New Google Backlink Types And SEO Value Of NoFollow Links Changes

Two things are important for you to take away from this post and they are listed right below.  We’ve then included Google content explaining these two changes in backlinks.  If the text is italic and navy blue, its quoted from Google.

  1. User Generated Content or Sponsored Backlinks Added

    Are two additional rel=”” tag options introduced by Google.  UGC Sponsored can be used together or separately in an attempt to show a difference between the two backlinks.  Nofollow remains a link option but if the link isn’t a paid advertisement or User Generated COntent yet you want to ensure if is not seen as an endorsement you may still use No Follow as an attribute.

  2. Every Link Counts Now.

    Rel+”NoFollow” used to mean don’t follow this link and give the target any credit for this backlink.  Thats changing, all links will now be rewarded potentially…some links have been described as “hints” with “signals” still in the rankings.  It’s not clear if they are one in the same or separate.

Evolving “nofollow” – new ways to identify the nature of links

Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Nearly 15 years ago, the nofollow attribute was introduced as a means to help fight comment spam. It also quickly became one of Google’s recommended methods for flagging advertising-related or sponsored links. The web has evolved since nofollow was introduced in 2005 and it’s time for nofollow to evolve as well.
Today, we’re announcing two new link attributes that provide webmasters with additional ways to identify to Google Search the nature of particular links. These, along with nofollow, are summarized below:rel=”sponsored”: Use the sponsored attribute to identify links on your site that were created as part of advertisements, sponsorships or other compensation agreements.rel=”ugc”: UGC stands for User Generated Content, and the ugc attribute value is recommended for links within user generated content, such as comments and forum posts.

rel=”nofollow”: Use this attribute for cases where you want to link to a page but don’t want to imply any type of endorsement, including passing along ranking credit to another page.

When nofollow was introduced, Google would not count any link marked this way as a signal to use within our search algorithms. This has now changed. All the link attributes — sponsored, UGC and nofollow — are treated as hints about which links to consider or exclude within Search. We’ll use these hints — along with other signals — as a way to better understand how to appropriately analyze and use links within our systems.
Why not completely ignore such links, as had been the case with nofollow? Links contain valuable information that can help us improve search, such as how the words within links describe content they point at. Looking at all the links we encounter can also help us better understand unnatural linking patterns. By shifting to a hint model, we no longer lose this important information, while still allowing site owners to indicate that some links shouldn’t be given the weight of a first-party endorsement.
We know these new attributes will generate questions, so here’s a FAQ that we hope covers most of those.

Do I need to change my existing nofollows?
No. If you use nofollow now as a way to block sponsored links, or to signify that you don’t vouch for a page you link to, that will continue to be supported. There’s absolutely no need to change any nofollow links that you already have.

Can I use more than one rel value on a link?
Yes, you can use more than one rel value on a link. For example, rel=”ugc sponsored” is a perfectly valid attribute which hints that the link came from user-generated content and is sponsored. It’s also valid to use nofollow with the new attributes — such as rel=”nofollow ugc” — if you wish to be backwards-compatible with services that don’t support the new attributes.

If I use nofollow for ads or sponsored links, do I need to change those?
No. You can keep using nofollow as a method for flagging such links to avoid possible link scheme penalties. You don’t need to change any existing markup. If you have systems that append this to new links, they can continue to do so. However, we recommend switching over to rel=”sponsored” if or when it is convenient.

Do I still need to flag ad or sponsored links?
Yes. If you want to avoid a possible link scheme action, use rel=“sponsored” or rel=“nofollow” to flag these links. We prefer the use of “sponsored,” but either is fine and will be treated the same, for this purpose.

What happens if I use the wrong attribute on a link?
There’s no wrong attribute except in the case of sponsored links. If you flag a UGC link or a non-ad link as “sponsored,” we’ll see that hint but the impact — if any at all — would be at most that we might not count the link as a credit for another page. In this regard, it’s no different than the status quo of many UGC and non-ad links already marked as nofollow.
It is an issue going the opposite way. Any link that is clearly an ad or sponsored should use “sponsored” or “nofollow,” as described above. Using “sponsored” is preferred, but “nofollow” is acceptable.

Why should I bother using any of these new attributes?
Using the new attributes allows us to better process links for analysis of the web. That can include your own content, if people who link to you make use of these attributes.

Won’t changing to a “hint” approach encourage link spam in comments and UGC content?
Many sites that allow third-parties to contribute to content already deter link spam in a variety of ways, including moderation tools that can be integrated into many blogging platforms and human review. The link attributes of “ugc” and “nofollow” will continue to be a further deterrent. In most cases, the move to a hint model won’t change the nature of how we treat such links. We’ll generally treat them as we did with nofollow before and not consider them for ranking purposes. We will still continue to carefully assess how to use links within Search, just as we always have and as we’ve had to do for situations where no attributions were provided.

When do these attributes and changes go into effect?
All the link attributes, sponsored, ugc and nofollow, now work today as hints for us to incorporate for ranking purposes. For crawling and indexing purposes, nofollow will become a hint as of March 1, 2020. Those depending on nofollow solely to block a page from being indexed (which was never recommended) should use one of the much more robust mechanisms listed on our Learn how to block URLs from Google help page.

Posted by Danny Sullivan and Gary

Link Schemes

These backlink designations came about to combat link schemes.  Yes, I can see any effort to build backlinks as a link scheme but there are permissible and forbidden ways to build links.  Here is Google on what is a link scheme.

Any links intended to manipulate PageRank or a site’s ranking in Google search results may be considered part of a link scheme and a violation of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines. This includes any behavior that manipulates links to your site or outgoing links from your site.

The following are examples of link schemes which can negatively impact a site’s ranking in search results:

  • Buying or selling links that pass PageRank. This includes exchanging money for links, or posts that contain links; exchanging goods or services for links; or sending someone a “free” product in exchange for them writing about it and including a link
  • Excessive link exchanges (“Link to me and I’ll link to you”) or partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking
  • Large-scale article marketing or guest posting campaigns with keyword-rich anchor text links
  • Using automated programs or services to create links to your site
  • Requiring a link as part of a Terms of Service, contract, or similar arrangement without allowing a third-party content owner the choice of using nofollow or other method of blocking PageRank, should they wish.

Additionally, creating links that weren’t editorially placed or vouched for by the site’s owner on a page, otherwise known as unnatural links, can be considered a violation of our guidelines. Here are a few common examples of unnatural links that may violate our guidelines:

  • Text advertisements that pass PageRank
  • Advertorials or native advertising where payment is received for articles that include links that pass PageRank
  • Links with optimized anchor text in articles or press releases distributed on other sites. For example:
    There are many wedding rings on the market. If you want to have a wedding, you will have to pick the best ring. You will also need to buy flowers and a wedding dress.
  • Low-quality directory or bookmark site links
  • Keyword-rich, hidden or low-quality links embedded in widgets that are distributed across various sites, for example:
    Visitors to this page: 1,472
    car insurance
  • Widely distributed links in the footers or templates of various sites
  • Forum comments with optimized links in the post or signature, for example:
    Thanks, that’s great info!
    – Paul
    paul’s pizza san diego pizza best pizza san diego

Note that PPC (pay-per-click) advertising links that don’t pass PageRank to the buyer of the ad do not violate our guidelines. You can prevent PageRank from passing in several ways, such as:

  • Adding a rel=”nofollow” or a more specific attribute to the <a> tag
  • Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file

The best way to get other sites to create high-quality, relevant links to yours is to create unique, relevant content that can naturally gain popularity in the Internet community. Creating good content pays off: Links are usually editorial votes given by choice, and the more useful content you have, the greater the chances someone else will find that content valuable to their readers and link to it.

If you see a site that is participating in link schemes intended to manipulate PageRank, let us know. We’ll use your information to improve our algorithmic detection of such links.

Hits: 22

New Google Backlink Types And SEO Value Of NoFollow Links Changes

New Google Backlink Types And SEO Value Of NoFollow Links Changes

Article Name
New Google Backlink Types And SEO Value Of NoFollow Links Changes
Description
Google has expanded backlinks from Follow and NoFollow to include two more kinds and all of these now affect your ranking, but not equally. Find out more about these efforts to address Link Schemes.
Matthew Leffler
Ultimate SEO
Ultimate SEO LLC
https://ultimateseo.org/wp-content/uploads/ultimateseoimpactsm.png

https://ultimateseo.org/new-google-backlink-types-and-seo-value-of-nofollow-links-changes/

Sex, Speed And The SEO Migration of Romantic Depot to WordPress

Romantic Depot operates six, soon to be seven adult stores offering sex toys and lingerie, in the New York City area.  Their flagship stores are in Manhattan and the Bronx.  They’ve been around for sometime and over the years their website aged along with other businesses seeking to help drive local foot traffic.

With the move to mobile devices in full demonstration the old RomanticDepot.com site was not responsive.  This lead the owner of the chain to build a new site that was mobile friendly and it lead to Ultimate SEO‘s involvement overseeing the process of migrating to this new site without hurting the site’s strong local SEO presence.

Romantic Depot does have an impressive keyword positioning presence in the New York City area. Even nationally they are on page 2 of results for “sex shop“.  The goal was to ensure a smooth transition to the mobile site while maintaining the SEO that had been built over the years.

301 Redirects

The new site was largely a 1 to 1 ratio.  The html static page manhattan.html went now to /manhattan/ on the WordPress site.  We placed in any one off redirects, a redirect that took any url that ended in .html and would return it without the html and a redirect for the index.html homepage to come back with the WordPress homepage at /

Backlink

Backlinks are the life blood of a sit’s ranking and it was important to ensure that those would be maintained with relevant content as well.  Using SEMRush.com we collected all of the backlinks and their existing targets and ensured those had rules as well.  While the site’s backlinks were in the tens of thousands it quick came down to a few hundred target urls that needed to be accounted for to maintain SEO.

Site Speed

Most of the work involved in preparing for the migration was speed performance in nature.  The new site when tested on GTMetrix.com was loading in 12.6 seconds with over 400 http requests. We targeted a 3 second load and through Cloudflare.com we were able to utilize a CDN that brought the site closer to users as well as offered other benefits.  Cloudflare alone brough the site load time to about 7 seconds.

We further limited content that could be on other pages for those other pages such as Google maps to the location homepages. Instituting lazy load ended up being the primary aspect of speeding up the site.  Image optimization was also completed and a move to PHP7.3 from 5.6.  Merging CSS and JS files also worked to reduce the requests.

SIte Speed FOr SEO MIgration

SIte Speed FOr SEO MIgration

With our work to provide a faster site complete the migration was completed and load times on the site are under 3 seconds for mobile users.

Multi Domain Strategy Consolidation

During the migration I also mentioned the value of building one brand.  RomanticDepotSuperStore.com was the site used as the online store for the chain.

The problem that arises from multiple domain strategies is the segmentation of resources and confusion it can cause to Google Analytics.  An easy eample of this is the bounce rate and pageviews metrics are actually hurt on the primary domain.

Consider this… a person searches romantic depot on Google.  The first result is their site, likely the person is going to want to know what items might be at the store.  Once the page loads they find the link to the store, maybe even before the page loads.  Clicking that link they are now taken to a new domain.

That visitors actions would have counted as a bounced visitor.  See when someone goes to your site and immediately leaves for another site that signals to Google that what was on that original site wasn’t what the searcher wanted.  To prevent future searchers from going to a site that people leave directly after going to it they might increase the position of other sites to try and correct for this in the future.  That ultimately means the top spot position for the keyword is being hampered by the site’s structure.

Further Google sees that a person wasn’t even interested enough in the site to look at a second page, they just left.  In realty the second site is part of the same overall topic or brand its just that Google doesn’t necessarily understand that.  An artificially inflated bounce rate and lower page views are all that the first site is getting and the second site is losing out as well as most of the marketing is surrounding the first site’s address…backlinks, social mentions and such.

Lower Bounce Rate

The illustration above shows our page views of the main root domain.  Guess when on the graph the romanticdepotsuperstore.com site was rolled into the main domains … late July.  The thing is, the traffic isn’t any greater its just not split up anymore.  The homepage link to the store is now going to a subfolder of the same domain, its helping by acting as another page view rather than hurting the site as a bounce.

The keywords and authority of this additional site were better utilized under the main domain RomanticDepot.com and this site was migrated to a subfolder /store as a separate WordPress site.

Thats important the site was migrated as a separate site under the original.  This was done for multiple reason and it creates its own set of unique challenges but we’ll discuss that later in a future post.

Consolidated Backlinks

The consolidation of the sites further helps with SEO because after we migrated we put into place redirects from the store’s domain to its new home within the subfolder.  That means all the backlinks now combine to help one site.  Lets consider the following illustration…

Domain A: DA 30 Backlinks: 10,000 Referring Domains: 1,000

Domain B: DA 30 Backlinks: 9,000 Referring Domains: 900

Competitor: DA 35 Backlinks: 13,000 Referring Domains: 1,300

Lets assume everything else is the same…we’d expect then that Competitor will rank higher on Google Search.  But if we combine Domain A ad Domain B.

Domain AB: DA 40 Backlinks: 19,000 Referring Domains: 1,900

Everything else still the same….Domain AB will now rank higher than the Competitor.

Hits: 24

https://ultimateseo.org/sex-speed-and-seo-migration/

What We Learned From Week 4 Of The NFL

sara.ziegler (Sara Ziegler, sports editor): Week 4 in this NFL season has been a wild ride. We had Chase Daniel proving his worth as a backup quarterback who’s usually paid not to play, Baker Mayfield getting his revenge on Rex Ryan and Daniel Jones outdueling fellow rookie Dwayne Haskins (after Washington starter Case Keenum was benched).

But let’s start with the weirdest score of the weekend: Tampa Bay Buccaneers 55, Los Angeles Rams 40. What the hell happened here?

neil (Neil Paine, senior sportswriter): That scoreline was a shootout kinda on the order of that epic Rams-Chiefs game from last season. Only trouble is, the Bucs are not the Chiefs, and Jameis Winston is not Patrick Mahomes.

Salfino (Michael Salfino, FiveThirtyEight contributor): I just noticed that Winston was first in Total QBR for the week and Jared Goff was 20th. I actually never thought the game was in doubt until Winston lost his mind and threw one of the worst pick-sixes you can imagine to make it 45-40 (they missed the 2-point conversion) with about eight minutes left.

Goff was all meaningless numbers against the Bucs. It’s good that QBR susses that out.

joshua.hermsmeyer (Josh Hermsmeyer, NFL analyst): These type of point explosions are always in Winston’s range of outcomes. But so are those ridiculous pick-sixes.

Salfino: Exactly. He is so Jekyll & Hyde.

sara.ziegler: I guess my question when I saw the score was: What happened to the Rams defense?

joshua.hermsmeyer: *cracks knuckles*

Well…

Salfino: When you run into a hot QB and an offense that is executing, defense doesn’t really matter. It can’t win.

joshua.hermsmeyer: Defensive statistics — what we traffic in — are largely a function of the offenses you’ve faced, so we often get fooled by those numbers. We assign the numbers to the defense when really it’s just a function — mainly — of the schedule.

Salfino: The Bucs also never took the foot off the gas with their explosive passing plays. The hope for a defense is that the offense gets up big, goes into a conservative shell and loses its mojo if the game turns against them. The Bucs played all day like they needed to score 50.

neil: But isn’t this kind of a counterexample to that theory (that defense is only a function of offenses faced)? Last season, the Rams only gave up more than 32 points twice: Against the Saints and against the Chiefs. Great offenses! It makes sense that it would be a function of schedule. But the Bucs don’t really fit that same profile.

joshua.hermsmeyer: Yeah. I’m not sure too much has changed from last season on offense, where we saw the Bucs putting up huge passing numbers one game and then fading the next. I think the explanation is just that they are very boom-or-bust as a team.

Salfino: The Bucs have talent, though. They’ve been all tools, no toolbox because of Winston’s volatility. But on Sunday, Winston mostly kept his erratic, mistake-prone self in check. If he does that, they are very dangerous. That might be the most talented receiving corps in football if you include the still-ignored-for-some-reason O.J. Howard.

neil: I suppose the Bucs offense did make Ryan Fitzpatrick look like an elite QB for a couple games at the start of last season…

Salfino: Basically, defenses need Winston to beat himself or they’re screwed.

sara.ziegler: Wait, this guy wasn’t elite on his own???

Salfino: I refuse to say anything negative about Fitz.

sara.ziegler: LOL

joshua.hermsmeyer: And yet all the shade for Gardner Minshew last week, smh.

East Coast bias!

Or something

sara.ziegler: I dislike them both!

neil: Haha

Salfino: QBR is throwing shade at Gardner this week.

neil: That’s right Mike — only a 38.8! But if you watched him late in that game, if didn’t seem like a 38.8.

sara.ziegler: He’s 2-1 as a starter.

joshua.hermsmeyer: No, he looked very special late.

Salfino: Yeah, he Tebowed, ironically in Denver.

neil: Lol. Now they know how it FEELS!

joshua.hermsmeyer:

neil: He takes a lot of sacks, but when his pocket mobility works, it is amazing.

Salfino: He was almost broken in half late in that game.

sara.ziegler: These rookie QBs, man. Minshew Mania, Daniel Jones…

Are you all onboard the Jones Express???

joshua.hermsmeyer: I am not.

My main reason is that in his first game, he performed at a level over what he ever showed in college, and that’s just unprecedented.

Salfino: That’s an excellent stat. Let’s see what he does against the Vikings this week. He’s lucky the game is in East Rutherford.

He’s also lucky he’ll only have to score about 17 points.

(Sorry, Sara.)

sara.ziegler: I think 7 points will probably do it.

neil: I thought Kirk Cousins talk was off-limits in this chat.

Salfino: I was trying to be nice.

Is Cousins still in the league?

joshua.hermsmeyer: You know who was worse than Cousins on early-down passes yesterday?

Tom Brady.

(Cousins yards per dropback: 2.97; TB12: 2)

sara.ziegler: 🤔

neil: I know Buffalo is a legit defense, but that’s a bad game for TB12.

Salfino: With Brady, do we have to be alarmed that he’s showing his age, give credit to the Bills, or just ascribe it to random variance? His raw QBR was 10.3, and it was under 20 even after adjusting.

Brady’s yards per attempt by year from 2016 on: 8.2, 7.9, 7.6 and now … 7.3. I see a pattern!

neil: According to our Elo QB metric, this week was Brady’s worst game (relative to average) since 2013.

joshua.hermsmeyer: Wait, is this the year he’s washed?

Sounds like bulletin board material.

Salfino: Eventually, we’ll all be dead, Josh.

sara.ziegler: Not if we eat enough kale, Mike.

Salfino: Never!

sara.ziegler: Hahaha

Salfino: Brady looked old. Let’s be honest. He is old. Gravity always wins, though he’s defied it for a very long time. Maybe we’ll look back at this as a meaningless blip, too, but I doubt it.

joshua.hermsmeyer: I dunno, something something stem cells. He could play forever.

neil: To be fair, Brady has seemed poised to decline so many times over the years, we’re numb to it by now. The default assumption is that he’ll rebound and be fine.

(He also was fine in the previous three games.)

Salfino: What’s the Occam’s razor takeaway with Brady’s Week 4? (Does Gillette make those?)

sara.ziegler: LOL

neil: I smell a sponsored segment of the weekly chat!

joshua.hermsmeyer: I think Bill Belichick expected a tough rock fight, and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Much like the Cowboys and the Saints.

Salfino: Was the problem with the Cowboys yesterday too much running on early downs?

joshua.hermsmeyer: Hard to say what Garrett was thinking. Questioning the fundamentals of *squints* counting appears to be on the table in Dallas.

neil: Credit to the Saints’ defense, though, for the pressure they put on Dak Prescott.

Salfino: Why not open up the offense yesterday and force Teddy Bridgewater, who has no possibility of any explosion in his game, to make plays? The old saw is that you beat the opponent with the passing game and then beat the clock with the running game.

joshua.hermsmeyer: I believe the intent was to establish the run. They ran 20 times — many with the highest-paid back in the NFL — and averaged 2.3 yards per attempt.

neil: Bridgewater had one of the least-deserving QB wins of the season Sunday, I think.

Actually, if you look at worst QB Elo ratings in games the QB still won, Teddy’s game is second so far this season. Brady’s is the worst, LOL.

Salfino: That late sack was sickening. I actually thought Drew Brees was going to vomit.

Sacks that take you out of FG range are turnovers, period.

sara.ziegler: That sack was really something. I believe I yelled at my TV, “THROW IT AWAY, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.”

And I didn’t even have a rooting interest in that game.

neil: Residual Bridgewater rooting via the Vikings.

joshua.hermsmeyer: FWIW, Sean Payton blamed himself for the play call.

Salfino: I don’t care if the pass rush is fired out of a cannon at you, you can’t get sacked there.

sara.ziegler: That would be an interesting new wrinkle for defenses.

neil:

sara.ziegler: The other weird game yesterday, in my mind, was Lions-Chiefs.

The Lions look … good?

neil: Or, at least, not-bad?

Salfino: My plea to NFL teams is to stop the hurdling and reaching the ball over the goal line. The Patriots have a rule that if you do the latter, you are taken out of the game. And Matt Patricia obviously has a Patriots history. Yet, Kerryon Johnson did it so recklessly on first-and-goal from the 1-yard line, and they lost the game. It was a 14-point swing.

joshua.hermsmeyer: I’m so very glad the refs swallowed the whistle.

Salfino: Yeah, that was a super job by the refs.

joshua.hermsmeyer: But I think the game is just another reminder that we don’t really know who is good on defense yet. Are the Lions really that much better at this than the Ravens?

Salfino: The Ravens defense was just atrocious Sunday, but credit to the Browns offense. Mayfield made fun of Rex Ryan, but he did stop leaking out of the pocket like he’s a runner. He stayed in there by sliding and stepping up, and he made a bevy of downfield plays as a result. I think this was a big moment for him because he recognized a weakness and got out of a slump in a big spot on the road.

sara.ziegler: Rex Ryan, always helping out the young players.

neil: Baker needed that game, too. That season-opening slump had been really tough.

This was much more like the Mayfield we saw late last season.

Salfino: One other thing we should mention is the Bears QB situation. Chase Daniel was very good — third in Total QBR — and Mitch Trubisky is likely out for a while. Are the Bears better off with a QB who is more of a game manager and more capable of executing the easy passes? Or is Trubisky, for all his faults, still clearly better and thus this will hurt the Bears should it extend past their Week 6 bye?

neil: This is why Daniel gets paid the big bucks.

Big backup bucks.

A backup better than your starter is worth his weight in gold.

joshua.hermsmeyer: loool

Salfino: The number of backup QBs is really noteworthy too. It feels like we’re up to 137 teams.

neil: I saw a stat that entering Week 4, 40 QBs have started so far — a Super Bowl-era record through three weeks.

sara.ziegler: So backup QBs are the most important players, the Browns are back, the Lions are decent, we don’t know anything about defenses, and Tom Brady will live forever. Does that sum up Week 4?

joshua.hermsmeyer: Yes, Sara!

neil: It was a weird week. The Dolphins actually led a game at one point.


Should Colin Kaepernick be on an NFL roster?


Check out our latest NFL predictions.

Week 4 Taught Us A Lot About Backup QBs And Nothing About Defenses

sara.ziegler (Sara Ziegler, sports editor): Week 4 in this NFL season has been a wild ride. We had Chase Daniel proving his worth as a backup quarterback who’s usually paid not to play, Baker Mayfield getting his revenge on Rex Ryan and Daniel Jones outdueling fellow rookie Dwayne Haskins (after Washington starter Case Keenum was benched).

But let’s start with the weirdest score of the weekend: Tampa Bay Buccaneers 55, Los Angeles Rams 40. What the hell happened here?

neil (Neil Paine, senior sportswriter): That scoreline was a shootout kinda on the order of that epic Rams-Chiefs game from last season. Only trouble is, the Bucs are not the Chiefs, and Jameis Winston is not Patrick Mahomes.

Salfino (Michael Salfino, FiveThirtyEight contributor): I just noticed that Winston was first in Total QBR for the week and Jared Goff was 20th. I actually never thought the game was in doubt until Winston lost his mind and threw one of the worst pick-sixes you can imagine to make it 45-40 (they missed the 2-point conversion) with about eight minutes left.

Goff was all meaningless numbers against the Bucs. It’s good that QBR susses that out.

joshua.hermsmeyer (Josh Hermsmeyer, NFL analyst): These type of point explosions are always in Winston’s range of outcomes. But so are those ridiculous pick-sixes.

Salfino: Exactly. He is so Jekyll & Hyde.

sara.ziegler: I guess my question when I saw the score was: What happened to the Rams defense?

joshua.hermsmeyer: *cracks knuckles*

Well…

Salfino: When you run into a hot QB and an offense that is executing, defense doesn’t really matter. It can’t win.

joshua.hermsmeyer: Defensive statistics — what we traffic in — are largely a function of the offenses you’ve faced, so we often get fooled by those numbers. We assign the numbers to the defense when really it’s just a function — mainly — of the schedule.

Salfino: The Bucs also never took the foot off the gas with their explosive passing plays. The hope for a defense is that the offense gets up big, goes into a conservative shell and loses its mojo if the game turns against them. The Bucs played all day like they needed to score 50.

neil: But isn’t this kind of a counterexample to that theory (that defense is only a function of offenses faced)? Last season, the Rams only gave up more than 32 points twice: Against the Saints and against the Chiefs. Great offenses! It makes sense that it would be a function of schedule. But the Bucs don’t really fit that same profile.

joshua.hermsmeyer: Yeah. I’m not sure too much has changed from last season on offense, where we saw the Bucs putting up huge passing numbers one game and then fading the next. I think the explanation is just that they are very boom-or-bust as a team.

Salfino: The Bucs have talent, though. They’ve been all tools, no toolbox because of Winston’s volatility. But on Sunday, Winston mostly kept his erratic, mistake-prone self in check. If he does that, they are very dangerous. That might be the most talented receiving corps in football if you include the still-ignored-for-some-reason O.J. Howard.

neil: I suppose the Bucs offense did make Ryan Fitzpatrick look like an elite QB for a couple games at the start of last season…

Salfino: Basically, defenses need Winston to beat himself or they’re screwed.

sara.ziegler: Wait, this guy wasn’t elite on his own???

Salfino: I refuse to say anything negative about Fitz.

sara.ziegler: LOL

joshua.hermsmeyer: And yet all the shade for Gardner Minshew last week, smh.

East Coast bias!

Or something

sara.ziegler: I dislike them both!

neil: Haha

Salfino: QBR is throwing shade at Gardner this week.

neil: That’s right Mike — only a 38.8! But if you watched him late in that game, if didn’t seem like a 38.8.

sara.ziegler: He’s 2-1 as a starter.

joshua.hermsmeyer: No, he looked very special late.

Salfino: Yeah, he Tebowed, ironically in Denver.

neil: Lol. Now they know how it FEELS!

joshua.hermsmeyer:

neil: He takes a lot of sacks, but when his pocket mobility works, it is amazing.

Salfino: He was almost broken in half late in that game.

sara.ziegler: These rookie QBs, man. Minshew Mania, Daniel Jones…

Are you all onboard the Jones Express???

joshua.hermsmeyer: I am not.

My main reason is that in his first game, he performed at a level over what he ever showed in college, and that’s just unprecedented.

Salfino: That’s an excellent stat. Let’s see what he does against the Vikings this week. He’s lucky the game is in East Rutherford.

He’s also lucky he’ll only have to score about 17 points.

(Sorry, Sara.)

sara.ziegler: I think 7 points will probably do it.

neil: I thought Kirk Cousins talk was off-limits in this chat.

Salfino: I was trying to be nice.

Is Cousins still in the league?

joshua.hermsmeyer: You know who was worse than Cousins on early-down passes yesterday?

Tom Brady.

(Cousins yards per dropback: 2.97; TB12: 2)

sara.ziegler: 🤔

neil: I know Buffalo is a legit defense, but that’s a bad game for TB12.

Salfino: With Brady, do we have to be alarmed that he’s showing his age, give credit to the Bills, or just ascribe it to random variance? His raw QBR was 10.3, and it was under 20 even after adjusting.

Brady’s yards per attempt by year from 2016 on: 8.2, 7.9, 7.6 and now … 7.3. I see a pattern!

neil: According to our Elo QB metric, this week was Brady’s worst game (relative to average) since 2013.

joshua.hermsmeyer: Wait, is this the year he’s washed?

Sounds like bulletin board material.

Salfino: Eventually, we’ll all be dead, Josh.

sara.ziegler: Not if we eat enough kale, Mike.

Salfino: Never!

sara.ziegler: Hahaha

Salfino: Brady looked old. Let’s be honest. He is old. Gravity always wins, though he’s defied it for a very long time. Maybe we’ll look back at this as a meaningless blip, too, but I doubt it.

joshua.hermsmeyer: I dunno, something something stem cells. He could play forever.

neil: To be fair, Brady has seemed poised to decline so many times over the years, we’re numb to it by now. The default assumption is that he’ll rebound and be fine.

(He also was fine in the previous three games.)

Salfino: What’s the Occam’s razor takeaway with Brady’s Week 4? (Does Gillette make those?)

sara.ziegler: LOL

neil: I smell a sponsored segment of the weekly chat!

joshua.hermsmeyer: I think Bill Belichick expected a tough rock fight, and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Much like the Cowboys and the Saints.

Salfino: Was the problem with the Cowboys yesterday too much running on early downs?

joshua.hermsmeyer: Hard to say what Garrett was thinking. Questioning the fundamentals of *squints* counting appears to be on the table in Dallas.

neil: Credit to the Saints’ defense, though, for the pressure they put on Dak Prescott.

Salfino: Why not open up the offense yesterday and force Teddy Bridgewater, who has no possibility of any explosion in his game, to make plays? The old saw is that you beat the opponent with the passing game and then beat the clock with the running game.

joshua.hermsmeyer: I believe the intent was to establish the run. They ran 20 times — many with the highest-paid back in the NFL — and averaged 2.3 yards per attempt.

neil: Bridgewater had one of the least-deserving QB wins of the season Sunday, I think.

Actually, if you look at worst QB Elo ratings in games the QB still won, Teddy’s game is second so far this season. Brady’s is the worst, LOL.

Salfino: That late sack was sickening. I actually thought Drew Brees was going to vomit.

Sacks that take you out of FG range are turnovers, period.

sara.ziegler: That sack was really something. I believe I yelled at my TV, “THROW IT AWAY, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.”

And I didn’t even have a rooting interest in that game.

neil: Residual Bridgewater rooting via the Vikings.

joshua.hermsmeyer: FWIW, Sean Payton blamed himself for the play call.

Salfino: I don’t care if the pass rush is fired out of a cannon at you, you can’t get sacked there.

sara.ziegler: That would be an interesting new wrinkle for defenses.

neil:

sara.ziegler: The other weird game yesterday, in my mind, was Lions-Chiefs.

The Lions look … good?

neil: Or, at least, not-bad?

Salfino: My plea to NFL teams is to stop the hurdling and reaching the ball over the goal line. The Patriots have a rule that if you do the latter, you are taken out of the game. And Matt Patricia obviously has a Patriots history. Yet, Kerryon Johnson did it so recklessly on first-and-goal from the 1-yard line, and they lost the game. It was a 14-point swing.

joshua.hermsmeyer: I’m so very glad the refs swallowed the whistle.

Salfino: Yeah, that was a super job by the refs.

joshua.hermsmeyer: But I think the game is just another reminder that we don’t really know who is good on defense yet. Are the Lions really that much better at this than the Ravens?

Salfino: The Ravens defense was just atrocious Sunday, but credit to the Browns offense. Mayfield made fun of Rex Ryan, but he did stop leaking out of the pocket like he’s a runner. He stayed in there by sliding and stepping up, and he made a bevy of downfield plays as a result. I think this was a big moment for him because he recognized a weakness and got out of a slump in a big spot on the road.

sara.ziegler: Rex Ryan, always helping out the young players.

neil: Baker needed that game, too. That season-opening slump had been really tough.

This was much more like the Mayfield we saw late last season.

Salfino: One other thing we should mention is the Bears QB situation. Chase Daniel was very good — third in Total QBR — and Mitch Trubisky is likely out for a while. Are the Bears better off with a QB who is more of a game manager and more capable of executing the easy passes? Or is Trubisky, for all his faults, still clearly better and thus this will hurt the Bears should it extend past their Week 6 bye?

neil: This is why Daniel gets paid the big bucks.

Big backup bucks.

A backup better than your starter is worth his weight in gold.

joshua.hermsmeyer: loool

Salfino: The number of backup QBs is really noteworthy too. It feels like we’re up to 137 teams.

neil: I saw a stat that entering Week 4, 40 QBs have started so far — a Super Bowl-era record through three weeks.

sara.ziegler: So backup QBs are the most important players, the Browns are back, the Lions are decent, we don’t know anything about defenses, and Tom Brady will live forever. Does that sum up Week 4?

joshua.hermsmeyer: Yes, Sara!

neil: It was a weird week. The Dolphins actually led a game at one point.

Check out our latest NFL predictions.

Managing And Maintaining A PBN

Hits: 25

https://ultimateseo.org/managing-and-maintaining-a-pbn/

Adobe Flash Ends A Decade Late

Google Announced in September 2019 that it was phasing out support for Flash from its Chrome browser following Adobe;s announcement that they would end support in 2020.  Apple users wont likely hear much about the end of Flash, in 2010,  Steve Jobs wrote a scathing review of Flash and in it explained why Apple products wouldn’t support it.

Google’s Flash Announcement:

For 20 years, Flash has helped shape the way that you play games, watch videos and run applications on the web. But over the last few years, Flash has become less common. Three years ago, 80 percent of desktop Chrome users visited a site with Flash each day. Today usage is only 17 percent and continues to decline.

This trend reveals that sites are migrating to open web technologies, which are faster and more power-efficient than Flash. They’re also more secure, so you can be safer while shopping, banking, or reading sensitive documents. They also work on both mobile and desktop, so you can visit your favorite site anywhere.

These open web technologies became the default experience for Chrome late last year when sites started needing to ask your permission to run Flash. Chrome will continue phasing out Flash over the next few years, first by asking for your permission to run Flash in more situations, and eventually disabling it by default. We will remove Flash completely from Chrome toward the end of 2020.

If you regularly visit a site that uses Flash today, you may be wondering how this affects you. If the site migrates to open web standards, you shouldn’t notice much difference except that you’ll no longer see prompts to run Flash on that site. If the site continues to use Flash, and you give the site permission to run Flash, it will work through the end of 2020.

It’s taken a lot of close work with Adobe, other browsers, and major publishers to make sure the web is ready to be Flash-free. We’re supportive of Adobe’s announcement today, and we look forward to working with everyone to make the web even better.

Steve Job’s Adobe Flash Note:

Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe’s founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers – Mac users buy around half of Adobe’s Creative Suite products – but beyond that there are few joint interests.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 250,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs
April, 2010

What This Means In SEO

If your site uses Flash, you have a year to stop or no one will see your site content unless they uses an older version of a browser that still plays Flash.

Hits: 20

Adobe Flash Ends A Decade Late

Adobe Flash Ends A Decade Late

Article Name
Adobe Flash Ends A Decade Late
Description
Adobe announced the end of Flash, a technology that ended for many in 2010.
Matthew Leffler
Ultimate SEO
Ultimate SEO
https://ultimateseo.org/wp-content/uploads/ultimateseoimpactsm.png

https://ultimateseo.org/adobe-flash-ends-a-decade-late/

Skip to toolbar