• http://www.redstarcreative.co.uk/ Andy Kinsey

    No 1 …. EMDs – can we see his math for this?

    I trust the mozcast metrics on this and most other posts saying EMDs are down the pan somewhat … maybe his figure is correct but he needs to show historical data on this if so – is it going down or up

  • http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

    Blech.

  • Chase Anderson

    Much improved from the search metrics report.

  • Chase Anderson

    Go do 10 searches, how many of those don’t have an exact match domain in the top 10? Don’t find enough to convince you? Start with local queries: Denver windows, denver roofing, denver electrician, Atlanta windows, atlanta roofing, atlanta electrician and so on.

  • http://www.redstarcreative.co.uk/ Andy Kinsey

    but they are all low / local competition arenas, and thats where that kind of thing will probably for a while be prevalent, but i mean on huge competition terms like “web design agency” you don’t see that. It’s the same in most retail sectors and business sectors – you need to exclude local search from this kind of thing.

  • Chase Anderson

    Obviously, you can’t just exclude this massive sector of search verticals. For a majority of sites, having an exact match domain is a near guarantee of first page rankings. “Web design agency” is the exception not the rule.

  • http://www.redstarcreative.co.uk/ Andy Kinsey

    now now, just read what you said and then tell me how its the exception its an example from within a vertical. Another from the retail sector would be “womens clothes” or “mens clothes” are you saying those too are exceptions? I simply exclude local on the basis that it will usually be bias if there is a location in there.

  • Chase Anderson

    How many people search for terms by adding city name? “Denver” as a broad match receives 16m searches per month, clothes (broad match) receives 55m searches per month.

    “Denver” is one of ~19,000 cities in the US.

    Local is search.

    eCommerce terms have heavier fat head terms and higher competition therefore factors such as EMD are outweighed by the sheer number of links required to be relevant. That doesn’t mean it isn’t an immensely strong factor for terms that don’t see competition at the levels experienced by the highest volume eCommerce queries.

    It’s just not a relevant argument to say EMD isn’t a massively important factor because it doesn’t work for “mens clothes”. Semi trucks carry a lot of goods and run diesel engines, but saying gasoline engines are worthless because most goods in the US are carried by diesel trucks is just as nonsensical as saying local doesn’t matter in determining if EMD is an important rank factor.

    Google’s made an effort to reduce the effectiveness of EMD for blackhat sites but for a legit business with a legit backlink profile, it’s like getting a free 50 linking root domains added to your backlink profile. 50 linking root domains is more than most local businesses will ever obtain without a 6 month link building campaign. (Obviously I’m over simplifying the effect).

  • http://www.oapcorp.com/ AnThanh

    Rất hay, đa tạ bác nhiều, ^^!

  • Chase Anderson

    Thanks for publishing John, we need more reports that aren’t entirely invalid like the searchmetrics.com report from yesterday.

  • Chase Anderson

    when did social come into play?

  • http://www.visionetmedia.com/ Gary Anderson II

    December 2011 I created an EMD for a local purpose hoping to rank for at least 6 months before getting the G-Slap… Today (June 2013) It STILL holds the very TOP spot for the targeted term(s) to this day. Why? Because it is not a spam site! EMD’s work fine if legit. No math problems at all.

    -Gary.

  • http://www.visionetmedia.com/ Gary Anderson II

    Sometimes we get excited in conversation and forget that there are other ranking factors than just one. An EMD is a strong factor, a good jump-start, but can’t outrank “Apple Inc” all by its self. Say like, appleincxhq dot com etc. This explains the “Local EMD and Non Local EMD” issue.

    (this is my own humble opinion based on my own personal experience. I could be wrong).

    -Gary.

  • http://theseonut.com/ Adam

    It hasn’t.

  • http://www.visionetmedia.com/ Gary Anderson II

    Great Job Mr. Anderson! This “Big-Truck” analogy was great and I believe you are as near perfectly correct as one can be! And I’m not just saying that because I used to drive long haul “Big-Trucks”… No, I’m thinking it’s in your name actually LOL! ;)

    -Gary.

  • http://www.visionetmedia.com/ Gary Anderson II

    LOL! :P … well I liked it anyway :P

  • James Tucker

    Let me get this straight….An SEO Company aka Netmark places an affiliate ad with Search Engine Roundtable and then this article appears on this site. I hope you are getting at least a 25% commission from the affiliate ad because topseos.com gets between 25% and 40% for their bogus evaluations and rankings.

  • James Tucker

    John Broadbent shouldn’t be so surprised as the CMO for Netmark who placed the affiliate marketing ads on Search Engine Roundtable which resulted in the article here. Netmark is notorious for paying large commissions to sites like topseos.com for bogus evaluations and rankings. They pay topseos.com between 25% and 40% for the number one spot there. I hope Mr. Schwartz is getting at least that for his time and energy.

