Comments for Internet Marketing Tips Blog http://cashcoach.net Learn to make money online with affiliate marketing, ebay, blogging, article marketing and more... Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:44:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Writing Posts or Pages on WordPress by Tina http://cashcoach.net/writing-posts-or-pages-on-wordpress/comment-page-1/#comment-74817 Tina Sat, 10 Dec 2011 16:44:02 +0000 http://cashcoach.net/?p=870#comment-74817 I'd go with Mike's idea about linking the "announce" posts to your main article pages, but I wouldn't use PLR unless heavily rewritten. I think theming your content (a la Andy Williams' Web Content Studio) is the best way to go. That and a solid silo structure reduce the need for backlinks and help you rank for more longtails, in my humble opinion. If WCS is too pricey, try lsikeywords.com for a similar result. Also, I think in keyword research it's important to check your GAKT search results against SEMRush's (free version is fine to use in lieu of the high-dollar paid one). Regarding CPC for Adsense publishers, I'd check both GAKT and SEMRush CPC figures against the Contextual Targeting Tool found in the GAKT area. I’d go with Mike’s idea about linking the “announce” posts to your main article pages, but I wouldn’t use PLR unless heavily rewritten. I think theming your content (a la Andy Williams’ Web Content Studio) is the best way to go. That and a solid silo structure reduce the need for backlinks and help you rank for more longtails, in my humble opinion. If WCS is too pricey, try lsikeywords.com for a similar result.

Also, I think in keyword research it’s important to check your GAKT search results against SEMRush’s (free version is fine to use in lieu of the high-dollar paid one). Regarding CPC for Adsense publishers, I’d check both GAKT and SEMRush CPC figures against the Contextual Targeting Tool found in the GAKT area.

]]> Comment on Do You Really Need to Get Your Backlinks Indexed? by Justin Hammonds http://cashcoach.net/do-you-really-need-to-get-your-backlinks-indexed/comment-page-1/#comment-73712 Justin Hammonds Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:04:27 +0000 http://cashcoach.net/?p=934#comment-73712 This was a great post Cash Coach! I have always agreeed with doing business with people and not just machines. You made a great point about guest blogging, and guest blogging is a great way to increase your exposure! Thank you for this high quality post, and May God Richly Bless You. This was a great post Cash Coach! I have always agreeed with doing business with people and not just machines. You made a great point about guest blogging, and guest blogging is a great way to increase your exposure! Thank you for this high quality post, and May God Richly Bless You.

]]> Comment on How I Got Rid of My Competition in PPV with Lead Impact by cpa marketing blog http://cashcoach.net/how-i-got-rid-of-my-competition-in-ppv-with-lead-impact/comment-page-1/#comment-69756 cpa marketing blog Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:59:14 +0000 http://cashcoach.net/?p=921#comment-69756 ha ha ha that's a sick idea. will definitely look into it but till now i can`t see any competition around me 0_0 ha ha ha that’s a sick idea. will definitely look into it but till now i can`t see any competition around me 0_0

]]> Comment on My Theory on the October 14th Google Update by Token Health http://cashcoach.net/my-theory-on-the-october-14th-google-update/comment-page-1/#comment-65571 Token Health Sun, 13 Nov 2011 06:14:07 +0000 http://cashcoach.net/?p=964#comment-65571 One of the sites I run got killed and google even took out my site for my top keyword. Doesn't make much sense to me. Most of the sites that I see ranking for comparable keywords are running much less quality sites that are made for adsense type of sites that have a low amount of links. Have to keep searching for answers. One of the sites I run got killed and google even took out my site for my top keyword. Doesn’t make much sense to me. Most of the sites that I see ranking for comparable keywords are running much less quality sites that are made for adsense type of sites that have a low amount of links. Have to keep searching for answers.

]]> Comment on My Theory on the October 14th Google Update by Michelle (The IM Koala) http://cashcoach.net/my-theory-on-the-october-14th-google-update/comment-page-1/#comment-63269 Michelle (The IM Koala) Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:17:37 +0000 http://cashcoach.net/?p=964#comment-63269 If this update was aimed at altering bounce rates, G did a lousy job. At the time you wrote this post (five days after the update) my bounce rates were soaring compared to the time preceding the update. On my sites which have been affected, they have since evened out to almost the exact same levels as before the update, yet on lower overall traffic. I have noticed the bump you mentioned that sites like Amazon and eBay have gotten from this, though. I notice it more as a web searcher, than as an affiliate marketer, and find it very annoying. I already know Amazon and eBay carry everything in creation. I want options! That said, my best guess is that these sites are winning because of branding. I say this because of the data I've analyzed from my own sites which took hits - all EMDs, all targeting multiple related keywords beyond their EMD. And when they get beaten out for their related keywords, it's almost invariably by a branded site. Another scary thought: what if it's a shift in how links are counted? Think of how many affiliate marketers link to these sites. If G has decided to start counting affiliate links as transferring serious link juice, then no mom & pop sites will ever have a chance of beating out the heavyweights. I sure hope that's not what has happened. Though my search results over the past two weeks sure make it look that way. If this update was aimed at altering bounce rates, G did a lousy job. At the time you wrote this post (five days after the update) my bounce rates were soaring compared to the time preceding the update. On my sites which have been affected, they have since evened out to almost the exact same levels as before the update, yet on lower overall traffic.

