homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.91.250
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

    
Linking SItes... Should I Be Punished?
linking sites, link exchanges, google linking
trueMarketing




msg:66379
 11:55 pm on Feb 14, 2004 (gmt 0)

I was just wondering if someone could help with these questions to some degree?

Does Google now penalize sites owned and operated by the same company that link together by text advertising?
Further, If we link together simply to increase traffic like in the good old days of 468x68 banner advertising or other eras of online advertising, should we pay the price of decreased visability by the hands of Google as they are not penalizing the bigger online companies, a few mentioned below?

Cnet, Microsoft, CNN, etc..

Shouldn't our objective be for individuals to have the ability to receive unique information on unique industries within websites linking to each other?
-----------
More detail about our properties:

They are all very informative sites, each one unique and about totally different industries. Each site also has over 7,000 and 10,000, and 8,000 pages each. They are no different than a Yahoo type directory linking to another property that they own or a well known entertainment company (hmm, hmm) that I won't mention that link to other properties of theirs that have over 30,000 or more pages combined.

Seems like some preferences are being formed to us about this situation.

Thanks for any replies

 

Marcia




msg:66380
 12:33 am on Feb 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

>>Does Google now penalize sites owned and operated by the same company that link together by text advertising?

There doesn't seem to be any substantial evidence of that happening, but it's impossible to tell as just a generality. A lot could depend on how many links there are coming in from independent sources outside of the specific company's network of sites.

>>Shouldn't our objective be for individuals to have the ability to receive unique information on unique industries within websites linking to each other?

Absolutely, benefit for the end user should always be the ultimate objective. Unfortunately though, the rules and the powers that be have to deal with both the holy and the unholy, so there has to be a place of balance and compromise. The ultimate goal is obviously always to present the best possible search to users, but that can't be an easy task, and of necessity we all have to deal with what we have to admit is an imperfect system.

>>Seems like some preferences are being formed to us about this situation.

Would it necessarily be based on preference, or isn't it possible that the amount of cross-linking among properties owned by the same company that's acceptable can be determined by the sheer number of unrelated links pointing to them, which could give some authority status and exceptionally high Page Rank, far more than the average site in some cases?

There does seem to be a degree if immunity with what can be called absolute authority sites that have "killer" PR, but that may be a natural outcome of just examining the proportion of quality independent PR votes that those sites are getting.

>>They are no different than a Yahoo type directory linking to another property that they own

They'd have to be different unless they come even close to the sheer number of unrelated backlinks that a site like Yahoo has, or that the number of unrelated links far outweighs the nepotistic links.

Added:

>>They are no different than a Yahoo type directory linking to another property that they own

Yahoo (and ODP, for that matter) link to an enormous number of sites unrelated to them. When you're talking about linking to valuable information, a site with many, many links out can get to hub status, which if it reaches a certain point attracts enough inbound links to be considered an authority, particularly in cases where it pertains to a certain niche or vertical market.

They can inter-relate, but they're two different things.

trueMarketing




msg:66381
 4:36 pm on Feb 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Marcia, Great replies to the questions of ours.

We do understand the Dmoz/Yahoo type sites being a "leader" in their field of search engine/directories. We feel that trying to get anywhere even close to that status for ourselves has also been a grueling task, even if we are linking off of product/information pages to other sites that might benefit from the same traffic and users.

Maybe there is no clear cut answer to this type of advertising. We hope that Google will see our efforts not as "unholy" as you put it, but performed in a way to add value and a uniqueness that other web properties are lacking.

Thanks again

AthlonInside




msg:66382
 5:29 pm on Feb 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

If it is for traffic and you afraid Google doing stupid things (you should, google is a mad dog nowadays), I suggest you embedded the codes of the links in javascript. I means all codes (<table><a><b>...) instead of inside the href.

Tropical Island




msg:66383
 5:54 pm on Feb 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

This is a continuing problem for us and I wish I knew what to do.

We have three sites:

Site A is a regional site covering the complete region (think in terms of State or Province) and is doing very well in the serps after disappearing for some weeks back in November. This site was created in 1995 and has the regional name as it's url.

Site B has been around since 1999 and is for a specific business within a small area covered by Site A and Site C. It has pages and pages of tourist information seperate from that presented in Site A. There is of course crosslinking between the info on Site A and Site B. Prior to Florida we had good placement in the main regiuonal search terms. today we are nowhere for these terms in Google. In all other search engines we are on the first page.

Site C is a strictly information site on the local area (think in terms of town / city) and provides info and photos on this specific area within the general area of Site A & Site B. There is no duplication however there is crosslinking between this site and the other two. We have been number one for the local area for 2 years. We are now NOWHERE for this local area in Google! We are number one in all other search engines. The url is the name of the local area.

I just don't understand it. In order to provide coherent information for the searchers we direct them to pages where they can find the information that the particular site they are in doesn't have. Each site provides seperate and unique content.

I don't understand why these sites have been eliminated for the exact search terms for which they were created. My computer is full of e-mails from searchers thanking us for the information provided. I remain thankfull that Site A continues to appear in the regular serps. We supplement Site B as a business with AdWords, Over & FindWhat. Sites A & Site C are not business sites as such and have little or no income to support a PPC campaign.

I suppose I will eventually have to eliminate the crosslinking to the detriment of the searcher if I could only be sure that this is the problem.

hutcheson




msg:66384
 6:13 pm on Feb 15, 2004 (gmt 0)

Tropical Island, I'm willing to swear that crosslinking is not your problem. Lack of independent outside links may be a problem; your own narrow focus on a particular search certainly is a problem; and your page design (graphics vs. text) may be a problem.

Interlinking three sites -- that's down in the range that Googleguy has said wouldn't trigger the "bad neighborhood" artificial-link-detection that is intended to kill self-referential website-gang promotional scams.

Caveat: Google doesn't tell me their secrets, but I'm not afraid of a little linear algebra, so I think I have a feel for how the algorithms actually work.

Tropical Island




msg:66385
 12:48 am on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thank you for your comments Hutcheson. I'll have to take another look at the problem.

apollo




msg:66386
 2:41 am on Feb 16, 2004 (gmt 0)

hutcheson wrote:
>>Interlinking three sites -- that's down in the range that Googleguy has said wouldn't trigger the "bad neighborhood" artificial-link-detection

So 3 sites is "down in the range", and 3 is only one more than 2 (i.e. a reciprocal link), but can you be more specific about the parameters of this range that have been mentioned by googleguy?

Thanks.

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