homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.84.199
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 272 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 272 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 > >     
link pages being removed?
site has good PR, links page has PR0 or not indexed.
moehits




msg:185238
 5:24 pm on May 19, 2003 (gmt 0)

Not sure if this has been discussed, or just a coincidence but,...

I'm seeing quite a few sites with good PR on all pages except their links page. These pages had PR before, now they are either PR0, or grey ( not indexed ).

It seems it's more consistent at sites that have just one links page with multiple topics on it, sites with multiple links pages (directory style links pages) on topic seem OK.

the consitencies I see are:

Most have link text pointing to them called links
Most are called links.htm or have links in the URL.
Most are 1 page, multi-topic links pages, e.g., there is no targeted theme to the page, anything from greeting cards to health sites all on same page.

Could these be mistaken for FFA's?

I haven't checked fully, but many are listed on "link trading" sites. Maybe peple have created link farms and don't realize it?

I've seen this on many sites. It doesn't seem like a coincidence.

 

walthamstow




msg:185388
 10:25 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Incidentally my themed "Useful Links" page which is also one of the main pages linked from the home page has remained at PR5. It contains 45 links to external on topic sites of which 75% have an average of 50 words review of their content beneath the link to aid users.

All the nine 'main' pages also have links to each other and the home page on each one.

copongcopong




msg:185389
 10:30 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think this has something to do with what server the google toolbar tries to get the information of the PR.

Pages with trailing slash, would receive a different PR with the url that does no have a trailing slash and sometimes simply refreshing the page (may need multiple times) would give the 4 PR again. (may page flactuates to 0 and 4 PR)

As I analyze this, for example my page shows 0 PR and then I try to search my site in the Google Directory, it would not show up. Then if I try to refresh the page (over and over again) until it shows 4 PR, try to check out Google Directory, my site is listed there.

If I check dmoz, it still list my site.

This ends up in 2 possible scenario. First, is my site being penalize (if it was it should have a gray pr?!?) ... Second, wait patiently while google updates.

if this happens ...
I hate to say this, but if your page is PR4 and you see fluctuation to PR0, then most likely that page is going to end up at PR0 after everything settles down.

i think i would really need a beer, i mean a lot!

GoogleGuy




msg:185390
 10:31 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey, sounds like enough people have chimed in with counter evidence to dispel this..

Kirby




msg:185391
 10:34 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Now if they are presented in context with more text and naturally within the site, it is more likely they are legitimate useful links that are not just there because of a "swap".

Case in point are two industry specific portals. Site A requires reciprocal link from home page while Site B doesn't specify. Almost half of Site B's backlinks are from link pages. Both sites had 2000+ backlinks 3 weeks ago. Today Site A has 2080 links and Site B has 867 links.

walthamstow




msg:185392
 10:35 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

copongcopong,

I think what you are seing after refreshing and eventually getting a higher PR is the result of eventually connecting to one of the other datacenters that still has that PR.

pleeker




msg:185393
 10:36 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey, sounds like enough people have chimed in with counter evidence to dispel this..

But it would be much more reliable coming from you than from our anecdotal evidence. :-)

walthamstow




msg:185394
 10:50 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Right - I've cross checked some of the other numerous threads and it looks like the wisest thing I can do is just wait and see what the state of play is at the end of it all.

GoogleGuy




msg:185395
 10:57 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Sorry, that's what I was trying to say earlier. :) Links pages don't get PR0, and we index them.

Kirby




msg:185396
 11:04 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Thanks GoogleGuy.

Care to give us Google's definition of a link farm?

steve128




msg:185397
 11:10 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

walthamstow
Don't worry be happy, you have caught a bug.
You will be fit again in x weeks
I'm just glad it is not contagious, please do not link to my site -;
just kiddin

GoogleGuy




msg:185398
 11:11 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

They're mostly located in the Midwest, I think. Lots of irrigation and sunshine to raise those little links. The links need time to mature, or else they aren't as good. Once the links are harvested, they're shipped throughout the world to different companies that make HTML editors, and those companies can feed the links right in.
If you drive across the U.S., you can still see link farmers from time to time.

pageoneresults




msg:185399
 11:16 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

That has to be the best definition I've read of a Link Farm. Thanks for the chuckle GG.

