“If you focus on growth, your goals will chase you by default.” AJ and Alyssa Jordan show us how to work together as a power couple. And also, why “Thanks for the 50..” will get your prospects attention. If you want to learn tips and strategies on how to invite more prospects and sponsor more distributors you’re invited to check out my FREE Sponsoring Workshop Webinar. Who is AJ and Alyssa Jordan?AJ and Alyssa Jordan have 13 years of combined experience in the MLM profession. AJ took 6 years before he had his major breakthrough in network marketing and believes servant leadership is the only way to success. Alyssa has been retired from corporate America since the age of 24 and went full time in MLM after 7 months. AJ and Alyssa live out in San Antonio, Texas. Favorite QuoteAJ – “People don’t rise to the level of pressure, they fall to their level of training.” Must Read BookThe SPEED of TRUST by Stephen M .R. Covey Recommended Online AppRecommended Prospecting ToolContact InfoFacebook What Did You Learn?Thanks for joining me on the show. So what did you learn? If you enjoyed this episode please share it on social media and send it to someone that needs extra motivation in their MLM business. Do you have any thoughts or comments? Please take 60 seconds to leave an HONEST review for the MLM Nation Podcast on iTunes. Ratings and reviews are extremely important for me to make this show better. Finally, don’t forget to subscribe to the show on iTunes so that you get updates and new episodes downloaded to your phone automatically. Click Here to Subscribe via iTunes Click here to Subscribe via Stitcher Click Here to Subscribe via RSS (non-iTunes feed) The post 340: Why Growth And Giving Are The Ingredients To Massive Success by AJ and Alyssa Jordan appeared first on MLM Nation: Network Marketing Training | Prospecting | Lead Generation | Leadership | Duplication | Motivation. via MLM Nation: Network Marketing Training | Prospecting | Lead Generation | Leadership | Duplication | Motivation http://ift.tt/2rer7L7
0 Comments
The last Monday in May is Memorial Day in the United States — a day to remember the men and women who have died in military service. It’s our tradition at Copyblogger to take today off, to honor those sacrifices and to take time for family, community, and gratitude. We’ll have a full calendar of content for you this week … we look forward to reconnecting tomorrow! Image courtesy Hugh MacLeod. The post Memorial Day: A Time to Reflect and Remember appeared first on Copyblogger. via Copyblogger http://ift.tt/2rcWi9C Below is what happened in search today, as reported on Search Engine Land and from other places across the web. From Search Engine Land:
Recent Headlines From Marketing Land, Our Sister Site Dedicated To Internet Marketing:
Search News From Around The Web:Industry
Local & Maps
Link Building SEO
SEM / Paid Search
Search Marketing
The post SearchCap: Search trademark issues & search pictures appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2qrYQPd Two years ago, Multi Time Machine brought a lawsuit against Amazon for trademark infringement, alleging that web pages on Amazon.com for “MTM special ops watches” keyword searches could be too confusing to consumers, since the MTM watches are not sold on the site. Now, a similar complaint was brought by Bodum versus Williams-Sonoma for French press coffeemakers. These cases illustrate significant risks for e-commerce sites. Multi Time Machine’s complaint was based on a few different search results pages at Amazon that involved keywords associated with Multi Time Machine’s trademarks. When one searched for “mtm special ops watches” (and similar keyword searches that could be related to their marks), Amazon displayed what are essentially related search results. As mentioned before, MTM watches are not sold on Amazon — but the site associated those keyword searches with other watches that might be considered similar. Initial Interest ConfusionMulti Time Machine claimed that this caused “Initial Interest Confusion” (IIC), which is a controversial theory of trademark law. IIC is a legal premise with a hazy definition that allows a court to find infringement has occurred when there is an initial confusion on the part of a consumer about the provenance of a product before it is ultimately bought — even if that confusion no longer exists at the point of sale. Wikipedia provides the following hypothetical example:
So, you can see that IIC is intended to address a potentially unfair attempt to profit from a competitor’s mark. Critics of IIC believe that it may be too hazy a concept, and that the definition is too imprecise. From my layman’s understanding, the idea of a bait-and-switch scenario would seem to have some element of uncontroversial and unfair fraud attached to it, and perhaps the degree to which consumers will comprehend the mistake in brand identification by the time of making the purchase could be the deciding factor as to whether it’s legally actionable or not. Attorneys have expressed that there may be insufficient case law precedent to make it clear how solid the IIC concept really is. There is uncertainty about how it may be interpreted, and that leaves open the door to lawsuits based upon an uncomfortably loose concept. Some of the more persuasive critics argue that the concept should be abandoned in favor of the more specific tests established for