Comments on: What Does Google Think of Hiring a Social Media Consultant?

By: brentcsutoras

brentcsutoras — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:57:48 +0000

StumbleUpon is phenomenal for traffic, but a little harder to get links out of since people are mostly finding it through chance. Also mainstream media has not picked up on StumbleUpon as much for a source of topics to discuss.

Since to me social media is about visibility, I would never suggest only using Digg. You should use any site that works for you to reach your visibility goals.

I normally recommend Digg, StumbleUpon, Delicious, Reddit, and Twitter currently.

As far as SEO… it is more of a knowledge set than anything. It is easy when you know how to do it and a complete nightmare when you don't. What I have learned is that SEO is a lot harder than people give it credit for since it takes a lot of trial and error to learn what can help you, what can waste your time, and what can get you banned.

By: Danny Brown

Danny Brown — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:54:20 +0000

However, in response to your original question – any company serious about an online presence would do well to benefit from an outsourced consultant (if they don't have any in-house).

By: Danny Brown

Danny Brown — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:40:21 +0000

It is a moot point, although one that should be made. I've had clients on top page of Digg but I'll still recommend other avenues that have more residual and passive traffic (Stumbleupon is excellent in this case).

And I'd say SEO is a lot easier than many make it out to be, speaking from personal results and those enjoyed by clients.

By: brentcsutoras

brentcsutoras — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:14:14 +0000

You also have to note that the entire article you are commenting on is about whether hiring a social media consultant to get you on Digg is ok or not with Google.

It is a mute point if your social media consultant is not able to get you on Digg.

By: brentcsutoras

brentcsutoras — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:09:41 +0000

I wanted to comment about the Toolbar seperately to keep things easy to follow.

What benefits is the new Diggbar taking away from the target? If you have been following the Diggbar changes, then you know that the only real concern was that if people linked to the Diggbar url then the target would not get the credit for the link and that if the Diggbar urls were ranking for the target instead of the target's page.

Both of these were resolved when they auto 301 to target unless you are logged into Digg and have the option set to use the Diggbar. They also noindex the pages to avoid having them show up in search engines.

What other concerns were there for the target?

And if users don't like the bar they can just turn it off…