You should never use Google's estimate as a real estimate, especially once it gets past 100. There are better ways to move content, like 301 redirects or rel=canonical.
Are you a lawyer?
I hope this is not legal advice you're giving, because the general best practices I've always learned using pictures in marketing material: "Never show brands or products names"
It's important to know and understand the reasons behind advice like that. It totally depends on the circumstances, who is doing it and a host of other factors. Best practice? Get a government job with a pension and you won't have to worry about anything. Work for a corporation where they have departments that tell you what you can and should do and worry about all sorts of minutia.
I've used Apple logos in the past frequently as well as other things similar. Large companies don't expend energy and legal time doing anything nasty to small companies without a compelling reason (of course you could show me outliers obviously but you can't make money in business worrying about those outliers). Worse case scenario is normally a nasty letter asking you to stop, if that. The chance of an actual legal claim and money damages (once again in most cases) is minute. You might have to pay a lawyer to write something in reply. So what?
(And yes I've gone up against the NCAA and AMX with nasty letters and made them go away so I've pushed the envelope at least that far..I've also gotten approval in advance from the IRS as well for a project using their logo.)
Perhaps you're conflating - the reality is that it's much more akin to "in a manner that implies a relationship, endorsement by the manufacturer that doesn't exist", and similar.
Don't you know that this is a simplification of the fees for casual sellers, where before, there were multiple tranches for listing an item, and if it sold successfully, you also paid a final value fee.
The new fees represent a simpler and better to understand system, where the first 50 items per month for casual sellers are free to list, and easy to understand final value fee.
This is in fact a decline in % of what you would pay!
That's absolutely not true. It's simpler but the final value fee is quite a bit higher. Yesterday I listed an item for $1200, which would have a total fee of about $56. Four weeks from now that would rise to $123. I assure you that I checked my facts and figures carefully before choosing to post here.
You know there is a reason they don't participate on these forums... It's a waste of their time! They are so busy working their strategy, making money on the web, that any time spent on a discussion like this, while no money is made, is very low on their priorities.
I doubt they're making a ton on the hustle, but I agree that they're probably not the type to waste time discussing points with other, likely more hostile crowds.
I've seen what some of them do, and it's not as impressive as you'd think. Most of it breaks and stops working inside of 24 months. Then it's on to the next scam. Not a lot different from fly-by-night snake oil salesmen.
Just the existence of spam doesnt prove it's a big oppotunity, just that it's better for some people than their opportunity cost.
Thanks for posting that. It's funny-- your strategy is exactly the way I do lead gen for my customers. I wrote a bunch of software to sniff serps (great expression, btw) and find long tail keywords that will drive leads for the client.
Then we produce articles (we actually hire real journalists) to address the search intent behind the keywords. Then we post it on the client's site, and charge them for the leads we drive via organic search from that content.
The funny thing is, our customers just view it as "content marketing," not SEO. Search data (search vol, competition, etc.) guides our content strategy, but I don't view this part as either good or bad. Or even really "SEO". Why would anyone invest in content nobody is searching for?!?
If we spun content or used Markov chains to generate gibberish or hired incompetent writers via TextBroker for $10 a story, sure that's spam.
But my calculation is that spending $500+ on an article written by a journalist with domain expertise is going to win long term. And since the lead revenue makes the ROI calculation >1, why not invest in quality?
And we definitely don't make Google guess what keyword we think our article would help.
thats the route I would take as well. But, I would use SEMrush to sniff out the rankings for Demand Media and other content farms, and then create quality content to target those keywords, trying to displace their crap hat content.
I think you just proved the point here: SEO can be very valuable. Any good SEO would point out to the BBC that having similar rules for User-agent: Googlebot-Mobile and User-agent: * is not very efficient.
