| This 89 message thread spans 3 pages: 89 (  2 3 ) > > || |
|Paying for backlinks|
If you know someone with a site of PR7 which has approximately 1000 pages..
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?
It would be wrong in Google's eyes if you paid for PR. But if that site wanted to link to you out of the goodness of their heart, that's fine with everyone.
I know one huge Mac news site that capitalizes on their outbound links, although they have been doing this for too long. i don't really think their intention is to give people advantage on link popularity.
I don't think it will have the results you are looking for. What used to work may not now.
AAnnAArchy, why is it wrong to pay for links? Yahoo gets paid. If you put banners with plain links you pay. Everyone pays for links. IMHO Google has nothing against paying for a link.
I would be cautious about getting so many links. From my experience, Googlebot won't like it if thousands of templated pages link to the same URL. Anyone else experienced in "massive linking" :)?
Google doesn't like people paying for links because it keeps them out of the Adwords market.
There is nothing wrong with paying for backlinks, other than depriving Google of some Adwords revenue.....but we didn't devise this system, so why should we be bound by it?
[edited by: ciml at 11:45 am (utc) on Sep. 12, 2003]
[edit reason] No adverts here please. [/edit]
|Denis at eVR|
How much real benefit would you get from a single link from, say, a PR8 home page? I thought that Google takes into account the page content, so if the link were from a totally unrelated site the gain would be minimal. Or would a keyword-based text link compensate for this?
For example, assume I have a solid PR5 site, and manage to get a PR8 link, and perhaps also a couple of PR7's, from sites with absolutely no similarity of content. These would be text links using my main keywords as the anchor text.
What benefit would I expect to get, both in PR and in SERPS for these particular keywords?
from my experience Google will tolerate "unrelatedness" to a certain degree, and this degree goes very far. I have done that in the past with very unrelated sites, and I'm still benefitting in form of PR. What I found in my example is (very roughly): A PRX page linking to you will gain you somewhere at PR(X-1), if you were PR0 and there are not many more links on the the linking page. Since the gaps in real PR betwenn PRX and PR(X-1) can be huge (especially in X greater than 4), ymmv.
So my educated guess would be you to reach a PR7.
Btw, where do you find all that high PR sites that link to you for cash? :)
I've personally seen a competitors site with 2000 links, all from the different pages on the same domain. His site has a PR7 and ranks first in many of the keywords I'm targetting. I think most people assume that your backlinks all have to come from different domains to get a good rating in Google but this doesn't appear to be the case.
Yes, I too think one or two links from a PR10 should be enough :) If you can prove somehow that the site's PR is only from the one domain, then you too should be allright. Aren't there any other domains linking?
Don't forget to tell us whether it worked or not :)
I will do if Google ever update their backlinks :-)
The pagerank system is not called siterank and doesn't care for domains, jsut for pages.
That's why the common myth that you need inbound links only is <rubbish>. Internal links are treated exactly the same.
And I've had great success bootstrapping new sites of large (30000+ pages) sites which have a couple of PR6 at top quite a few PR5 and then lots bellow that.
I can make several instant PR5-6 pages off of that.
In fact, right now I'm seeing if I can stop doign teh hard work for the big site (which unfortunetly turned out not to be such a great business after all) and use the PR power to bootstrap smaller, more profitable sites.
So far so good.
[edited by: ciml at 1:09 pm (utc) on Sep. 12, 2003]
[edit reason] See StickyMail. [/edit]
> Internal links are treated exactly the same.
That is the case for PageRank, killroy, but not for the link text boost.
> What used to work may not now.
Smiley is wise. Google are constantly evolving their methods; the main thing I see over the last year or so is a move towards a more balanced scoring. It's much harder now to come top due to one aspect of the algo.
I do think that the PR will flow as normal in Chris' case, but the benefit to his rankings in Google might not justify the expenditure.
<side note>At the top end, many people seem to be paying good money for links on high PR pages that don't transfer any PageRank to them. Google is outsmarting many PR buyers, but link sellers can still make some easy cash.
|Denis at eVR|
|many people seem to be paying good money for links on high PR pages that don't transfer any PageRank to them. Google is outsmarting many PR buyers |
Could you explain more, please? Are you referring to 'clever' linking methods used by the link seller that are not picked up by Google, or are you saying that Google will discount even straightforward <a href="website.com"> type links?
|At the top end, many people seem to be paying good money for links on high PR pages that don't transfer any PageRank to them. Google is outsmarting many PR buyers, but link sellers can still make some easy cash. |
I agree Ciml, but if someone pays for a text link that is not only on the homepage, but also on hundreds or thousands of internal pages, I think there is still value if using the proper link text.
Need some advise. I am in the ecommerce business and I am looking for quality links. Came across a promotion company that has PR7 homepage that can link me to over 5000 relavent page directories in my choice of business. Now I am not sure what the individual rankings are for all these directories because they are too many, but it appears Google likes them, and if google likes them its ok right?
