Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Fake Social Networking - LOL... even 70% of Obama's "followers" fail a check

  1. #11
    If you want to fake these stats then why not simply fake a statistics graphic on your site? The vast majority of normal (non-seo) people will not know it is fake. And get them to like your site by signing up to an email list.

  2. #12
    It's all about trying to appear to be more popular than you really are. I don't believe that Obama even writes his own posts and tweets. The guy cannot seem to say anything that sounds good unless he is reading a speech written by someone else off of a teleprompter. He fumbles his way through everything that is not scripted for him.

    Hey, here is an idea. Perhaps he should have Biden write witty posts and tweets for him. Biden always says some interesting things.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Salem, OR
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Biden
    Rockin' w/Michelle in the Exec Qtrs tonight
    Like that?
    Life is meant to be experienced, not observed. ~ Me

  4. #14
    I am afraid to like this thread, for fear it is all fake.

    The latest email from obama trying to raise money:
    $3.00 and you get to use my twitter account and send out your own tweet.

  5. #15
    Fake Follower check says 1% of my followers are fake. Twitter Audit seems to be hanging and not completing. I only have 145 followers, but I don't try to buy or trade them. They just come and I hope they're not bots. Of course, many who are not bots seem like web marketing spammers who find my account because there are web hosting and development related posts on them. They probably hope I'll follow them back or something.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by TopDogger View Post
    That is all driven by the delusional belief that FaceBook likes and Twitter followers drive search engine rankings. I had to chuckle when Matt Cutts recently announced that Google does not look at social networking signals. That is the opposite of what a large camp of people believed for the last few years.
    I am not so sure that Google disregards social media, because I have seen many of the profiles with solid following rank fairly well. But this has less to do with the amount of followers, but the "influence". So if you have followers with strong following retweeting you frequently, I wouldn't be surprised that Google uses this as an indicator that your profile has "something to say".
    I am also a writer for Serpholic Media. You can find some of my articles here: Serpholic Media Blog

  7. #17
    Facebook had huge amount of audience and it cannot be ignored in driving traffic, these days most of the companies are heading towards Facebook for selling their products and soon we will see huge amount of sales driving from Facebook. it cannot be shortened by saying that Facebook has no effect

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by firetown View Post
    I am not so sure that Google disregards social media, because I have seen many of the profiles with solid following rank fairly well. But this has less to do with the amount of followers, but the "influence". So if you have followers with strong following retweeting you frequently, I wouldn't be surprised that Google uses this as an indicator that your profile has "something to say".
    Matt Cutts was pushing social networking all the way up until around March of 2012. At the recent Search Engine Strategies Conference in San Francisco, he said that they cannot use Facebook to see who is reputable (the topic for this thread), and when their relationship with Twitter ended Twitter blocked their access for 1.5 months. They therefore are cautious about using Twitter as a signal (they no longer have direct access to Tweets). Cutts also recently admitted that they have not found a reliable way to use their own Google Plus accounts as social signals. In another conversation he said that they are not using social signals at all, but things might be different in the future.

    The plan to use of social networking to drive rank positions has crumbled. Social networks can still drive traffic, but Google has not found a way to use their data to influence rank positions.

    If you look at social networking sites from a spider's perspective, sites such as FaceBook are a complete mess. Most walls are a jumble of almost incoherent gibberish with no overall focus. There is very little useful information to extract. Furthermore, almost all outbound links from social networking sites use the nofollow attribute, so they do not pass link juice. Everything that you have read about social networking's influence on rank positions has been speculation that was driven by Google. I have tested this several times over the past few years and never found social networking to have any influence on rank positions.

    I think the good rankings that you see for sites with a solid following are simply because the site owners are more savvy and expend more effort promoting the sites. There isn't necessarily any connection between their activity on FaceBook and the site's good rankings.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


  9. #19
    OK this makes sense now, because one of my sites has taken a huge hit in Google and I still have no idea why. The content has not changed. The Facebook and Twitter pages are strong and rank for terms the site used to rank for.
    Traffic now comes to the social profiles instead the site itself, which is still better than going to the competition, but it confuses searchers and most do not make it past the Facebook clutter which is hard to weed out unless I hire a full time moderator for that page.

    Really a waste if you ask me.

    Once someone makes it to my site, they tend to find the information they are looking for, but the majority gets lost in Facebook rather than getting the Google benefit of matching their queries.
    I am also a writer for Serpholic Media. You can find some of my articles here: Serpholic Media Blog

  10. #20
    Personally, I have never agreed with the focus on social networking to achieve better rankings. It is completely artificial, it is easy to fake, the overwhelming majority of business owners have no interest in social networking unless it can drive business (in most cases it does not do this), and most people over 40 have a difficult time understanding what it is and how it works.

    Almost all new Google employees are in their early 20s and are fresh out of college. They have a keen interest in social networking and they like it. But that is not a reason to force it on everyone else. Forcing people to use social networking because they need to use it in order to drive Google traffic takes away the freedom of the Internet because it coerces people to do something they would not normally do. That does nothing to provide natural signals regarding the popularity of something on the web.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •