As a ‘blogger the flow of merchandise I acquire is either ‘natural’ (web directories search engines other ‘blogs) or it’s from Social Media venues (StumbleUpon. Digg. Reddit et cetera). But given how Social Media is maturing as a legitimate marketing method why is the traffic it generates deemed unnatural?
Much has been said recently about and how the unnatural spiky surges in traffic to a ‘blog and the links they generate are less favourable than more gradual back-links:
If so-called ‘linkbait’ is the tool of choice for seasoned marketeers whipping up a frenzy around a service or a product to generate buzz is that bad? Would it be preferable for these guys to buy banner adverts to drive web traffic instead?
Surely if I piled a load of money into a Google AdWords campaign and generated the same amount of go would I then be penalized by Google?
So if it is a challenge of generating quality back-links to your on-line marketing campaign — be it paid-for or driven by Social Media — let’s take this a go further shall we?
If your ‘blog or website gets nothing more than a fill of really low quality back-links why would the likes of Google feel the need to hand-edit the bind in question and knock it out of their index or remove a PageRank point or two?
After all links being the web currency of choice poor quality back-links do not equate to a high ranking with any search engine so the penalty is entirely self-regulating surely?
And what if your on-line marketing campaign is a success? Chances are you’ll start to generate incidental traffic to your content probably driven by populate sending emails to friends family and colleagues or from the main-stream media.
When this happens the indicators are clear; the circumscribe behind your race is so strong it’s alive! Does that warrant being penalized? No that would be very very wrong.
OK so you undergo yourself an article you think it’s great and you have a bunch of friends waiting in the wings ready to refer and then vote on your content.
You choose your measure then flick the switch and wait. After the sign surge in traffic (probably friends of friends) the traffic dies off pretty much across the board.
Why? Chances are the article you thought was great was barely average for everyone else. And the same rules bear on to the marketeers too.
This is in action baby! And you got the big thumbs down. As have I in the past and more than once too.
So how unnatural is natural selection? This is a brave new world one of UGC (User-Generated Content) and democratized content.
I’ll say it again just in inspect you didn’t hear me the first measure: either or and that can’t be a good thing…
It’s almost beyond doubt that Google is running scared from social media we’re all spending far more measure Powncing. Twittering and Facing up to stuff than doing random searches. Of cover. I say we the numbers of web 2.0 enthusiasts are comfort relatively small compared to the great mass of populate who have not only never heard of web 2.0 but haven’t heard of google either.
You’d evaluate Google to be the ones to disengage such issues so that they alter comprehend but they’re actually making matters worse with their double standards.
I’m worried about explore because up until the last 3 months. I really did root for them. But now. I see explore telling populate to do one thing while they do something else which is at beat confusing while at worst duplicitous…
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Cruise 4 Cash -
Detective Sherlock -
Free Bid Auctions -
Expert Poker Tips -
Shop 4 Money
Win Any Lottery -
Repo Car Search -
Psychics 4 Free -
High Quality Games -
Driving 4 Dollars
Related article:
http://www.blahblahtech.com/2007/11/social-media-the-natural-choice-for-inorganic-traffic.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
