When a Test Proves Absolutely Nothing – leasreepressmm
“Testing testing testing. Is this thing on?”
Is leasreepressmm even a word?
I really don't know where to start with this one. Daniel Tan sent out an email today that proclaimed he conducted a “test” on ranking a keyword using his press release distribution service (of course) and guess what? His test “proved” that Google's Matt Cutts was wrong when he said that press release links would not benefit a website's rankings:[su_quote cite=”Matt Cutts” url=”https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/O178PwARnZw/RenG_wrRRwgJ”]Note: I wouldn't expect links from press release web sites to benefit your rankings, however.[/su_quote]
Then he goes on to show us what he did and the results.
Tan made up a bullshit keyword that he'd try to get ranked. In a nutshell, he used an anagram of “pressrelease” in a press release that he then distributed using his PR service. In the press release, he linked out to Matt Cutt's blog (that's kinda funny right there). He noted where Cutt's blog ranked for the keyword before the PR distribution (nowhere–obviously because it's a made-up “keyword”) and after (at number 2 for the “keyword” in question).
NOTE: The “keyword” in question is leasreepressmm.
So? Big Deal or WTF? I say WTF. Why? Here's why.
The chosen keyword (leasreepressmm) was bogus. Google didn't have anything in its entire dataset that contained anything about this keyword, so of course anything that now mentioned said keyword would get placed at or near the top of the SERPs.
DUH. Double Damn DUH. I mean, why wouldn't it?
(By the way, don't do an image search on that. The sick image will be forever burned into your memory and onto the backs of both eyelids and you will never be able to have a normal life again. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.)
A much more telling test would have been to pick a search term or phrase that a real person might type into Google but that had nothing at all to do with Matt Cutts. It could have been a keyword phrase like “smart guy” or “super intelligent.” I kid. But only a bit.
THEN, put together a press release distribution (using a 3rd-party, of course, not the self-serving BS that Daniel Tan did) and see what happens.
THAT would have been a good test. THAT would have made sense. THIS “test” proved nothing–except one thing.
That anybody can rank a stupid irrelevant, BS keyword.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: I can get you to the top of the search engines in no time if you let ME choose the keyword.
Frankly, my 7 year-old could do it.
You can read all about the “test” at the link below: