13

I’m sure some of you have read my title and are asking yourself… “Has CrankyDave lost his mind?!?!” No, not me, someone I’d never heard of before today named Danny Wall.

I was pointed his PDF document titled…

“The New Rules for Google SEO”

To save time, you can skip page 1 of the PDF since it’s little more than a cheesy graphic and the copyright and some distribution information.

Page 2 of the PDF is Danny Wall telling us how wonderful he is. This should have been my cue to stop right there. But having never heard of him before, I continued on.

Well I got to page 4 and read skimmed over the nonsense about click through rates affecting the SERP’s when I came upon the following…

Possibly the biggest change will come from Google looking at “not referred ” traffic as part of the mix. In other words, Google is going to start looking at people who simply type in your URL into their browser as an indication of the “strength ” of your site (and therefore its relevance for the key phrases for your site). Another example of “not referred ” traffic as far as Google will be concerned is traffic that originates from a link you click out of your local email client.

What?!?! Google is going to rank sites based upon information they can’t possibly know! Oh my goodness. This sent me running for cover and the roll of paper towels to clean the Doritos off my monitor.

But wait! There’s more!

You’d have thought the episode with the Doritos would have been enough to discourage me from wasting any more time reading on wouldn’t you? Had I not gone back for more, I would have missed the following “pearls of wisdom” from Danny Wall…

THIS MEANS THAT YOU WILL WANT TO CREATE PRESS RELEASES THAT ARE VERY KEYWORD RICH!

Adding to that, you will want to include keyword rich links back to your site as well …and those links should lead to similarly keyword rich (and targeted) landing pages on your site (NOT simply your site’s front page).

Pssssst… Danny… This would be referred to as traditional SEO. You know, the stuff you’re predicting the death of back on page 3? Really basic stuff here Danny.

At any rate, I certainly can’t see reading any further. But if you’d like to, here’s the URL…

http://www.dannywall.com/audio/transcriptions/newrulesforgoogle.pdf

No Danny, I’m not going to link it. After all, you’re going to get all the “ranking juice” you need just from folks pasting it in their browser right?

Dave

13 Comments

  1. WilliamC on the 30. Nov, 2006 remarked #

    Funny stuff Dave. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths some will go.

  2. Danny Wall on the 01. Dec, 2006 remarked #

    What an IDIOT! And I’m talking about you Dave. What do you mean by
    “Google is going to rank sites based upon information they can’t possibly know!” Uh, Davey boy … you ever hear of the Google Toolbar? How about tracking cookies? Ever of those? Saying that google can’t get the information is just plain STUPID.

    And the rest of your post continues with one misinformed statement after another.

    Claiming that creating keyword rich press releases is basic SEO … I’ll agree with you. Then are are so many “seo experts” not doing it! What I’m saying is going to die is link purchases, link trades, link fams, and so on.

    What’s going to survive isn’t just customer-centric content (which most sites DO NOT HAVE despite having high priced SEO help), but getting that content out.

    And hey, try READING the thing. I didn’t just say “put out press releases” … I then gave a path for turning a reader of that press release into a customer using a strategy that I’ve seen (outside my own customers) a grad total of ONCE.

    Press releases are hardly new … but pushing someone from a press release to a follow on article which then drives someone to a mailing list … well, that’s not new, BUT NOBODY IS FRICKIN DOING IT! Why don’t you show me which of your customers you are doing this with. Why don’t you show me the blog article where you bring this up, or some other advice you’ve given out on the internet that even maybe coulda sorta made this point.

    The problem with too many “seo experts” is that they focus too much on the search positioning and not enough on just general sound marketing practices.

    And bashing me for not knowing what I’m talking about when you so clearly don’t yourself is funny!

  3. CrankyDave on the 01. Dec, 2006 remarked #

    Welcome to my blog Danny.

    Since you’ve clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding for basic SEO, let me try and clear a few things up for you. I think I can do so quite easily without the name calling.

    For starters, tracking cookies are site specific. The cannot and do not track movement across multiple domains.

    You wrote and I quote…

    “The Death of Traditional SEO”

    Clearly, you really don’t have a clue what traditional SEO really is and what it entails.

    Keyword rich links pointing to keyword rich pages IS traditional SEO. It’s the very basic premise of the web and how and why it works.

    Mailing lists and newsletters and following links to find them is hardly new. Not to mention, it’s done all the time. Here’s a little hint that may help you Danny Wall… Customers following a link directly to a “conversion page” is a good thing. Customers following a link, to another link where you have to sign up for something before they even get to a “conversion page” is not a good thing. Too many operations before conversion Danny Wall.

    My advice to to would be to spend your time reading and learning about SEO instead of spending your time writing about things you clearly don’t understand. You and the people you been able to convince that you’re wonderful will be a lot better off for it.

    It must be wonderful being so wonderful.

    Again, thanks for visiting my blog!

    Dave

  4. PhilC on the 01. Dec, 2006 remarked #

    You know what, Danny? You are making a big mistake by going round everywhere and trying to defend the indefensible. You got it all wrong, your reasoning is wrong, the basis for your beliefs is wrong – everything is wrong. You don’t know what “traditional seo” is, and yet you declare that it’s about to die in Google. Your ideas were shown up by SEO Forum experts

    Your best bet is to keep a low profile, and let the whole thing fade away, or before you know it, you’ll be bending and twisting the very next Google update to try and fit your ideas, and in the process, you will become a laughing stock amongst the seo community. Keep your head down is the best advice I can give you.

  5. WilliamC on the 01. Dec, 2006 remarked #

    WTF?? Toolbar? Cookies??

    #1. How many people actually use the toolbar overall. It is still a smallish percentage that do from everything I have seen out there.

    #2. Cookies are not cross-domain compatible. They can only be read remotely by the domain that places them and other domains can not write to them.

    I would say that Dave is clearly NOT the idiot in this post.

  6. rumblepup on the 02. Dec, 2006 remarked #

    Hey guys, tell me how you really feel. LOL!

    Danny, I would suggest that before you post such a passionate argument, that you do a little more research on the guy your trying to show up. Hey, you want to jump feet first into a lion’s den? Be my guest, but remember that there are only a few people in the lion’s den who have the table and the whip, and Cranky Dave is one of them. It’s either pay attention to what he says, or get out of his way, he might think your a testy lion that needs taming.

    Dave, I would suggest that this guy made a fantastic mistake, and might be referring to the fact that a lot of people who visit a site regularly might, instead of typing the url directly into the browser, will type the url into the search box instead. This has been a noted trend, and possibly something that Google pays attention to.

    Of course, your assertions in your “report” are woefully weak when speaking about Google’s capacity, both in hardware and algorithmically, citing news stories that clearly define the opposite of what your are suggesting. Google boxes might have been full, “might have been” however, you resisted the urge to research the fact that Google, for the past year, has made several multi-million dollar investments in, wait for it, new data centers. What do those new data centers have? More machines. What do those new machines hold? New information.

    Google’s BigDaddy update, and Cranky Dave can further clarify this, has made some changes to the way that the Goog stores information, especially in caching technology, but it was pretty well defined by several Google engineers and representatives, such as Mrs. Fox and Matt Cutt’s himself.

    The Google Toolbar is a neat, and actually pretty useful little tool. I like it, but to suggest that the underlying technology behind it is Google’s new “Main relevancy indicator”, my words, not yours, is a little, uhmmm, batty. If this where the case, then, and you find this out with, let’s say it together class, RESEARCH, then the results will be SO SKEWED that relevance would be nothing.

    Here’s my point. What is the NUMBER 1 industry on the net. Let me give you a hint. It’s not books. It’s not t-shirts. It’s not music, and it’s not even music filesharing. It’s pornography. Now, pornographer sites JUMP THROUGH EVERY LOOP YOU CAN IMAGINE, to get you to got to their site, and brand loyalty, in the porn industry, is very widespread, thus the bookmarks for Midgets and Monkeys, or Tropical Fruit Girl, or whatever they come up with in their pointy little heads.

    What your telling us is that the traffic of those TEN OF MILLIONS who visit pornographic sites but typing the url directly into the browser, if there are terms on the chosen dirty girl page to the tune of “Sweaty meat loving college freshmen doing funny things with tropical fruit under a patio umbrella” then when a person types in a search term like “funny” or “patio umbrella” or “funny tropical fruit pies”, Google thinks the porno site is the most relevant because of the traffic. HUHHHHHHHH?

    Uhhm. Dave, your thoughts on this?

    I think that you made interesting assumptions, if only for the fact that I needed a good laugh. Your new SEO strategy is exactly what Dave said is was, nothing new.

    Articles? Relevant links? This is new? Dave, PhilC, WilliamC…your heads didn’t spin around when you read this thing?

    I need a drink.

  7. CrankyDave on the 02. Dec, 2006 remarked #

    Always nice to see you Rumblepup. 🙂

    Let’s look at click through rates for a moment.

    First off, it’s not a matter of whether or not Google can monitor click through rates, but a matter of what those rates tell them.

    What exactly does the number of times a link is clicked tell Google about relevancy? In a word, nothing.

    Simply because a link is clicked certainly does not mean the page/site on the other end was useful to to the visitor.

    Lets also take a look at what links would tend to get clicked most often. Page 1 results and the links on those pages would tend to get the most clicks. What does this tell you about relevancy? Again, in a word, nothing.

    Unless Google decided to commit corporate suicide and completely throw their core philosophy of delivering relevancy when it comes to search results out the window, click through rates will not have any bearing at all on the relevancy they deliver.

    Dave

  8. WilliamC on the 18. Dec, 2006 remarked #

    Danny: What no reply past the first flame? Shame on you.

  9. Danny on the 17. Nov, 2010 remarked #

    I have just one thing to say to all of you …
    ahahahahahahaha

    I told you that Google was going to start looking at “not referred traffic” … guess what, they are.

    Google is tracking ALL KINDS of crap thanks to google analytics and feedburner … and applying that tracking to search results.

    And google considers sites that get direct traffic to be more relevant than sites that don’t. It also considers sites that get USED to be more relevant than sites that don’t.

    Not just getting traffic, but having that traffic move through your site MATTERS.

    They DO CARE about site usage because that is a measure of how much “real” content there is. It’s a GREAT way of separating the TRUE content sites from the garbage created by blackhatters.

    While I was wrong about the mechanism, I was right about the result. I was also wrong about how SOON it would be implemented.

    Bottom line, I told you it was coming … and it has.

    About the only thing I was actually wrong about was HOW SOON it would be happening.

    I will admit that I was “more than a little” early in my prediction.

  10. CrankyDave on the 18. Nov, 2010 remarked #

    lol… A 4 year old post and you holler “I told you so!”

    Your contentions “back then” were riddled with inaccuracies and contradictions. That’s not changed even today.

    Traditional SEO has not changed. That whats makes it “traditional” and is still effective.

  11. WilliamC on the 18. Nov, 2010 remarked #

    Good lord, did danny actually come here and say that what he said was going to happen years ago is now finally happening and that he was simply ‘off’ by 4 years??

    Umm Danny, I would not have said it back then, and just had a few chuckles at Daves post, but after the comment above, and 4 years to reflect upon how stupid that article was you wrote, you are a bloody idiot.

    None of those things have come to pass, as YOU say they have. SEO is still about the exact same things it has been for a decade in varying degrees of importance. It is STILL tradional SEO.

    Oh and sorry Danny, I have been using press releases as a standard part of seo for a decade or more.

  12. WilliamC on the 18. Nov, 2010 remarked #

    Pssst Danny, heres some clues for ya…. Tracking cookies, are domain specific, google cant use them to watch what you do on any site BUT google.com….

    Heres another freebie, the google toolbar is 90% used by only webmasters…..

    Oh, and how about this, tho many of us have gmail accounts, we actually use our REAL email accounts for most mail….

    So, now Google is omnipotent, or you are just a dolt… What a choice 🙂

  13. ogletree on the 18. Nov, 2010 remarked #

    Dan can you provide any proof that google is using traffic data from toolbar or GA? Have you set up any test sites? Do you understand how very easy it is to test this? Is there any support from seo community on this? Lastly do you not understand how easy it would be to spam the crap out of this?

Leave a Comment