I would assume that the quality of the fertilizer determines the quality of the link once it matures.

Stefan




msg:185400
 11:19 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

GG takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Funny stuff... maintained a sense of humour through all of this.

Kirby




msg:185401
 11:19 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy,

With an answer like that, people are again going to start accusing you of being too cryptic.

walthamstow




msg:185402
 11:24 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Good one GoogleGuy!

So are you trying to 'weed out' the genetically modified (GM) links?

Zapatista




msg:185403
 11:33 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Links pages don't get PR0? I think you need to check with someone in the tech department on that one cuz I got mugged and shot.

I changed the file names to protect the innocent. It was a case of BFD, so I did it.

Liane




msg:185404
 11:46 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

But it would be much more reliable coming from you than from our anecdotal evidence.

There have been enough posts by respected members of WebmasterWorld dispelling the theory of a penalty for legitimate links pages, that it should have been self evident. If GoogleGuy has to chime in on every thread to have their comments and views validated ...

Think about it! Penalizing legitimate, on topic links pages would be entirely counter productive and contrary to the entire premiss of the www.

I have two links pages on my site. I don't care what the PR for those pages is. They are there for my readers/customers ... not Google. They are staying regardless of PR as they add to the overall informational value of my site.

I think this will all come out in the wash ... after the update settles ... if it settles. ;)

Kirby




msg:185405
 11:51 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

There have been enough posts by respected members of WebmasterWorld dispelling the theory of a penalty for legitimate links pages, that it should have been self evident.

Absolutely no disrespect intended, but to many, there is very little about what is happening right now with Google that is self evident.

Zapatista




msg:185406
 11:58 pm on May 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yeah, whatever, everyone talks like that till it happens to them. I have completely legitimate links pages too, divided by topic with no more than 25 per page.

It didn't take much work to change everything and I would rather be on the safe side, inspite of the so called counter evidence there "is."

Whether or not they are targeting links.html pages, it no longer matters to me.

As I stated in another thread, traffic diversification away from Google dependency is a lesson I learned in September when THAT algo change hit many websites like this recent one has/will. This algo change will deliver a punch against my site, which is super clean, but not a detrimental one.

And discussion of whether or not the algo change is actually better or worse for Google is useless. Why care about it? That's their problem, not ours. Ours is to concentrate on our site and improving traffic no matter where it comes from. If I hadn't been busy working on diversification for the last 6 months, this new algo change would have killed me. But I learned my lesson in Sept.

GoogleGuy




msg:185407
 12:06 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

walthamstow, just remember that you want all-organic links. :)

Liane




msg:185408
 12:13 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

If I hadn't been busy working on diversification for the last 6 months, this new algo change would have killed me. But I learned my lesson in Sept.

I am a firm believer in diversification because anything can happen at any time. However, there are some things which are just over the top. My personal opinion only :) ... but I believe penalties against legitimate links pages would be outrageous.

The thing which seems to be overlooked throughout this thread is that even if there were some sort of penalty being imposed in the Dominic update (which is still NOT over) ... it will be applied across the board. In past months, many, millions of sites had their PR reduced. The reduction in PR for my site had zero results in regards to positioning or number of inquiries.

You speak of a new algo change ... but there has not been any substantive proof of any algo change whatsoever. Until the update is done and run, (which it is NOT) it is (IMHO) premature to speculate how disastrous it may or may not be. We still have some waiting to do before we can see and evaluate the final results.

[edited by: Liane at 12:22 am (utc) on May 21, 2003]

g1smd




msg:185409
 12:19 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

As I would hate for someone to arrive at my site on the links page, and then surf right on out again without viewing any other site content, I always put <meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow"> on all dedicated links pages. These pages usually have about 5 to 15 links to other related sites, and are meant to be a final exit point for use after the visitor has browsed my site.

As I also wouldn't like some kid doing a search for "nice forms to play around with" on sites, I also put this tag on any pages that contain forms that send email, and on all of the target pages that show after the form has processed.

Will this harm things? I'll let you know.

Zapatista




msg:185410
 12:29 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Liane, I've tried to figure out why this links.html possible penality may not be applied across the board and it could only be because nothing is ever found in the first swipe through. I believe that because Google can never seem to find spam after 7 or 8 run throughs.

But I swear, there is nothing wrong with my sites, no spam, nothing even close. Not within miles. I followed Brett's 12 months to a good site in Google thread which has become scripture.

I'm still trying to figure out what an all organic link is. Anyone? Anyone?

But figuring out Google's algo hasn't been my main concern for awhile. Diversification. It's everything. I'm brainstorming right now for more methods to diversify. A little creative thinking is all it takes.

Visi




msg:185411
 12:34 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Added lettuce, tomato and potato links....waits patiently for gogglebot:) Some humor is required while people are yelling the sky is falling. Thanks GG.

skipfactor




msg:185412
 12:36 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Organic. Definitely organic. :)

internetbrothers




msg:185413
 12:38 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

I see PR 0 for google.co.kr.

theBear




msg:185414
 12:42 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Doth sayeth a member of this Forum on the way to the barn:

Organic. Definitely organic. :)

We have our basic cow and pig manure to help raise healthy leeks, err I mean links on our 100% certified Organic Link Farm (tm) (sm) (pat pend.)

Cheers,
theBear

Good daffynition there GG

elklabone




msg:185415
 12:43 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

It's interesting that GoogleGuy just kind of dismissed this entire thing...

SOMETHING had definitely happened to A LOT of honest link pages. If nothing else, this could indicate that Google is tightening their algorithm to try and stop "spammy" link pages and/or FFA link pages.

My guess is that we're going to be seeing a smaller weight put on reciprocal links for boosting PR. Actually, I think from the end-user's point of view, this makes sense. A one-way link should weigh more than a reciprocal link, IMHO.

My link page was PR0'd out today... and ALL of my links on my links page are reciprocal. Anyone have a links page PR0'd out today that has one-way (non-reciprocal) links?

Just curious.

Liane




msg:185416
 12:43 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well Zapatista,

As Googleguy said at the Boston Pub Conference, they will be applying spam filters "in the very near future". I am all but certain that Google is rolling out some of these new filters in the Dominic update ... but it is too soon to tell what the effects might be.

But I swear, there is nothing wrong with my sites, no spam, nothing even close. Not within miles. I followed Brett's 12 months to a good site in Google thread which has become scripture.

Then I doubt very much you should have anything to worry about! ;)

I'm still trying to figure out what an all organic link is. Anyone? Anyone?

From the Concise Oxford dictionary: Structural, inherent, systematic, coordinated.

I would decipher GG's comment as being "on theme" with and relevant to the topic of your site. Just my opinion though ... perhaps he means little byte sized links you find on the midwest link farms! :)

But figuring out Google's algo hasn't been my main concern for awhile. Diversification. It's everything.

Agreed! :)

Stefan




msg:185417
 12:43 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

This thread is grey-barred on my browser... wouldn't it have had inherited PR before? Everything is in flux, still changing. What you see is not what you'll necessarily get when Google recovers.

rcjordan




msg:185418
 12:48 am on May 21, 2003 (gmt 0)

>This thread is grey-barred on my browser

Heh, heh, heh ...that happens every now and then. Read into what you will. Too close to the truth? Or, waaaayyyy beyond the limits of wild speculation? You decide.

This 272 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 272 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
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