Comments on Find Resolution: Resolution Media Search Marketing Blog: The Big Brand Lie

@Skitzzo, I’ve been working professionally in inte...

2009-03-01T06:56:00.000-06:00

@Skitzzo, I’ve been working professionally in internet marketing since 2000 and in SEO since 2001, which is longer than Aaron Wall has been in this industry by two years and longer than your 15 months. That said, I’m not saying anything happened magically. While Wall stated there was one large update responsible for brand sites ranking, I am arguing that what he’s seeing has more than one cause.There was a change to the ranking algorithm for some queries, which is a non-sequitur because the ranking algorithm changes all the time, but the increased ranking of “brand” sites (whatever that actually means, as a brand could be anything from a mom and pop to a fortune 50) was likely also due to the fact that brands optimize their sites for long term ranking, and that long term strategy may be starting to pay off. It’s not an overnight thing, but if brands are starting to edge out non-brands, it’s likely due in part to the fact that brands (big and small) optimize their sites. Vanessa Fox apparently mentioned this on the Outspoken Media blog two days before my post here, so I don't honestly know why this point is all that controversial.

In my original post I said that an algorithm change may have happened, because they happen all the time. That was never the point. Aaron Wall called it an update bigger than Florida, which was ludicrous given the evidence against it, and focused only on the engines rather than acknowledging that brands are increasingly optimizing their digital content. Yet many like you in the blogosphere (with a few notable exceptions in Danny Sullivan, Matt Cutts and Vanessa Fox) didn’t question the theory.
The issue is and always has been whether this was an update, and whether that was primarily the cause of the phenomenon that Aaron Wall observed. If you read my post, you’ll see that I haven’t changed that position at any point.

The title of the post may be a little too subtle for some, as it’s a play on a definition of the Big Lie from George Orwell’s 1984:
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed...”.

To me Wall was being irresponsible by propagating this theory of a large update that wasn’t supported by the evidence, even though he seemed to genuinely believe in what he was saying. There was no update. Your authority source Matt Cutts said this. And to argue there was in spite of the evidence is something like a lie.

I’m sorry if you think my position is pathetic, but at this point I don’t know what I could do or say to help you understand what I feel has already been communicated fairly clearly. Unless you want to address the outliers that I’ve mentioned (or that Danny Sullivan and Vanessa Fox have mentioned) and start to address specific points in my post instead of misrepresenting my position, I’m afraid we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

Also, Tom, these changes that are under discussion...

2009-02-28T15:52:00.000-06:00

Also, Tom, these changes that are under discussion happened over a month ago according to Wall and his supporters. If your changes occurred the week of February 16, it would seem as though the two of you are actually proving different theories.

Thanks for your comments, Tom, but the only thing ...

2009-02-28T15:50:00.000-06:00

Thanks for your comments, Tom, but the only thing this proves is that brand websites started showing up for geo-modified brand terms for five queries. The algorithm might have been tweaked for this to happen, but it hardly qualifies as an update larger than Florida, as Wall is claiming. Let me ask you this: how do you explain the evidence I presented that doesn't fit this theory? Because what you and Wall have shown is that the algorithm changes for certain queries, which is not under debate. We all know that Google changes the ranking algorithm from time to time to make queries more relevant. This may have happened here. The issue is whether or not this was an update. Matt Cutts denied that, and the evidence doesn't support it. So yes, I would like more proof. What you've provided doesn't go far enough for me, but I appreciate the examples.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that since...

2009-02-27T22:56:00.000-06:00

Let me get this straight. You're saying that since some big brands are using SEO that this set magically all managed to gain rankings on the exact same day?

If you think that's a coincidence and just due to their optimizing efforts, you must not have been around this industry long because that's not how things work.

In all honesty, by clinging to your argument despite the clear evidence to the contrary as well as Matt Cutts' comments that they did in fact change their algo, you're just making yourself look pathetic.

You're reduced to arguing that it's not "as big of a change" as Aaron believes and that certainly doesn't fit with your sensationalist use of "lie" in the title.

Would you like more proof? I document the Google ...

2009-02-27T18:12:00.000-06:00

Would you like more proof? I document the Google changes utilizing screenshots. The transition took place the week of February 16th.

Thanks for your comments, Mr. Skitzzo. The canonic...

2009-02-27T15:16:00.000-06:00

Thanks for your comments, Mr. Skitzzo. The canonical link change still could have contributed to the long-term success of some larger brands in the past two weeks. But my point was that Aaron Wall focused entirely on the engines and not on the fact that large brands are optimizing their sites. Long-term white hat optimization of a large brand site is going to make it difficult for smaller brands to compete in the search results. Since more large brands are optimizing their sites, more large brands are going to start ranking. We don't need the engines to understand that. And, as I said in the Sphinn comments, I wasn't arguing that it wasn't due to an algorithm change, just that it wasn't a large scale update. As I said, you missed this part when you quoted Matt Cutts. I'm sorry that you feel I have egg on my face, but I think I made my point. No one's reputation is bigger than the truth, and the theory that everyone is blindly accepting is not supported by the examples I mentioned, the examples that Danny Sullivan mentioned, and other examples that no doubt exist. To me, Aaron Wall has not shown that this is a large-scale algo update as he claimed, and he focused entirely on algo changes without acknowledging that large brands are optimizing their sites. I know this is an unpopular statement, but it doesn't make it an incorrect one.

It's fine to disagree with a big dog in the indust...

2009-02-27T12:40:00.000-06:00

It's fine to disagree with a big dog in the industry to try and gain some attention for yourself, but when you do, you really should make sure you're right.

The changes he documented happened well before the rel=canonical change.

Also, Matt Cutts admitted that they did indeed make some changes to their algo.

But hey, don't worry about it. Wipe the egg off your face and get back up on that horse.