SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 45 of 45
  1. #26
    Programming Team silver trophybronze trophy
    Mittineague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Springfield, Massachusetts
    Posts
    17,032
    Mentioned
    187 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    paid links

    Quote Originally Posted by aspen
    If Google doesn't like links you've gotten, they don't lower your rank, they just don't won't the links to your benefit. It is really nothing to worry about.
    The fact that Google says " ... can negatively impact a site's ranking" and that Vick!'s experiments both dropped suggest otherwise. I do understand that back-links are only a small part of the equation and that it could be a co-incidence. I suppose it could be something to do with other factors that happened within the "update lag time".
    I am interested to know how any of Vick!s other sites that had similar changes (except that they did not get any paid links), moved.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Canandaigua, NY
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Mittineague View Post
    " ... I do understand that back-links are only a small part of the equation
    Did you forget we are talking about Google, where it's all about, according to some people, "LinkJuice".

  3. #28
    I am Learning... Vick!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    632
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aspen View Post
    Since when does gaining links result in position decreases?
    Unfortunately, recently.

    Quote Originally Posted by aspen View Post
    If Google doesn't like links you've gotten, they don't lower your rank, they just don't won't the links to your benefit. It is really nothing to worry about.
    Like Mittineague said with reference that Google says " ... can negatively impact a site's ranking" .. and its indeed true.

    The first site I was talking about was a very low competitive niche, and rank was solid like hell, and was indeed decreased just because of abrupt rise in backlinks. Same happened to another website.

    And Mittineague, I am 99% sure it was not coincidence .. I was closely monitoring everything while experimenting this. If someone has doubt, I can publicly experiment on some random website. But what it will prove? Google is dumb?

  4. #29
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Most of link trading sites including text link ads and major directories such as Aviva , Alive etc. drop out from search ,. You even can't reach their sites by key their name on google search.! try avivadirectory ..not going to avivadirectory.com . And I also wonder if this still effect those who've bought links.
    Second, the effect of too fast link buildup is well known and ,well ,better see the article here http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/28/neg...g_0628seo.html no comment from me.

  5. #30
    I am Learning... Vick!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    632
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by doctornuke View Post
    Second, the effect of too fast link buildup is well known and ,well ,better see the article here http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/28/neg...g_0628seo.html
    Great resource. I am in a bit hurry so haven't read the whole article. Bookmarked, will read later and post comments.

    Thanks.

  6. #31
    I am Learning... Vick!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    632
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Months ago one of my friends created and marketed a piece of content that got thousands of mentions. It made the dig*g homepage, was referenced on a site as big as Wired, and made Life Hacker. This sounds like a linkbait gone perfect, right? Nope.

    It got too much exposure relative to the link growth rate and link profile of the 5 year old site. The blog portion of the site associated with said article is no longer indexed in Google. For a while Google allowed that one linkbait page to get indexed and show PageRank, but it never ranked for its own title and it doesn't pass PageRank through to the rest of the site.

    Before launching said linkbait, this blog section of the site actually ranked for a few keywords that it no longer ranks for. Now in Google it is as though the blog does not exist. Virtually the equivalent of when Google accidentally nuked their own AdSense blog.

    It doesn't matter if this was done algorithmically or by hand. What matters is that if your viral link marketing is too good you are going to get screwed unless you have a way to keep attention and have enough leverage to make Google decide it would be best to relist your site.
    From: http://www.seobook.com/3-ways-get-sc...edia-marketing

  7. #32
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    466
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Very interesting thread!!


    Apparently Google... even Matt Cutts can tell if you buy backlinks. I don't know how, but it can't be that difficult.
    I've done it. I'm not saying that mine is perfect (or even good), but I can easily detect just about any paid link from services like Text Link Ads. It's easy when the webmasters follow the typical paid link behavior. I'd guess this is 90% of the paid links out there. There are very few innocent casualties. Of course, that depends on how we define "innocent".

    I think Google is being very careful to slowly penalize the links being sold. I only know of one case where the rankings of the site selling links to bad neighborhoods actually lost rankings.
    http://www.davidairey.com/how-i-reve...nking-penalty/

    Besides, how can anyone argue that the Sandbox or Supplemental index are beneficial to search engine users? How is not finding what someone is looking for beneficial to them?
    You are assuming that the page in question has what the user is looking for.

    What about linkbaiting??
    I am planning on doing a nationwide contest, for anyone to enter, and there will be a voting process. I am imagining that a lot of links will be generated to my site during the contest--will I be penalized?
    You shouldn't be penalized. However, maybe this leads to a bigger point. Maybe Google is simply trying to crush the sites that are acting fishy. If 99% of all sites that gain a zillion links in 3 minutes are black hat junk, then maybe it's worth dropping the rankings on even the 1% that are good.

    I don't know the numbers. This is just a possibility.

    I'm convinced that Google will gladly kill a few to save many.

    Compounding this issue is that by the time Google lists links in your backlink lists they've been counting them for your rank for weeks or months already. So there is no good way to test when Google starts counting them.
    This is always an interesting concept. For all I know, a site's rankings could drop from something done 3 months ago. Maybe a competitor did something great 3 months ago. (Maybe a natural / undetectable PR 8 link kicked in or something).

    Brandon
    Home Recording Forum -
    Make 60% Commission Pushing my new mega system
    Killer Home Recording

  8. #33
    SitePoint Member joemillano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Isnt it because its "unnatural" to get tons of backlinks all in one go?
    Naturally a site would get backlinks over time.. So im sure its an easy calculation for them?

  9. #34
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,832
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I think a lot of sites have tanked in Google as a result of whatever happened in late August or early September. I've read complaints on other forums that some webmasters have just tanked. So, you aren't alone. And how can you be sure it's because of incoming links and not just the last update?

    My main competitor dominated Google for years. They have one main site, a bunch of sites linking to the main site, and 2 other sites with duplicate content. At one time they held 4 slots in the top 10 for the most competitive search term.

    As of early September, they completely tanked in the Google rankings. The site that used to rank #1 for the most competitive search phrase in our niche now ranks around #225.

    That site went from #1--a slot it held for years--to #225. And they are below some horrendously irrelevant results, too.

  10. #35
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tenerife, Spain / UK
    Posts
    329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vick! View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rcj662
    I think google has list of sites that get paid for links. If your site shows up on one then you might have a problem.
    What if I put your link on that site?
    Google Relies on users reporting Paid Links, they've set-up facilities specifically for this, I suspect they will investigate the reported sites and perform some form of verification that paid links are been sold before penalising the site so its outbound links carry less weight.

    My guess is that the verification process will involve GoogleBot analysing the web site and verifying that there are indeed large numbers of outbound links on the site and looking to see if the text content of the web site suggests that links are been sold.

    Remember Google has stated it will not penalise sites such as genuine web directories which charge a "review fee" which suggests link sites with non-recurring listing costs and who DON'T approve every link submitted will not be penalised.

    So if you run a web directory with SEO friendly links then I suggest you switch to a framework where you charge a one-off fee for review and exercise editorial discretion by not approving every site suggested. You also want to make sure that this policy is clearly articulated in bot friendly HTML text. This way even if your site is reported to Google as selling Paid Links in Error, or out of malice, Google is going to be able to see that you comply with their policy and will be unlikely to penalise your site.
    David Parkes
    Nuclear Internet - Windows Web Hosting
    http://www.nuclearinternet.com

  11. #36
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    466
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Google Relies on users reporting Paid Links,
    Are you positive they "rely" on the reporting?

    My gut says that the reporting just improves the quality of their link detecting algorithms.

    My main competitor dominated Google for years. They have one main site, a bunch of sites linking to the main site, and 2 other sites with duplicate content. At one time they held 4 slots in the top 10 for the most competitive search term.
    This is what every webmastering buying and selling links needs to know. When Google gets more aggressive paid link buying, it could be doom for everyone.


    Brandon
    Home Recording Forum -
    Make 60% Commission Pushing my new mega system
    Killer Home Recording

  12. #37
    The Prince burkul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    744
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If google is penalizing you for buying links, your competitors can easily bring you down by buying links for your site from well known link sellers. IMO, google, if they can detect your paid link, passes no PR from the link you bought. That's the most they can do.
    Other than this they can penalize the link seller site, which sounds more logical, if they do not put a "rel=nofollow" in the href tag.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    466
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If google is penalizing you for buying links, your competitors can easily bring you down by buying links for your site from well known link sellers.
    This is true...assuming that Google can't tell the difference, which we should all assume they can not.

    However, "penalize" is always a confusing definition. In this case, "penalize" could mean the link to your site is simply useless. Some don't consider a useless link a penalization. This is crazy to me! If a person buys $3k in links this year, that's the equivalent of throwing $3k in profit down the tubes...who knows how many sales they've thrown away.

    Other than this they can penalize the link seller site, which sounds more logical, if they do not put a "rel=nofollow" in the href tag.
    This has been illustrated this past week with the Stanford Daily.

    Brandon
    Home Recording Forum -
    Make 60% Commission Pushing my new mega system
    Killer Home Recording

  14. #39
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tenerife, Spain / UK
    Posts
    329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    see below
    David Parkes
    Nuclear Internet - Windows Web Hosting
    http://www.nuclearinternet.com

  15. #40
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tenerife, Spain / UK
    Posts
    329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by brandondrury View Post
    Are you positive they "rely" on the reporting?

    My gut says that the reporting just improves the quality of their link detecting algorithms.

    Brandon

    I guess it could work either way. Google are actively soliciting the reporting of paid links. This could either form the basis of reporting system which is then verified by spiders or could be used to back-up the analysis of spidered detection of paid links.

    Several things are for sure:

    1) Google have always liked to involve users in their algorithm's ranking process, look at Page Rank for a glaring example, "each link to your site is like a vote for your site" and all that... Paid link reporting is an extension of that user involvement. However Google never relies on users alone it has keyword analysis built deep into its algorithm as well.

    2) Google deals in links, it can't know for sure, just from the <a> tag which links are purchased and which are genuine endorsements as in HTML both links look the same.

    3) Googlebot is a spider with a good history of accurately determining the relevance of content to key terms. So its capable of analysing web pages and making an educated guess at whether or not a site charges for paid links or a paid review.

    Whether this process happens before a Paid Link report and the Paid Link report just verifies the Googlebot assumption or if the reverse happens as I suggested is anyone's guess. However, I am confident that the determination of whether or a not a site is offering a Paid Link will be a combination of human reporting and "spider analysis". Everything else in Google's algorithm follows this combined method so I see no reason why they wouldn't continue it with this.
    David Parkes
    Nuclear Internet - Windows Web Hosting
    http://www.nuclearinternet.com

  16. #41
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tenerife, Spain / UK
    Posts
    329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by burkul View Post
    If google is penalizing you for buying links, your competitors can easily bring you down by buying links for your site from well known link sellers. IMO, google, if they can detect your paid link, passes no PR from the link you bought. That's the most they can do.
    Other than this they can penalize the link seller site, which sounds more logical, if they do not put a "rel=nofollow" in the href tag.
    I agree, but the net result may still be a hit in the rankings for the site benefiting from these paid links, because the value of these paid links will be wiped out. After all Google is still playing catchup with Paid Links, so if your competitor took out Paid links as a way to attack your site, you may get an initial boost especially if Google hasn't yet identified the site where your competitor "advertised you" as being a Paid Link.
    David Parkes
    Nuclear Internet - Windows Web Hosting
    http://www.nuclearinternet.com

  17. #42
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The current google algo handles massive amounts of inbound links just fine. If you have a lot of inbound links that are discounted by google (low quality) then your site will definitely drop in ranking.

    If there is a sudden in-flux of quality links, you are good.

    If the links are on a completely relevant site, surrounded by relevant content, in the body of the site...you are good.
    Buying Links for SEO? Better watch this!
    FREE Text Link Marketplace and Videos.
    TextLinkCenter.com

  18. #43
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tenerife, Spain / UK
    Posts
    329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This debate really seems to hinge on whether or not Google applies negative scoring to sites link farming or paid links or if it just removes the positive benefits from such practices.

    I tend to subscribe to the latter, I can't see that Google would be stupid enough to penalise the a site for having a link in a bad neighbourhood. After all the webmaster is not in control of the content of bad sites. So I tend to think that Google would be acting smarter if it simply reduced the value of the outbound of bad sites to zero, this way there is no positive or negative hit to the target site.
    David Parkes
    Nuclear Internet - Windows Web Hosting
    http://www.nuclearinternet.com

  19. #44
    He's No Good To Me Dead silver trophybronze trophy stymiee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Slave I
    Posts
    23,426
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SortedSites View Post
    This debate really seems to hinge on whether or not Google applies negative scoring to sites link farming or paid links or if it just removes the positive benefits from such practices.

    I tend to subscribe to the latter, I can't see that Google would be stupid enough to penalise the a site for having a link in a bad neighbourhood. After all the webmaster is not in control of the content of bad sites. So I tend to think that Google would be acting smarter if it simply reduced the value of the outbound of bad sites to zero, this way there is no positive or negative hit to the target site.
    Yep. No need to penalize for something like that. Just devalue it and suddenly it isn't worth doing. Also it prevents sites from sabotaging other sites with tricks like that.

  20. #45
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tenerife, Spain / UK
    Posts
    329
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stymiee View Post
    Yep. No need to penalize for something like that. Just devalue it and suddenly it isn't worth doing. Also it prevents sites from sabotaging other sites with tricks like that.
    Exactamundo!
    David Parkes
    Nuclear Internet - Windows Web Hosting
    http://www.nuclearinternet.com


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •