Jump to content

Paul Rone-Clarke

New Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Rone-Clarke

  • Rank
    New Member
  • Birthday 09/14/1967

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Cricket, Rugby, Baseball, Walking, Rock music (oh yes old timer...) and despite it being a crappy cliche... SEO. Yup I do love it. Most of the time anyway
  1. Paul Rone-Clarke

    Anyone used google disavow tool before?

    For many there is surpise at the lack of "bounce back" after disavow, but if the only reason your site was ranking was the links that you disavowed in the first place that shouldn't be a surprise. Google thinks you have good links - ranks you high Google investigates decides the links it thought were good are in fact bad and gives you penalty (your site drops out of index or flops) You remove the offending links You no longer have the links you once relied on to rank = No "bounce back" Asking webmasters to remove them is vital but rarely sucessful if you've been spammed to death by tens of thousands of links from sites where in most cases the webmaster who owns them has abandoned them as auto approve spam piles. But if you don't ask (and more than once) then Google will not give any credence to a reconsideration request. Yeah - Google made a rod for webmaster to whip themselves with and facilitated "Spam For Cash " (negative SEO) and the "Link Removal Insurance Scam" (you want your links removed? - pay us $1000). Great when the owner the site the links are on put them there in the first place to blackmail you. Often better to abandon the site and move on. Paul Rone-Clarke
  2. The easiest way I found was to use a combination of Feedburner (Google's own RSS aggregator) and a couple of other tricks. For "oomph" I use Google's URL shortner, then post it to Twitter, Google+ and my Facebook business page (sometimes Linkedin if the topic is vaguely business related) It's a rare day that the new content isn't crawled within 30 minutes and indexed inside a day Scritty
  3. Only downside of a high Pr article site is that they have strict policies on content (they moderate) and link placement (often only in the footer) WEB2.0 has the advantage of letting you link how and where you want in pretty much whatever content you want. But overall a PR5 link on an article site is as good as a PR5 link on a WEB2.0 site. Google doesn't favour certain platform types, and the fact that some in IM wrongly think they do is great news for those of us who know how SEO works. It leaves some platform types largely unused and our link can really stand out Paul Rone-Clarke
  4. Paul Rone-Clarke

    Pages or Posts...which is better?

    It's less important than many think However, some consider posts to be inferior due to the complex canonical structures they set up. For instance, if you have tags like date,author, category all before the actual title of the post itself then that can be an issue as Google tend to look at the first 60 odd characters first for an idea of what the post is about. It doesn't seem to like it so much if the title is buried too far down the structure. But that is something that can be fixed quite easily by choosing the right structure to begin with. Paul Rone-Clarke
  5. Paul Rone-Clarke

    A topic to discuss on negative SEO

    Yup THIS ^^^^^^^^^ Those that deny the ability of negative SEO to work are basically saying that Google has a REAL "Magic 8 Ball" that knows with absolute certainty the providence of every link it finds and can attribute every bad one that they penalize to the webmaster of the site involved. If someone knows a method other than "magic" whereby Google might know these things - I'd love to hear it explained. Paul Rone-Clarke
  6. Paul Rone-Clarke

    301'd domains appearing in serps

    Yes - I've had this. They appear on a search, but sometimes a page refresh with clear them again. Then later in the day they might be back. I'm not talking about personalized results either - I can test this on a friends Ipad and sites he's certainly never looked at my old affiliate sites. No idea why it's happening - but can vouch for the fact that it is. Paul Rone-Clarke
  7. Paul Rone-Clarke

