What do you think of this "SEO software" that uses Rand's "proven method" ?

[EGOL]

I saw an ad on Search Engine Roundtable and the call to action was... "What is the #1 metric that Google uses to rank websites?"

I thought, "I gotta know that!". (I usually don't click ads but this one tempted me.)

So I clicked in and saw a method "proven by Rand Fishkin" that will "boost the rankings of your website".   This company has software that will use Rand's proven method (plus data from another unattributed test to boost the rankings of your website).

I am not going to use this software.  The video made my BS meter ring.   But if you want to see it....

http://crowdsearch.me/special-backdoor/

Rather than use this "software", I would suggest using kickass title tags that deliver the searcher to kickass content.  That has worked really well for me for years. Great title tags and great content will produce the same results.  The bonus for you is that the great content will give you a real website.

[LesleyPaone]

This is just the application I have been looking for to push my site up through the ranks. I am totally joking. I think it appeals to people looking for an easy way to rank. There are always going to people that want the easy way out of things that is why the "1 trick doctors hate" type advertising is so popular.

I think software like this does start a good discussion though. What is your opinion of the death of the content writer? Do you think machines generating content will eventually take over the SERPS? From what I am understanding talking to different people in the journalism industry it is already happening. There are apparently programs that you can feed "lesser" news into in and from a paragraph or two it can spin a few paragraphs on the story using Google, internal algorithms and other sources. While now they are not helpful to the average SEO person, they look promising to a media outlet that pays $60k a year for someone to rewrite AP or Reuters news articles.

Also I saw you recommend Hemingway App a while back, I have been using it to rewrite some of my content, I absolutely love it. Thanks for pointing it out.

[EGOL]

Do you think machines generating content will eventually take over the SERPS?

I think that a lot of "mash-up" and "spun" content gets good traffic in the SERPs.  I know a guy who used to publish this type of content and had people write to him about "his articles".

What is your opinion of the death of the content writer?

If you are going to make a massive improvement in anything you have to do something new.  Something different.  And, the more different you make it the greater the probability that you are going to fail but also the greater the probability that you are going to win big time.

I believe that the automatically written stuff is going to digest and regurgitate instead of creating something new, novel, amazing, better, groundbreaking, spectacular, creative.  So, I still think that good content writers have a better chance of winning than the spinners and mash-upers.  But, they can do things at a much larger scale.

From what I am understanding talking to different people in the journalism industry it is already happening..... they look promising to a media outlet that pays $60k a year for someone to rewrite AP or Reuters news articles.

Journalism done by people in the field will be the source of all news.  But, most of the news that we read is rewritten, rereported, plagiarized.  Very little of it is truly "breaking".  It's a shame that the original source has trouble making money these days.  But, often those who rereport do a better job of explaining and presenting.

[LesleyPaone]

All great points. I guess where I was going with the automatic content writing is that it seems to me more people are headline readers these days, or at least short article readers. From the different content I have on my site and using things like GA and Crazy Egg, I can see that only a dwindling percentage reach the bottom of the page.

Oh, about the software that you posted, I think that could work, but at the same time I can see it being easily blocked by Google as well. I don't personally think that would increase a site in the SERP's, but it would help with auto-complete for discovering new sites. At the same time using all of the VPN's and distributed computers that the service would use I imagine it would wreck your baseline stats too.You would be essentially being flying blind for however long you used it.

[EGOL]

You would be essentially being flying blind for however long you used it.

Right.  And as soon as you stop paying them, then your rankings will tank.  They will probably turn the network onto your competitors to retaliate.

[LesleyPaone]

I wanted to ask something, which do you put more value in organic SEO or social sharing?

[EGOL]

Definitely organic SEO.

I do not participate in any social media that is connected to my website.  I don't have an inclination to do that and I don't think that it is worth my time to do that.  I believe that creating more content that a visitor might share is a better use of my time.

A few things that I do that might have a social element are...

I have social share buttons on my sites and some visitors use them.

I have retail reviews on my sites.  Customer response to them is positive and with schema mark-up the pages of those websites receive review stars in the organic SERPs, which I feel is helpful.

I have category pages and content recommendations that automatically promote the content that visitors are engaging.  This allows my visitors to determine what should be promoted.  I believe that visitors do better at that job than me.

I have an industry news page that is updated five days per week.  It links to several items of news and excellent content on other websites each weekday.   Lots of people subscribe to Feedburner feeds and emails of that content.  Also lots of people visit the site daily and click to that page.  When I have new content or content that is relevant to the news, I promote it on this page. That immediately promotes it to a large number of people.  I pay attention to what people engage on this page and that informs content development.

Those are the ways that I try to give visitors a role in the site or an opportunity to share it with others.  These are not "social" but still enlist the help of the visitor.

[LesleyPaone]

I have been torn lately on the issue. I have a couple of clients that do absolutely nothing in regards to SEO. (they are e-commerce sites) By nothing I mean no SEO firm, most pages don't have meta descriptions, the title tags are just the auto generated tags, no content what so ever. If someone were to give them an on site audit they would be basically have a field day with them in terms of SEO. But social media powers their sales, it powers it hard too. They might have a pinterest post generate 1000-2000 orders in a day.

So that really has me torn to be honest. I have always seen the value in social, don't get me wrong, but I don't guess I have seen it drive a whole marketing strategy before.

[EGOL]

That's awesome.  I have often asked... "Is anybody really making money from social media - Tell The Truth".  They have a secret sauce.

[LesleyPaone]

I think the sauce is women's products. Ever client that I have ever had that does strictly women's products seems to be able to drive things with social media. Men on the other hand it does nothing from what I have seen.

[AMHC]

Responding to the original question about crowdsearch.me:

It definitely does work, but the results are a little unpredictable. The best way to use it is to help push pages on page 2 or better up the rankings.

There are other similar services out there, and they are also effective.

Sooner or later the Google boys will figure out how to combat it, but for now, it's a viable black hattish weapon.