Its a montly paid link type of service where they are asking me to place a code on my site to activate the 5000+ inbound relevant links I will be getting if I choose to join.
They claim they were rated #1 by a very well know directory.
Now they claim your link will go on all directories that were purchased by people who wanted to start their own web directory business etc....and who ever signs up and pays that montly fee will have a link in that directory in 3 categories that match their business.
Will this or can this really work? Can it actually improve on pagerank?
This is totally different from recipical links because they are not asking for anything just place a code to activate your link in their 5000+ directories.
What do you guys think? Thanks!
I wish I could understand the instant PR better, kilroy.
I put up new sites with lots of pages, and each page points to the home page to aid in site navigations, but that doesnt' seem to create any instant page rank.
I view page rank as an entitiy that can't be created or destroyed (like energy). In my way of thinking, page rank can only flow from page to page. In a new site, all the pages have 0 page rank, so they can point to a single page all they want and the sum of all the values is still 0.
I suspect my thinking is somehow flawed. I'd love to be able to create instant page rank sites independent of any inbound links. I'd also love to build a perpetual motion machine, but I know I can't. I guess that's why mathematicians, not engineers, design page rank algorithms.
Hey, if your thinking is correct, I should be able to build a 30,000 page site and point each page to the home page, creating a PR5 or 6 home page. Then point the home page to all 30,000 subpages via directories, and the home page should give each of the subpages some page rank. Now each subpage, having some real page rank to dish out back to the home page, should boost the home page to PR 6 or 7. And so it goes. Pretty soon, the home page is PR10 and the subpages are PR7 or 8. The mathematicians would say page rank increases without bounds in this model. The engineers would say we have an underdamped control system that self-destructs.
All my experience says you've got to bring some page rank in from the outside or your site will probably not even be indexed and if those inbound links don't come from high page rank sites, your site may be indexed but won't get much traffic, unless you have low-competition keywords.
Well, let me know how your plan works. You just might change me from a techie person to a religious person :)
I don't believe anymore of Google's 100 factors in determining ranking. IMO, currently links(internal & external) is the only factor that determines ranking.
So, it's not only important that you have backlinks from high PR sites to 'improve' your own PR but it's equally important in regards to your position in the serp and has nothing to do with your PR.
How you get those sites to link to you it's none of Google's business. Unless of course you annouce to the world that you bought your backlinks just to influence your Google ranking.
In regards to the importance of links, aside from PR perspective. Currently,...
1. there are inactive domains but parked in some theme-unrelated domains that are still ranking 'very high' with their old keywords and this been there since months and months. In fact, on some instances, #1. How did it get to be #1 for its old keyword when the content have changed months ago?
2. there are popular sites that have moved URL-address. Yet the page still rank highly on its keywords even though there's nothing on it but just a notification that the site has moved. Ironically, the new address is not even in the same result.
The only factor that could explain the above situations is the backlinks for those URLs. Where's the other 99 factors?
Denis, I was referring to the way that some pages have high PageRank and are listed well for popular searches, yet do not pass PageRank to the people who buy PR from them. I don't know whether those pages have a filter that prevents PR going to specific domains, or (more likely) whether those pages can't pass PR to pages outside their domain.
> ...if someone pays for a text link that is not only on the homepage, but also on hundreds or thousands of internal pages, I think there is still value if using the proper link text.
I think so, but it may just be that those cases involve people a little more subtle, who perhaps don't get the penalty.
> ...they are asking me to place a code on my site to activate the 5000+ inbound relevant links...
That should ring some alarm bells in my opinion.
mayor, you'd need a huge number of pages to generate PageRank yourself. It is created each time it's calculated (well, they probably start from the last set of results but that shouldn't actually matter). However, the Web is so large and well linked that you need to be linked from the rest of it to have any significant impact.
> The mathematicians would say page rank increases without bounds in this model. The engineers would say we have an underdamped control system that self-destructs.
I would say that both of those are valid descriptions. It is the 'rank source' that provides damping.
Net_Wizard it is easy to find examples where links alone cause a URL to be at #1 for a given search, but it is also easy to find examples where the on-page factors cause a URL to be #1.
Google use a combination. Higher competition searches (http, download, etc.) tend to have link-oriented top listings; lower competition searches (eg. blue fuzzy widget for sale in mytown, etc.) tend to have on-page oriented top listings.
|I don't know whether those pages have a filter that prevents PR going to specific domains, or (more likely) whether those pages can't pass PR to pages outside their domain. |
Second, do you guys (killroy, ciml) really think that one could generate sufficient PR without any inbound links? Imagine that you have an isolated set of pages, no inbound links at all. But contained in the google index (just imagine). Do you really think the pages in this set would have PR that you could see in the Toolbar?
[edited by: seofreak at 6:38 pm (utc) on Sep. 12, 2003]
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).
The PR0 penalty: No Backlinks. Google would ignore your links in this case, giving you PR0 and a white Toolbar (though there are more common reasons for PR0, such as not having any decent links).
