Possibly Related??

If you look at the dates of the drops it was around June 5th. There was chatter of an update on June 5th seen across mozcast and the other serp trackers.  http://www.seroundtable.com/google-update-starting-16885.html . A thread discussing it on webmasterworld http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4580257-6-30.htm where two webmasters (Mastersat & Sepsguy) shared copies of their analytics http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/9134/screenshot20130608at331.png ,http://imageshack.us/a/img401/1337/91346667.png and http://imageshack.us/a/img854/9987/25662140.png showing they were both hit on June 5th. The speculation in the thread is that it's Penguin related but I'm not fully convinced on that but it does look algorithmic with all these sites being hit at the same time.

The data point to "boring"

Agreed.  That graph of traffic levels over the last 2 years points to a site that is, overall, healthy from an SEO perspective.  The June drop is just part of their established seasonality where traffic begins to crater into the summer and early fall.

 

However, that graph, and this one, also point to something that would have me *reallly worried* if I was AOL, or even an editor at TC:

 

 

Ever since their acquisition by AOL (point G on the graph), their brand has become less popular.  Back in 2005, TC made their presence known in the startup community as the place where you *had* to be mentioned.  Your startup getting coverage on TC was a big deal.

 

Now it's more of a "meh" deal.  In an industry where "buzz" and "cool" count for a lot, nothing is an un-cool as getting bought by AOL.  Can you think of anything AOL has touched that isn't incredibly mediocre?  AOL is where innovation goes to die.

 

As a result of a stellar backlink profile, and prolific editors, TC still gets plenty of organic search traffic.  But TC is turning into another huge hulking black hole on the internet.  It pulls in traffic simply because it's so massive.  But that's why people end up there, not because they seek it out.

Well I have just tried to

Well I have just tried to search keywords like "6pm coupons", "kohls coupons", "sears coupons" and some others, and retailmenot.com is always at the top of the page.. 

I'm not sure if I should be skeptical about these results but retailmenot.com has been there like more than five years, we all know that it's the only source of other coupon code sites and those who are in need of reliable coupon codes. I mean, the situation is like if you cannot find it on retailmenot.com, you are less likely to find it on somewhere else.. The site meets almost all the criterias Google want..

As the reuslt it seems quite natural to me..

Yeah I agree

but that is the same with anything Google. They just need to talk about it and the SEO's get on the band wagon.

That is why Matt Cutts is worth more to Google than the rest of the spam team put together. He says something is going to be targetted by Google and the SEO's will repeat to the ends of the earth. Google doesn't even have to spend the money implementing the change. They just need to get Matt to mention it and the job is done.

I deleted all my G+ accounts but maintained my gmail

I deleted all my G+ accounts but maintained my gmail

I still get spammed with you should connect with this person emails from them. 

The sneaky bit is if I want to unsubscribe from the email I have to restart my G+ account. 

Nice one Google.

I deleted all my G+ accounts but maintained my gmail

I deleted all my G+ accounts but maintained my gmail

I still get spammed with you should connect with this person emails from them. 

The sneaky bit is if I want to unsubscribe from the email I have to restart my G+ account. 

Nice one Google.

I deleted all my G+ accounts but maintained my gmail

I deleted all my G+ accounts but maintained my gmail

I still get spammed with you should connect with this person emails from them. 

The sneaky bit is if I want to unsubscribe from the email I have to restart my G+ account. 

Nice one Google.

It's a very specific case

When looking at this video, it's important to remember that the question and answer is about a very specific case. Matt isn't saying that duplicate content in general is fine. He's saying that if you have the same (short?) boilerplate text on several pages that have unique content apart from the duplicated text, Google will probably not take action on them.

logic

The only logical arguement that Google+ helps SEO is in how the links are placed within a post to gain 'do follow' juice. Other than that the platform is useful for a handful of techy related industries and that's about it. I personally don't think that is good enough to give away keyword data and massive amount of privacy (now matching your searches w/ social data and demographic data)

No shares, no number of people in 'circles', no +1's have been confirmed in anything more than relative correlation studies which are not enough to prove they are helping rankings. Frankly I'm happy Facebook has competition, but I'm disgusted that our industry thinks Google is the right competition.

Instead of laying down our swords and shields and pushing this social network, which lets face it, will either soon become a graveyard or cluttered with ads and riddled with privacy scandals - we should be spending time educating the public on topics that affect them. For example; SEO does not help crappy websites rank in Google, Passing keywords from a search engine to a website is not a violation of privacy, and various other things about digital marketing that are the scapegoats of people wanting to point fingers at something. The real culprit is, and for the future will be, Google especially as they aggresively demote organic rankings in favor of paid ads using cunning combinations of 'algo updates' and layout changes.

 

Social Networks will send messages as though they're you.

Facebook got sued over something very similar >> Facebook Sponsored Stories Implied Endorsements Going WAY Too Far http://socialimplications.com/facebook-sponsored-stories/ WIthout that suit we probably would have been seeing much more of this behavior sooner.

 

Back in May, 2011 I wrote about my concern over the new wording of the Facebook and Twitter permissions. At that time I wrote:

"...these permissions give other companies, Web sites, and individuals permission to post “status messages, notes, photos and videos” to  your wall on Facebook or “Post Tweets on Your Behalf” (the exact wording on Twitter’s news permissions) to your followers on Twitter."

I knew it would only be a matter of time before tweets and shares that appeared to be written by users would appear in our streams that were actually sent by the social network - probably for businesses that paid to have them sent. See http://growmap.com/facebook-end-run-around-your-privacy-settings/