homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.119.163
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Link Development Forum

This 92 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 92 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >     
new link trend that is worrying
free links script that is working
Crush




msg:420098
 1:09 am on Jan 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am seeing a link scheme that is increasingly working. (so I should shut my mouth really).

You can put some code server side that inserts some links randomly on your site pages. 1000's of others do the same and your link appears at random on other peoples sites. Yahoo and msn pick the links up within a few days and then come the serps.

Really good because no reciprocals, 1000's of participants and kicks ass rankings with no effort. The only problem is that there you do not know where your links are going to appear and as the popularity increases so will the crap.

 

creative craig




msg:420128
 1:40 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

If they are so smart, what do they need the "nofollow" attribute for? But spreading fear is a lot easier than adjusting the alg ....

Notice I said I would hope, I hope for a lot of things but they never happen ;)

Crush




msg:420129
 6:29 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Like I said earlier, it is a great idea and if they get the ads on target then it will actually be beneficial. But as it stands you just have a bunch of rotating garbage in the footer of your page. I am going to get round to joining because I see it works too well, just not with my pride and joy sites.

Advenlo




msg:420130
 7:00 am on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

But surely the importance is in the bot visits and a more rapid time to index?

[edited by: martinibuster at 9:19 am (utc) on Feb. 8, 2005]
[edit reason] Plz, no Promotion. See TOS [webmasterworld.com] [/edit]

Tigrou




msg:420131
 7:32 pm on Feb 8, 2005 (gmt 0)

Anyone check how this panned out in latest Google update?

Sue_uk




msg:420132
 2:06 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think the main problem with this network is the fact the links are different each time Google returns, so either devalues them, or devalues the site they are coming from.

Another potential problem with the links changing automatically with each reload is if a bad apple gets in to the network its 'bad neighbourhood' effect could spread very quickly.

Sue_uk




msg:420133
 2:18 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

An after thought -

Would gaining thousands of links in one day actually have a positive effect in Google?! Maybe the reason the sites are only rank highly in MSN and Yahoo and not Google is down to Google being able to detect unnatural link growth. Which im sure an increase in 1000's links in one day would trigger. Sorry if someones already mentioned this but I dont recall reading it.

disgust




msg:420134
 6:23 pm on Feb 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Anyone check how this panned out in latest Google update?

works as well as ever.

An after thought -
Would gaining thousands of links in one day actually have a positive effect in Google?! Maybe the reason the sites are only rank highly in MSN and Yahoo and not Google is down to Google being able to detect unnatural link growth. Which im sure an increase in 1000's links in one day would trigger. Sorry if someones already mentioned this but I dont recall reading it.

it most certainly doesn't trigger a negative impact on your placement in google. it does quite the opposite. I've done it plenty of times over with this network and I'm still seeing the same results- pointed thousands of links at a page and within a week it was in the top 10 for google, yahoo, and msn.

regarding the possible "banning" of this sort of network:

1) things like this (webrings) have been around forever. very very similar style to it all, just on a bigger scale.

2) the network doesn't come off as "spammy" at all in my opinion. most of the sites participating are high quality sites, and the site it's hosted on is about as far from spammy as you can get. the basic idea behind said network is this: you can buy text links (google, overture, etc). you can buy the links with cash, or you can barter- that's what the network's about. the only other fundamental difference between this and other text link networks is that the links are delivered in plain html, since the code is parsed server-side.

misc notes on the network:

since your weight in the network is determined by the number of pages in google that you're running ads on, chances are you WON'T see sites getting credit for trash pages- ie direct dmoz clones, etc. if it's not good enough for google it's not good enough to count in the network.

It is not hard to find the participants either. You just need to make a script that refreshed the page 100,000 times and you will find most of the participating domains.

not exactly. see, the pages you run ads on do NOT need to be the pages (or even the domain) you point the ads to. I can run ads on www.mypersonalsite.com and point the links I earn to www.myecommercesite.com.

in other words, if they punish the sites that show up in the ads, it wouldn't be hard to get a competitor's site to drop like a rock. all you have to do is point the links you earned at them.

webnerd




msg:420135
 9:28 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Now I am beginning to understand why Google sandboxes new links for an x amount of time.
Then they constantly check the links for a period of time before ranking them in the Pr of the sites in question.
That is how they solved this problem.
I was wondering why there was a delay.
I agree with Jeffstar.
Avoid this scheme like you would avoid the plague.

disgust




msg:420136
 10:58 pm on Feb 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

if you point the links from said network at pages on an old domain (even if the page itself is new), it can begin ranking well in days- weeks at the most.

it's also helped to give me a bit more understanding about how the sandbox does and doesn't work. I used to buy that "links" were sandboxed, not sites. don't buy that for a second now.

decaff




msg:420137
 7:40 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

What did crush say:
"You got some serious thrill issues dude!"
;-)

Crush




msg:420138
 10:31 am on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

Infact google knows about it. I cannot post links here but elsewhere googles unoffcial rep posts something about it. Looks like he could not be too bothered though. Just said it will weaken as spam creeps in

Gruntled




msg:420139
 11:12 pm on Feb 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

As a newbie in all respects, I'd at least be curious to see what the heck it is you all are talking about. So please feel free, anyone, to sticky the URL to me.

Thanks.

Dominic_X




msg:420140
 4:39 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Visitors
I've been using it to advertise and getting more visitors than from my 10 listings in dmoz, 100's of link exchanges and forum sigs and any other kind of advertising I do (including the paid directories like yahoo) put together.

Ads Moderator
I volunteer to moderate the ads accepted into the network and only approve on average 50% of ads submitted (based on the guidelines for ads). Yes a lot of junk gets submitted but doesn't mean it is accepted.

SERPS
If the links from ads were perminant g-bot after g-bot visit they would be more powerful, but the point is a free advertising coop, not a link scheme. Having said that though, the anchor text on thousands of different sites sure has made a massive difference for our SERPS.

You can sticky me for the url if you want, but I have no interest in debating the usefulness of it with you - it's either something you want to use or it's not.

Crush




msg:420141
 10:50 am on Feb 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dominic_X

Call it what you want but at the end of the day it is a link scheme to increase your rankings which is against google's TOS. No one does it for the natural clicks.

Tallon




msg:420142
 2:37 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

see, the pages you run ads on do NOT need to be the pages (or even the domain) you point the ads to. I can run ads on www.mypersonalsite.com and point the links I earn to www.myecommercesite.com.

in other words, if they punish the sites that show up in the ads, it wouldn't be hard to get a competitor's site to drop like a rock. all you have to do is point the links you earned at them.

This is quite unnerving.

Can I use this network to force a competitor out of a prime keyword phrase? Point masses of text links reading: "blue widgets" so that he has far too high a ratio of incoming "blue widgets" links pointing to him, dropping him out of the SERPS for blue widgets?

Does this network ensure that any text ad link pointing to a website is a website actually owned by the participant?

Did someone just discover a way to force competitors out of google for prime phrases? Best part is - it can't be traced back to you as all the sites you are using to oust a competitor aren't yours.

Unnerving.

Liane




msg:420143
 2:51 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

This is nauseating. :(

Advise to newbies ... run, don't walk away from this thread! You'll regret even contemplating this notion.

Tallon




msg:420144
 3:03 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

FYI: I am not nor will I ever do something like my above post suggests. I'm a firm believer in kharma - what goes around comes around.

But if it took me two minutes to read this thread and come up with that scenario/opportunity, you can bet it *is* being done and being done on a large scale level. I'm only a semi-newbie to SEO and I saw it right off the bat.

This is *frightening*.

Anyone been knocked out of SERPS lately? Maybe check your IBLs, see if anything funky's goin on there.

disgust




msg:420145
 3:30 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Call it what you want but at the end of the day it is a link scheme to increase your rankings which is against google's TOS. No one does it for the natural clicks

even having a links page, really, is having a "link scheme to increase your rankings." it's a matter of opinion... but we all know that google doesn't punish someone only for acquiring links that they're only acquiring to manipulate search engines. we all do it. how we do it might differ.

Can I use this network to force a competitor out of a prime keyword phrase? Point masses of text links reading: "blue widgets" so that he has far too high a ratio of incoming "blue widgets" links pointing to him, dropping him out of the SERPS for blue widgets?

if google punished this, then yes, you could do that. which is why google doesn't, and never will, punish you for having incoming links. you can't control what links to you, and google knows this.

Tallon




msg:420146
 3:45 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

if google punished this, then yes, you could do that. which is why google doesn't, and never will, punish you for having incoming links. you can't control what links to you, and google knows this.

Really?

I think you guys *SERIOUSLY* need to take steps & confirm that every text link is pointed to a participant's website and not some innocent webmaster's.

There's a real problem here Houston.

disgust




msg:420147
 3:49 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

how is that a problem?

it's no different from you being able to add a link to someone's site on every site you own. you can do this. why you'd want to is beyond me.

same thing's true with the ad network. sure, you can point links at competitors... but it works a hell of a lot better if you use them to promote your own sites.

Tallon




msg:420148
 3:57 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Why not ensure that this network won't be used for nefarious deeds by putting in place a system to confirm that each text link pointing to a website is a website that is a participant, or at the very least approves the network links pointing to it?

Otherwise this network can just be used as a nasty tool. Is that what you want this network to be? Why not make sure that doesn't happen or *no longer* can be used this way.

eeve




msg:420149
 4:52 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I appologize if this has already been said. But these types of advertising networks are NOT doing anything underhanded.

Compare it to Google adsense ads that people display on their sites. You pay google to 'join' and to create ads. Google has a policy against inappropriate ads. Then your ads are shown on lots of sites that choose to show ads.

The only difference to the type of network described in the first post of this thread... is that one is FREE and one is not. One has ads sorting by relevance and one may or may not. Which is a moot point because MOST ads I see on any sites are of un-related subject matter. Oh wait.. I suppose the countless ads for "1000 smilies" is enriching my browsing experience?

As long as the ads are not of inappropriate content, and are not overly abundanant (ex 100 on one page) and are not using sneaky methods like invisible text, what is the problem with them over other forms of ads exactly?

Advertising is a major part of the web. You can't ban people because they choose to be organized about it.

disgust




msg:420150
 5:30 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

agree completely, eeve. :)

Why not ensure that this network won't be used for nefarious deeds by putting in place a system to confirm that each text link pointing to a website is a website that is a participant, or at the very least approves the network links pointing to it?
Otherwise this network can just be used as a nasty tool. Is that what you want this network to be? Why not make sure that doesn't happen or *no longer* can be used this way.

it isn't seen as a problem.

think of it this way: we'll continue the google adwords analogy. you can run ads for a competitor's site. say, yahoo *could* decide that they're going punish all sites that have adsense/adwords ads pointing to them. then, and only then, would it become essentially neccesary for google to put something in place to make sure you can only put up ads to your site.

there is no easy way to tank someone else's site. if there was, google (or any other decent search engine) would do something to stop that possibility.

the ad network will never be penalized. discounted or devalued, maybe. but not penalized.

SlyOldDog




msg:420151
 7:08 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

The creator of the scheme reckons Google cannot detect the scheme algorithmically (how do you spell that?), because the links are straight HTML, no java. He even said he had difficulty detecting it himself (to verify members are posting the links).

I beg to differ. :) I'll take a wild guess that there are very few pages on the net where the straight html outbound links (not banners) change every time the page is loaded. So it's simple to catch. Just cache the page, reload and look for changing links in the same position relative to the rest of the page.

I hope Google does it too becuase as an optimization technique it's about the cheapest and nastiest for a long while. It deserves to go down in the anals of history with hidden text.

One other point from above - once they make the links on topic you can kiss bye bye to your 1000s of backlinks. How many site are on your topic? You're just going to end up with 10000 backlinks from a few sites. Crosslinking penalty anyone?

disgust




msg:420152
 7:27 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

the ratings aren't *that* specific though. there are just general categories. think the topmost dmoz categories, or something along those lines.

there are ways google could try to detect it. there are a lot of them. but all of them can either be patched, or would result in false positives. in any case, as Crash pointed out, Googleguy mentioned the network on another site, and it didn't seem like he was particularly concerned with punishing the network or diminishing the returns it gives.

he basically said something along the lines of "if spammy sites creep into the network, you might end up linking to spammy sites- which might impact how google treats your sites."

but that's something most members of the network realize (as well as the owner of the network realizes), and there are multiple steps in place used to stop spammy sites from getting in / getting any weight in the network.

HughMungus




msg:420153
 7:31 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

So it's simple to catch. Just cache the page, reload and look for changing links in the same position relative to the rest of the page.

Not so easy. What if that space is ad space and the webmaster has rotating affiliate ads or Adsense? Therefore, the only way to make this work would be human review on each individual website (assuming they all put the link pool links in different places on their pages).

SlyOldDog




msg:420154
 7:31 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy had probably not worked how to tackle it when he wrote that post.

Just imagine for a moment you are a search engineer at Google. What would you think about this network? Good for the algorithm? Adds relevance? Democratic?

It's going to get hammered.

SlyOldDog




msg:420155
 7:33 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>Not so easy. What if that space is ad space and the webmaster has rotating affiliate ads or Adsense

Not so. Those links are nearly never straight HTML. They are redirects so the originator can count his money.

The links in this scheme are plain HTML.

Will there be collateral damage if it's taken out? Maybe? Acceptatble? Probably.

HughMungus




msg:420156
 7:37 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just imagine for a moment you are a search engineer at Google. What would you think about this network? Good for the algorithm? Adds relevance? Democratic?

I would think that if it's on topic/categorized that it would be no different from a web ring, directory or any other scheme dedicated to offering visitors other resources...and we all know how much Google loves directories...

HughMungus




msg:420157
 7:39 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Not so. Those links are nearly never straight HTML. They are redirects so the originator can count his money.

Right, so, wouldn't affiliate links that are only slightly differentiated be even more dangerous to a publisher than straight HTML links that are differentiated?

The links in this scheme are plain HTML.

You mean as they appear on the publisher's pages, right? Seems to me that plain HTML links would be a lot harder to distinguish as being part of a link pool than not.

eeve




msg:420158
 8:07 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

The point is not to get away with it. Because it isn't doing anything wrong.

Otherwise, perhaps we should punish everyone with advertising on their site! Or maybe just sites with advertising that changes with page refreshes? That would be most commercial sites with banner ads or google ads or any such thing. Come on people.

What's your real gripe? That someone found a simple, cheap, effective way to generate traffic and backlinks? Please. It's the weighting system that gives such weight to backlinks that's the problem- not the advertisers.

Even if Google began actively checking if links disappear after a page refresh, and downgrading those as advertising links... so what? I still get TRAFFIC from my advertising efforts.

Transient links like this can be discounted if the SEs want... but punishing them would be foolish.

Also, why do the ads have to be categorized? What everyone has to realize that it's the search engines' jobs to find out what a page is about and show relevant search results. It is NOT their job to tell me what I can and can not put on my site. And whether I can or cannot show advertising. That's my business- as long as I'm not linking to any junk - x rated, casinos, prescription drugs, etc... then it's not Google's job to make me categorize my ads. Period.

It is NOT Google's job to protect YOU from advertising. You can choose not to visit that site. It is therefore not Google's job to make sure you only have to see relevant ads. Please! Let's not make Google the ad police of the web. Webmasters will benefit by showing relevant ads... but they don't have to.

Come on!

[edited by: eeve at 8:21 pm (utc) on Feb. 14, 2005]

This 92 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 92 ( 1 [2] 3 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved