Lol... that's Dope... may the force be with you :hysterical:I see you've gone to the darkside LOL ;-)
That's absolutely true my friend, there's a lot of myths thrown around by people so no matter how much proof you put on the table people will always choose to believe those they trust the most.
Yes. But if you have no nofollow links that is unnatural SEO.
Yes but you'd need a magnifying glass to see the difference.
Well, text link all day long.
Well do simple math. 100 x 0 = 0. 1 PR2 = 2.
not really a Neil fan myself, but when they throw out a case study with thousands of searchs and sites looked at, I do take interest.
You actually have done nothing of the like.. unless you are PTTed as well? and even with that, it is from 2011 - so you are now suggesting you have shown proof from once apon a time long long ago.
I am saying this, you are correct.. where you are missing the point is in the caveat - there has to be an added connection between the link itself and to you and or your site. A link unto itself will do what we all know it will do. But adding in the case of the examples I have left a trackable Author markup identifier changes things
last week actually.. find it for yourself
well I actually state in the post above, that Google Authorship is no longer around - but Schema "Author" is.... and as much as YOU may not be talking about this..I have been and that is where your contempt and disconnect lies. You are talkking about 1 thing.. and I am talking about another.
Not true... I have unfortunately read every bit of your dribble and repeatedly pointed out your mistakes... The sad fact is you are not staying on topic... and you keep misinforming people to the extent that its tantamount to outright lies....
Did you even bother to read my post before PTTed? Let me remind you:
That first link takes you to seven videos on the subject!!!
Suffice to say I don't see any solid evidence on your part other than speculation... They maybe a remote possibility that in certain cases co-citation has an impact but does that mean nofollow links carries link juice? No it does not!!!
Never said it carried link juice, only said I've personally noticed ranking changes. On multiple occasions after adding nofollow links.
There is certain code that a link would be contained in, that I'm pretty sure would indicate to Google that its an ad. So no, I think Googles spiders are smart enough to decipher between a contextual link and a link contained within an ad.
New content has been applied to the site for this entire year. There are no 301 redirects. The www version doesn't show anything in ahrefs. Competition has been the same.
The keyword is low comp and 200 monthly searches. I already explained that above. For you to suggest that I'm faking it with some made up word is a bit insulting. I don't post BS and would be more than willing to jump on a team viewer and address anything in the last post. I have no reason to fluff anything. The competition is crap on the first page. It's the only way I could isolate the experiment as explained above. Everytime I've done it with high comp, it never fails that I obtain a link naturally completely blowing the experiment. Fact is the competition has remained there for a year. We stayed in pos 3 and 4 depending on the tracker. It wasn't until those 2 nofollows were indexed that we shot up to #1.
1. Im not sayin nofollow carry link juice. I simply have an analyst well versed in the field of computational semiotics making recommendations based on data and predictions. And they're working.
D:All I asked Hawker was that he should join the discussion with proof because the other guys (Sid & Ted) have given more than enough proof then he said he's no longer interested in the topic. But when I wake up this morning I see another fluff post from him.
Clearly you're not and should just shut up and let those who're experienced do the talking just sit on the sideline.
Like I said, prove it. Show us where google says they need a good balance of nofollow and dofollow links or else it will look unnatural and your rankings will drop. SHOW US!!
Now I see that you really don't have much experience in seo and I don't know why you bothered joining this discussion. DA/PA have got nothing to do with SEO, yes I said it, I bet google doesn't even know that crap, things like moz rank etc. google have their own tools they don't need 3rd party useless metrics like DA/PA, moz trust...
At least I'll agree with that, even though I might not say text links are better, I would say I prefer a text link because I can use a keyword I'm targeting as the anchor text.
The competition factor does matter... For example you have a page with the keyword "idivnawatamtookinaboot" and you create two nofollow links and wow you're ranking #1.... Do you seriously think its the 2 nofollow links or the fact its zero to poor competiton noting your content alone is sufficient for it to rank... This scenario seems to apply to those banging on about local SEO with nofollow....
In the case of ad networks such as Adwords its possible to tell its an ad... But what about sites such as this forum... Go and look at the code - its a nofollow image link.... and there are tons of sites online where you will not be able to tell from the source code that its an ad... I've taken loads of ads out on many sites and not once have I ever observed an increase in rankings... Increase in traffic yes, but of course you would expect that with an ad.... You could say using ads is a "nofollow" strategy - it drives traffic....
The experiment has been repeated. The low volume site is the only way I could show isolated data. Dofollows would popup naturally on high volume sites, blowing my experiment. But I have the data for that as well.
Would love to see that data, seeing as how proving otherwise would be harder to isolate the variables. How are you going to stop yourself from naturally obtaining nofollow links with a high volume KW? So proving that nofollow has 0 value is a bit harder to prove either way you do it.
I'm assuming you meant nofollow link.
Yes. Typo. Thank you. I went back and corrected it.
Diversification matters zero dude. Friggin zero. Always has. Still does.
That's fine.
So you're defending something you haven't tested in years? Google has changed drastically in the last couple of years. Lord knows I've been humbled not updating myself with information. Even in this very forum, and have never failed to admit if I was wrong or did not know.
