SEO Myth - clarified

nothign can hurt you except link acceleration and linkfarms. Period.

Actually you would get 50 positive votes for Oklahoma.
Which does not hurt your Texas ranking but increases your Oklahoma ranking...

you cant use an anchor text that is not in the target page, that has been proven to stop working about 2 years ago. I have articles to prove it but i dont really have the time to look them up and paste them in here. I will jsut say that the miserable failure trick all teh blogsters use doesnt work anymore cause the term miserable failure wasnt on whitehosue.gov

He would have to put the word OKLAHOMA in his target page for the backlink to have any value.

I would get an 'F' for geography...

I see your point.
He is talking about NEGATIVE votes though.
Wheter Oklahoma is in there or not. It would never be negative. Positive for Oklahoma or neutral. Also Positive for Texas (more backlinks regardless the anchor) or neutral.

So I guess all those links I bought to my site with text that says "gummi bears" was useless ;( dam ;)

You forgot kryptonite.

SEO is insanely simple. I can teach you everythign you need to know in about 5 minutes. It amazes me they have conventions and giant forums about it. What could they possibly talk about all day besides backlinks and unique content. Directory backlinks are useless, main page index backlinks have the most juice, especially relevant ones. mix up your anchor text across 5 keywords, have those keywords on your site with at least 500 words of unique content. Send 10 backlinks to it per month for a year then go as fast as you want.

There Done, that was even faster then 5 minutes. Now shut down all seo forums and conventions.

www.naughtyconnect.com/ #2 in google for Adult Dating

only ten backlinks per month for the first year? i'm down with building slowly and gradually, but is that enough?

so much misinformation in this thread it fucking hurts my brain. Kudos to pornopat who seems to be the only one that has some clue about SEO. AdvertisingSex is as clueless is they get.

Any link to you gives you a positive vote (if you want to use positive or negative). There is no such thing as negative link. What kind of brainless bullshit is that?

Adobe.com ranks as #1 result for "Click Here" - yet phrase "Click Here" doesn't even appear on that page at all. So how can a page that doesn't have certain text rank for that phrase as #1 result out of 1.6 billion (yes, billion, it's not a typo). It's because anchor text is this powerful and it does affect your SERP for the phrase in anchor.

Conclusion:

If your page is about Texas and you get hundreds of pages linking to you with anchor text "Oklahoma", your ranking for Texas does not get affected negatively (it will be somewhat affected positively because of increased PR as result of incoming links), but you will also rank high for "Oklahoma" even though the page has nothing to do with Oklahoma.

Conclusion #2:

AdvertisingSex is the most clueless fag who has no business telling anyone about SEO.

Kichi is second most clueless fag when it comes to SEO

negative votes

haha

jesus

slllloooooow down. focus on one really good back link per month. try not to get any negative backlinks (negative votes). be careful. be smart. don't over do it.

this was my point

~Ray

Very good post

if you look at a one way link to your site as a "vote", then yes, a "negative vote" would be a site linking to you using a keyword you are not trying to rank for.

Sure, sure, it's a positive vote for whatever keyword they are using, but it doesn't help or hurt your sites rank for your original keywords... so maybe "neutral" vs "negative" would have been better.

You want lots of sites giving you their "vote" by linking to you using the "keyword" you are trying to "rank" for. I think we all agree on that.

~Ray

that's just not true. there are many factors that matter besides anchor text that determine the weight of a back link. i have a lot of mainstream viral/hoax sites for example, that rank well for all sorts of phrases and the back links almost never have anchor text at all... its usually just the domain name. context of both sites/text surrounding links and many other factors also matter.

you are characterizing what might be an important factor, as being the only factor and you're wrong.

it's simply one factor of many.

WTF?

Why would getting a link with "Oklahoma" in the anchor text give you a negative vote for anything? First of all, there are no negative votes from any standard link. If the google algo thinks a link is not relevant or from a shady source, it just devalues any juice it would normally bring.

who is right? it sounds like mass backlinks using the same anchor is all that matters if you can outgun your opponent. if your backlinks are close, then other things would then weigh in.. right.

mass backlinks using the same anchor would beat everyone else trying to rank for that term.. is what I understand.

~Ray

You can't take a sentence out of context. With my post I was solely addressing the issue of an anchor text. There is more to SEO than anchor text. Anchor is one of the things that can affect your SERP, but there are other as well. Both statements you're quoting are pretty much correct, but none of them goes into detail too much, they're each just clarifying the misinformation provided earlier in the thread.

This thread is entertaining

You've added more into your post after I went to respond. Let me address the rest of your post:

Google algorithm is more complex than what can be summed up in a simple sentence. It takes into account number of factors. Anchor backlinks obviously play a massive role. But there are other factors as well. However, from some (not extensive) observation, anchor backlinks can win the SERP for you. What it means is, that if you're competing for a particular keyword phrase, for example "click here" (to be blunt), the website with most backlinks that contain "click here" in anchor (or the website with most authority links that contain that phrase) will rank on top. Anchor text seems to be so powerful in SEO game, that it can out-beat other SEO techniques. But it's also one of the toughest to get, because it's mostly dependent on off page SEO (making other webmasters link to you with that particular anchor is not the easiest task to achieve). You have control of your on page SEO so you can properly optimize your page, but if your page is about "Click Here" and #1 result in google has 5000 backlinks with "Click Here" in anchor, it's gonna be a tough job getting more backlinks than that in order to snap that #1 spot.

But on the other hand, if your site got 10 000 back links with "Click Here" as anchor and you have competition who is trying to take you off the #1 spot, they can try hard to optimize their pages as much as they want, it's unlikely they'll take you down with this type of backlink anchor power.

To clarify, Google algorithm is more complex than this. Backlinks are not equal. Google takes into account relevancy and authority of a backlink so it's not only about numbers, it's also about quality and relevancy. As i had said, it's hard to sum up in a brief paragraph and still make enough sense without exposing myself to attacks because something is missing in my statement. But in general, as proven with my example provided earlier, anchor text can secure you a #1 spot, even if the text does not appear on your page, and even if you're against billion and half other pages that compete for the same phrase.

both quantity and quality can both achieve the same. ranking for a phrase has just as much to do with what the competition is doing as it does what you are doing.

my advice to you would be to stop "clarifying SEO myths"

the myth was that people linking to you using one term, could hurt your rankings for another term.

Now we know it's not true.

no thanks to your unsolicited advice. I like to talk shop time to time despite belittling comments and fag calls... it's called maturity.

the myth that someone linking to you using any random anchor text will "hurt you"? what planet does that "myth" exist on?

i am concerned about catching seo crabs however. although i may be interested in giving my competitors seo crotch crickets.

AdvertisingSex, your avatar makes it hard to read/take seriously anything you type in your posts, not sure why exactly, it just does

yes not true....

it used to be called "google bowling"

and you quoted me wrong.. I said...

"the myth was that people linking to you using one term, could hurt your rankings for another term."

and it's not true.

~Ray

YO YO!!!

Hit me on ICQ!

I can't find you on this fucking thing