homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.128.190
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >     
Google is indeed broken
Guestbook links still rule
sirlion




msg:123831
 1:55 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

My turn now for the disappearing site trick. Was #1 then #6 now gone. For a very competitve key phrase in a financial area there is a meatball site at #6- All keywords with over 200 backlinks all from guestbooks as far as I can tell. Don't ask for PR, the toolbar has been broken too since Domenic propogated all servers. If this is an example of the serps now and maybe to come it will be RIP Google soon. If anyone is interested in the url I reference here you can sticky me and I'll send it.

 

mfishy




msg:123832
 1:57 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

This actually is not new to Dominic. Pages with only guestbook links have done quite well for a while.

sirlion




msg:123833
 2:05 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

[This actually is not new to Dominic. Pages with only guestbook links have done quite well for a while.]

Yes, but I thought I read more than once that GB links were supposed to be filtered out with this Dominec fiasco.

mfishy




msg:123834
 2:08 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

I would recommend that you come to your own conclusions when it comes to spam and Google.

The company line is that although guestbook links show, they do not "count". :)

sirlion




msg:123835
 2:20 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

[The company line is that although guestbook links show, they do not "count". :)]

Well it appears then that the "company line" no longer holds any credibility. ;)

europeforvisitors




msg:123836
 3:50 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yes, but I thought I read more than once that GB links were supposed to be filtered out with this Dominec fiasco.

GoogleGuy has said more than once that spam filters will be added in gradually. It's too early to predict what Google will do (or won't do) with guestbook links after the current transition is complete.

SlowMove




msg:123837
 3:56 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

I don't think there can be any risk with guestbook entries. If there was, you could just use the URLs of your competitors.

Chris_R




msg:123838
 3:59 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

And google has been saying this stuff about guestbooks links for months now.

In otherwords - google is no more broken now based on this guestbook "proof" than they were five months ago.

As far as the company line not holding credibility - there is no way to tell this unless you add a site only to guestbooks. Google doesn't show all backlinks.

People have been using guestbooks for years now - if this was such a problem as to RIP google soon - they would be gone by now. This is not a problem for users - it is a problem for webmasters. There are plenty of other techniques that do work well - and your competitors will be using them soon if they aren't already.

If it isn't guestbooks - it will be something else. Just cause google gets rid of them won't necessarily bring your site back again.

Chris_R




msg:123839
 4:01 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

SlowMove, I agree - and the idea is that google wants to discount these links so they don't give you any benefit, but not punish people for using them for the reason you mentioned.

deanril




msg:123840
 4:02 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

GoogleGuy has said more than once that spam filters will be added in gradually. It's too early to predict what Google will do (or won't do) with guestbook links after the current transition is complete.

Not to be a smart ass, but if its too early to predict, when will it be the time to predict , 6 months from now?

Why cant Google just flat out tell us when will this all be over? Becasue they dont have a clue maybe? Why does GG speak in riddles, why can he just say, "Guys we have a very long road ahead of us, nothing will be 100% for another 2 months"

Can you Fathom how much money Google would make off adwords, if they were just honest, about the whole thing?

europeforvisitors




msg:123841
 5:14 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

Why cant Google just flat out tell us when will this all be over? Becasue they dont have a clue maybe?

1) They have no obligation to tell you.

2) Target dates aren't the same as firm schedules. (Can you imagine the decibel levels of the wailing and teeth-gnashing on this board if Google said "It'll all be over on July 15" and they missed that date by even a week or two?)

deanril




msg:123842
 5:24 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

They have no obligation to anything, they just map the internet for 80% of the worlds population and recieve money for this.

Maybe when every search is a porn site. We can all say google has no obligation. Maybe when my daughter is looking for bugs bunny and she gets Debby does China part 2, we can all say Google has no obligation.

Is Google obligated to anything? Would you consider the TV similar to the internet? Now a days where is America spending its free time? 80% TV, 20% internet, more I think?

Can you turn on the TV and get Debby does China part 2, right after the 6:00 news maybe?

Google has an obligation.

DaveN




msg:123843
 7:32 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

Have you ever thought that there maybe more than just guestbook linking that make these sites rank high.

A mate once told me if something doesn't get you penalized but actually has no benefit what so ever then DO IT, lead your competitors down the path, let them waste time and effort trying to work out whats relevant and irrelevant, the more irrelevant stuff you add the harder it is to sort out.

FYI I'm not saying GB links don't work, but I'm not saying that they do ;)

Dave

AAnnAArchy




msg:123844
 7:36 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

Well, if you're seeing a site that's in the top ten and its *only* backlinks (hundreds of 'em) are guestbooks, then maybe, just maybe...

rfgdxm1




msg:123845
 10:08 am on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

>People have been using guestbooks for years now - if this was such a problem as to RIP google soon - they would be gone by now. This is not a problem for users - it is a problem for webmasters. There are plenty of other techniques that do work well - and your competitors will be using them soon if they aren't already.

My guess is that this is on the list of things to do at Google, and that already they have managed to filter a lot of guestbook links. Google just hasn't managed to catch them all yet. Clearly guestbooks have been an issue in ranking sites since the beginning of Google. I've actually seen guestbooks on the Net with links that were added there before Google even existed. Only when people started spamming guestbooks with bots in large numbers did Google start considering them a problem. It may be because Google appears to be going through some major changes of the way they index and update around now that guestbook links haven't been totally stomped out yet. Google may have a lot of things on the "to do" list they consider a higher priority than guestbook links.

2_much




msg:123846
 4:51 pm on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

This month more than ever guestbook links are doing great, especially in highly competitive affiliate areas.

How many spam reports do you think have been sent to Google as a result?

