Best Blackhat Forum

(10-16-2014 04:04 PM)Big Tuna Wrote: [ -> ]Review
Someone else did a quick review and I just wanted to correct some things.
1) You are not building Wikipedia links to your video. You are placing an outgoing link to Wikipedia in your description.
2) For ranking, he suggests Social Monkee, embedding the video on Blogger, and signing up for accounts on all of the places that YouTube wants you to share (the icons below the video, FB, Reddit, etc.)
3) His videos are not from 2012/2013, as someone else said, they are a month old, as of today.

4) I checked the amount of searches for some of the terms that he was going for (titles of his videos) and all of the ones that I checked with GA show N/A. In other words, Google doesn't think that they get enough searches to warrant displaying a number.

(10-16-2014 03:09 PM)Big Tuna Wrote: [ -> ]I've been working with YouTube videos for quite some time, and I can tell you that early this year something changed with Google's love for them. It may be because every Guru told people about how easy it was to rank them, or that 1 out of every 5 WSOs over the last few years has been selling people on how easy it is to make bank with YouTube, but unfortunately, the love isn't there anymore.

I'm not saying you cannot rank a YouTube video (of course it's still easy to rank for local terms), but in terms of competitive terms, it's not anything like it used to be. A lot of my videos that were on the first page of Google were booted to the 2nd page early this year, and even when I browse the SERPS for certain terms, I can see that there are nowhere near as many videos on the first page as there was last year. But people keep releasing these crappy products about ranking YouTube videos in Google, like it's still easy to do- and giving proof from last year. Or they tell you that their product will teach you how to easily get to the first page of Google, and then you realize that their keyword gets 100 searches a month. In other words, these people are not creating WSOs based on their own experiences, instead they're likely rehashing some old WSOs and adding some variations. Or they realize that YouTube isn't working anymore, and want to cash in on the method. I read quite a lot of WSOs and other products related to YouTube this year, (maybe over 100?), and I can tell you that I haven't learned anything new from any of them. They've all been giving the same information as the one previous.

(10-16-2014 03:09 PM)Big Tuna Wrote: [ -> ]I've been working with YouTube videos for quite some time, and I can tell you that early this year something changed with Google's love for them. It may be because every Guru told people about how easy it was to rank them, or that 1 out of every 5 WSOs over the last few years has been selling people on how easy it is to make bank with YouTube, but unfortunately, the love isn't there anymore.

I'm not saying you cannot rank a YouTube video (of course it's still easy to rank for local terms), but in terms of competitive terms, it's not anything like it used to be. A lot of my videos that were on the first page of Google were booted to the 2nd page early this year, and even when I browse the SERPS for certain terms, I can see that there are nowhere near as many videos on the first page as there was last year. But people keep releasing these crappy products about ranking YouTube videos in Google, like it's still easy to do- and giving proof from last year. Or they tell you that their product will teach you how to easily get to the first page of Google, and then you realize that their keyword gets 100 searches a month. In other words, these people are not creating WSOs based on their own experiences, instead they're likely rehashing some old WSOs and adding some variations. Or they realize that YouTube isn't working anymore, and want to cash in on the method. I read quite a lot of WSOs and other products related to YouTube this year, (maybe over 100?), and I can tell you that I haven't learned anything new from any of them. They've all been giving the same information as the one previous.

(10-16-2014 11:30 AM)Truth Hurts Wrote: [ -> ]The fact that the proof is way back from 2013 says that its crap.

Don't bother.