I have noticed the bump you mentioned that sites like Amazon and eBay have gotten from this, though. I notice it more as a web searcher, than as an affiliate marketer, and find it very annoying. I already know Amazon and eBay carry everything in creation. I want options!

That said, my best guess is that these sites are winning because of branding. I say this because of the data I’ve analyzed from my own sites which took hits – all EMDs, all targeting multiple related keywords beyond their EMD. And when they get beaten out for their related keywords, it’s almost invariably by a branded site.

Another scary thought: what if it’s a shift in how links are counted? Think of how many affiliate marketers link to these sites. If G has decided to start counting affiliate links as transferring serious link juice, then no mom & pop sites will ever have a chance of beating out the heavyweights. I sure hope that’s not what has happened. Though my search results over the past two weeks sure make it look that way.

]]> Comment on My Theory on the October 14th Google Update by CashCoach http://cashcoach.net/my-theory-on-the-october-14th-google-update/comment-page-1/#comment-61360 CashCoach Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:58:08 +0000 http://cashcoach.net/?p=964#comment-61360 That's a good point Loren, but I think Google also factors in if that same visitor clicks the back button and then continues to search other sites under that same keyword. This would be very frustrating for webowners as we don't see this information, but it's a possibility. It's all really conjecture at this point really. But the more we all express what happened to our sites the more we can understand what the big G is really doing. I have a feeling more affiliate sites were effected by this update as well. That’s a good point Loren, but I think Google also factors in if that same visitor clicks the back button and then continues to search other sites under that same keyword. This would be very frustrating for webowners as we don’t see this information, but it’s a possibility. It’s all really conjecture at this point really. But the more we all express what happened to our sites the more we can understand what the big G is really doing. I have a feeling more affiliate sites were effected by this update as well.

]]> Comment on My Theory on the October 14th Google Update by Mike @ GarageSpin http://cashcoach.net/my-theory-on-the-october-14th-google-update/comment-page-1/#comment-61099 Mike @ GarageSpin Wed, 02 Nov 2011 02:09:27 +0000 http://cashcoach.net/?p=964#comment-61099 My music blog, GarageSpin.com, took a 50% drop on October 14th. I don't quite understand why, as it's a fully legitimate music blog. I'm not doing anything shady, sketchy, or much of anything to drive revenue, really. That said, I haven't been posting very often in 2011. Perhaps frequency of refresh content played a part? If anyone has any ideas on what I may be doing "wrong", please share. I'm a bit bummed. :( My music blog, GarageSpin.com, took a 50% drop on October 14th. I don’t quite understand why, as it’s a fully legitimate music blog. I’m not doing anything shady, sketchy, or much of anything to drive revenue, really. That said, I haven’t been posting very often in 2011. Perhaps frequency of refresh content played a part?

If anyone has any ideas on what I may be doing “wrong”, please share. I’m a bit bummed. :(

]]> Comment on My Theory on the October 14th Google Update by loren http://cashcoach.net/my-theory-on-the-october-14th-google-update/comment-page-1/#comment-61028 loren Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:09:37 +0000 http://cashcoach.net/?p=964#comment-61028 Hi CashCoach. One of my sites is a voucher site. This has been affected this time around and dropped considerably on some terms but marginally on others. It has, however, knocked be off page 1 across the board and its seriously affected my traffic as a result. I don't agree with you that the length of visit should be included with bounce rate as you suggest. The bounce factor can be the voucher site's friend. For instance, if someone finds the exact code they're looking for, then they'll click away from the entire site quite happily. Therefore, if the visit length is also factored in, I lose even more. I'm crossing all my fingers and toes this 'sorts itself out soon' as with Christmas coming I'm in for a rocky ride otherwise! Incidently, my other site, a blog based one has rocketed lately.....?! Hi CashCoach. One of my sites is a voucher site. This has been affected this time around and dropped considerably on some terms but marginally on others. It has, however, knocked be off page 1 across the board and its seriously affected my traffic as a result.

