at 03/04/2015 06:27 pm:

More money commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

Google will confirm all facts by checking the Adwords data base. If it's not in a Adwords campaign it's not true.

Comment ID #1887847029 at 03/04/2015 06:07 pm:

sparkzilla commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

The increasing co-dependency between Google and Wikipedia -- the site where Google gets a lot of its "facts" from -- hurts users experience, devalues web results and has turned unwitting Wikipedia editors into Google's unpaid fact checkers. http://newslines.org/blog/google-and-wikipedia-best-friends-forever/

Comment ID #1887798818 at 03/04/2015 05:37 pm:

Mike commented on Google: Definitely Put A Nofollow On Web Design By Links

Natural links are earned naturally. Not by placing links in footer or sidewide links.

Comment ID #1887754621 at 03/04/2015 05:16 pm:

Pete Rose commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

So what just create a private network of factually correct websites that point to other websites? Should work great for European travel sites?

Comment ID #1887722978 at 03/04/2015 04:57 pm:

nrobin9 commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

This only makes sense if it will be used as one of many ranking factors for websites where basic facts are relevant.

Comment ID #1887711890 at 03/04/2015 04:51 pm:

Anon User commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

Do you think the UN should deploy peace keepers to the PLEX? Are you retarded?

Comment ID #1887631425 at 03/04/2015 04:07 pm:

Gary Lee commented on Watch Webmaster Give It To Google Over Playing By The Rules Without Seeing Results

LOL, that is the whole point of this entire discussion, the plan was to give it the good old college try. Google SAYS follow their rules etc.. and our trust/testting/hope in those rules shows otherwise. We knew all along that we could do what grey hat and probably get away with it like everyone else (some use blackhat) but we really want to take a 100% white hat approach but have found it to be an unrealistic when every marketing company we approach wants to do things that break the rules and trying to do things internally is just too difficult. I think it is only possible for the giant companies of the world to use their brand as leverage to fulfil a truly white hat approach. The idea of outreach for smaller companies always seems to be a grey hat approach to some form of article hosting or mention and given just a quick approach would not standup to anyone at the Google forum looking at that link and suggesting you did not pay for it in some way.

Comment ID #1887614917 at 03/04/2015 03:58 pm:

Gary Lee commented on Watch Webmaster Give It To Google Over Playing By The Rules Without Seeing Results

Thanks for your response. "Title tags are the keywords." not sure I understand that comment, please can you explain? Do you mean meta title tags? " If you're doing business in the USA you should have a .com site for the USA stuff. Do you have this?" Yes, we have out .com for the rest of the world as it has been setup like that for over 10 years, however we will have either our .net or .us domain setup with hreflang to target the US specifically once we are finished with our beta testing on it. There is a real battle with content and design and always has been, 50% want to look at what we have to say and 50% just want to get on start looking at our services/prices. This is why we now offer buttons that use the jquery scroll function instead. This way it does not matter where the content is on the page for the customer because the buttons give them a choice right away a scroll them right to the content or service. The logic that content should be higher on the page has little bearing on its relevance anymore, but I understand that googlebot might not see it that way, that in itself is a poor design and something I mentioned to John Mueller a few months ago.

Comment ID #1887581425 at 03/04/2015 03:41 pm:

Ralph Slate commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

This has the potential to be troubling. I can be on board with giving preference to sites that get facts right more correctly than not, but this has the potential to marginalize people who go against "conventional wisdom". I have a fact-based site which I try and keep accurate. From time to time, I uncover mistakes in the facts. A simple example might be someone's birthdate. Maybe when the birthdate was published years ago, it was published incorrectly, and then someone contacts me and tells me that this person was their grandfather, and that I have his birthdate wrong, backs it up with a birth certificate scan. I correct it. What happens when Google determines that the birthdate my site features differs from "conventional wisdom" and decides to penalize me by not returning the page in the SERPS? That gives me incentive to not deviate from conventional wisdom. Groupthink is rewarded, independence is penalized. I would at least hope that they build a tolerance into their algorithms to recognize this possibility.

Comment ID #1887503719 at 03/04/2015 03:01 pm:

Muhammad Junaid commented on Google Testing Search Results Without Descriptions

Another Tricky for going to Pay Google for showing Meta Description of your Page in the SERP ,,,

Comment ID #1887486999 at 03/04/2015 02:52 pm:

Muhammad Junaid commented on March 2015 Google Webmaster Report: Mobile, Updates, Panda, Links & More

Such a great list of All Google Updates .. Thanks Barry

Comment ID #1887336775 at 03/04/2015 01:34 pm:

John commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

Don't forget rel="nofact" for opinion based statements, so that Google won't penalize you for manipulating facts and for engaging in fact-schemes.

Comment ID #1887334095 at 03/04/2015 01:32 pm:

Jitendra Vaswani commented on Google: Definitely Put A Nofollow On Web Design By Links

Spammy links in footer might get penalized but natural links will not

Comment ID #1887300867 at 03/04/2015 01:15 pm:

Josh Zehtabchi commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

Keyword here = propose.

