| 10:09 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
How is this a big deal? Such links are EVERYWHERE. I sincerely hope the people at Google have better things to do than fine-tune their pagerank calculations one link at a time.
| 10:22 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Needsomehelp wrote: "I smell fear....
Anyway, the world wide web is huge. How can you possibly know who we are talkling about?"
Because I know - is that not possible? Try looking at the email address of the owner of the site that is listed first on the non-profit site. You'll see its the same as a poster and member of this board.
BigDave wrote: "Forgot to mention - The guy who owns those 3 or 4 links has posted on this very thread and is a full WW member! And what difference would that make?"
It makes no difference whatsoever. I just thought it was interesting that the person you are complaining about is actually reading this. If you don't find that interesting then that is your opinion.
This guy has a big piece of the market. - # 1 SERPs all over. I say congrats to him.
| 10:25 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Whether you pay for a link or not does not make it legit or not.
Yes, it does to anyone with half a clue.
| 10:30 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So you think there is a difference between being in a Yahoo category for free and paid listing? hmmm interesting.
| 10:34 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Reciprocal links are paid links too. The payment is in the form of -barter-. I'm sure links are given for many reasons, payment for services etc.
If my brother inlaw gives me a link from his PR7 site (to help me out), does that keep the free SEPRS more .."pure" than if I bought a PR7 link from a stranger?
I realize more people have $$, than webmaster relatives but still...
| 10:41 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't really care if a link is paid, free or exchanged, though I only do free myself.
What I do care about, and I suspect that Google is of the same opinion, is that I do *not* want anything to adversely affect the search results.
Suppose a third rate SEO decides to *volunteer* as a webmaster for www.a-popular-charity.org's PR9 site, and starts putting links up to his various sites "for free".
If that suddenly causes a reduction in the quality of the SERPs for popular searches, I want google to fix the problem.
The thing is that PR8+ sites have a LOT of power, as they should. But having a lot of power puts you under closer scrutiny to make sure that you do not excessively abuse that power.
The trick to flying under the radar, is make sure that you do not stand out from the crowd. If none of those 10 sites have any other decent links, it looks bad. If 6 of those 10 would be at least a PR6 or PR7 even without those links, it would seem a lot more reasonable. If your site lists 3000 backlinks from a variety of sources, you will not be questioned about getting a large chunk of your PR from one site.
It is google's job to serve up the best results to their users, and they will do whatever they have to to continue doing that.
| 11:48 pm on Mar 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 12:15 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
BigDave - Well said!.
| 12:41 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I may have said it well, but I forgot to add a line that you might find yourselves disagreeing with.
If rfgdxm1, or anyone else, feels that some site is engaged in a practice that adversely affects the quality of the results, then they should feel free to let Google know about the perceived problem. It does not matter if it is considered SPAM or not, *any* practice that affects the results is a concern to Google. But it is Google's place to decide what to to about it.
| 12:45 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>So you think there is a difference between being in a Yahoo category for free and paid listing? hmmm interesting.
My position is that since there is no way to tell (if a non-commercial site can't get in free, they do have the option of buying there way in), all Yahoo! directory links should not be counted. Yahoo is just selling PR today.
| 12:59 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think I am the one that you are tattletailing on...and the one to which Pebbles is referring. No, I do not "buy" page rank... but I do support important organizations and make charitable contributions. So what if they list those who support their cause? Come on...you are crying over nothing.
Incidentally, I only have two websites, both of which were at the top of the serps long before I acquired a pr8 link. The reason is, I have a clean website with no spam and only good quality backlinks from directories and related sites.
| 1:47 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>>It does not matter if it is considered SPAM or not, *any* practice that affects the results is a concern to Google.
So my competitor goes out and gets 100 reciprocal links, then I should report that to google because he has affected the search results?
Links, be it free or paid, are the foundation of the web. If links help to increase pagerank, then that is a flaw with google and their pagerank system.
Go out and send google as many spam reports as you want. The fact that most go unanswered it probably because they are overwhelmed with all the webmasters out their crying sour grapes because they are getting beat in the serps.
| 3:38 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ironic. Two sites that sell Page Rank links just lost their page rank. Somebody must be reading this thread...
| 3:42 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It wasn't foxnews that lost their PR.
| 3:45 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I guess I forgot to add "adversely" before affects in one of the sentences. I do appologise for expecting you to be able to figure out the intent from the first sentence in the same paragraph. Sorry about that.
| 3:46 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What 2 sites?
| 4:00 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
this needsomehelp needs some help I think ... he reined in on a good source of income for a (a few) dot orgs. I am not sure what is WebmasterWorld policy is on this - it seems in this case a member possibly hurt another member by making the case too specific?
| 4:13 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Which two sites lost their PR? Geez, this forum is dangerous.
| 4:40 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've only been here a little while and I'm already sick of all the whining and spammer witch-hunts. Why not concentrate on making your site better instead of crying about someone elses? Google didn't get where they are by giving shady search results. Maybe a few slip through the cracks, but Google will find them.
Now if a site is obviously spamming with hidden text and keywords repeated a hundred times at the bottom of the page, that is different. I would probably report them too. But if someone has a clean site and buys an ad link on a PR8, so what? I think people keep forgetting that there are several paid-only directories that give you a text link. Marketing takes money, and if someone has $2000 to dish out to FoxNews, and Foxnews approves their site for an ad, then that is doing just what pagerank is intended for - Fox is giving a vote to the other site. Do you think they would let a site advertise that was objectionable? I don't.
Crobb hasn't done anything wrong with paying $100 for a sponsor link on a non-profit site either, and yet someone probably already filled out a spam report on him. That is ridiculous.
| 5:10 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
No bigdave, I read everything correctly. Your sarcasm isn't needed.
My point is that a lot of people will define "adversely" depending upon if their competitors are above or below them. Quality search results is dependant upon where their placement is in the serps. The minute they are outranked by a competitor, the witch hunt begins and the accusations of spam go flying. Just look at some of the threads around here after the dance has started. The "My competitors are spamming..." threads run ramped.
Buy a link to advertise your site, and you stand to be accused of buying PR. Not right.
| 5:12 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I couldn't agree with you more Pebbles. :)
| 5:28 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree that there is a lot of whining and bitching here ... there were several sites last month that were exposed/affected. I think it is too bad for a forum like this that is meant to foster webmasters and good ranking strategies. These forums are not Google spam complaints nor are meant for exposing the secrets to Google. Remember Google would be happier without any SEO/SEM. It is a love/hate relationship that they hold.
I think it is high time moderators remove any whining messages before the spirit of this community evaporates.
If I were Crobb, I would be completely pissed off;)
| 5:43 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Ironic. Two sites that sell Page Rank links just lost their page rank. Somebody must be reading this thread...
If so, please contact me directly. If you have a clue, this should be easy. Only the buyers shouldn't get benefit.
| 6:09 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The point has been raised earlier but what happens about directories that are paid? Some are semi-paid. It would be very difficult to keep a database of directories(or their categories) and websites which are paid.
| 6:18 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Erm just to note as some people have been saying.
While the SEs might be key in getting traffic, its your website that is key in RETENTION and conversion - obtaining traffic is not just the end goal.
| 6:23 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't see ANY reason for a site to not get PR passed if they paid for the link! To try to enforce that rule, would also lead to the logical conclusion that reciprical links shouldn't count, etc. etc.. The only reason I give people a reciprical link, is if they give me a link. In essence they are paying for their link!
So what do you suggest, that those links should also not be counted? What a waste of time! If you have the money to spend on advertising to get PR, so be it - if you don't it's still not a problem, because with a lot of hard work and some good link-chasing you'll beat them anyway.
Google has quite simply created a new currency on the web.. they will have to live with the consequences or ditch the currency altogether.
| 6:24 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|If so, please contact me directly. If you have a clue, this should be easy. Only the buyers shouldn't get benefit. |
Extending this to reciprocal links (free or barter links) should not get any benefit either ... I think the best course for Google is to treat this same as reciprocal links UNLESS they see the quality of SERPs deteriorate in which case they can take some manual intervention on case by case!. In some cases where they see a blatant/rampant PR for sale signs, they could take PR out of the site and in other cases reduce the PR from ad links!
| 6:33 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Remember Google would be happier without any SEO/SEM. It is a love/hate relationship that they hold.<<
A lot of complainers PRETEND to be concered about the integrity of GOOGLE results.
If G went away tomorrow I don't think they'd give up & close up shop. I suspect they are worried that all the work they put in e-mailing for links might be devalued.
OR are worried this is a is a shortcut to SEO.
Perspective.....GOOGLE is still the best SE.
| 6:48 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy, i was wondering if we could get a straight answer, i want to do things right and not get in any trouble. Will paying for an ad on FOX news have any penalty to my site?
| 8:15 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|GoogleGuy, i was wondering if we could get a straight answer, i want to do things right and not get in any trouble. Will paying for an ad on FOX news have any penalty to my site? |
I don't think it is right for GG to address the above on a site by site case. However, I would like to hear from him/her though -
a) Any relevant paid text links (for example on a weather site some travel links) will derive the page rank benefit or not
b) The current value of FREE/bartered reciprocal links - will this continue to be an acceptable strategy especially if the above a) does not have value
c) If paid (perceived paid links) are treated differently than FREE links, how does Google distinguish one from another on a large scale (not site by site, case by case as seems to be done currently)
| 9:07 am on Mar 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Good luck trying to get Google to make a definitive statement. They always prefer to use the most general guidelines (e.g. would you do this if Google didn't exist?) rather than tie their hands by publishing specific rules.
As far as (c) goes, there's absolutely no way an algorithm can identify paid links on diverse sites. I can see ways to *begin* writing such a routine, but it could never be reliable.
| This 185 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 185 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 ) > > |