Next month - I doubt we'll see what we're seeing this month in terms of guestbook links working.

rfgdxm1




msg:123847
 5:13 pm on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google is badly broken in a lot of ways at the moment. It could be that Google also cocked up the guestbook filters that were working before. Filtering guestbooks is so trivial even I could write the code to do it. If Google is actually trying to not count guestbook links, they should be able to succeed.

mfishy




msg:123848
 5:19 pm on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

rfgdxm1

I was sorta thinking the same thing. It seems like maybe they messed up the filters that were already working (a little) since guestbook links are more effective than ever now.

On the long list of things that are currently broken at Google, this probably shouldn't be their top priority anyway now.

europeforvisitors




msg:123849
 7:57 pm on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

I was sorta thinking the same thing. It seems like maybe they messed up the filters that were already working (a little) since guestbook links are more effective than ever now.

It's more likely that they've removed the guestbook filter (assuming that they have one) as part of the current large-scale transition. As GoogleGuy has said, new filters will be added gradually, so certain types of spam may enjoy a brief window of opportunity until everything is in place.

SlowMove




msg:123850
 2:52 am on Jun 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

Can a search engine always detect guestbook entries? I've seen a lot of sites where the gb form and gb entries are on differet pages? If a page has the word guestbook and a bunch of email addresses, is the search engine going to disregard "everything" on the page is meaningless?

rfgdxm1




msg:123851
 11:10 am on Jun 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Can a search engine always detect guestbook entries?

Not always, but should be easy, with little false hits for 99%+. Almost all guestbooks out there on the Net are running off the shelf scripts. These have obvious signature characteristics that a SE could use to identify these pages as being guestbooks. Of course, if some webmaster writes his own guestbook code just for use on his site, since Google isn't aware of this script the filters will miss it. And, presumably there will be some delay whenever a new guestbook script is released and used before Google adds that to the filters. However, for Google, so long as the filters catch 99% of all guestbooks, from their point of view this likely would be more than adequate.

mil2k




msg:123852
 11:28 am on Jun 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

I would wait and see whether those Sites remain on top after another Normal update. If they don't then I know what to do :)

djgreg




msg:123853
 11:34 am on Jun 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

europeforvisitors:
"a brief window of opportunity"

For this window gets a bit too long now. And it should also for Google. Those Gb Spam sites are on the top position sice the beginning of dominic (about 3 weeks? not sure)
Slowly but surely they could start adding filters and newer data.

greg

percentages




msg:123854
 12:02 pm on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Think automated position reporting and SEO assistance and you probably think of one particular company....now find them under their two primary domain names in Google's index. They look banned to me!

Is Google declaring war on SEO's and those trying to manipulate results?

Brett_Tabke




msg:123855
 12:40 pm on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Please come out from under the rock you've been living under ;-)

Se's have not "thought highly" of seo's for some time now. ;)

wackmaster




msg:123856
 3:00 pm on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

SE's: "SEO=SPAM "

Highly Ranked Publishers: "SEO=Necessary Evil"

Other Publishers: "What's SEO?"

SEO's: SEO="Opportunity/Livelihood"

Spammers: SEO="Livelihood"

;-)

heini




msg:123857
 4:17 pm on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Se's have not "thought highly" of seo's for some time now. ;)
And why should they, targeting the same money. The only form of SEO SEs easily accept is checkbook SEO, where SEOs act as middlesmen, driving advertizers money to the engines programmes.

europeforvisitors




msg:123858
 4:21 pm on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

The only form of SEO SEs easily accept is checkbook SEO, where SEOs act as middlesmen, driving advertizers money to the engines programmes.

Hmmm....businesses paying to advertise, and direct marketers paying for leads. Sounds like a bold new concept. I wonder if it will catch on? :-)

Chris_R




msg:123859
 4:38 pm on Jun 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think google tolerates SEOs more than other Search Engines.

There are three reasons usually given, and the one given least often is the one I think google dislikes the worst:

1) SEOs use spammy techniques.

If this takes away from the quality of the index - google suffers. Notice google doesn't blame spammers for this like AV and Inktomi do. In many cases - the results are still relevant - and only webmasters complain, but in some - crappy pages are in place of some quality pages.

2) SEOs compete with Google for AD revenue.

There can only be ten results in the top ten. Sure you can argue that the more profitible companies that are places in the top ten - the less they will sell adwords. I assume this is true to SOME extent, but google needs the best results in the top ten to keep getting users that will click on the ads.

Google's business model works - they don't need to go after SEOs to make a profit.

AND THE REASON I SEE AS IMPORTANT TO GOOGLE:

3) SEOs (in many cases) mislead the public.

Look at one of the larger threads on here where people are complaining about google. Time after time people are asking what they should tell their customers about the "problems with google being broken".

These SEOs then blame google for not getting their listings where they should be - this causes the general public that some SEOs are representing to have a bad opinion about google - one they would have never have had if they hadn't hired SEOs making promises that were not theirs to make.

SEOs will sometimes use techniques that get their clients banned - and who do you think ends up getting nasty emails? Google. Or selling keywords in the address bar - or any of the other unethical tricks that some seos use.

HOWEVER, many SEOs also promote adwords. In many cases a client would not be exposed to this or be able to do it themselves in an effective manner (or not have the time or desire to). A Good SEM will help their client with PPC on google. In these cases - where an SEO sets reasonable expectations for their client - google can certainly benefit.

If you read the webmaster guidelines - many seem to be in response to nasty emails and are not related to effective spam techniques.

Just my 2 cents

madweb




msg:123860
 12:04 pm on Jun 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

Think automated position reporting and SEO assistance and you probably think of one particular company....now find them under their two primary domain names in Google's index. They look banned to me!

Yes, but search for "SEO Product Name", the product does appear in SERPS with many affiliate's domains, including one using premium adwords.

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >
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