Obviously, there's plenty of bias here given the source, but I think on balance it either hinted at or laid out a lot of the issues we know about the state of 9-5 employment, most notably in the U.S, fairly well:
-Lack of control over schedule/location
-Lack of growth paths at many companies
-Lack of leverage/Inputs match outputs almost 1:1 (sell time, make a dollar)
-Not getting rewarded for the value you bring to a job; instead that value accruing mostly to people above you
-That feeling of being merely a line on a spreadsheet
Over time, I've learned that for some people, articles like this will really resonate and shake them to their core. (I happen to be in that category but I've experienced enough in previous entrepreneurial ventures for this enthusiasm to be tempered a little bit with reality every time I read things like this).
Others will recoil seeing this, their first instinct going to the (very real) risks in leaving that system and conclude they're far more comfortable optimizing for the familiar.
Both reactions are perfectly OK. There's no wrong or right answer. It's just what connects with you, as a person.
The key is to understand that, either way, you're in charge of your career, regardless of what kind of professional setup suits you best and makes you happiest.
As others have said, this strikes me as a multi-faceted problem.
It's possible Google devalues those sharing (even inadvertently!) GA tags in the rankings, although I don't think there's been any public proclamations from Google on that. But if that were the sole culprit, only your GA instance would reflect that. The fact that you're losing real traffic (as reflected in what the 3rd party tools are telling you) makes me think that's probably not the case/or at least the only thing that's happening.
Not implementing re-directs would also definitely be a culprit. But if it's just images you failed to re-direct, that's likely not the main thing either unless you were getting a majority of your traffic from Google Images.
Since this happened post-Core Update, I would want to know two things:
1. What keywords dropped and what replaced you
2. Whether the drop was site-wide or isolated to individual categories or groups of pages.
Regarding #1: Was what replaced you a big, high authority publisher? Or was the content simply more comprehensive or otherwise a better match for the user's intent? Very likely could be E-E-A-T-related, in terms of the algos determining that you don't have the authority/expertise to rank for what you were ranking for previously.
Investigate those possibilities first and you should be able to better map out a plan for re-gaining that traffic.
Right. Same goes for VentureBeat, TechCrunch and every other major web publication out there that solicits guest posts. And not all of them are of great quality, either. Many come across as nothing more than thinly veiled advertisements that wouldn't look out of place on Ezinearticles or somewhere similar.
I understand what Matt's getting it with this decree but it's very hard to selectively enforce this in a way that doesn't come off as favoritism towards big brands.
Because its not a freely competitive market. They didn't acquire the infrastructure and access -- particularly the last mile access -- by freely negotiating with property owners, nor, even if they had, is there unlimited capacity for new competitors to do so. Incumbent major broadband providers all got the basic access essential to provide infrastructure as CATV and telephone providers, as locally or regionally regulated monopolies, and there is pretty much no way for direct competition with fixed broadband providers on equal footing.
Exactly this. To me, it ceases being a property rights issue when the rights given to the carriers were not granted under market conditions to begin with.
Does that give the government the ability to impose on the carriers whatever it wants in an arbitrary fashion? No. But it does mean that there should be some elasticity in terms of regulatory structure.
Imagine a search engine that simply removed the top 1 million most popular web sites from its index. What would you discover?
A mix of affiliate-driven content sites, abandoned blogs & spam sites, based on some of the searches I did. The broader the category, the more likely I think you are to stumble on something relevant and helpful.
(Also, .gov sites don't seem to have been removed from the index. A search for "type 2 diabetes" still brings a number of results from NIH.gov, mimicking what Google serves up.)
Maybe writers are staying away because the efficacy of the business model at scale is in question. I think some observers are still (justifiably or not) self-aware of how they think the story ends with these kinds of companies.
On Twitter, Primack brought up Fab as an example of this kind of company generating news. But the only news I've heard about Fab lately is bad news.
Unfortunately, the modern day tech incubator model serves a very narrow audience with a very limiting set of criteria (e.g. billion dollar markets). There are lots of other people like the gentlemen referenced in the article that simply want to build a self-sustaining income stream. Crowdsourcing is helping to fill that vacuum at least partially; but I think more can be done in this arena to help people escape the awful "Office Space"-like dronework that, unfortunately, is still the norm today.
The time investment is key and the OP is dead on. I can speak to trying to learn Objective-C last year on nights/weekends and not really learning the fundamentals behind I was doing, despite being able to follow along with the books I was reading and the rudimentary apps I was building. It requires a full-time commitment, which is why so many of the development "intensive" programs and workshops are time intensive (at least 8 hours per day) over anything else.
Unfortunately, the time commitment becomes prohibitive to those that have to keep running the job/consulting treadmill and can't fall back on an investment banker salary (or similar) to fund their creative ambitions for a year or more. That unfortunately is the real answer to the post's title.
Submitted this mostly because I think it's an idiotic way of thinking. As an example, I'm contemplating moving to Austin to springboard what I hope to turn into an industry leading content/media business for several reasons:
-I don't have a developer's, investment banker or lawyer's salary to fall back on while I learn to code and/or fiddle around. Any consulting I do, I'd have to do more of living in SF or NYC, which takes time from building the business. Any savings I have gets eaten up faster in SF or NYC and lessens my runway. That's reality.
-I don't need to look for a developer/technical co-founder in order to get started. My Wordpress instance is up and I just write.
-I don't have a trust fund or a rich uncle to mooch off of to help subsidize a lifestyle in either SF or NYC. My parents live on social security and aren't coming to my rescue.
I can understand the point of it not making sense for an already growing (read: revenue producing) startup to move to a cheaper locale. That I get. But I fail to see how you're not aiming high enough by starting out somewhere cheaper. Once you're making enough to where you aren't worried about where your next meal is coming from, then sure, move to SF or NYC. But the argument for not starting it in a cheaper place is flimsy at best and outright bullshit at worst IMO.
"My personal opinion is that if you're starting off from a position of weakness (i.e. you're poor and not famous), and especially if you're not in a startup hub like Silicon Valley, it makes a lot more sense to go down the entrepreneurial route than to go via the startup route."
I think this is particularly good advice if you're not a developer or aren't able to make the time available to really dig into learning how to code. Odds are you aren't Steve Jobs and won't be able to recruit the technical partner you want to work with to build your uber brilliant idea for reasons articulated here many times before.
There's nothing defeatist about building a viable, cash-generating business in lieu of standing around waiting for the magical technical co-founder of your dreams to fall into your lap. Plus, if you create something of value (be it content or otherwise) in the field you're looking to get involved in, you're much more likely to put yourself in a position to be able to recruit the kind of person you want to work with anyway.
SEEKING WORK - Remote, NYC or northern New Jersey
Experienced SEO strategist with 5+ years experience on both the agency-side and in-house, as well as with my own web properties (ran a profitable, full-time content business from 2006 to 2008). Worked with everyone from Fortune 500 clients to small biz.
On & off-page optimization, site architecture consultation, link building (white hat only, no spammy bullshit, no outsourcing), search reputation management, rank reporting, competitive/gap analyses and basically anything encompassing SEO or inbound marketing.
LinkedIn is here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/blairmacgregor
Resume available upon request. [email protected]
When you're assessing the viability of microdata or any SEO strategy for that matter, you have to consider the context and whether or not it works for the market that you're in.
I don't see this as an indictment of Google Authorship at all; rather this is an example of a situation where user intention is misaligned with what a webmaster is showing. If I'm looking for content (particularly the originator of said content), having the author's name and face is exactly what I'm looking for. When you're searching for car parts or baby strollers or software, that same name/face is going to throw you off.
"True inbound marketing is way too risky at scale."
In what way is it risky? I can see it being too much work for some people/companies who do mediocre work to begin with. But I can't see what risks are inherent in establishing yourself (or your company) as a thought leader in your field.
Sorry for the confusion. I meant the former, as in my case, search marketing (SEO/inbound marketing) vs. programming. Most people I know working full-time in search don't approach the salaries/rates that developers make and speaking broadly, I know a lot of skills translate better in consulting than others do.
That said: bottom line is that I should be charging a lot more than I am now. :)
A potentially stupid but relevant question as I'm just getting my feet wet in the consulting arena: does discipline matter at all when it comes to this doubling/tripling of day job rate formula?
Nothing too interesting IMO except the increased advertorial crackdown, although I'm skeptical as to how much of that they'll be able to detect. (Ironically, I'm seeing more & more of these in A/B level tech blogs)
Yep. Now you can present the "Be Your Own Bitch" argument that it's like any business relying on a single source of traffic/income. A desktop-facing service nimble enough to pivot after an algorithm shift cripples their organic search rankings at least has options. If you're a local business, you can buy another billboard or do something else if your gravy train goes away.
The problem with the app market is that you literally can't be your own bitch. Your entire business lies in the hands of either Apple or Google. And until HTML5 (or non-native alternatives) gain traction and press Apple/Google into changing their ways a little bit, what is the solution?
In my case, I've gone through a pretty extensive battery of tests with two separate behavioral psychologists that go beyond self-evaluation or those (largely nonsensical) questionnaires that primary care physicians have you fill out. But I agree with what you're saying. There are folks out there who've made claims to being ADD without being officially diagnosed, some in startup spaces.
To be fair though, it can be difficult to diagnose even in the medical community, particularly given that it seems to be the default fallback for any parent wanting to medicate a child that may be going through a natural hyperactive phase.
On the other hand, I wasn't officially diagnosed until I was 20 so I spent 18+ years in the dark. Others I know went through similar (longer) periods of quiet self-diagnosis before they finally decided to go through what would be considered an appropriate test.
Correct. They are two different strands of the same condition. Inattentive type is what is generally referred to as ADD without physical hyperactivity. ADHD has a physical component as well. The kids I knew in school growing up who were diagnosed with ADHD were those who, in addition to what was going on in their brain, couldn't control themselves physically either. They were the ones always wrestling with you, jumping on you etc. for no apparent reason.
-Lack of control over schedule/location
-Lack of growth paths at many companies
-Lack of leverage/Inputs match outputs almost 1:1 (sell time, make a dollar)
-Not getting rewarded for the value you bring to a job; instead that value accruing mostly to people above you
-That feeling of being merely a line on a spreadsheet
Over time, I've learned that for some people, articles like this will really resonate and shake them to their core. (I happen to be in that category but I've experienced enough in previous entrepreneurial ventures for this enthusiasm to be tempered a little bit with reality every time I read things like this).
Others will recoil seeing this, their first instinct going to the (very real) risks in leaving that system and conclude they're far more comfortable optimizing for the familiar.
Both reactions are perfectly OK. There's no wrong or right answer. It's just what connects with you, as a person.
The key is to understand that, either way, you're in charge of your career, regardless of what kind of professional setup suits you best and makes you happiest.