Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Scott McKirahan
252 followers -
Online Marketing and E Commerce Specialist
Online Marketing and E Commerce Specialist

252 followers
About
Posts

Typical of people in the SEO industry, who live in their own weird, myopic world, they actually think that social networks are a viable way of gaining links for most websites. If 1 out of 1,000 fans of the average fan of an eCommerce site has a website they could link from, I'd be shocked, let alone the knowhow and wherewithal to do it. https://searchenginewatch.com/2018/06/05/facebooks-clear-history-could-be-a-boon-for-organic-search-marketing/
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Google, once again forgetting that they are supposed to be a search engine, providing the best results for people's queries, rather than the social police, has banned ads for bail bonds, claiming that they "exploit vulnerable demographics and ultimately lead to long-term debt."

You could say that about a large portion of things that they allow advertising for, of course. Naturally, they won't cut off their revenue stream from ads for tons of other high ticket products and services; though, just the ones that "exploit" criminals. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-ban-ads-bail-bonds-effective-july-2018/251943/
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Sorry, but this post makes absolutely no sense. How in the world can you try to argue that there is no such thing as site authority (or whatever word you want to use) and at the same time make an argument that a new site does not have "the signals neccessary [sic] for ranking in competitive spaces. Those signals can be social media mentions, links, brand name mentions, comprehensive nature of the content itself, ratings, user generated content on the site that indicates site visitors are engaging with the site and so on."

It is a contradiction of the author's premise that each page is treated independent, apart from the website, itself, and that the website as a whole has no influence whatsoever on how a page will rank. Or, did he mean to use the word "page" every time he uses the word "site" in the above quote?

https://www.searchenginejournal.com/domain-authority/246515/

Add a comment...

Post has attachment
This is truly an excellent article about correlation and causation and how virtually every SEO study of ranking factors gets it flat out wrong!

I can't help but be amused that the author, +Jenny Halasz, says that there is no such thing as ALWAYS or NEVER in the SEO industry. She says it twice as a matter of fact. In between those two instances, she mentions that she will not stop advising clients to improve their TTFB. That sure seems like an "always" to me - maybe not in terms of being a ranking factor but at least in terms of a "best practice" for her.

That aside, absolutely great article! https://www.searchenginejournal.com/ranking-factors-studies-damage/233439/
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Three observations about this Rand Fishkin White Board Video - a guy I respect very much, incidentally:

1) There is nothing new here that is "2018". The same things could be said about 2017, 2016 and maybe even earlier years.

2) My how times have changed (or have they?). The very last thing mentioned is influencers and links. We've come full circle to almost pre-Google days when the content and on-page SEO were the only things that mattered.

3) I've seen zero evidence that page speed matters at all. The same news sites that have dominated the top rankings continue to do so even though their pages often take 30 seconds or more to fully load (I'm not sure if some of them ever fully load). They are laden with so many pop-ups and autoplay videos that go against everything that Google says it will penalize a site for, it is laughable. It's a nice pipe dream but Google is not going to sacrifice its search results and penalize the big boys who are always the ones with the slowest websites (assuming they even can measure this, which I doubt, for sites that do not have Google tools spying on them or for searchers not using Chrome). Better to pretend it is part of your algorithm and see how many people you can get to believe it than to actually do something about page speed and penalize the hands that feed you or jeopardize your search listings. That, or adjust your algorithm to "white list" certain sites that can safely ignore the many things Google would penalize any other site for. You decide what it really is ... https://moz.com/blog/rank-in-2018-seo-checklist
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
I was shocked to not find this other very important FACT concerning online reviews in this article ... A whole lot of online reviews are fake - either good ones placed there by the company trying to promote its product(s) or bad ones left by competitors. Even with "verified purchase" programs, companies will buy products under assumed names and throwaway email addresses and then simply refund themselves so that it looks like a real purchase was made by a real consumer who then left a review.

Consumers are foolish to trust anything they read on the web! https://www.searchenginejournal.com/online-review-facts/227829/
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
What a load of butt-kissing horse [bleep]! Josh McCoy buys the Google B.S. that the Vince update was better for searchers because the big brands had more relevant content and are higher quality websites.

Not even close, Josh. Quite often, the smaller niche sites provide vastly superior content about product selection and help a consumer differentiate between product X and product Y from two different companies - something those brands will never honestly do. Instead of the cookie cutter copy/paste jobs done by the Amazons, Walmarts and Best Buys of the world, the smaller, more focused websites quite often blew the big companies away in the information they provided (and still do).

It may not have a dorky name like "Vince", but the current Google algorithm also has been strongly favoring the big brands, of late, and leading to inferior information for consumers - particularly in the online retail sector. "Big brand" usually correlates with piss-poor, low knowledge service. Try calling up Amazon and getting the real scoop on any of the products on their site. You might as well read the site content they are going to read back to you, yourself. Call the little guy with a website that focuses entirely on that small niche, and 9 times out of 10 you will get a much better answer and far superior customer service. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-algorithm-history/vince-update/
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
This article misleads readers by saying they are going to tell you the lessons (yes, that is plural) that they learned about why the Skyscraper technique failed. Instead, they provide one "lesson" - they chose the wrong keyword phrase, which is more of a guess about what went wrong than a lesson learned. The real lesson learned is that they should have looked much more closely at the competitor backlinks and realized the linking sites were ones that traditionally charged for backlinks. The other lesson they learned is a whole lot of their competitors are cheating! https://www.searchenginejournal.com/skyscraper-technique-failure/222713/
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
The Duplicate content portion of this article makes ZERO sense. It would be duplicate content if you had the same exact categories (and category descriptions) and products (and product descriptions) on two different websites. There WOULD NOT be duplicate content if those categories and products were placed on just one of the websites. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/multiple-sites-hurt-help-seo/208429/
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded