homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.116.36
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 89 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 89 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Paying for backlinks
If you know someone with a site of PR7 which has approximately 1000 pages..
chrisholgate

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 10:43 pm on Sep 11, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you know of a site of PR7 which has approximately 1000 pages shooting off it, all on the same domain and all rating around PR6 then would it be wrong (in either your eyes or Googles) to pay said site in order to put a link to your site on each of their pages?

Surely paying one person to gain a pretty much instant PR6 site (from the 1000+ PR6+ backlinks that would be generated) is a bit of a shortfall in the Google PR system?

Cheers guys

Chris

 

seofreak

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 4:42 am on Sep 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

There is the original penalty: Banned. In Google, this would give a grey Toolbar in the old days (not sure if grey or white now) and no listing (though there are more common reasons for grey Toolbar, such as server problems).

it's white .. i know a site which is banned and is pr0

oodlum

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 4:51 am on Sep 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

How you get those sites to link to you it's none of Google's business.

I agree. Google started this whole popularity contest and then proudly publicized how to win it. It has now reached the point where Google itself skews/determines the "popularity" that it uses to determine the "value" of sites, as people won't link to sites that aren't already "popular".

PageRank is a flawed concept unless they start keeping the data to themselves and get rid of the green bar. Come to think of it, that's probably why they stopped updating sites' visible PR and backlinks for a few months - so that the index could re-adjust itself a little more fairly.

Google cries foul when someone exploits the information they give away willingly - see Search King. I concede that it's their prerogative, however. It's their business and they can run it any way they like.

ciml

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ciml us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 11:30 am on Sep 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

Sorry Net_Wizard, I certainly don't wish to imply that the algo is programmed that way. It 'tends to' work out that way because popular keywords tend to have at least ten domains with high off-page prominence for the words. There's correlation but not causality.

If the keyword is popular then there's likely to be some competition with serious backlink power. In that situation, the high rankings will have more to do with links than on-page factors.

If the keyword is not popular then there's less likelihood of competition with serious backlink power. In that situation, the high rankings will have more to do with on-page factors.

A PR4 page might be able to beat an otherwise identical PR5 page just by rearranging the title, but if the competition have 9s or 10s then you're not likely to match them with on-page optimisation.

> If you could not disprove a statement then the statement is true.

In fields of science, the opposite is more frequently argued.

There is a teapot in orbit around Mars. I've heard that assertion several times. I can't disprove it, but I very much doubt its veracity.

the_nerd, I see your point about fairness, but I'm not sure you're looking at the situation from Google's point of view. Google want to give people relevant results; helping black-hat webmasters to maximise the benefits of their PR-buying budget might not be a priority.

Net_Wizard



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 1:12 pm on Sep 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

In fields of science, the opposite is more frequently argued.

There is a teapot in orbit around Mars. I've heard that assertion several times. I can't disprove it, but I very much doubt its veracity.

If you are into science, certainly you could disprove that assertion ;)

Anyway, I agree that if content-algo-wise are equal between competing sites that the combination of backlinks and PR would determine the ranking.

But that's not the problem I have pointed out. It's cases where the content have totally changed and unrelated to the previous content or pages that hardly have any content as (again) 'this site have moved' type of pages.

Are you saying this time that those pages content can be considered as equal with the other sites therefore backlinks and PR 'tend to' be the sole determinant of ranking?

If the keyword is popular then there's likely to be some competition with serious backlink power. In that situation, the high rankings will have more to do with links than on-page factors.

Meaning, if I want to rank highly for some very popular keyword/s then all I have to do is concentrate on my backlinks and forget content, even if the page is garbage?

Let me remind you again part of Google own statement...
...and examines all aspects of the page's content...

ciml

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ciml us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 1:56 pm on Sep 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm not suggesting that the content need be equal for backlinks to be the main determiner. Quite the contrary, my point is that if the backlinks of one page are hugely better (PR, volume, link text), then they will overwhelm anything that you can do on the page.

I suggest re-reading part five of The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine, written by Google's founders back in 1998. www.whitehouse.gov came top for 'bill clinton', even though the page hadn't been crawled. This is considered a feature! (things have changed now, as there are a couple of highly linked and relevant pages to beat it).

> Meaning, if I want to rank highly for some very popular keyword/s then all I have to do is concentrate on my backlinks and forget content, even if the page is garbage?

Yep, in the same way that if you want to rank highly for many niche keywords then all you have to do is concentrate on on-page optimisation, with little regard to backlinks.

...and examines all aspects of the page's content...

Indeed, and Google chooses which aspects to use when, and to what degree.

It's important to keep in mind that these aspects are far from dual state. Under controlled conditions, it has been possible to see nice curves for the relationship of on-page and off-page weightings.

<added>
We're maybe veering a little here, but I think this does relate to Chris' original questions.

Some people would say that identifying the difference between high profile phrases requiring heavy incoming links and other targeted phrases not requiring heavy incoming links is the difference between 'vanity SEO' and 'real SEO'. Excepting some narrow word-space industries, I would tend to take that view.

Net_Wizard



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 2:15 pm on Sep 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

Now you are talking SEO, I thought Google primary concern is the searching public :D

Two things

> Meaning, if I want to rank highly for some very popular keyword/s then all I have to do is concentrate on my backlinks and forget content, even if the page is garbage?

Yep, in the same way that if you want to rank highly for many niche keywords then all you have to do is concentrate on on-page optimisation, with little regard to backlinks.

1. If we apply your theory, how relevant do you think the serp is? You have just agreed that to rank highly on popular keywords is to Spam Google because according to you 'content' is not important on popular keywords.

...and examines all aspects of the page's content...

Indeed, and Google chooses which aspects to use when, and to what degree.

2. Come-on Ciml, we are going back full circle :( Are you saying this time that Google choose to turn a blind eye on a page that has literally no content? Isn't that a contradiction?

ciml

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ciml us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 2:50 pm on Sep 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

Indeed Net_Wizard, I'm talking SEO but I find it helpful to consider Google's motivation. Some people take a 'know your enemy' approach; I believe that coincidental goals lead to an easier life.

I don't remember agreeing that to rank highly on popular keywords is to spam Google. :-) I need to rephrase you slightly; 'content' tends not to be so important on popular keywords because the results for popular keywords tend to have considerable off-page indicators.

I do believe that SERPs taking off-page indicators into account tend to be more relevant. It's just as easy to build a page optimised for an irrelevant phrase as for a relevant phrase. It's less easy to build powerful off-page indicators for an irrelevant phrase than for a relevant phrase. ('less easy' does not imply impossible, or even difficult)

There is a problem with my view, however. Millions of people use Google each day. My personal view of index quality couldn't be much less important. That's why I spend more time thinking about how Google works than I do about whether I should give it my approval.

So, Chris asked about a shortfall in the Google PR system. Google seek to address shortfalls, and are often criticised for holes already plugged, but sometimes a feature that causes slight hinderance to its owner's goals also brings major benefits.

bekyed

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 4:23 pm on Sep 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

Indeed there is nothing wrong with paying for links if you can afford it. One of our clients has an adult shopping site and pays for a link anually to an adult site with a PR 6, this gives them a pr 5 and thus keeps them above their competitors.

Go for it if your industry commands it, but make sure as everyone says it is of the same theme as your website for maximum results and anchor text is of the highest importance.

Bek.

Net_Wizard



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 5:40 pm on Sep 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

I do believe that SERPs taking off-page indicators into account tend to be more relevant.

So, is it okay with you if some spammer uses an expired domain with high PR and with backlinks to substitute the content with adult content?

Of course it's just an exaggeration but it is happening right now though not to that extreme. There are sites that have totally irrelevant content and are coming up high just simply due to the fact that 'previously', the site have high PR with quality backlinks. To you, that's relevant? Where's common sense in that? Or, where's the logic in that?

It's like saying...100 people say that Joe Smith can swim and they believe that fishes are the only one can swim therefore based on the belief of this 100 people...Joe Smith is a fish, forgetting to investigate if Joe Smith is really a fish.

Is that a sound or logical way to determine if Joe Smith is really a fish?

As a user...would you be happy to see irrelevant result at the top?

As a SEO...would you be happy to see unrelated sites coming up before your very own on-theme site?

Come-on ;)

dirkz

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 6:03 pm on Sep 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

I do believe that SERPs taking off-page indicators into account tend to be more relevant.

Yes, I think it's more relevant than just taking on-page factors into account. It's far more difficult for spammers to do this. Expired Domains are handled differently by google, they have installed some filters (I don't know with how much success though).

I also often see results that are off-topic or that even don't contain the keywords I searched for. But actually that's a feature of google, and asking 100 people if Joe Smith can swim usually gives better results than asking just him.

I agree 100% to the statement above.

ciml

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ciml us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 8:47 pm on Sep 13, 2003 (gmt 0)

"tend to be more relevant" does not mean the same as "flawlessly relevant in all circumstances". I do not see that it's easier for "some spammer" to find an expired domain with high PR than it is to increase on-page factors.

I don't think I'm arguing that Joe Smith is a fish, just that fishes tend to swim better than people. I wouldn't be surprised to come across a highly competent human swimmer, or a fish that doesn't sWebmasterWorldell.

> As a SEO...

Did I just get a promotion? :-)

benc007

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 12:00 am on Sep 16, 2003 (gmt 0)

Chrisholgate,

If you bought 1000 PR7 links from the same site, would this have an adverse effect on your PR taking BlockRank into consideration? All these links would be from the same IP ...

Does anyone have any comments on this?

--------------------
If you know of a site of PR7 which has approximately 1000 pages shooting off it, all on the same domain and all rating around PR6 then would it be wrong (in either your eyes or Googles) to pay said site in order to put a link to your site on each of their pages?
Surely paying one person to gain a pretty much instant PR6 site (from the 1000+ PR6+ backlinks that would be generated) is a bit of a shortfall in the Google PR system?

bekyed

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 10:32 pm on Sep 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

If you can afford it pay and save yourself a lot of hassle.

Bek

nakulgoyal

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 11:21 pm on Sep 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think this will just get you some short term results. Ultimately, somebody somewhere will get it reported to Google and Google might penalize them and MAYBE your website also.

I won't recommend this. A lot of my clients have been doing this but as a Consultant into this industry, I never ever recommend this to anybody.

One of my clients for whom we did over 75000 links listed all over in Google, MSN, ALLTHEWEB, AOL etc etc etc did get him a HIGH PR and LOTS AND LOTS in Sales. Over 200k a month and he is happy. He pays me pretty much too and he is happy. All that was FAIR work we did for him and all the people are happy. Total win-win situation.

Can't detail about the URl because ofn Webmasterworld TOS and my NDA with the company. :-)

James_Dale

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 11:23 pm on Sep 30, 2003 (gmt 0)

More money = more exposure. An advertising budget has its purpose, both online and offline. PR has value, but so would any other ranking attribute. Time=money, everyone pays one way or another.

projectphp

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 2:42 am on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Too much focus on one aspect here. How can Google, programmatically, measure "intent"? A text link is an advertisement, that is all. If PR is a factor in your purchase, good luck to you. I can't see how Google can or would try to stop sites making money selling links. Why would they? "selling PageRank" is an oft quoted misnomer. Youa ren't selling PageRank, but selling advertising. A buyers reasons for purchasing are their own.

1milehgh80210

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 3:36 am on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

exactly, who should get penalised here?
A. guy with PR5 page who decides to sell text ads. Doesn't mention (or possibly even know his pagerank)
or
B. guy with similar site . Has reciprocal links page and form. Page screams "link exchange with me and boost your PR!"

dirkz

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 6:12 am on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

I can't see how Google can or would try to stop sites making money selling links.

Maybe you should search the Web for "SearchKing" or the "PR Ad Network" in connection with Google :)

davewray

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 6:18 am on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Not that I search for links that I can purchase on high PR sites, but I did recently visit a site in my niche which is PR7 and would hard code your link with your anchor text for $750 per month on their main page. They don't mention anything about PR boosting or SE ranking on their site. So, in that respect, they are only selling text links on their main page to make money for their business. Nothing wrong with that. So, who can read minds and know for sure what a site owner's intent really is unless they post it? Besides, I can't afford $750/month right now for just one link ;)

Dave.

James_Dale

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 10:10 am on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Dirkz,

Bob Massa was attacked because Google felt he was 'selling PR'. He made no real secret of it, with words like 'PageRank', 'PR', 'Buy' plastered all over his site.

I sell advertising on my PR7 sites. I was selling ads on sites before I knew anything about PR. That should be fine, IMHO.

dirkz

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 12:01 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

James, I too think it's ok provided that it's not done because of PR. But obviously Google doesn't like it. It's difficult to measure "intent" here, even for human beings.

synergy

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 1:53 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Greetings.

In theory, which do you think would be better:

Links from every page from one decent sized PR8 site and two PR7 sites

OR

Links from every page from two decent sized PR8 sites?

shurlee

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 2:21 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

>provided that it's not done because of PR. <

anyone claiming to be interested in a text link but it's not done because of PR, is either a liar or an idiot.

I wonder why it's so hard for us to all get real about this issue? Somebody may have been selling ads on a PR7 before they knew about page rank, but I bet they weren't selling their "ADVERTISING" for $750 a month for a 5 word link or posting about it in webmaster forums. Like everyone else, I think what searchking did was foolhardy and asking for trouble, but at least he was being upfront about it. We all seem desparate to make sure we are seen as different than him while we are doing the same thing. Blaming search king for telling the truth doesn't make me anymore legit because I claim his is selling PR but mine is just advertising. I mean really, how dumb do you have to be to not see the glaring similarities?

A lot of webmasters have a shot at making good money for the first time since the world woke up and realized that a 468x60 banner was worth nowhere near $70 a thousand, but we keep talking about it like it's only good if we lie about it. Not the best way to make money in my opinion.

The PR cat is out of the bag. That is a fact. It is going to have to evolve like everything else in the search engine world but for now at least, there's money to be made and not just for Google, but for the webmasters too for a change. I think if you worked hard enough, (or even paid enough), to get a high PR, you have every right to make a buck from it and why you do it is no one else's business. If that somehow makes Google less relevant, that is Google's problem. I think Heini's truism,
"there is no such thing as search engine spam -- just weak algorithms"
is just as true for PR as for cloaking or any other techinque we use to "help the search engines find what they are looking for". (I love that one. It always make me laugh.)

c'mon kids, who are we trying to convince? Google or ourselves.

dirkz

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 4:02 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

anyone claiming to be interested in a text link but it's not done because of PR, is either a liar or an idiot.

What's with AdWords/AdSense then? :)

there's money to be made and not just for Google

We don't live in an ideal world, there's no such thing as intelligent algorithms and so Google has to protect its technology. You do know the different penalties? There is one called "no PR-passing". I wonder what this one's for :)

agerhart

WebmasterWorld Senior Member agerhart us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 4:04 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

anyone claiming to be interested in a text link but it's not done because of PR, is either a liar or an idiot.

You don't think a text link will generate traffic?

shurlee

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 4:18 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

>You don't think a text link will generate traffic? <

Not necessarily but absolutely it CAN. In more ways than one and if anyone ignores or claims they are not interested in the "other ways " ----
my opinion stands.

shurlee

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 4:23 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

>You do know the different penalties? There is one called "no PR-passing".<

Obviously, you are the more knowledgeable SEO because I have never heard of the no PR-passing penalty. I'm too stupid to even grasp the concept of being penalized for passing PR. I'm incapable of seeing how that could work. And to think of all the time I have wasted trying to get sites to pass PR to me. Just for the themed traffic mind you, I swear. Boy do I feel silly!

jdancing

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 4:47 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

How much less weight does a PR8 home page only link have than a PR-8 link with 100+ PR-7 inside page links? I thought that only one link per domain was counted and multiple links from the same domain added very little, if any PR-punch.

grifter

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 4:59 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

that is Google's problem. I think Heini's truism,
"there is no such thing as search engine spam -- just weak algorithms"

So under that logic, we should just dump our trash out our car windows, cause there's no such thing as pollution, just bad garbage collection? Why not, that's the government's problem!

If buying links, trading work for links, selling your body for links, leads to degradation of quality somewhere in Google, they certainly reserve the right to ignore those votes--whether or not the words Page or Rank are ever mentioned.

I guess you're not advocating Black Hat, just excusing it.

davewray

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 5:33 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

Shurlee...

Agerhart is absolutely correct. Sometimes the targetted traffic you receive is more valuable than any PR boost you may get from advertising on a high PR site. I would rather get more targetted visitors which should lead to more sales and therefore more money than rely on maybe a little boost in PR. I think you overestimate the knowledge of site owners world-wide. You'd be surprised at how many people really don't know anything about PageRank and what it can do for them. There are innocent site owners/advertisers out there who may advertise on a PR7 or PR8 site just purely for the targetted traffic and not the PR boost.

Dave.

grifter

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 16907 posted 5:38 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think you overestimate the knowledge of site owners world-wide.

Amen. I'd put the number at 10% or less.

This 89 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 89 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
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