Disqus - Latest Comments for thegman3

Re: Should Google Be Broken Up?

Gerald Weber — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 08:58:04 -0000

Yes break them up. They have been abusing their power for far too long. I have always said that because of their arrogance there will be a day of reckoning for Google. If not now it will happen someday.

Re: Kings of the Internet | Confessions of a Black Hat - Josh Bachynski

Gerald Weber — Sat, 03 May 2014 00:13:23 -0000

You hit it right on the head my friend. This is how Google is increasing Adwords sales to make Wall Street and shareholders happy.

Re: Kings of the Internet | Confessions of a Black Hat - Josh Bachynski

Gerald Weber — Fri, 02 May 2014 10:49:19 -0000

Well put Josh. I guess what I was trying to say earlier is that even if it was ok to penalize only spammers that would be one thing, but Google knows that they are catching a lot of people that didn't spam in their net and they are ok with that. But yes that thinking is flawed. It's not ok to hand out this type of punishment at all.

Their entire system of severely punishing website IS completely flawed. Two wrongs don't make a right. I guess Matt's mother never taught him that lesson.

And then I find myself using words like innocent and guilty. Again who the hell decides this anyway? Google does but on a whim or with a computer program. Everyone is just assumed guilty. Shit Google has now even made it possible for one business to take down their competition. This is a great new evil introduced into the World that previously didn't exist. Thanks big G.:)

You hit the bigger point on right on the head. It's not OK to intentionally cause harm to another human being. These websites Google is targeting aren't just inanimate objects. They are peoples lives. Their hopes and dreams. Their ability to support their families. Their ability to put food on the table and to pay their rent.

I think a lot of people have become numb to this main point and they don't fully understand the devastation that occurs in people lives because of Google choice to severely punish *websites* (people, their business and their families)

Only when they've seen it or experienced it first hand or have been impacted in some way that it impacts their lives does it become real. Otherwise it's just like a story they heard on the news.

It is never ok to intentionally harm another human being. Period.

"...The one major thing you have to remember...is that the man next to you is your brother, and you'd damn well better treat each other that way because if you don't, then we blow the whole thing, but we've got it right there."

- "Chip" Monck, Woodstock announcer

Re: Kings of the Internet | Confessions of a Black Hat - Josh Bachynski

Gerald Weber — Fri, 02 May 2014 10:31:41 -0000

"What I don't believe is fair game is when they enter another business with the "intent to do harm" to that business, which they have done over and over again. "

Well said...

And your right I shouldn't have called Nick a Google Fan boy. My apologies for the name calling.

It can be frustrating how some people only see the one sided view and/or only see what they want to see. It's like they are wearing Google Goggles or something and only seeing what Google wants them to see. LOL

The overall all point here is that it really IS wrong to intentionally harm another person or to do damage to a business. There is never a justification for this. To do so is just evil at it's very core.

Re: Kings of the Internet | Confessions of a Black Hat - Josh Bachynski

Gerald Weber — Thu, 01 May 2014 19:51:39 -0000

"What struck me was your naive belief that Google owes you something. "

Spoken like a true Google Fan-boy. You are blindly following their propaganda like sheep headed to the slaughter.

It's not the notion that Google owes us something. Owes us rankings or anything else.

Google is knowingly punishing innocent websites and business.

And these are deemed as *acceptable causalities*.

There's nothing acceptable about being ok with destroying business that did not deserve to be destroyed.

Re: Kings of the Internet | Confessions of a Black Hat - Josh Bachynski

Gerald Weber — Thu, 01 May 2014 19:28:17 -0000

"Maybe they should have been more clear about it."

Absolutely. Google is always ambiguous with their message (which is the biggest problem) and they do constantly change the rules.

So if they are going to change the rules then ok...

But don't rain down hell fire and brimstone and condemn us to eternal damnation for doing what they once told us was ok or even recommended.

Re: Kings of the Internet | Confessions of a Black Hat - Josh Bachynski

Gerald Weber — Thu, 01 May 2014 17:46:14 -0000

Don't kid yourself, what Google *wants* is to sell more Adwords!

This is not about cleaning up the web, nor is it about increasing search quality.

It's about increasing Adwords sales.

That's it! Plain and simple. And Google will do it at any cost! It doesn't matter how many business get hurt or how many lives are or already have been destroyed in the process.