I don’t agree with you that the length of visit should be included with bounce rate as you suggest. The bounce factor can be the voucher site’s friend. For instance, if someone finds the exact code they’re looking for, then they’ll click away from the entire site quite happily. Therefore, if the visit length is also factored in, I lose even more.

I’m crossing all my fingers and toes this ‘sorts itself out soon’ as with Christmas coming I’m in for a rocky ride otherwise!

Incidently, my other site, a blog based one has rocketed lately…..?!

]]> Comment on My Theory on the October 14th Google Update by CashCoach http://cashcoach.net/my-theory-on-the-october-14th-google-update/comment-page-1/#comment-58723 CashCoach Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:19:40 +0000 http://cashcoach.net/?p=964#comment-58723 Stephen, I should have mentioned that included with the bounce rate factor would be the length of the visit of the user. You are absolutely right that great content would not require someone to click to another page, but this is really keyword by keyword. When I come to a wikipedia page I never click on another link, but these are for keywords that are informative in nature. And google uses different algorithms for different "types" of keywords in my opinion. Stephen, I should have mentioned that included with the bounce rate factor would be the length of the visit of the user. You are absolutely right that great content would not require someone to click to another page, but this is really keyword by keyword. When I come to a wikipedia page I never click on another link, but these are for keywords that are informative in nature. And google uses different algorithms for different “types” of keywords in my opinion.

]]> Comment on My Theory on the October 14th Google Update by McGrath Enterprise SEO http://cashcoach.net/my-theory-on-the-october-14th-google-update/comment-page-1/#comment-58043 McGrath Enterprise SEO Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:00:15 +0000 http://cashcoach.net/?p=964#comment-58043 From what we can tell this "minor" update is based on the devaluation of Web2.0 and article backlinks OR on increasing the value of backlinks from blogs. This is purely speculative at this stage as it is way too early to make a concrete assumption. However, some sites have come from nowhere in the SERPs to position 1 that have less that 300 backlinks - all of which come from spammy blog comments. Other sites have been thrown to the top with almost no backlinks at all but that do have a ton of internal links from unrelated pages. For example one site has NO backlinks listed in yahoo explorer or Google but has 5,883 internal pages all linking to the page now ranking number 1. We have seen this across a variety of search phrases. The SERPs were also dancing like crazy for about a week across a wide range of keywords recently as though Google was flitting between a new index and an old one or as though it was turning off and on its new indicators. Although this algo update has been coined as "minor" by Google it is pretty major. Maybe Google thinks its minor because most sites that have been negatively impacted and lost ranking have only lost 1 place in the SERPs but for sites that have been at the top grabbing 40% of the search volume now only getting 11% for position 2 this is far from a minor update! From what we can tell this update is throwing sites to the top rather than throwing sites down in the SERPs. We have seen this happen before and last a few weeks before things settle down. Usually the sites thrown to the top are dubious to say the least and are usually devoid of any real content and/or not really related (or are loosely related) to the search phrase they are ranking for. There are a few theories as to why this happens but we usually find things settle back to some type of normality within 2 - 3 weeks...so here's hoping. From what we can tell this “minor” update is based on the devaluation of Web2.0 and article backlinks OR on increasing the value of backlinks from blogs. This is purely speculative at this stage as it is way too early to make a concrete assumption.

However, some sites have come from nowhere in the SERPs to position 1 that have less that 300 backlinks – all of which come from spammy blog comments. Other sites have been thrown to the top with almost no backlinks at all but that do have a ton of internal links from unrelated pages. For example one site has NO backlinks listed in yahoo explorer or Google but has 5,883 internal pages all linking to the page now ranking number 1.

We have seen this across a variety of search phrases.

The SERPs were also dancing like crazy for about a week across a wide range of keywords recently as though Google was flitting between a new index and an old one or as though it was turning off and on its new indicators.

Although this algo update has been coined as “minor” by Google it is pretty major. Maybe Google thinks its minor because most sites that have been negatively impacted and lost ranking have only lost 1 place in the SERPs but for sites that have been at the top grabbing 40% of the search volume now only getting 11% for position 2 this is far from a minor update!

From what we can tell this update is throwing sites to the top rather than throwing sites down in the SERPs. We have seen this happen before and last a few weeks before things settle down. Usually the sites thrown to the top are dubious to say the least and are usually devoid of any real content and/or not really related (or are loosely related) to the search phrase they are ranking for.

There are a few theories as to why this happens but we usually find things settle back to some type of normality within 2 – 3 weeks…so here’s hoping.

]]>