Jump to content

Hey Guest, Welcome to Backlinksforum - Archive!

Sign up today in order to gain access to a vast range of features including the ability to create new topics, send private messages, Facebook & Twitter integration and MUCH more!

  • RSS Feed
  • Important

    This is the (read only) Archive of Backlinksforum.com up to December 3 2011
    If you want to start a new topic, then you need to go to: www.trafficplanet.com


    light_taurus

    Member Since 04 Aug 2010
    Offline Last Active Aug 13 2012 05:25 AM
    -----

    Posts I've Made

    In Topic: Google's Human Quality Raters - Read This!

    03 December 2011 - 05:13 PM

    Somehow i do not trust this "potpiegirl". All this google quality raters thing went too far IMHO. Something is not right here. ;)

    In Topic: Need [BETA] Testers for http://freebloglinks.net - Alternative to ALN

    24 November 2011 - 01:28 PM

    First impressions...

    The interface suspiciously reminds ALN :)

    Things that i do not like are mandatory tags and %Keyword Link 1% - two(three if you count "1") words, really?

    Also, when i am trying to submit article with spinned sentences and paragraphs, i get "You can use a keyword link just one time" error, although the preview correctly shows only one link.

    In Topic: Google: "Hey Affiliate Sites, Fu%K Off!" - Search Quality Rating Program

    20 October 2011 - 12:50 PM

    The truth is, with the amount of sites these quality raters have to check, I doubt quality content will even be judged. I've heard differing numbers, but most people agree that quality raters have so many sites to check, that each site may only get 30 seconds to 1 minute of their time at most.

    I'm sure after awhile doing the job they develop a kind of synapse that can tell spam just by the look of the site rather than the actual content on the page.

    Unfortunately, I highly doubt, most of the content is being read, and that most of the sites being looked at are judged just by how they look and how the site is set up with an eye for adsense and affiliate links.

    True. I have tracked them when they first slapped my website and visited after reconsideration request. The visit takes ~1 min.

    In Topic: Google: "Hey Affiliate Sites, Fu%K Off!" - Search Quality Rating Program

    20 October 2011 - 12:43 PM

    Wouldn't you agree it's better to be safe than sorry and simply spend the time on content so it can pass a manual review? There seems to be this antagonism (on backlinksforum.com) toward the idea of actually spending time on creating decent content (and no, decent content isn't just outsourcing writers to write 500 word articles for the purpose of creating unique content). I don't think it's a coincidence that there's more and more complaints on this forum about penalties (just my 2 cents).

    Of course i wouldn't agree. Why? Because now there is absolutely no guarantee at all that your time and resources that you have spent creating your "great" website will not be trashed by Google. The only thing that Google guarantees for affiliate marketers is uncertainty. It's like Google is your boss and it can fire you anytime. The only way to hedge this risk is to have a lot of websites, which means less quality. So, what you would choose: to be a slave of Sinister G or to spam the crap out of it? Affiliate marketers are the spammers according to Google anyway, aren't we? ;)

    In Topic: Google raters - quality handbook - available for download

    20 October 2011 - 10:46 AM

    So after seeing for what has happened for last several weeks and briefly looking at this ebook it seems like it is too risky to try building authority website that is dependent on search traffic. It is just not worth it to try to build something bigger and seeing it disappear overnight only because some fag had a bad day and decides to penalize your website. It is a much better idea to reduce the risk by building less quality but more websites. This whole website rating thing reminds me of government regulations that ruins everything and brings unintended consequences, which in this case are less quality and more spam.