homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.231.110
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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.

 

diamondgrl




msg:420099
 4:58 am on Jan 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

Cool, and here's what a PhD at Google is working on now:

Setting up a dozen dummy sites, joining these link networks and by checking backlinks, finding every other participant in such a scheme. And then they all get banned from Google.

I love this scheme! It weeds out all the unethical idiots from the SERPS.

Crush




msg:420100
 10:14 am on Jan 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Cool, and here's what a PhD at Google is working on now: "

Wow, you got the bat phone to Bush as well? he he

In any case I am going to join with some crap sites to make some quick money but as you say, it is an idiot scheme. The thing is google does not always implement the solution for months, maybe a year.

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.

SlyOldDog




msg:420101
 10:19 am on Jan 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have seen more rediculous schemes than this which still work.

I am sure Google already knows who the participants are, but the question is which ones to ban. Banning 100,000 sites at a stroke would seem a trifle draconian.

Crush




msg:420102
 10:38 am on Jan 30, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I am sure Google already knows who the participants are"

Sure but msn and yahoo do not.

incrediBILL




msg:420103
 9:51 am on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)


"Cool, and here's what a PhD at Google is working on now: "

Yes, and PhD is an acronym pronounced FUDD, as in Elmer.

I digress, it's late.

jaffstar




msg:420104
 1:08 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

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.

I found the site as well, aka "link pool". It hounestly sounds too good to be true. I would never use this services, too risky.

GranPops




msg:420105
 1:16 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can one assume that those webmasters who have been pushed down the SERPS by sites that suddenly have 1,000's of irrelevant links, might have reported the matter to the Plex?

jaffstar




msg:420106
 1:37 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

Surely if one site gets taken out with a penalty, it would spread like a virus infecting other sites, 1000's of PR0's , sounds like music to my ears :)

Crush




msg:420107
 3:08 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

Those of you in the know ( me of course :o) would know that this one has been around since mid last year and there are a lot of people pleased as punch about it. I have spent years getting my backlinks and these turds come along in 2 weeks and take some of my star sites off msn and yahoo (Msn more so than yahoo). I expect them to go the way of search king and linkstoyou but in the meantime it is a pain in the ass!

[edited by: Crush at 3:09 pm (utc) on Jan. 31, 2005]

creative craig




msg:420108
 3:08 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think that short term this type of linking will help. But long term I would hope that Google will recognise them as being artificial links to increase link popularity.

I think that links that seem to be natural such as a few well placed links in large chunks of relevant text (articles, press releases) will be the way forward. It's been working for me for a while now.

ryan26




msg:420109
 3:40 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

As long as the individual links are on topic it will be extremely hard to flag them.

diamondgrl




msg:420110
 3:49 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think jaffstar said it best. PR0s will start spreading like a virus to all those dumb enough to try it. Sounds good to me ...

Crush




msg:420111
 3:49 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

Not hard at all. Go to someone who is there, check the backlinks, and bingo!

Depends if they could be bothered

jaffstar




msg:420112
 4:15 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

General Notice:

Please do not sticky me for the URL!

Crush




msg:420113
 4:59 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

yeah do not sticky me too.

houseofsecrets




msg:420114
 5:47 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can think of several sites that run banner ad networks that don't get penalized by Google. I read a statement from GoogleGuy on this very subject and it basically said, as long as the sites were inside G's guidelines, this is fine.

How hard would it be to clean this up? Categorize the links and make the publishing sites pick a category or two. I doubt you'd even need to go that far. You can find much more spammy stuff as far as linking out goes on pages that rank very highly in Google. The fact that this is so successful probably has more to do with the fact that it probably doesn't cost very much and it gets great advertising via it's own network--with random links like that and the success you describe, this network must get a lot of pageviews.

houseofsecrets




msg:420115
 5:51 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think that links that seem to be natural such as a few well placed links in large chunks of relevant text (articles, press releases) will be the way forward. It's been working for me for a while now.

