| 8:37 pm on Apr 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Okay. That's not a good idea. Use centralized linking not links on every page. There are a myriad of reasons for doing this.
| 8:41 pm on Apr 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There has to be a better setup *for your users* than cluttering each page with all those links.
| 10:46 pm on Apr 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>There has to be a better setup *for your users* than cluttering each page with all those links.
He is not asking about how to make his site user-friendly he is asking about the risks involved in this structure in terms of google listing.
| 10:53 pm on Apr 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
And BigDave is implying that what is good for visitors, is also good for Google. :)
| 11:25 pm on Apr 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
What is the PR now of the sites?
How many updates have you been through?
| 11:40 pm on Apr 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>And BigDave is implying that what is good for visitors, is also good for Google. :)
He can imply it but it is not true. Google optimisation is effected by focusing on what is best for google, not on what is 'good for visitors'. If a webmaster tries to optimise his site for google by making it 'good for visitors' he will fail. That is why there are a lot of people in this forum rather than a 'user-friendly websites' forum. That is also why the original poster has made his post. He is not interested in subjective arguments about what is 'good for visitors'. Instead he is interested in how the system he has developed will be treated in terms of google listing and what he must do to optimise his sites to achieve the most effective outcome, which in this case means avoiding a google greybar for cross-linking.
| 11:50 pm on Apr 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've seem to have optimized for google and users just fine.
| 11:58 pm on Apr 21, 2003 (gmt 0)|
He is arguing that it is risky for google, but makes sense for the whole website. It sure sounds like he was implying that it was designed for the user.
I was just pointing out that it my not really be the besxzt thing for the user or for google.
While it is true that what is *best* for google, is not necessarily *best* for the user, what is bad for the user and what is bad for google have a remarkably high correlation.
BTW, my site improved drastically as far as user experience when I put in some changes that made the site more google friendly. I won't do it if it doesn't make it nicer for the user, but there are a lot of things you can do that improve things for both the user and google.
| 12:34 am on Apr 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
For me this sounds like processed Pork sandwich filler. I am in the certain countries market and see a lot of this.
Am I right? I am sorry, but it sounds to me like you have 120 domains that use the same template (I mean, you specified 60 pages per site). And maybe you fill those pages from data from another source / other sources (you are an affiliate site - nothing wrong in that - but if the material is 100% what the peer sales site offers themeselves, it would not be unique content). And then cross link all the sites? And are they all related to the same subject, just different countries?
If I am wrong, sorry. But 120 domains to me means some duplicity - do you have, say, more then one domain for certain countries?
If I am right, I consider this English Spamish, American Spamish, Australian Spamish, etc. (mild Spam).
Personally, I do not think you would or should get dropped (except for duplicate country content). But I bet Google can see past the Flag thing and determine what this is all about, and maybe down rank you a tad or two. At least I think they will probably be able to put all of this into perspective. The same perspective hopefully as if you had one domain and the countries as sub directories, with some duplicate countries / content.
I think the main problem for you if I am right, is if and when you send out emails for link exchanges, or make applications en bulk for these. I have a prominent country site that link exchanges. But I only link exchange with other singular sites. If someone sent me a 120 domain list with some duplicate country content, I would report it. And I am sure there are others like me.
| 12:19 pm on Apr 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's a difficult situation shocko.
I don't know if there are other reasons for the cross-linking penalties, but I can see two problems for Google. Firstly, you could be too successful. If you have a page on widgets for each country, then you could achieve listings for the search "widgets" in multiple domains. This bypasses Google's filter that gives just two listings per 'site'. Secondly, link text has more weight if the link comes from another domain. By cross linking 120 domains you don't benefit in terms of PageRank, but you do get a link text boost benefit.
Whatever the reasons, your situation sounds like one that could get you in trouble. I agree with Oaf357, you'd be safer just linking them all to a central domain, and from there back out to each.
| 4:51 pm on Apr 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ummmmmmmmm... Speaking from experience. Unfortunately, I have to agree with "ciml". I did this with just 28 domains. I found that for certain search phrases my sites would dominate the first two pages of results. This wasn't good for the consumer or google. My sites were penalized 2 updates ago. I would recomment NOT crosslinking all of those domains. I have taken all crosslinking off of my sites and need to get in touch with google to let them know that this has been fixed. Does anyone know of the form that GG mentioned to report these things to?