Now that Google is a public company they must answer to Wall Street. They must find a way to increase EPS, revenue etc in order to make their stock continue to go up. After some time the larger a company gets they run out of ways to do that.

So this is Google's answer to increase Adwords sales and keep shareholders and Wall Street happy. They do it under the guise of "we are trying to make the web a better place and keep spammers out" because it seems people actually believe this propaganda.

What better way to increase Adwords sales than to knock innocent business and websites clean out of the SERPs? Now they have no option but to buy Adwords right?

It's genius I tell ya, but maybe evil genius?

At the end of the day these mass penalties are unjust and immoral just as Josh says. It's not ok to knowingly destroy businesses and lives (and consider them *acceptable losses* just to know that maybe you got a few spammers in the process.

The cure is much much much worse than the disease in this case.

Re: The Linking Dilemma: Google Has Left a Giant Mess for Us All

Gerald Weber — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:36:53 -0000

I'll tell you why Google doesn't just discredit the bad/low quality links instead of penalizing. Because discrediting links doesn't increase Adwords sales. ;-)

Mass penalties across the web DOES increase Adwords sales.

It's clear that Google doesn't care how many innocents get hurt, how many business or lives are destroyed, so long as they accomplish their end goal of selling more Adwords.

Re: The Linking Dilemma: Google Has Left a Giant Mess for Us All

Gerald Weber — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:49:08 -0000

Well said Julie. I am glad to see that I'm not the only one with these sentiments about Google going link penalty crazy.

And let's remember every time the almighty big G hands out a new round of penalties Adwords sales go up. Yay Google!

Because Google is now a public company they have to answer to Wall Street and are now under the gun to make revenues, EPS etc go up. What better way to do that then wipe many legit business out of the SERPs under the guise of (they were spamming the web, so they got what was coming to them!). Now they have no choice but to buy Adwords. Genius right?

I use Adwords for most of my clients so I am not against using Adwords for marketing and Google should try to increase sales as a business. But the way they are going about it is the problem. Google knows that they the innocent casualties are enormous in some cases, but those are acceptable losses provided they help Google attain their end goal. Sometimes that's FUD but I Imaginee it's mostly geared towards increasing Adwords sales.

Sure it's their company and they are free to run it as unethically as they wish. But that still doesn't make it right to do so.

Re: Battlefield 4 Review | Xbox One [VIDEO]

Gerald Weber — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:32:23 -0000

Totally agree. Don't get me wrong the latest COD is good and all, but the BF4 campaign is definitely the winner. This one was COMPLETELY awesome!

Re: Google’s Matt Cutts: We’ve Taken Action On A Large Guest Blog Network

Gerald Weber — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:56:48 -0000

Yep it's clear Google took action (unwarranted) against MBG simply because of the popularity of the site.

A PR stunt if you will

Re: Google’s Matt Cutts: We’ve Taken Action On A Large Guest Blog Network

Gerald Weber — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:58:01 -0000

Please keep in mind MBG is NOT a service. It is a community of guest bloggers and blog owners.

You are at no point paying for links or paying for a service for link. MBG is a way for guest bloggers and blog owners to connect. There are some tools to help, but there is no correlation between money and links.

MBG is a free platform by default. The pro version just allows you more access to tools. But it's not an exchange for links.

Re: Google’s Matt Cutts: We’ve Taken Action On A Large Guest Blog Network

Gerald Weber — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:46:37 -0000

Yes MBG is a free community. There is a Pro membership that is totally optional that allows additional tools but this is not paying for links or guest posts.

Re: Google’s Matt Cutts: We’ve Taken Action On A Large Guest Blog Network

Gerald Weber — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:59:41 -0000

Ann did say that that MBG wont' be bullied into no following links because of Google.

But Ann also makes it clear that MBG does NOT allow paid links or guest blogging just for SEO/link building. And she also makes abundantly clear that people should not guest blog solely for link building or SEO purposes.

Ann is the strongest advocate I know for doing guest blogging the right way.

MyBlogGuest also is NOT a link network.

Ann started MBG way before guest blogging "caught on fire" so to speak as a way for bloggers and guest bloggers to meet and network. It has never had SEO or link building as the purpose in mind.

Nor is there any kind of automated or paid link building going on. In short MBG is NOT a link network. It's a forum to meet and network with other like minded bloggers. Anyone that takes a REAL look without making a snap judgement will see that.