I'm starting to see a LOT of this. That will pretty much be the final nail in the PageRank coffin.

creative craig




msg:420116
 8:38 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think that it is the best way forward. Writing content that is good for the users and the webmasters as well as the site that is getting some good links.

Because you are going to be giving the article to another site to host it will have to be well written and relevant to the site owner.

HughMungus




msg:420117
 9:07 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

What is unethical about this? Would a web ring also be unethicial? How about a "random link" script?

HughMungus




msg:420118
 9:11 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

Not hard at all. Go to someone who is there, check the backlinks, and bingo!

And what if the links are arranged by category? Then what would be the difference between a page full of links based on a category and a directory (like dmoz)?

Crush




msg:420119
 9:21 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

And what if the links are arranged by category?

Ah, yes that would be better.

"And what if the links are arranged by category? Then what would be the difference between a page full of links based on a category and a directory (like dmoz)?"

The dmoz does not rotate links on 1000's of sites in a link farm :)

SlyOldDog




msg:420120
 11:04 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

he he. People are already cheating on other participants in the scheme.

Putting up entire copies of DMOZ just to get more pages with links on them into the sytem, cloaking their pages so the links are not cached, creating thousands of pages with no content just to add the script.

This one will go down not because of Google, but because of greedy webmasters. Most webmasters will pull out as the effect of the backlinks decline as more and more junk pages are added to the network.

Of course it's a nice short term boost though :)

the_nerd




msg:420121
 12:56 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think that short term this type of linking will help. But long term I would hope that Google will recognise them as being artificial links to increase link popularity.

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

JuniorOptimizer




msg:420122
 1:01 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can't think of anything worse than "getting involved with a bunch of other webmasters" in a "link scheme".

When it goes down, it goes down with a bang.

neuron




msg:420123
 2:44 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

So, I guess they need to add a bunch of legitimate sites to the network, add google, and msn, yahoo, and ebay, and amazon, and maybe a few thousand others from dmoz and the yahoo directory.

Since the script itself can't be read by engines, only the resultant html, how would the engines know who was a participant and who was an innocent?

The only way I can see that they could kick this bucket over is to not count links that are only found one time and not on a subsequent visit, but then the script could also be made to recognize the bots and feed them the same links on x number of subsequent visits.

Me thinks the announcement of the death of random linking pools may at this point be a bit premature.

doortodoororganics




msg:420124
 11:17 am on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

i'm with Junior, Pa, ain't no thing sillier than "getting involved with a bunch of other webmasters" in a "link scheme".

RichTC




msg:420125
 3:11 pm on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

Interesting thread.

Whats to stop you buying a cheap directory, sticking it on your server and having links on it to every page of your website?

I guess google would pick up on the fact that its the same server? or does it sort of count links from the same place as less value?

I just see so many directory sites listing high in google you wonder if its worth having a directory for a) promotion of your site and b) the link value as google values directory sites so much

Crush




msg:420126
 4:27 pm on Feb 6, 2005 (gmt 0)

<Whats to stop you buying a cheap directory, sticking it on your server and having links on it to every page of your website?>

That is what people are doing. Getting a whole copy of dmoz and putting it on their server. This gives you more weight in the links program, which in turn gets you more links to your sites.

Pikin_It_Up




msg:420127
 10:24 am on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>That is what people are doing. Getting a whole copy of dmoz and putting it on their server. This gives you more weight in the links program, which in turn gets you more links to your sites.

Actually, this no longer works in the network.

As the Dup content filters have been tweaked again, running a DMOZ clone no longer does the trick...

FYI, I'm actually quite involved in the network and have to say, it's looking good for most people participating.

All ads are approved before they are entered into the network, as are the sites participating in the network.

Also, in the not-too-distant future, categorising the sites involved will roll out live (If you want to run a site in the network, you already have to choose a category)...

This network certainly isn't for everyone, but for the people who are using it already, its working wonders (Myself included)...

Please don't PM me for the URL...

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