info [ AT ] redcardinal [ DOT ] ie
This is a really poor generic response from +Matt Cutts IMO
This is a really poor generic response from +Matt Cutts IMO. I can think of so many networks that have far more than 20 domains, all for genuine reasons. I think it goes to show how he's thinking spam at all times, and his bias is unhelpful when answering this type of question.
They may want to kill SEO, but actually I think they're simply creating even bigger problems down the road. People are spending even more time building sites to suit Google's ever-changing whims and NOT concentrating on the user. It's actually comical.
The sooner we have a viable alternative to Google the better for everyone.
Google+: View post on Google+
This post was first made on the Richard Hearne Google+ profile.
Matt Cutts is a dill who has lost the plot. I've given up trying to figure out who is going to replace him. I guess it really doesn't matter, though, it'll probably just be another dill.
Comment by Jim Munro — July 19, 2013 @ 1:21 pm
+1 for your introduction not the video
Comment by Tadeusz Szewczyk — July 19, 2013 @ 1:22 pm
Matt takes a beating on occasion for his videos, like you've done above but in a lot of cases I don't think it is warranted.
Now Matt could turn up to film one of these videos and give a 10 minute dissertation on best practices for topic X, specific examples, edge cases and what not. The issue I see with that is, that content then becomes inaccessible to a vast number of people who don't work in the search space and can interpret what Matt talks about.
The videos are being produced for varying skill levels, not expert level, seasoned internet marketers or search professionals. Maybe it'd be appropriate to have a different stream of videos with more high end knowledge but wait, they already exist in the hangouts that folks like +John Mueller does where he'll answer specific, more technical issues that might not fit that well for the format/audience of the +Matt Cutts videos.
Speaking to your specific example I can think of so many networks that have far more than 20 domains, all for genuine reasons, I can think of a reason why you'd have a lot of websites — I run over 100 and we need all of them. Matt's comments are still completely valid though, I don't want to link them all together – it is silly, looks strange and provides a poor user experience. Someone wanting to take a holiday in Bali is not going to find value in a raft of links off to an alpine ski lodge at Mt Hotham or an eco retreat on the northern tip of the New Zealand south island. Similarly if I'm viewing a finance website, I am not going to find value in links off to a gardening, fashion, celebrity gossip websites — yet again his comments about linking them together hold up.
Remember, the video is not really about 'why have lots of websites' – it is about 'why have lots of websites and link them together' and I think that is a subtle but important difference to consider.
Anyway, just my 2c!
Comment by Alistair Lattimore — July 19, 2013 @ 2:11 pm
+Alistair Lattimore I agree with you but I can see +Richard Hearne point. It seems like +Matt Cutts starts out assuming that everything is spam. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I guess you could say that I have a love hate relationship with Google.
Comment by Rob Wagner — July 19, 2013 @ 2:55 pm
While I sympathize with Richard, I'm with Alistair on this one.
Comment by Micah Fisher-Kirshner — July 19, 2013 @ 3:54 pm
Not looking for any sympathy. This doesn't affect me directly. My problem is that the tail is waging the dog. Google is deciding how you can link regardless of what's good for your site out your users. Google is deciding that running 20 domains is bad. Yet Google continues to shovel crap into their serps to earn more bucks. I just tire of what I see as constant hipocracy in how they run search. What's good for the goose never seems to be good for the gander. Google has far too much power and I think that needs to end.
Comment by Richard Hearne — July 19, 2013 @ 4:58 pm
+Richard Hearne: Maybe using the wrong word, but I mean more that I understand and feel for your view on it, but I generally feel more inclined with Alistair's points.
Comment by Micah Fisher-Kirshner — July 19, 2013 @ 5:06 pm
Google isn't saying running 20 websites is bad though Richard, run 500 if you want. What Matt is commenting about is whether you should interlink the 20 sites, maybe by the footer as an example. I'd just ask a simple question, are visitors likely to click across the websites – if the answer is low or no – then the link shouldn't be there – Google be damned.
Comment by Alistair Lattimore — July 19, 2013 @ 11:29 pm
I'm sorry guys but I'm happy to be the outcast on this one.
Two blokes sitting in the same office reinforcing their own delusions might be one of the reasons for the lack of original thought and the broken moral compass.
This a thought vacuum being filled with whimsies but real people, the working publishers of the internet, suffer for it.
Comment by Jim Munro — July 20, 2013 @ 12:35 am
It was his comment about discussing why you would have 20 sites in the first place that I found most condescending.
Comment by Richard Hearne — July 20, 2013 @ 4:39 am
Having 20 domains is spammy? Does Matt know that between the EU, the .Eu there are over 40 domains ?
I own about 100 myself, I don't know how thats spammy.
Google got it wrong and now they've built an end game scenario.
The problem they've created is that negative SEO is just getting broader and easier. If you were a company used to soending $100-$290 a month on links, and got hit, surely it must be just as easy to hose down your competitors.
Now that will be bad for Google
Comment by David Quaid — July 20, 2013 @ 9:23 am