Online marketing information can change quickly This article is 10 years and 200 days old, and the facts and opinions contained in it may be out of date.
There were two EXCELLENT resources released in the world of SEO this past week. Aaron Walls “Link Harvester” tool, and Barry’s Search relevancy challenge. I’ve decided to rant on both and why I think these are both big strides for the search community. Firstly, the popularity of both will just continue to snowball because of the way they are built. Both are giving back to the community which will benefit them immensely in the long run.
Quickly getting off on another tangent, I think this is the mistake that SEO inc, has made in not reaching out to the community for support, but rather threating with C & D’s. It really is a shame the way that the SEO community has jumped all over SEO Inc. and kicked them while they were down IMHO, but they responded in the wrong way by threatening rather than reaching out to the community for support. I would imagine this is a very resilient company and it will be interesting to see if they improve in the future or continue the downhill slide.
Aaron of SEObook has done a very cool thing. He’s released a tool for folks everywhere to improve their knowledge of SEO that is immensely useful and made it free. His new Link Harvester tool is guaranteed to please link mongers everywhere. There are two excellent factors to this tool:
Since Yahoo has opted to continue to show backlinks appropriately it is highly useful. It would be very easy of them to go the route of Google and only show a random sampling. Google has spent the last year and a half or so trying to confuse and compete with the SEO community rather than embrace it and continue to focus on relevancy. Google views SEO’s as the enemy…Yahoo sees them as potential advocates and early adopters. In my opinion, this has been of detriment to Google, and Yahoo has reaped the benefit of honest opinions from SEO’s and internet marketing because of their willingness to cooperate rather than compete with SEO’s for clients. We will see the effect that this has had on relevance with Barry’s white label relevance test. We have to remember that both G, Y, MSN, and others have a responsibility primarily to shareholders and no longer just to users (although pleasing users generally pleases shareholders). Google’s release of campaign negative sites is a great example. I’m hardly a tech geek, but I would imagine this wasn’t a HUGE feat for the great minds at Google to pulloff. It was only, however, when advertisers started to pull their ads from the content network that this finally got done. I applaud G for DOING it, but you really have to question a bit of why it took this long. I’m sure folks in the know have been suggesting this for quite sometime. One of the most interesting theories I’ve heard on why Google ALLOWS shitty adsense scraper sites is to pollute the other engines with trash. While I like to not put much stock in tinfoil hat theories too often, G *is* now a large corporation, and they DO make money off the ads while hurting their competitor’s product. DMOZ clones and scraped sites became extremely prolific with the introduction and potential profit from adsense. We will most likely only see a decline in these when the mainstream media starts catching on, and then all the blame will be deftly pointed at the “filthy spammers” that constantly try to game the search engines.