Re: Viral Content Buzz Review

Gerald Weber — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 13:37:20 -0000

Generally speaking yes we try to as Ann stated. We try to take into account all factors that would be included in quality such as site design, visual appeal, grammar and English etc. Of course we are human and may miss some of these things from time to time. But simple answer is yes, we do that that into account.

Re: Viral Content Buzz Review

Gerald Weber — Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:09:37 -0000

Matt,

Thanks so much for taking the time to write a review about us.

Re: "Not all content I saw had the potential to go viral. This is enormously subjective, but given the emphasis on quality and shareability in the guidelines I was surprised some posts were approved."

This is and will always continue to be a challenging area (in terms of pleasing everyone). The keyword here is subjective. It would be nearly impossible for our moderators to approve only content that EVERYONE loves all the time.

That being said we have implemented some tools to assist with these types of issues. For one if you find a project to not be quality enough to share (and you could like to stop seeing it) there is a button to hide that project If you feel the project is really low quality or spammy and shouldn't be in the dashboard then there is also a button to report low quality. This will alert our moderators to take a second look.

Thanks again! :-)

Re: 14 Link Resolutions for 2014

Gerald Weber — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 12:34:37 -0000

@JustConsumer ,

I found this article to be very useful and informative! As Julie's articles always are!

It's clear by each and every one of your anonymous comments that your intention here is just to troll the author.

There is absolutely nothing self promotional about this article, Nor is it confusing or difficult to understand. You have no genuine interest in the article or to adding legitimate conversation.

My free advice to you sir would be to spend your time more productively and stop trolling the comments.

keep up the great work Julie! Great job! :-)

Re: Are You Using Google Authorship Correctly?

Gerald Weber — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:44:14 -0000

I am sure Google is going to be using Authorship and Author Rank along with "social signals" in order to filter out the REAL or "quality" blog posts from the low quality crap.

That being said the importance of authorship for the future can't be understated, as it is the future.

Re: 21 Things SMBs Can Do To Make Google Love Their Website

Gerald Weber — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:29:37 -0000

You're the second one recommending Yoast plugin here so it must be good.

I am not against paying for a plugin as long as the functionality is worth the price.

I know All in one also has a premium or paid version but I'm not totally sure off the top of my head what more comes with their paid version.

Re: 21 Things SMBs Can Do To Make Google Love Their Website

Gerald Weber — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:10:23 -0000

To those that are "seasoned" in the realm of internet marketing some of this may sound a bit elementary, however each time I have a new client (that is a small business owner), I go down such a checklist and much of this is either missing or needs fixing in some way.

As far as the all in one SEO pack goes. Most people should be pretty good with the default settings, however they are very customizeable as well.

Re: 21 Things SMBs Can Do To Make Google Love Their Website

Gerald Weber — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:17:38 -0000

Thanks for mentioning Jay. I haven't used it myself but I have heard of it. That sounds like a great alternative to the All in One SEO Pack.

Re: How to Contact Google

Gerald Weber — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 15:06:42 -0000

Kristi,

For Adwords support you can also call 1-866-2Google

You can talk to a real live person. Wow!

I've bookmarked your post. Thanks for the valuable resource. This will definitely come in handy. (Geez that sure sounded like something you'd hear in a spam comment)

Re: How to Use Google Alerts for Content Marketing: Collect & Store Content Ideas

Gerald Weber — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:51:06 -0000

I always learn new things reading your post. I am setting up some filters in Gmail right now to funnel my Google alerts.

Re: Time & Value Of Link Cleanups: Should You Even Bother?

Gerald Weber — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:52:11 -0000

I think Google needs to just cool it already. "you have bad links remove them or else..... oh you have bad links don't worry about it." I mean what the hell? They must have a group of highly trained monkeys sending out the unnatural links warnings.

Re: Time & Value Of Link Cleanups: Should You Even Bother?

Gerald Weber — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 21:50:21 -0000

I tend to agree that I'd rather spend time either building new quality links or if the link profile is too massive and the work required to clean up would be too substantial it might even be a good idea to start from scratch. Well this is going to depend on many factors of course. If you have a business and brand you have been building for many many years then the latter may not be an option.

One thing I have seen regarding sitewide links (i.e. blogroll and footer links) I have seen keyword anchor text in too many of these cause a drop in rankings (over-optimization) and when changed to either a brand name, domain name or removed this has seemed to fix the problem in one particular case for me. Of course in this instance I am assuming there weren't too many other problematic links, but there were too many sitewide links with keyword anchor text.