The 'can have PR but not pass it on' penalty: Possible high PR. Google do count links to the page (PageA), so PageA gets high PageRank and ranks well for its words. But, because of the 'can have PR but not pass it on' penalty, the person who buys PageRank (PageB), doesn't get any PR from PageA. Other pages on the same domain as PageA do get PR from it, and if PageB has enough PR to show backlinks, then PageA does show the link, even though it doesn't count.
I can honestly say that a lot of the high PR link purchases I come across do not work (and I come across a lot).
I think there is nothing wrong with buying PR. In fact, I am trying to get a charity I donate to, with a PR8 site, a listing with a certain donation threshold. Why not? People want it, and it this case, who is it hurting?
diskz, consider this: Consider hypothetically, that I make a new domain: thewholeweb.com. Then I proceed to buy websites. For each website I buy I save them as: [thewholeweb.com...]
Then I unlick the domain so no DNS points to it. I proceed doign this to the entire web, until my new domain is the only domain in existance.
At this point I have NO incoming links. But as far as PR calculations are concerned NOTHING has really cahnged. the structure is th esame, link text is the same, content is the same.
ERGO, my single, stand alone, orphan website has ALL the PR in the world, including many PR10 and PR9 pages.
Therefore, YES a stand alone website HAS instrinsic PR, and yes, a small enough site can channel enough PR to show in the toolbar.
From my own experience only a few 10s of 1000s of pages can create PR5 or PR6.
PS: Where does everybody imagine PR comes from?
|Google use a combination. Higher competition searches (http, download, etc.) tend to have link-oriented top listings; lower competition searches (eg. blue fuzzy widget for sale in mytown, etc.) tend to have on-page oriented top listings. |
Basically, you are implying that the algo is programmed as...
if Keyw = popular then
.....rank according to backlinks
if Keyw <> popular then
.....rank according to on-page factor/s
Isn't that in contradiction to Google's statements?
How does Google rank pages? The basics [google.com]
|Google's order of results is automatically determined by more than 100 factors, including our PageRank algorithm. |
PageRank Explained [google.com]
|...Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important." |
...Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search. Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines all aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query.
Secondly, either you are implying that Google have 2 set of algo or the algo itself is selective. Of course it's not possible to have 2 algo running and if the algo is selective then it is no longer an algorithm. Algorithms are designed to cover all possible situations or events with minimum or without manual adjustment which means the program cannot apply one condition to one site and a different condition to another site. All conditions are applied accross all sites, that's the only way to determine the accuracy of the algo and not 'tend to'...
Google state that...ranking is based on the combination of 100 factors and PR(algo), using sophisticated text-matching techniques and examine all aspect of the page's content...
The above statement, is Google own declaration of what 'each' site has to go through in order to be rank accordingly. If we have to believe this then we have to believe that 'indeed' each site content is being examined and has to go through 100 factors.
How do you explain then the parked domains and pages that have moved to a different domain? When the most important thing...content...is not even there.
The easiest way to prove a hypothesis or a statement is to disprove it. If you could not disprove a statement then the statement is true. However, even if just a single event contradict the statement no matter how small is enough to disprove a hypothesis or a statement.
In the case of Google ranking algorithm, surely what they claim what they are doing does not match what's showing in the serp. Most blatant of that is the case of a parked domain(inactive) that still rank on it's old keyword months after months. Where is the part of the Google statement 'examines all aspects of the page's content ' was applied on this case? The same case with 'The site have moved' pages.
|The 'can have PR but not pass it on' penalty: Possible high PR. Google do count links to the page (PageA), so PageA gets high PageRank and ranks well for its words. But, because of the 'can have PR but not pass it on' penalty, the person who buys PageRank (PageB), doesn't get any PR from PageA. Other pages on the same domain as PageA do get PR from it, and if PageB has enough PR to show backlinks, then PageA does show the link, even though it doesn't count. |
wouldn't it be fair to ban the "PR-Seller" by taking away his PR, instead of giving him the chance of making decent cash off newbies with deep pockets?
Although it doesn't seem as fair that companies with deep pockets shouldn't be able to buy PR, how would Google know what sites and links that were bought?
>wouldn't it be fair to ban the "PR-Seller" by taking away his PR, instead of giving him the chance of making decent cash off newbies with deep pockets?
Let him keep the PR (and traffic), just change his revenue model to Adsense vs. ad sales.
dirkz <<AAnnAArchy, why is it wrong to pay for links? Yahoo gets paid. If you put banners with plain links you pay. Everyone pays for links. IMHO Google has nothing against paying for a link.>>
If you paid $2000 for a backlink from a PR9 site, would you feel safe putting that site in your profile and announcing your purchase to GoogleGuy? Do you think your business partner PR9 site would remain in the PR selling business for long? Would your 2k be a lost investment the next month? I don't know. Would you want to find out?
Yahoo gets paid because they're thought of as a place to get business, not just PR.
| This 89 message thread spans 3 pages: 89 (  2 3 ) > > |