RECENT COMMENTS ON SEARCH ENGINE ROUNDTABLE

Below are the most recent 30 comments. I try to keep it clean of comment spam, but some times things get through and it takes me several hours to get to it. So please excuse any of that comment spam.

Subscribe  Subscribe to Recent Comments

Comment ID #3167343398 at 02/21/2017 09:47 am:

NewWorldDisorder commented on Google Employees Help In Forums Only When They Have To

I'm choosing the lesser of two evils here, which is why I said I'm no fan of WMW since the new owner took over. Trust me even WMW is better then the unmoderated bashing that goes on in Google's help forums.

Comment ID #3167342875 at 02/21/2017 09:46 am:

Michael Martinez commented on Google Carousel Tells Us Who The Best SEO Companies Are

I don't pay TopSEOs for a listing. I would think e-ventures is the one should be mad (or maybe they feel vindicated). It's nothing to me.

Comment ID #3167340232 at 02/21/2017 09:45 am:

Michael Martinez commented on Google Carousel Tells Us Who The Best SEO Companies Are

Guest blogging for links is always a high risk proposition.

Comment ID #3167338415 at 02/21/2017 09:43 am:

Michael Martinez commented on Black Hat Forums Argue About Value Of PBNs In 2017

PBN = "Private Blog Network" if it is yours and yours alone. PBN = "Public Blog Network" if anyone can sign up to use it for links.

Comment ID #3167305458 at 02/21/2017 09:24 am:

Mambo Man commented on Was The February 7th Google Update A Google Phantom Update?

Nothing new - welcome to the industry.

Comment ID #3167304961 at 02/21/2017 09:24 am:

Mambo Man commented on Was The February 7th Google Update A Google Phantom Update?

Who cares!

Comment ID #3167283915 at 02/21/2017 09:11 am:

doh commented on Was The February 7th Google Update A Google Phantom Update?

The other point that was missed is Google's insistence on listing Amazon MULTIPLE TIMES for items they don't even have! Remind me, when did Bozes invest in Google......Bezos' Initial Google Investment Was $250K in 1998 Because "I Just Fell in Love With Larry and Sergey". I'm sure he did, I'm sure he's loving the payback even more :)

Comment ID #3167276031 at 02/21/2017 09:05 am:

greedy commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

It's Google's job to make money, with zero regulation. Just about the only utility (as that is what the Internet has now become) is regulated. When Google get's regulated (which it sure will) it will have no choice other than to act with some responsibility. Where do you think Google would be without websites? Do you think people just tinker away in bedrooms making websites for Google to plunder at will? The irony here is it is YOU who thinks things should be available for NOTHING, not the webmasters who get raped by Google. What is your business?

Comment ID #3167275168 at 02/21/2017 09:04 am:

Rich commented on Black Hat Forums Argue About Value Of PBNs In 2017

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/81150290bd4d2f0fda316d5e01fb0549bdc2aec83ad48d95049b534f7cf4d467.gif

Comment ID #3167274742 at 02/21/2017 09:04 am:

Rémi Quatrys commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

Our French-based sites have been hit hard by this update, and it isn't anything in the like of statistical adjustement of click count, it's the disappearance of Google Image as an entry point ! Conversion losses, income losses... Great.

Comment ID #3167269567 at 02/21/2017 09:00 am:

greedy commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

Wrong on so many counts. You may want to ask around to some people who stuck watermarks on their images what happened to their traffic then...As for copyright, I'd suggest you read up on that law too, just because am image is on a website doesn't mean no one owns copyright on it. Even big G knows that! ("Images may be subject to copyright.Send feedback" Right there on the page). What business are you in?

Comment ID #3167260351 at 02/21/2017 08:55 am:

notwmw commented on Google Employees Help In Forums Only When They Have To

Send people to WMW?! Are you mad?! That place is so full of fan boys and heavily censored it's only worth visiting for a laugh. You only have to see Editorial guys website to realise who & what you are dealing with...

Comment ID #3167231037 at 02/21/2017 08:33 am:

NewWorldDisorder commented on Was The February 7th Google Update A Google Phantom Update?

I think you missed the point.... With so many Amazon pages appearing under a single product search, there is NO choice. This defeats the purpose of search, and restricts consumer choice, when alternative options from various sources get buried.

Comment ID #3167223732 at 02/21/2017 08:28 am:

The Truth commented on Black Hat Forums Argue About Value Of PBNs In 2017

Why do they continue to discuss their black Hat tactics in an open forum? Reading the BHW forum is the first thing the webspam team does every morning.

Comment ID #3167222893 at 02/21/2017 08:27 am:

Andy Kuiper - SEO Analyst commented on Was The February 7th Google Update A Google Phantom Update?

This one is tough to nail down... thanks for the info Barry :-)

Comment ID #3167215283 at 02/21/2017 08:21 am:

NewWorldDisorder commented on Google Employees Help In Forums Only When They Have To

"So if you go to the Google forums for help, the chances of a Googlers actually helping you directly is slim to none." Then why does Google constantly tell people to go to the forums for help? Google is too darn cheap to even hire moderators and often people get blind sided with harsh, demeaning and outright hateful responses to their questions. I'm not a fan of WMW new owner and policies by any means, because it is now heavily infested with Google fan boys, but at least they have moderators. Google would be better to send people to WMW for help if they are too cheap to moderate their own. In any case, what Google's investment into moderating their forum shows is just how much they value webmasters which is akin to a smear on toilet paper after a fresh wipe.

Comment ID #3167214447 at 02/21/2017 08:20 am:

Stephen commented on Was The February 7th Google Update A Google Phantom Update?

"Does anyone else see a lot of Amazon pages in search results for products?" Yes, and they are usually the best choice compared to most others. Cheaper, faster shipping, trustworthy, easy return policy. Competing with multi-zillion dollar companies is hard, whether you are trying to do it online or brick & mortar. If you can't compete with the for the same products, wither sell something else or work harder. A lot harder.

Comment ID #3167207822 at 02/21/2017 08:15 am:

StevenLockey commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

Thats nice..... how is it Google's problem or fault. Using your analogy, its like having a go at the supermarket for not paying the beer maker enough despite that meaning they would have to put the price up for their customers. Google's customers are the searchers. Website are the products/suppliers. It's google's job to look after the searchers not the supplier. This is where the problem comes in, you are trying to claim Google have some responsibility towards the webmaster. Given they have ZERO responsibility towards webmasters they bend over backwards to help them and provide tools/information to help them. If searchers prefer to be able to download the image directly from the webpage without visiting the site, then it would be wrong for Google to not give them that option. As already mentioned there are many ways the website owner can easily protect the hi-res one if they want so it doesn't appear in Google.

Comment ID #3167205764 at 02/21/2017 08:13 am:

NewWorldDisorder commented on Was The February 7th Google Update A Google Phantom Update?

Bing defines phantom as: 1. A Ghost 2. A figment of the imagination 3. A financial arrangement or transaction that has been invented for fraudulent purposes but that does not really exist I don't think there are ghosts in the algorithm, and I think we all can agree that the SERPS saw significant movement so we were not imagining this. By process of elimination this phantom update must mean that Google adjusted the SERPS for fraudulent purposes. Does anyone else see a lot of Amazon pages in search results for products? It's sickening to see not just two but upwards of five Amazon pages returned for product searches. As if anyone needed more hard cold facts to prove Google is anti-small business, this just gives them more evidence to support their beliefs.

Comment ID #3167198802 at 02/21/2017 08:07 am:

StevenLockey commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

No, I realised that, since you quoted it without attribution you could have been quoting yourself, either way I was replying to the quote regardless of who wrote it. If you share a image publicly, then fair-use applies which includes showing it in search since you also have a means to block it via robots.txt You can also share water-marked versions of the images as well instead of the full image.... Basically the complaint is people are too lazy to protect their own copyright so want Google to do it for them. There are lots of image sites who don't have any problems because they are set-up properly. Literally all Google are doing is providing a list of the things you have made publicly visible. Its like trying to call the phone-book a copy-right infringement because it lists their trademarked names and brand images.....

Comment ID #3167194648 at 02/21/2017 08:03 am:

Praveen Sharma commented on Was The February 7th Google Update A Google Phantom Update?

I know about a food recipes website that got hit by this update. The information that I have is they were engaged in some link building from past few months and were dynamically tweaking every single page (have 50,000+ pages) of their website to show that the content of this page got updated a minutes back.

Comment ID #3167139403 at 02/21/2017 07:09 am:

greedy commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

As you seem to have declined to answer & re-iterate. Think about offers super markets run, eg, cheap beer. They give it away at cost because it gets you in the store where there is a good chance you will buy something else. In a webmasters case, a good chance you will interact either BUYING something or SEEING AN AD that earns the webmaster money. That has been taken away.

Comment ID #3167138051 at 02/21/2017 07:08 am:

greedy commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

In your haste to reply you've yet again made yourself look stupid. Did you miss the quote marks? That was a quote from elsewhere, not me. I don't run an image site. If I did I'd be pretty pissed off that Google feels oblivious to copyright law. Do you work for their PR or something? What makes you think Google is entitled to share other peoples work for no compensation?

Comment ID #3167134176 at 02/21/2017 07:04 am:

StevenLockey commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

Again, what makes you think the site is entitled to get that level of traffic consistently from Google? Why are you relying on organic search for 90+% of your revenue? Why is Google to blame for your bad business choices when they explicitly warned you not to rely on organic search?

Comment ID #3167131094 at 02/21/2017 07:01 am:

StevenLockey commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

So basically, all the webmasters need to do is block the high res images in robots.txt and then put up low-res replacements that aren't blocked with similar alt text if they wanted exactly the same thing. Also it sounds far better for searchers (Google's customers) to be able to get the image directly without having to go to the website if they don't want. Its not that difficult for webmasters who don't want their high res images to appear in search to get them to not appear. So basically Google have made the service better for their customers (searchers). Also the vast majority of people searching are unlikely to be specifically after a high-res version so I doubt that would have a massive affect on most sites unless they specifically sell high-res images..... and most of these sites only provide water-marked versions publicly anyway so it doesn't make any real difference to them.

Comment ID #3167121004 at 02/21/2017 06:53 am:

greedy commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

"we run an image based site and our revenue has dropped for $80/day to $8/day in the last 2-3 weeks. This way it would be hard to even pay for the amazon cloud infrastructure. This is really SAD and hope Google does something quick to help all webmasters."

Comment ID #3167114415 at 02/21/2017 06:51 am:

greedy commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

hahaha.

Comment ID #3167110669 at 02/21/2017 06:51 am:

StevenLockey commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

Ah, you dislike Google because they don't give you enough FREE marketing, I get it. You think the world owes you something... don't worry we get it. Its random BS until you provide evidence to support it. Until then you are talking from what you should be sitting on.

Comment ID #3167093654 at 02/21/2017 06:47 am:

greedy commented on Google Confirms Image Search Update Impacting Traffic Data

What's different? Previously a user had to actually visit YOUR PAGE & YOUR IMAGE to see the full hi-res version. Now Google displays that on THEIR page. ie, no click through required (yes the site link is still there). This maybe hard for you to understand but think about offers super markets run, eg, cheap beer. They give it away at cost because it gets you in the store where there is a good chance you will buy something else. In a webmasters case, a good chance you will interact either BUYING something or SEEING AN AD that earns the webmaster money. That has been taken away.

Comment ID #3167087470 at 02/21/2017 06:45 am:

Rich Owings commented on Hacked Site Mess In Google Search Console

There is a 410 WordPress plugin that is useful for this: https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-410/