<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Why Google Went Social</title> <atom:link href="http://dejanseo.com.au/why-google-went-social/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://dejanseo.com.au/why-google-went-social/</link> <description></description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 09:25:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Andrew Glyntzos</title><link>http://dejanseo.com.au/why-google-went-social/#comment-714</link> <dc:creator>Andrew Glyntzos</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 03:46:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dejanseo.com.au/?p=7096#comment-714</guid> <description>I think it&#039;s no secret that Google is trying really hard at using other ways to measure quality content than from your standard back links. We all know Google depends heavily upon links and how often it&#039;s being abused. I think introducing more social signals will be beneficial but they can also be manipulated. At least it will level out how much dependency Google has on back links on other potential and equally weighted off page signals. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#8217;s no secret that Google is trying really hard at using other ways to measure quality content than from your standard back links. We all know Google depends heavily upon links and how often it&#8217;s being abused. I think introducing more social signals will be beneficial but they can also be manipulated. At least it will level out how much dependency Google has on back links on other potential and equally weighted off page signals.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Dejan SEO</title><link>http://dejanseo.com.au/why-google-went-social/#comment-682</link> <dc:creator>Dejan SEO</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dejanseo.com.au/?p=7096#comment-682</guid> <description>&quot;This is why link building will be a thing of tomorrow soon&quot;You mean thing of a past?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This is why link building will be a thing of tomorrow soon&#8221;You mean thing of a past?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Dejan SEO</title><link>http://dejanseo.com.au/why-google-went-social/#comment-681</link> <dc:creator>Dejan SEO</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:11:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dejanseo.com.au/?p=7096#comment-681</guid> <description>Slider idea would be awesome. Make your own results! Unfortunately social signals will never be super heavy but rather continue to play a role in the layer cake of Google&#039;s algo with variations of strength in an interplay of other signals and Google&#039;s own tweaking.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Slider idea would be awesome. Make your own results! Unfortunately social signals will never be super heavy but rather continue to play a role in the layer cake of Google&#8217;s algo with variations of strength in an interplay of other signals and Google&#8217;s own tweaking.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Isaac Wendt</title><link>http://dejanseo.com.au/why-google-went-social/#comment-680</link> <dc:creator>Isaac Wendt</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:47:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dejanseo.com.au/?p=7096#comment-680</guid> <description>Social will almost phase out link building one day, this is because only 30% of the web know how to build a link and 100% of people on the web know how to tweet or like a status. This is why link building will be a thing of tomorrow soon and social media will take over. It will not for all niches because no one likes liking xxx sites or gambling sites. So link building will still be important for these niches.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Social will almost phase out link building one day, this is because only 30% of the web know how to build a link and 100% of people on the web know how to tweet or like a status. This is why link building will be a thing of tomorrow soon and social media will take over.</p><p> It will not for all niches because no one likes liking xxx sites or gambling sites. So link building will still be important for these niches.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Anonymous</title><link>http://dejanseo.com.au/why-google-went-social/#comment-677</link> <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:47:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dejanseo.com.au/?p=7096#comment-677</guid> <description>Dan,I think I probably should have been more clear.  I guess I&#039;m wondering when it will have a more significant role in determining rankings.   In my experience the same &quot;Black Hat&quot; methods still trump anything that can be done in the social space.   Unless you are logged into your Google or Facebook account the Raw search rankings are still a product mostly of &quot;Old School&quot; Links, anchor text, Keyword desnsity, H1 Tags etc.   I wish there were three sliders in Google that allowed me to adjust my search results based on Social, Geo, and Time.   </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dan,</p><p>I think I probably should have been more clear.  I guess I&#8217;m wondering when it will have a more significant role in determining rankings.   In my experience the same &#8220;Black Hat&#8221; methods still trump anything that can be done in the social space.   Unless you are logged into your Google or Facebook account the Raw search rankings are still a product mostly of &#8220;Old School&#8221; Links, anchor text, Keyword desnsity, H1 Tags etc.   I wish there were three sliders in Google that allowed me to adjust my search results based on Social, Geo, and Time.   </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Chris Butterworth</title><link>http://dejanseo.com.au/why-google-went-social/#comment-670</link> <dc:creator>Chris Butterworth</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:59:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dejanseo.com.au/?p=7096#comment-670</guid> <description>I&#039;d like to know more about the weighting for &#039;Tweets&#039; and &#039;Likes&#039;. I read at one stage Google was no longer using them as signals but I found tweeting a link was a handy way of getting pages indexed faster.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d like to know more about the weighting for &#8216;Tweets&#8217; and &#8216;Likes&#8217;. I read at one stage Google was no longer using them as signals but I found tweeting a link was a handy way of getting pages indexed faster.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Dejan SEO</title><link>http://dejanseo.com.au/why-google-went-social/#comment-669</link> <dc:creator>Dejan SEO</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:29:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dejanseo.com.au/?p=7096#comment-669</guid> <description>It does already, it has been confirmed by both Bing and Google.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It does already, it has been confirmed by both Bing and Google.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Rob</title><link>http://dejanseo.com.au/why-google-went-social/#comment-667</link> <dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:01:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dejanseo.com.au/?p=7096#comment-667</guid> <description>Well we&#039;re seeing social signals having a big impact on getting pages indexed quickly, though having a minimal effect on ranking movement.I think there&#039;s reason for this; just because a lot of people talking about something, doesn&#039;t give it an authority status. People usually talk about stupid retarded stuff, like troll meme, viral stuff, but not necessarily high quality content.Perhaps Google is still weighting links more heavily because real editorial links, with the appropriate anchor text, from a reputable domain are a much stronger indication of high quality, relevant content</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well we&#8217;re seeing social signals having a big impact on getting pages indexed quickly, though having a minimal effect on ranking movement.</p><p>I think there&#8217;s reason for this; just because a lot of people talking about something, doesn&#8217;t give it an authority status. People usually talk about stupid retarded stuff, like troll meme, viral stuff, but not necessarily high quality content.</p><p>Perhaps Google is still weighting links more heavily because real editorial links, with the appropriate anchor text, from a reputable domain are a much stronger indication of high quality, relevant content</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Anonymous</title><link>http://dejanseo.com.au/why-google-went-social/#comment-666</link> <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:38:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dejanseo.com.au/?p=7096#comment-666</guid> <description>The real Question is when is all this data going to have a material effect on actual Search results? </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The real Question is when is all this data going to have a material effect on actual Search results? </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: basic
Database Caching 1/7 queries in 0.003 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 437/441 objects using disk: basic
Content Delivery Network via cdn.dejanseo.com.au

 Served from: dejanseo.com.au @ 2013-05-20 23:43:50 by W3 Total Cache -->