searchmartin

6 ms·

1.
by searchmartin 9y ago
In your example they still show results, in mine, they do not.
2.
by searchmartin 9y ago
Hands up... yes, it’s fully intended to get you to click through. (I wrote it) BUT: the underlying point is still valid, these are not sear results, that come from a search engine. These are answers, from an answer engine. (But still made y
3.
by searchmartin 9y ago
There’s a screenshot example. More have been found since I wrote that piece. Best regards, “SEO scoundrel”
4.
by searchmartin 9y ago
Well, I run that site. It’s non commercial, doesn’t have ads, and my clients are all Fortune 50’s. Do some research before trying to put people down, it’s unbecoming.
5.
by searchmartin 11y ago
There must be some platform issue is my best guess...
6.
by searchmartin 11y ago
Here's a write up as to why they have made the changes. Was going to write it yesterday, but life got in the way: http://webmarketingschool.com/no-twitter-did-not-just-de-ind...
7.
by searchmartin 11y ago
again, no, they blocked it on WWW. only: http://webmarketingschool.com/no-twitter-did-not-just-de-ind...
8.
by searchmartin 11y ago
Nope. No. They didn't. What they did was some perfectly legitimate duplicate content protection. Will write it up in a bit more detail...
9.
1200+ SEOs voted on their favorite tools:(webmarketingschool.com)
1 points by searchmartin 11y ago|0 comments
10.
by searchmartin 12y ago
I'd agree with that - on the press flaming that Apple are getting though - Im just not buying it. Really feels more like a cloud storage hack than iCloud, right?
11.
by searchmartin 12y ago
I'd welcome the YCOM analysis of whats actually happened here, but iCloud just doesnt feel like the issue...
12.
iCloudHack: DropBox the More Likely Source(webmarketingschool.com)
9 points by searchmartin 12y ago|6 comments
13.
Want to Spam Google? Get Y Combinator Funding(webmarketingschool.com)
2 points by searchmartin 12y ago|0 comments
14.
Please, Please Ignore Google SEO FUD(webmarketingschool.com)
2 points by searchmartin 12y ago|0 comments
15.
Google to remove exact targeting from Adwords(webmarketingschool.com)
1 points by searchmartin 12y ago|0 comments
16.
by searchmartin 12y ago
Yeah - agreed, Im not really against his position in as much that I realise he's stuck. If he did say "yeah, its possible, and it might screw your business up" then Google would have a massive PR problem. I've done a fa
17.
by searchmartin 12y ago
search google for mattcutts.com - you'll see another post of mine from last year, detailing some theory ;)
18.
by searchmartin 12y ago
errrr- weird, works for me in the US - Ive just opened up the privacy restrictions on it though - try again? thanks for letting me know btw!
19.
by searchmartin 12y ago
watch the video in the post, its only 30 seconds long. The question was "does negative SEO exist", listen to the response. :)
20.
Negative SEO Does Exist(webmarketingschool.com)
252 points by searchmartin 12y ago|221 comments
21.
by searchmartin 13y ago
Thats absolutely true - Google do have the power, and often use it, to make human decisions on the quality of websites and often ban those that break they TOS. As for whether Google should take action against any particular website, its no
22.
by searchmartin 13y ago
Proof Im leaving? Check the date on this post on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mogmartin/posts/10151730878862337 As for pinning blame on the author? Hardly... Im not debating anything he said, other than cal
23.
by searchmartin 13y ago
Because I turned down the offer and gave him advice before he published his story. I took the decision then not to out the behaviour - however given that Im targeted in the article I've since slackened my ethics on how to treat the sit
24.
by searchmartin 13y ago
I totally agree there should be one set of rules and thats it. Thing is, there IS one set of rules already - and thats governed by the google organic results algo which looks at a sites backlink profile as a whole. If its mainly crap links
25.
by searchmartin 13y ago
Which is in no way relevant to me, other than I worked for a different division of the same company. The only reason I got mentioned, was that I refused to pay money to not have it published, and told the author that blackmail wasnt a great
26.
by searchmartin 13y ago
FULL DISCLOSURE: Im an Expedia employee (inbound marketing director, covering SEO), although Im currently at the end of my notice period. (Im leaving in two weeks). Also, I worked in the B2B division, nothing to do with the consumer side t