Google cant be depended on for visitors anymore!!!

[Sizoom]

Lets face 90% of people in the webmaster world hate the new serps because all the spammy and unrelated websites are getting the #1 results. While on the other hands webmasters who have worked hard and fair to get reciprical links with keywords in they are punished cause thats now googles idea of spamming.This brings to my attencion the fact that google can not longer be completly be trusted for all out traffic. When I opened my website the first think I thought of was getting as many links with high pr as possible so I would get a good pr. Now I realize no matter how many links you have you can still be kicked down from the serps for any reason.Currently instead of just trying to get reciprical links with website with high pr. Now I am trying to get links from website that will drive traffic to my website that is relevant even if it might be just 1 visitor a day. But get 200 links like that and you will be getting a constant 200 visitors a day that are relevant. My point is getting visitors from many different places instead of just relying on google is a good idea because of google's new view of what are good search results.whew... just had to get that off my chest reply with your opinions on this.google is how this forum came to be. and I know plenty of sites thathave the same record of success. maybe i don't understand everythingyou mean, but i think you're jumping a bit too far by saying it's unreliable.I understand what you are saying thevirus. The last update Google has made has definitely upset many people. A few of my sites were affected as well. Fortunately ozzu.com didn't get affected. However I think the overall quality of the google index has definitely deteriated. I do hope that they come to their senses in the future and stop this nonsense.Depending on more than one source of traffic is always a good idea. What I suggest, and have always suggested, is to make your number one goal to concentrate on the quality and content of your website. Content seems to rule through all the dances and all the search engines. Content in the long run will be more important than PR or the number of links you get to your site. Content will also increase the amount of people bookmarking your site and word of mouth about your site. Anyway just stick with it, and keep trying. I feel your pain.Many people have the idea that an SEO filter has been applied and this cannot be good. There has been evidence against this but I have seen a lot of sites that have been penalised for using SEO techniques.cardesign wrote:Im not at all saying google is bad. But after this recent update it gets me thinking that most webmasters depend on google for up to 65% of there traffic. But if google keeps on the path that its going no website will be secure in the serps unless your a sponsered result. I acutally still use google even though a good amount of webmasters are switching to other search engines. Though i cant understand why everyone is so upset at google, sure they made a mistake in there new update but google drives millions of visitors to peoples website for FREE. Just thought I would end it with that Seo Filter - basically sites are penalised for using SEO techniques or if they have loads of links all with the same anchor textI think the question was more of what does "SEO" stand for. I know that I want to know just a guess --SEO = Search Engine OptimizationGo ahead, poke fun at my question, but Ed implied that Google has an "SEO filter" in place and he claims to have actually seen sites that have been penalized for "SEO techniques".My question fell on deaf ears.Search engine optimization is no different than making your site search engine friendly, if done within Google's quality guidelines (which they have published for all to read). The same thing is true of "SEO techniques".So, a "SEO filter" is meaningless mumbo jumbo.The main seo filter applied was one that removed sites if they had a lot of links pointing to the same page with the same anchor text. This is due to it not being quality links which are usually directed to certain threads. It makes it look as if link exchanges have taken place and Google doesn't like these so much.I've been reading some of Bompa's research, and I now have some serious doubts about some of the "convential wisdom" regarding SEO techniques as applied to Google, which unfortunately I have parroted on occasion. I"m going to be a lot more careful about repeating stuff I've heard without some hard documentation to back it up.If I understand this idea of "seo filter" and its ramifications then I would think that my two sites that I have interlinked should have been penalized in some way. Every page on both sites is linked to the main home page of the other site with the same anchor text. Neither site has been removed. The main page of the newer site went almost immediately to a pr of 5, which is the same as the main page of my older site. The positions in serps for the old site don't seem to have been negatively affected.I'm not saying Google isn't filtering the results somehow, but I'd need to see something concrete to back up the details. In the meantime I'm sticking to what Bigwebmaster said about content being king. It has probably served me better than any particular technique.I'm not saying it is true, I am just saying it could be possible. You have to remember quality links come without an exchange e.g. I link somewhere to provide useful info. Those are the kind of links Google likes. If you want to read a topic discussing the florida update, seo filters etc. go here http://www.internet-marketing-research. ... php?t=1754And about content is king, that is totally true. Content gets you higher ranking and the better the content the more people will want to link to you.I wasn't poking fun at anyone's question. I was trying to answer it witha guess, and it appears I was right. Not sure why you feel that I wasdoing so...