    A topic to discuss on negative SEO

    While I think it has become a little easier. It's the extra sophistication of the people doing it. In May 2012 when Google first facilitated "spam for cash" - it was assumed that those doing it would just turn on their cheap link building tools with a deliberate lack of care and forthought and "point" the results at their competitors. This even seemed to be the way it worked for a while. But now the "industry" of negative SEO has grown up, got a lot more sophisticated. They will deliberately buy links from failing private link farms (SAPE style), target links from sites that contain Malware. Target site wide links, continue the negative SEO campaigns for weeks, months at a time. Mix the platforms they are linking from. You name it - they will do it. The link buying aspect is now frighteningly cheap as the market fell out of the paid link networks in the past few months as so many were discovered and slapped by Google. Some of those same sites are selling the exact same links now for negative SEO purposes at 80% less per link than they were selling them just 4 months ago for SERP benefit purposes. 80 cents per link per month? When 10 or 20 is enough to destroy a competitor. The ROI for negative SEO in most niches makes spending $50 a month to destroy 2 or 3 competitors well worth the cost and bring huge rewards. Maybe the best thing for Google to do would be to stop facilitating a "spam for cash" industry. Just a wild thought! Paul Rone-Clarke
  8. Good point - I'd pick you up on one thing though. You can automate - just don't automate like 99% of people do Use tools that allow you to control content 1st and place links second Ditching automation because the majority use in badly? Great news for those who use it properly. Get a head start on the luddites. Scritty
  9. Forums are really sticky at the moment. They were probably the first hit in the spam wars, and those that are around to today (the good ones) seem to have learned their lesson. Joining any forum can be a back-ache even manually. The questions they ask are often niche info specific "What was the third battleship launched by the US Navy after Pearl Harbour (Include USS)" was the last one. I was only looking to find great diving spots and was considering Truk Cove and I had to pass an intelligence or general knowledge test to join the forum! I googled the answer of course, but that's not something your average bot is going to be able to handle. At the moment wiuth my "softly softly" approach to 1st tier links, I'm using Buzzbundle to join some forums, and even that falls over more than 50% of the time for sign ups. Great once you have an account - but sign ups? Not so good. I hate to say the X word here - but that is probably still the best if you want to join a lot Paul Rone-Clarke
  10. Another top post. Here's the thing - my Youtube channel has something like 180 videos on it, some of them with 20,000 views - and I haven't done a single bit of monetization with them. I link to a post on my website (where the video is embedded) and that's it. So - having jumped on this post - read the training material - I'm off and running. With an established Youtube channel with about 600 subs and other decent metrics I'm going to implement this and report back here how it goes. While I'm writing this I'm thinking of the Youtube vids that are 100% commercial that have been getting 50-100 views a day for months and I still haven't monetized... Good job I'm feeling quite calm, otherwise the thought of all that lost cash would be driving me crazy about now! Paul Rone-Clarke
  11. Paul Rone-Clarke

    Penguin 2.1 launched today

    I agree - and then wonder why what they do doesn't reflect that. "Eyes on" I don't think it is hard. But Google don't do eyes on that much. Surely If they could tell rubbish sites algorithmically there would have been no need to invent the concept of negative SEO. They now have facilitated the growth of a "spam for cash" industry that gets more sophisticated by the day. If they could just tell a bad site from a good then they could just ignore links from bad sites giving no benefit to spamming webmasters and no benefit to negative SEO outfits - no-one would benefit from link spam and in tiome it would likely slow to a trickle (some idiots would still do it despite it having zero value either way) But they chose NOT to do that - they chose to count bad links and rely on manual penalties and an update that only works every 4 months. So why did they choose that route? Are Google half as aware as we think they are? I'm not sure they are, at least not on the scale at at the speed they would need to be to be the automatic netwide overlay they seem to want to be. Why facilitate negative SEO "spam for cash" if they could just discount spoam algorithmically? "Don't be evil" is their motto That would be pretty evil if they took the decision to introduce negative SEO when they had other options. Not to mention staggering in its asinine stupidity and likely to end up with them facing some dire condequences if other on the internet realise why they are being hit with more spam than ever and decide to litigate - not out of the question. Paul Rone-Clarke
  12. Paul Rone-Clarke

    $91 Worth of SEO, What did it bring me?

    This is the sort of information I joined this forum for. Nice post Helge Great ROI, effort spent on onsite, trusting outsource to offsite SEO, getting paid. For anyone who has been in the business for more than 3 months and hasn't at least done something like this yourself - shame on you. This is inspiration. $100 and some effort up front. Cash in the bank. Scritty
  13. Scrapebox now posts to a decent variety of sites, but I never use it for that. With deference to _Richard - I know lots of tactics in SEO where SB would work a dream for link building - It's just not the way I work. Far better to use it for scraping (as the name suggests) HIgh qwuality sites for putting high quality links on using real SEO automation tools or manual linking. If does the lot, finds the site, check if it accepts links, gets you the webmasters email address (if you need to ask for guest blogging or whatever), does a PR check, sees how many links it currently has. For under 60 bucks it's still about the best value SEO tool out there. Scritty
  14. Also, be careful when considering "mass" guest posting. Cutts has alluded to "a link for content" being almost as bad a "a link for cash" if taken to far. I mean let's face it, if you hire an author to write your guest posts for you, it is in a very literal sense " a link for cash" - and above all else, spam, profanity and spun content, Google targets the practice of bought links harder than anything else. If you read the ULN that they send after taking punitive action against a site,"buying links" or using "link exchanges" are the only two things they are specific about disliking. Guest blogging is great. With the caveat that I would always introduce co-citation. Always use good content, and not have too many of them. It's a thin line. Scritty
  15. Paul Rone-Clarke

    Penguin 2.1 launched today

    Matt Cutts has said that they are bringing elements of Penguin on board the algorithm. I think (like others - this is not my idea) that the disavow and reconsideration process is arming Google with the information they need a sort of "bad site profile" built up from a great deal of meta analysis from the site lists they are being fed by recovering webmasters. Then - if any of what they find can be effectively introduced into the algo (without it slowing to a crawl as a result) thwy will. I imagine Hummingbird takes a lot more resources to parse both website data and queries than the old method, and their resources are finite (i hope ) Scritty