whether or not infringement has occurred, period. A district judge initially dismissed the MTM/Amazon suit in a summary judgment, finding that Multi Time Machine failed to show that the search results actually confused consumers. Upon appeal, the Ninth Circuit court ruled that the search results could be confusing to consumers, and the suit could go forward. Then, a few months later, the appellate court reversed its decision, finding that since Amazon had clear labeling of the search results, “… no reasonably prudent consumer accustomed to shopping online would likely be confused as to the source of the products.” Confused about Initial Interest Confusion yet? The back-and-forth reversals garnered a lot of attention in legal circles. In the ultimate ruling, the court noted that the alleged confusion was caused not by the design of a competitor’s mark, but by the design of a web page that displayed MTM’s mark and offered the competing product for sale. The case could be decided simply by evaluating whether the web page was likely to cause a “reasonably prudent consumer” to be confused about the origin of the goods. The court focused upon the labeling and appearance of the product listings and the surrounding context on the screen displaying the results page, and they cited that they made their determination based on two questions:
Bodum vs. Williams-SonomaFast-forward to last year through this spring, and a similar case was brought against Williams-Sonoma by Bodum, a seller of French press coffeemakers. The Bodum vs. Williams-Sonoma case varies somewhat from the MTM/Amazon one. Bodum French press coffeemakers were carried by Williams-Sonoma in the past, but the company eventually dropped Bodum as a vendor. Subsequently, Williams-Sonoma began selling their own French press coffeemakers. For anyone who has worked in corporate America, one can imagine the sequence: after selling a brand-name product for a period of time, a retailer begins to consider that they could source the manufacture of the product themselves, cutting out their vendor in order to increase the profits. This dynamic happens all the time and, in of itself, would not necessarily be legally actionable. However, Bodum claimed that Williams-Sonoma went on to purposefully create an infringing situation by continuing to use the Bodum name on their website, while displaying non-Bodum products. I was able to obtain a screen-grab of a “Bodum” results page from the Williams-Sonoma.com website prior to them suspending the page: The case was settled in April, but I think the situation involved still raises a lot of questions. Assuming the claims had been found to have merit, this case could have been an example to demonstrate Initial Interest Confusion. The difference between the MTM/Amazon case and the Bodum/Williams-Sonoma case is perhaps that one would imagine that frequent customers of Williams-Sonoma, already familiar with the Bodum products, could easily have been very confused about the origination of the more recent Williams-Sonoma French press products that replaced the Bodum ones that were previously carried. Further, when those consumers searched in Google or searched on the Williams-Sonoma website for “Bodum,” they were arguably wanting the specific brand’s products that they were familiar with, and if the online website serves up products that are quite similar to the Bodum ones they were previously selling, the customers could arguably be thinking that they are indeed purchasing actual Bodum brand products at the point of sale. I would conjecture that an additional argument could have been that the Bodum and Williams-Sonoma brands might have been so closely associated with one another in the minds of Williams-Sonoma customers, and the products displayed were similar enough, that a consumer might have reasonably thought that he or she was being presented with Bodum products when shown the search results page that was in contention. I did just one comparison, using a Bodum French press coffeemaker page from the Williams-Sonoma website I found in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine from when they still carried Bodum products (left), and you can see the non-Bodum French press currently found on their website (right) for comparison. The products and their styling in the catalog photos are strikingly similar: Making a case: Factors for considerationIn the MTM/Amazon case, the court essentially found that there was not Initial Interest Confusion because of a few factors:
From my layman’s perspective, Williams-Sonoma may not have the same mitigating factors that Amazon had. The williams-sonoma.com site customers had come to expect to see Bodum products on the site. Likewise, consumers searching in Google for “bodum french press” were presented with a Google search results page where the Williams-Sonoma “related search results” page for “bodum” was listed prominently in the number-one position. The products presented closely resemble the Bodum brand products, so those familiar with Bodum items would not be likely to recognize that they are different from the bona fide branded ones. The prices are quite similar. Damages and corrective advertisingAs I presented recently in a session at the SMX West conference, “What You Don’t Know In Trademark Law Can Hurt You,” the fact that the Williams-Sonoma website had optimized a page for Bodum brand keywords could have sharply increased their damages exposure in this infringement case if the court had found merit in Bodum’s claims. Each of the impressions that happened in Google when people searched for “Bodum french press” and related phrases could have eventually been determined to be an instance of infringement when the searcher saw the Bodum name associated with the Williams-Sonoma website materials. (These organic listings impressions are called “misimpressions” within the context of trademark infringement.) Consumers do not even have to have bought the products on Williams-Sonoma for infringement to have occurred, so the search results impressions and on-site impressions numbers could easily add up to increase the theoretical damages. Bodum had specifically cited “corrective advertising” in their complaint as a potential avenue for damages. Historically, trademark infringement cases may have incurred relatively low damages price tags when courts found in favor of plaintiffs, but more recent cases have seen monetary damage awards skyrocketing, due in part to corrective advertising as a means of reparation. The theory is straightforward: if infringement has occurred, then one might attempt to repair the confusion in the mind of consumers by performing equivalent brand exposure advertising campaigns in the same (or closely similar) medium where the infringement originally occurred. So, when infringement occurs in search engines, such as via page listings optimized for a branded keyword, then one may factor in that equivalent-or-greater numbers of impressions need to be obtained to counter the original confusion. Thus, when one begins adding up the misimpressions that occurred on search engine results pages as well as on a website’s page itself, the numbers can add up really fast. Then, imagine multiplying those numbers by the dollar amounts necessary to obtain the same numbers of impressions at today’s market value, add on penalties, and the damages awards can become very significant. No doubt, when Williams-Sonoma carried the Bodum products, having the “bodum” keyword results page on the website, optimized for search engines, made great sense. I don’t know if the keyword merely remained cached in the e-commerce website’s system after Bodum was dropped as a vendor, but I think it likely that it could have been retained accidentally, resulting in the keyword results page continuing to rank prominently in Google search results after they no longer carried Bodum products. Concerningly, I’d also theorize that Williams-Sonoma’s PPC ad campaigns could have also caused a risk of increased damages exposure in this case, if they are found to be infringing due to the “Bodum” search results page. I discovered that Williams-Sonoma had had ads continuing to run for “Bodum” searches in Google, even after the lawsuit was initiated, although they apparently halted displaying their “related searches” page for organic search as the court case started heating up. While it is not generally considered infringing to run ads online that are targeted to one’s competitors’ brand names, if they were determined to have infringed, the ad targeting might also be considered yet more evidence of an overall effort to unfairly divert sales from Bodum and might also have been considered to be part of a confusing sequence whereby consumers could be fooled into thinking the Williams-Sonoma French presses were actually Bodum’s. I would theorize that if a company is found to be infringing, even the normally acceptable use of a competitor’s trademark could be considered in the context of the illegal mark use when determining intentionality of infringement, as well as in assessing total misimpressions. I would theorize that such advertising could constitute yet another form of initial interest confusion, or an exacerbation of it, since a consumer might search for “Bodum,” see the Williams-Sonoma ads, click through to the website where they might also encounter the “Bodum” branded search results pages. So, the impressions and click-throughs for Williams-Sonoma’s PPC ads targeted to Bodum keywords could have also theoretically driven up a potential damages award even higher in the case. (Williams-Sonoma’s PPC ads targeting “Bodum” branded keywords were not mentioned in the complaint, so I doubt Bodum may have even been aware of that.) Case settlement and resultsBodum and Williams-Sonoma agreed to settle the trademark infringement case in April, with prejudice against Williams-Sonoma. One may reasonably speculate that the settlement terms were favorable to Bodum. I see now that when one searches for “Bodum” on williams-sonoma.com, the results page contains strong, clear language: We do not sell Bodum branded products. Entering more general keywords may yield results. The page now also has text reading, “You May Also Like,” which appears above the related product search results. The page’s meta description is now blank. So, Bodum likely got what they were after. (As an aside, Bodum probably should have hired a search engine optimization professional to help craft the settlement instructions or to check them afterwards, because there continues to be a “Bodum Thermal French Press” results page and other Bodum-branded pages on the site, and these pages are still appearing in Google search results — with no notice that Bodum-branded products are no longer carried on those pages. Or, if the settlement agreement did cover these other instances, Williams-Sonoma should have hired a competent SEO pro to help audit that the terms of the agreement were satisfied in order to ensure such pages were eliminated from search engine results.) Interestingly, Bodum did not mention “initial interest confusion” in their lawsuit. Perhaps they intended to play their cards whichever way might be signaled by the court as the avenue most likely to succeed. But, this suit was definitely one that involved IIC in a manner parallel to the MTM/Amazon one. It is also interesting that Williams-Sonoma decided that the risks of contesting the suit were maybe far too great to allow it to move forward, and they opted to settle. On one hand, Amazon prevailed in resisting this in the MTM case. Perhaps the court’s somewhat wishy-washy, back-and-forth decisions in MTM/Amazon made it hard to estimate the likely outcome. Or perhaps when counsel for Williams-Sonoma evaluated their case, they feared that the criteria that had cleared Amazon would not go as far in their favor. I think it’s reasonable to imagine that their customers would have been confused about the Bodum search results page. But if Williams-Sonoma had contested the case and prevailed, they likely would ultimately have profited more. The “Bodum” keyword has considerable amounts of traffic, and having that high-ranking Bodum French press page continuing to appear in search results almost certainly translates into profitable sales. Final thoughtsIn a great many lawsuits involving companies, the most reasonable course of action is to settle, reducing chances of undesirable outcomes for both sides. In this case, though, we might have wished that the suit had not settled, so that there could have been more clarification of the law around initial interest confusion. In the wake of these cases, my advice to retailers is to be extremely vigilant and timely in removing optimized pages and keywords tags from their databases when products or vendors are discontinued. You do not want to have a situation where a reasonable claim may be made that you are attempting to improperly profit from a competitor’s mark. The other takeaway is this: label your product search results very carefully to make it clear when you do not carry a branded product — and when presenting alternative products. Following these practices could save your company from having to defend against costly and time-consuming litigation. The post Initial Interest Confusion rears its ugly head once more in trademark infringement case appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2qWGKs8 In this week’s Search In Pictures, here are the latest images culled from the web, showing what people eat at the search engine companies, how they play, who they meet, where they speak, what toys they have and more. Google deep blue meeting room: Source: Twitter Google elephant march wallpaper:
A dog wearing a Google Partners jersey:
Google drum set:
Google Nike sneakers:
The post Search in Pics: Google drum set, a deep blue room & Google sneakers appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2roJpvN Ever been frustrated with putting a site together and wished someone could just do the whole thing for you? With custom graphics, copy, marketing automation, and even content strategy — all using Copyblogger principles? Very soon, we’re going to be able to make that happen. Our big news this week is that we’ve entered into a relationship with a new partner that will allow us to offer you an extensive range of done-for-you services in the very near future. There’s plenty to talk about, including a significant price increase coming for new Rainmaker customers (but not for you if you’re already a customer or start your free trial shortly), so get all the details over on Brian Clark’s Thursday announcement. On Monday, the editorial team revealed some of their “pet peeves” around content and writing. It’s always fun to gripe a little, but I also thought it would be interesting to explore what those peeves said about our values, as individuals and as a company. On Tuesday, Beth Hayden let us know how she came to love writing sales pages — with three critical points we need to look at in our own efforts. And on Wednesday, Brian let us know about an elegantly simple way to create excitement and dramatic tension in your content. This is one of those techniques that creates a massive impact with a modest effort, so do go check it out. Over on the podcast, I talked with Tara Gentile about her new community for digital business owners. She had some interesting thoughts on where she thinks digital business is going, and some of the challenges and rewards of building online communities. Chief Content Officer, Rainmaker Digital Catch up on this week’s contentPet Peeves from the Copyblogger Editorial Team, and What they Revealby Sonia Simone 3 Tips on High-Conversion Copy from a Sales Page Specialistby Beth Hayden The ‘Pulp Fiction’ Technique for Engaging and Persuasive Contentby Brian Clark Last Chance to Get the Rainmaker Platform at the Current Pricingby Brian Clark Should Online Entrepreneurs Write a Book?by Sean Jackson & Jessica Frick Talking Community and Digital Business with Tara Gentileby Sonia Simone How Bestselling Fantasy & Sci-Fi Author Catherynne M. Valente Writes: Part Twoby Kelton Reid How to Immediately Become a More Productive (and Better) Podcasterby Jerod Morris & Jon Nastor The Biggest Mistakes Online Entrepreneurs Make and How to Fix Themby Sean Jackson & Jessica Frick The post A Big Week at Copyblogger appeared first on Copyblogger. via Copyblogger http://ift.tt/2s36vnZ “Quit waiting, get going.” Calvin Becerra shares with us how to get 10x results in your business. And also a day in the life of a hard charger. Learn to create 2 more hours in your day using my Extreme MLM Productivity regimen so that you can work on your business and still have time for your friends and family. Who is Calvin Becerra?Calvin Becerra has been in the Network Marketing profession for 10 years and has built an organization that spans across more He and his wife Shannon live out in Southern California and have 4 children. Favorite Quote“Waiting for the perfect time is the best example of wasting time.” Must Read BookRecommended Online AppRecommended Prospecting ToolContact InfoWhat Did You Learn?Thanks for joining me on the show. So what did you learn? If you enjoyed this episode please share it on social media and send it to someone that needs extra motivation in their MLM business. Do you have any thoughts or comments? Please take 60 seconds to leave an HONEST review for the MLM Nation Podcast on iTunes. Ratings and reviews are extremely important for me to make this show better. Finally, don’t forget to subscribe to the show on iTunes so that you get updates and new episodes downloaded to your phone automatically. Click Here to Subscribe via iTunes Click here to Subscribe via Stitcher Click Here to Subscribe via RSS (non-iTunes feed) The post 339: How To Out Hustle The Competition in 90 Days by Calvin Becerra appeared first on MLM Nation: Network Marketing Training | Prospecting | Lead Generation | Leadership | Duplication | Motivation. via MLM Nation: Network Marketing Training | Prospecting | Lead Generation | Leadership | Duplication | Motivation http://ift.tt/2rFKTSq Below is what happened in search today, as reported on Search Engine Land and from other places across the web. From Search Engine Land:
Recent Headlines From Marketing Land, Our Sister Site Dedicated To Internet Marketing:
Search News From Around The Web:Local & Maps
Searching
SEO
SEM / Paid Search
The post SearchCap: Google link warning, in-store sales & more SEM appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2rm5F9G You’ve decided to implement a marketing automation platform…great! This white paper from SharpSpring details 10 things your agency should seriously consider before signing on the dotted line. Learn about 10 key questions to ask vendors, such as:
Visit Digital Marketing Depot to download “Top 10 Considerations When Selecting a Marketing Automation Platform.” The post Top 10 agency considerations for marketing automation appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2qkNmh2 Google’s out today with a warning for anyone who is distributing or publishing content through syndication or other large-scale means: Watch your links. Google’s post reminds those who produce content published in multiple places that, without care, they could be violating Google’s rules against link schemes. No content marketing primarily for links, warns GoogleGoogle says that it is not against article distribution in general. But if such distribution is done primarily to gain links, then there’s a problem. From the post:
Those pushing such content want links because links — especially from reputable publishers — are one of the top ways that content can rank better on Google. Warning signsWhat are things that may tip Google into viewing a content distribution campaign as perhaps violating its guidelines? Again, from the post:
Staying safeThere are two safe ways for those distributing content to stay out of trouble: using nofollow on specific links or the canonical tag on the page itself. Nofollow prevents individual links from passing along ranking credit. Canonical effectively tells Google not to let any of the links on the page pass credit. Publishers can be at risk, tooIt’s important to note that Google’s warning isn’t just for those distributing content. Those publishing it can face issues with Google if they haven’t taken proper care. From Google’s post:
In other words, publishing content unquestioningly, in terms of links, could expose the publisher’s site to being penalized in Google. Why this new warning?Today’s warning from Google is generally the same as what it issued back in July 2013, when it cautioned about links in large-scale guest posting, advertorials, sponsored content and press releases. However, it’s more specific in terms of syndication and comes because of an issue that Search Engine Land has been investigating over the past month. Search Engine Land has a policy of generally not writing about cases of spam or suspected spam that aren’t already public in a significant way. Our open letter from 2014 explains this more. In short, if we did this, that’s all we would ever be writing about. That said, we received a tip about several businesses using article syndication that seemed worth taking a closer look at, given that the tactics potentially violated Google’s guidelines in a significant manner. Moreover, Google had been notified of the issue at the end of last year, twice, but had not apparently taken any action. The company tipping us — a competitor with those businesses — was concerned. Was this tactic acceptable or not? The many examples I looked at certainly raised concerns. Articles were distributed across multiple news publications. The articles often contained several links that were “anchor rich,” meaning they appeared to have words within the links that someone hoped they might rank well for. Mechanisms for blocking these links from passing credit were not being used. Google’s initial response to our questions about this was that it was aware there were issues and that it was looking to see how it might improve things. That seemed a weak response to me. It was pretty clear from my conversations with two of the companies distributing the content, and one of the publishers, that there was, at the very least, confusion about what was acceptable and responsibilities all around. Confusion about what’s allowedBoth the companies producing content professed that they felt they were doing nothing wrong. In particular, they never demanded that publishers carry any particular links, which seemed to them to put them on the right side of the guidelines. One also said that it was using canonical to block link credit but that the publishers themselves might be failing to implement that correctly. Both indicated that if they weren’t doing things correctly, they wanted to change to be in compliance. In short: it’s not us to blame, it’s those publishers. And from the content I looked at on publisher sites, it was pretty clear that none of them seemed to be doing any policing of links. That was reinforced after I talked with one publisher, which told me that while it did make use of nofollow, it was reviewing things to be more “aggressive” about it now. My impression was that if nofollow was supposed to be used, no one had really been paying attention to that — nor was I seeing it in use. In the end, I suggested to Google that the best way forward here might be for them to post fresh guidance on the topic. That way, Search Engine Land wasn’t being dragged into a potential spam reporting situation. More important, everyone across the web was getting an effective “reset” and reeducation on what’s allowed in this area. Getting your house in orderNow that such a post has been done, companies distributing such content and publishers carrying it would be smart to follow the advice in it. When Google issues such advice, as it did about guest blogging in January 2014, that’s often followed by the search engine taking action against violators a few months later. From a distributor point of view, I’d recommend thinking strongly about how Google ended today’s blog post:
Bottom line: Deep down, you know if you were putting out this content primarily to gain links. If that was the case, you should work with those publishers to implement nofollow or canonical. If you can’t, then you should consider disavowing links to Google. Going forward, I’d look to implement nofollow or canonical as Google recommends, if you find that the large-scale distribution is bringing you useful direct clicks and attention. I will say that no one should take this to mean that you can never distribute content or that content can’t have any links at all that pass credit back to an originating site. Indeed, we have plenty of contributed content here on Search Engine Land. I’d be among the first screaming at Google if I thought it was trying to tell us or anyone that you couldn’t have such content unless you blocked all links. Things that make us feel Google-safe are that, most of all, we publish original content from contributors. It’s not the same content that’s simply dumped into multiple publications. Also, we have editors who often spend a significant amount of time working with writers and content to ensure that it’s publication-worthy. And we do try to watch for links that we don’t feel are earned or necessary in a story. We’re not perfect. No publisher will be. But I think from a publisher perspective, the more you are actually interacting with the content you publish to review and approve it, rather than blindly posting from a feed, the safer you will be. If you haven’t been doing that, then consider making use of nofollow and canonical on already-published content, as Google recommended. As for those guest blogging requestsI’ll conclude with this part of Google’s post today:
Indeed. It’s amazing how many requests that we’re getting like this each day, and I know were not alone. It’s even more amazing when this type of guest blogging was supposed to be over. “Stick A Fork In It, Guest Blogging Is Done,” declared Matt Cutts in January 2014. Cutts, no longer at Google, was then the head of its web spam fighting team. His declaration was a shot heard around the web. Guest blogging almost became radioactive. No one seemed to want to touch it, much less send out idiotic bulk emails requesting a post. Those requests are back in force. It’s a pity that so many come from Google’s own Gmail system, where all Google’s vaunted machine learning doesn’t catch them as the spam they are. If you’ve been making such requests or accepting guest blog posts because of them, even in small scale, Google’s rules about policing links still apply. The post Google warns against misusing links in syndication & large-scale article campaigns appeared first on Search Engine Land. via Search Engine Land http://ift.tt/2r1dXmz |
Archives
April 2024
Categories |