Talk:Google Penguin/Archives/2013

Holy Spam

SEO articles really should be watched more closely. This article is pretty ripe with link drops and self promotion from marketers and SEO firms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.72.80 (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed an update which references this article http://www.dpfoc.com/ireland/google-penguin-update.php A moderator removed my update because I am involved with this website and so there is a conflict of interests. I find it unfortunate as I feel my update added value to the article. If anybody else agrees, maybe you could add my proposed update and reference the above article. Eddiejodriscoll84 (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have read the above article at dfpoc site and think it is useful resource. I have added it as a citation in this article. If I am wrong to do this, perhaps a moderator will let me know. Stuartwalker65 (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Code name

How is Penguin a code name? Google itself called it Penguin, and for example, Google Panda isn't a code name. Llightex (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Penguin 2.0

Hi, I added information regarding Penguin 2.0 (Google's latest algorithm update) around May the 23rd with a relevant link, it was removed and I am wondering why as it was legitimate information for users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza Ali Afridi (talk • contribs) 14:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because the source was an SEO blog and thus appeared to be WP:REFSPAM. Trivialist (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand but it was vital information regarding Penguins latest algorithm update if you want to remove the link then fine but by deleting what I wrote, this article is no longer up to date and you are holding back legitimate information from user's. On another note the source is an internet marketing & SEO blog but considering that the topic discussed is regarding the SEO industry I don't understand why it's considered as spam, especially when the blog post (my own may I add) is highly relevant. If you have a look at the other cited links many of them are linking to Search Engine Land or Search Engine Watch which are also SEO blogs. WP:REFSPAM states "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia.". My contribution to this article was intended to help build the encyclopedia and the source was to verify the content so it should not have been removed. I look forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza Ali Afridi (talk • contribs) 10:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh' Am I the only SEO that care about something else than linkdropping?

Agreed, SEO articles really should be watched more closely. I removed a few non related reference to black-hat techniques that may confuse the reader. More edits required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InMktgWeTrust (talk • contribs) 04:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

citation update

The Google Browser Size tool cited as #13 for 'above the fold' is vanishing shortly. Also, the tool does not clearly illustrate where an item fall above or below the fold. I propose referencing a more suitable tool that is not retiring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Penguin

Please let me know if you do not view this as a suitable switch and propose an alternative way to properly update the reference on this page. Ausresearch (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)