  • Matt McGee

    James,

    Until your comment was posted, I was unaware that Netmark had done any advertising on SE Roundtable (or on any other site, for that matter). Even if I had known about it, it wouldn’t have impacted our decision to write the story or not.

    We cover news from companies that advertise all across the web, including right here on Search Engine Land. Google is an occasional advertiser here, for example. It should go without saying that we’d cover Google very closely whether advertiser or not.

    Netmark’s, Google’s, or any other company’s advertising has no impact on our decision to cover or not cover some piece of news. That’s explained both on my disclosures page (http://www.mattmcgee.com/disclosures/) and on Danny Sullivan’s disclosures page (http://daggle.com/disclosure).

    In other words, if you’re suggesting that Netmark’s choice to advertise on SE Roundtable had anything to do with the decision to write this story, that suggestion is incorrect.

  • James Tucker

    I understand your position Matt and I don’t have any issues with Search Engine Land and it’s policies. Your site is one of my favorite sites for everything to do with internet marketing. I was just pointing out that Mr. Schwartz stands to gain financially from his links on the article here and at Search Engine Roundtable. This is not uncommon to Netmark who pays topseos.com a hefty commission to be ranked number one on that site. There aren’t any real evaluations performed by TopSEO’s and they give the number one position to the highest bidder which in my opinion is contrary to the whole idea of Search Engine Optimization. All of your posts here seem to share a common belief that there are two types of marketers out there, the ones who play by the rules and those that bend them. When an SEO company portrays itself as a top rank firm based on merit when in all reality it paid for that top billing…that’s just not right in my opinion. Why should my opinion matter? It really doesn’t. I just want to give another side to the article and let the readers decide for themselves. I’m not saying that Mr. Schwartz was in cahoots with Netmark but based on their past practices I am a little skeptical. I really enjoy your site and all the articles you post. This article simply caused me to dig a little deeper into it and give another perspective to the story.

  • http://www.rustybrick.com/barry Barry Schwartz

    James,

    (1) I am insulted, to be honest. I’ve been writing about search for 10 years and thought I earned a reputation of honesty and ethical reporting. I guess not in your eyes.

    (2) I do not manage any of the ads directly with Search Engine Roundtable. The main ads are managed by Third Door Media and we have a Google AdSense spot in the middle of the page.

    (3) Probably what you saw was… You clicked to Netmark’s web site from here. Then went to Search Engine Roundtable, you were hit up by a remarketing ad from Netmark via Google AdSense on the site.

    I DO NOT have affiliate ads on my site. All I have are Third Door Media ads and Google AdSense.

    I DO NOT make a commission from people clicking on ads and/or signing up from services on Search Engine Roundtable.

    I DO NOT write stories directly or indirectly for money from advertisers.

    You should have done your research before insulting someone who has been trying to help the SEM industry for 10 years.

  • Matt McGee

    Google has been find for violating privacy laws all around the world. Should we never write about Google again?

    Perhaps we should also not write about companies that provide poor customer service?

    James, news is news. If Netmarks wants to use Topseos or any other service for promoting itself, that’s none of our concern.

    You’re shooting the messenger here, and it makes no sense.

  • James Tucker

    When a small business owner invests thousands of dollars into internet marketing firms like Netmark under the guise of hiring the “Best” from bogus evaluation services like TopSEO’s and they essentially lose those thousands of dollars then the messenger should be shot Matt.

    I am not shooting the messenger you are defending Matt. I simply pointed out an observation and stated my opinion based on facts I know about practices by Netmark in the past. Mr. Schwartz needs no defense. He is a journalist whether he likes it or not. Journalists are always going to face different and opposing views. Would Bill Oreilly or Glen Beck even matter without John Stewart and Rachel Maddow? Would Fox News exist without CNN or MSNBC? That’s the beauty of free speech and the internet. We are free to voice our perspectives and viewpoints. Some of the readers will agree with you and some readers will have new insight into the way these so called ranking websites operate. Mr. Schwartz is a great messenger and should not be “Insulted” as he stated in his post. If my “Insult” prevents him from writing another article ever again then I would not be happy with myself either. I have a feeling that Mr. Schwartz will not let my opinion detract from his writing. I look forward to his next post here and on his other sites. I just hope he can handle a difference of opinions every now and then.

    As for companies with poor customer service…there are sites like Angies List, Yelp and Google Reviews for that.

  • http://www.rustybrick.com/barry Barry Schwartz

    I also have a disclosure page, mine is at http://www.rustybrick.com/barry-disclaimer.php

  • James Tucker

    Define baseless Gage. The small business owners who invested thousands of dollars with Netmark based on phony rankings don’t find my comments baseless.