Infographics are here to stay

by David Naylor
See Dave Speak SMX London

it’s all Matt Cutts  fault and we all warned him in 2007 at SES San Jose

During a panel at SES this video was played

Matt thought it was funny but when he was questioned about relevancy he wasn’t worried, but I just didn’t get it how could a listing site specialising in home rentals get Link equity from a spoof a SEO Video neither could Greg Boser
from seomoz

(Rand) posed two questions to the panel:

To Greg Boser – why shouldn’t the Rentvine viral video be interpreted by Google as a signal that the Rentvine domain is valuable/unique/interesting?

Greg responds that while it should be making that viral video rank for its own keywords/topics, the current algorithm from Google rewards “trust” and linkbait/viral content helps to build that trust. Off-topic viral content, according to Greg, is a terrible signal that the content on a site that’s commercially targeted will actually have value to the searcher. He says that “just because you (Rand) and Neil (referring to Neil Patel who’s in the front row) can spam Digg,” doesn’t mean your clients’ sites are relevant. And, besides that, those links are equally paid, as linkbait development services from companies like Neil’s and Rand’s are very expensive.

To Matt Cutts – from an engineering perspective, would it not be preferable to algorithmically detect paid links, rather than request that webmasters use them voluntarily? After all, what percentage of web developers/marketers have ever (or will ever) hear of “nofollow?”

Matt agrees that yes, indeed the first line of defense is always algorithmic. He seems to change positions a bit on the topic and says that “nofollow” is really for publishers who want to protect themselves from losing their ability to pass PageRank/linkjuice. I’d love to get some clarification from Matt about why, in that case, do they seem so intent on webmasters using “nofollow” when they buy links?

I even asked Matt what if he paid a production company to create this.. Matt still wasn’t worried the way I see it is Matt is worried about people buying links, webmasters have the option to link or not link to other websites if they do it freely what the issue ?

roll on the Infographic debate which kinda came to ahead when someone on reddit decide to spill the beans and how the SEO community is gaming the rest of the world

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d7e24/my_job_was_to_game_digg_using_infographics_voting/

Then a post on techcruch (these are the people that have used these infographics in the past lol) came out with http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/02/infographics-all-the-way-down/

creating a viral video, Infographic or even a T op 100 a bit of link leverage is OK, it’s not against Google TOS and if I wanted to create a infographic on wobbly breasts and I get 100 links from it so what you ddn’t have to link to me !
or what if I created content like : http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/seo-101-common-mistakes.html

I didn’t ask these people to link to me :

Making your inbox more interesting
Looking to keep up to date, or find out those things we can’t mention on the blog? Then sign up to our semi-regular newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t spam you.

4 Comments

Get in Touch

Things are better when they’re made simpler. That’s why the David Naylor blog is now just that; a blog. No sales pages, no contact form - just interesting* info about SEO.

If you’d like to find out more about the Digital Marketing services we do provide then head over to Bronco (our main company website) to get in touch.

Get in Touch Today * Interestingness not guaranteed
Part of the Bronco family