Comment ID #1887254847 at 03/04/2015 12:50 pm:

Mike commented on Google: Definitely Put A Nofollow On Web Design By Links

Well first you need to ask the question why you need a footer link? If its for a genuine purpose? If yes then you can place a footer link. But then you need to place a nofollow link becz google doesn't want link juice to follow so easily, To get a link you need to earn it naturally, that's what google needs it. I know its hard to get natural links and the reality is its time consuming, but at the end the best part is that natural links does work better. The mantra is "Earn Links" not build links :)

Comment ID #1887248061 at 03/04/2015 12:47 pm:

Martin commented on Google: Definitely Put A Nofollow On Web Design By Links

Dont take random advice... if you need to outsource your link building, please consider https://www.buycheaplinks.com its a great service for SEO.

Comment ID #1887246858 at 03/04/2015 12:46 pm:

Mike commented on Google: Definitely Put A Nofollow On Web Design By Links

True i have also seen many wordpress themes does have that in footer. Many top seo companies also have those links in there clients websites(dofollow), by which they get page rank automatically. And yeah there sites have not got penalized :) What i have seen in reality is that all need dofollow links and fast links.

Comment ID #1887232882 at 03/04/2015 12:38 pm:

Mike commented on Google Testing Search Results Without Descriptions

True it doesn't make any sense and user's will be the most affected.

Comment ID #1887231855 at 03/04/2015 12:38 pm:

Fedor commented on Google: Definitely Put A Nofollow On Web Design By Links

My favorite abuse example were government funded sites that had designed by do-follow footer links. So my tax money was helping market my competitor? Nice!

Comment ID #1887225034 at 03/04/2015 12:34 pm:

Fedor commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

Step 1: Make up a fact Step 2: Make sure it shows up in Knowledge Graph Step 3: Profit? High trust sites were already hacker targets for PageRank, lets just add another benefit... great job Google

Comment ID #1887216819 at 03/04/2015 12:30 pm:

Jeffrey Barranco commented on Google Webmaster Tools May Add Unverified Sites List Filter

In the first place why would those websites registered on Google Webmaster Tools gets unverified? When we register those websites, I mean as for me if I register a website on my Google Webmaster Tools I would also tent to get them verified as well. Well, it won't be a tiresome work if you just updated all your website accounts. What I mean was, delete those websites that you are not working anymore and update those that are currently working on. :)

Comment ID #1887215846 at 03/04/2015 12:29 pm:

Josh Rubin commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

While I've seen some evidence of this being the case - launched brand new sites with well-written, well-cited content that ranked immediately and had them rank in the top 3 out of the gate, for more competitive terms and niches, I don't see them going away from links and other signals as a factor in determining whose facts need to be promoted. Think about their changes with the knowledge graph, Panda updates and more - they definitely are working on making content more important as it's exhausting keeping up with the manipulative link strategies SEOs can use. However, I suspect they'd have to categorize sites into things like informational, creative, service, news, leisure, etc so they don't have to determine things like what "the best italian restaurant in Toronto" is soley based on facts but still use popularity signals.

Comment ID #1887188654 at 03/04/2015 12:15 pm:

Michael DeMutis commented on Watch Webmaster Give It To Google Over Playing By The Rules Without Seeing Results

Don't listen to what google says to do, they're not out to help you.

Comment ID #1887188066 at 03/04/2015 12:14 pm:

Michael DeMutis commented on Watch Webmaster Give It To Google Over Playing By The Rules Without Seeing Results

Your main text content seems to be too low on the page in my opinion. Text is king and you want it at the top. Title tags are the keywords. If you're doing business in the USA you should have a .com site for the USA stuff. Do you have this?

Comment ID #1887185114 at 03/04/2015 12:13 pm:

Michael DeMutis commented on Watch Webmaster Give It To Google Over Playing By The Rules Without Seeing Results

I took a look at Gary's site as well.. I'm not saying its terrible but its not that great either. I dont care what anyone says, Exact match domains or partial match domains still work extremely well.

Comment ID #1887167077 at 03/04/2015 12:03 pm:

Michael DeMutis commented on Watch Webmaster Give It To Google Over Playing By The Rules Without Seeing Results

Go blackhate!

Comment ID #1887165886 at 03/04/2015 12:02 pm:

Michael DeMutis commented on Watch Webmaster Give It To Google Over Playing By The Rules Without Seeing Results

Is this Josh trolling now? lol is that what its come to??? haha.

Comment ID #1887144834 at 03/04/2015 11:51 am:

jim commented on Google Paper On Ranking Web Pages On Facts, Not Links

"Who determines what legal content is?" + "The government wants to decide what is lawful or unlawful content" I believe they do so already. (at least in the US.) Things like 1st amendment rights, copyright laws, FCC all have to do with regulating what content is "legal" or not. Im not sure what you are trying to get at, but Google is just looking to provide the best results to its users. Especially with the increase in knowledge boxes and direct answers, people expect that the answer G tells them is correct. I.e. if a site that is being pulled into an answer box which provides people with false information, people will begin to trust google less. hence google wants to only provide accurate information