homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.224.53.192
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

    
Can sites that are linking to you that have a G PR of 0 hurt you?
Most sites linking to me have a PR of 0
Clint



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 5:07 pm on Jul 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi all. Since there is no "Google search" forum as Y and MSN has, I'll have to post this here.

Can anyone please tell me if sites that are linking to you that have a Google PR of 0 hurt you? While doing the link:MyDomain.com in G still shows only about 19 for me, (from some reason down from over 600 of May 20th), I did this command in Y (about 800) and browsed the results. The vast majority of the sites I didn't even know existed and I never new they were linking to me. Most of those I checked had a PR of 0. So I'm wondering if this is a bad thing.
Thanks.

(I also noticed something rather interesting while doing this; when clicking the links in Y results, regardless of link the G toolbar always shows a PR of 0! I know there is a Yahoo 302 redirect of links [which is rather disturbing], but the link of course resolves to the real URL. Apparently the G PR is not seeing the actual URL, but the Y redirect!)

 

robotsdobetter

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 3:28 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

This will not hurt your web site, if this was true competitors could do this just to hurt your ranking. Google doesn't show all your backlinks and likely don't show the most important ones.

Clint



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 8:18 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the reply and info. :)

So what do you think G has done with almost 600 of my backlinks?

kaled

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



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 9:51 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

The link: command in Google is just plain useless - forget about it.

Kaled.

arthurdaley

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 10:57 am on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

There are two categories of site which can have a PR of 0 on the homepage, sites which have no inward links or brand new sites which have not yet been assigned a visible PR, and penalised websites which have had a PR in the past but had it reduced to 0 as a penalty.

I understood that your website can suffer if a penalised site or "bad neighbourhood" site links to it, so those sites with a PR of 0 may be of harm, however the other category of sites will be of no harm. People were certainly talking about the dangers of links from poisonous sites and bad neighbourhoods a couple of years ago. Whether or not this is still a problem I don't know.

Clint



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 3:52 pm on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Kaled, apparently. ;) What I don't understand is why G had me with over 600 links, then dropped it to 19.

Arthur, do you know if in the cases of questionable links if the <a href=oneofthebadlinks.com rel="nofollow">Link text</a> tag would help with these sites, as in you not getting hurt by G?

So just how is one supposed to find which of these PR 0 sites are possibly penalized?
Thanks.

doc_z

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 6:46 pm on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Even links from penalized pages/sites didn't cause problems. Just linking to such pages/sites might cause a negative effect.

stroudtx

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 9:38 pm on Jul 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

BTW - Why does Google offer a link check ability if the results are pure garbage? Seems a little childish to me.

Mike

Swebbie

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 5:56 am on Jul 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

I understood that your website can suffer if a penalised site or "bad neighbourhood" site links to it

This is one of the most prevalent myths going. I think it was from someone (or several someones) confusing what CAN hurt your site - linking FROM your site TO a "bad neighborhood" URL or link farm. Links FROM the bad page TO you cannot hurt you. At worst, they give you no help.

I got this very explanation from GoogleGuy quite awhile ago when I asked in another forum. Take it or leave it.

Clint



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 7:45 am on Jul 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ok, guess I need to then ask this again:

With regards to YOU linking to sites that may be questionable: Can anyone tell me if in the cases of questionable links if the <a href=oneofthebadlinks.com rel="nofollow">Link text</a> tag would help with these sites, as in you not getting hurt by G?

When I say "questionable", I don't mean porn, but sites with niches normally associated with spamming, like financial sites, mortgage sites, online degrees, etc.
Thanks.

topr8

WebmasterWorld Senior Member topr8 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 8:40 am on Jul 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>Can anyone tell me if in the cases of questionable links if the <a href=oneofthebadlinks.com rel="nofollow">

this is completely wrong use of the rel attribute within the <a> tag

i doubt a search spider would know what you even mean.

to find out about what the rel attribute is actually for read this page
[w3.org...]

SimmoAka

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 8:59 am on Jul 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

[QUOTE=Clint]What I don't understand is why G had me with over 600 links, then dropped it to 19[/QUOTE]

I had the same from 780 down to 24 during Bourbon where it has stayed. A "link www.yourdomain.com" (without the colon) seems far more accurate both in terms of numbers and actual linking site reporting

Cheers

Simmo!

tallis

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 9:12 am on Jul 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

or try link¦www.example.com

-it's the pipe symbol. :)

tallis

kaled

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



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 9:22 am on Jul 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

topr8, you don't seem to be uptodate.
Clint, this appears to be a perfectly acceptable use of nofollow judging from GoogleGuy's posts a while back.

Kaled.

sit2510

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 5:31 am on Jul 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>> So just how is one supposed to find which of these PR 0 sites are possibly penalized?

One of the clues is to do site:thatdomain.com. If that site appeared to exist for a period of time, but no page indexed in Google then foul smell is there.

BUT please be forwarned that it won't worth your time to check every site just for the sake of wanting to know if it was penalized or not, related to the open topic of this thread.

topr8

WebmasterWorld Senior Member topr8 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 6:58 am on Jul 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>topr8, you don't seem to be uptodate.

thanks, if that is the case i stand corrected ...

however the question is, if you are putting links on your site why would you not want a search spider to follow them?

(i'm not making a moral/ethical point, that is another issue)

if i was a search engine such behaviour would raise a red flag to me

theBear

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 4:49 pm on Jul 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

topr8,

Maybe because you are running a forum and do not want the forum members to be able to spam the s/e with signatures and don't dare to use other means to "hide" the links.

Maybe because you have additional navigation for visitor use that the s/e may consider as duplicate content due to urls being different dynamic content delivery has its downsides.

Maybe because the page the link goes to might be considered a keyword laden doorway page.

It really is getting well past the point of building a site for visitors, in doing that you will eventually walk into a "s/e gotcha" unless the site is very small.

Most of our newest site is off limits to the search engines, and it is a royal pain to keep track of.

Clint,

To answer your question, it isn't the PR 0 sites linking to you that you have to worry about.

It is _how_ any site links to you that you have to worry about.

Now if Google actually implements its inbound link counting and a sudden uptick in inbounds is then used to quality rank lower the target of the inbound links (as per the patent application) then there will be a major problem.

You can only control your end of the link, not the other end.

topr8

WebmasterWorld Senior Member topr8 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 7:15 am on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

theBear ... agreed, i think there are good reasons for doing it, although get roundable - the forum issue you could do redirects like here at WebmasterWorld, not had a problem with the dup (different querystring) dynamic pages - although adding the infamous id= string could help here!, but i absolutely get what you are saying.

by a red flag i mean just that, as a stand alone factor it wouldn't mean anything, but combined with other red flags it would perhaps have some significance.

Clint



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 12:39 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

What I don't understand is why G had me with over 600 links, then dropped it to 19

I had the same from 780 down to 24 during Bourbon where it has stayed. A "link www.yourdomain.com" (without the colon) seems far more accurate both in terms of numbers and actual linking site reporting

Hey thanks! Never heard of that before. When I do it that way I show over 800, but a quick look shows they are not all actual links. But, nonetheless still MUCH more accurate that what we've been doing at G. I've just been doing it a Y instead since it seems to show all links correctly.

Clint



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 12:49 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>>>or try link¦www.example.com
-it's the pipe symbol. <<<<<<<

Tallis, that doesn't work on my end. I got over 1.5 million results (using the Shift + \ key which is "¦"), and my domain appeared no where in them! Then I tried the ¦ symbol and got zero.

Clint



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 12:51 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>>Can anyone tell me if in the cases of questionable links if the <a href=oneofthebadlinks.com rel="nofollow"> <<<<<<

this is completely wrong use of the rel attribute within the <a> tag

i doubt a search spider would know what you even mean.

to find out about what the rel attribute is actually for read this page
[w3.org...]

I picked up that tag here at this forum. I searched that URL you gave for "nofollow" and I didn't see it anywhere. So, what do you recommend instead of that tag? I see Kaled said it's fine (thanks Kaled), but I'd like your input as well if you've heard anything bad about it. ;)

theBear

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 12:56 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

topr8,

Google has had problems related to redirect handling.

And when the redirects haven't caused problems webmasters have had problems with them being used.

What is a webmaster to do?

Drop back 20 and punt?

theBear

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 1:03 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint,

The rel="nofollow" is an extension to the html spec that the three major search engines support in an effort to stop so called blog spam.

It is used to create a link to a page that is not relavent to the topic at hand.

Clint



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 1:07 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

however the question is, if you are putting links on your site why would you not want a search spider to follow them?

For the reasons we were discussing; "questionable" sites. See my original post again for background, and I think I mentioned that in my link exchanges I wanted to possibly block some links from SE's because someone said that linking to a bad neighborhood can be bad. I don't want them to delete MY link at their site, so I have to leave theirs at mine but I don't want an SE following it. (See my msg #10).

topr8

WebmasterWorld Senior Member topr8 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 1:12 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>>What is a webmaster to do?

indeed :) and i'm aware of what you say. i'd agrre with you, often it is just choosing the best from a bunch of less than ideal solutions to a problem.

Clint



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 1:13 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

"theBear", thanks, so I guess it's ok then to use the tag.

Regarding:

To answer your question, it isn't the PR 0 sites linking to you that you have to worry about.

It is _how_many site links to you that you have to worry about

Did you leave out the "m" now in bold? Are you saying that too many is not good, or not enough is not good....or something else all together? :)
Thanks.

theBear

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 1:35 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clint,

The question of many is yet another topic for discussion , my remark was as written the m is not missing.

Clint



 
Msg#: 30221 posted 2:14 pm on Jul 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Dave, sorry I don't follow you....

Ok, I do understand "how_any site links to you that you have to worry about" was not a typo. But do you mean the method in which they link to you, like with a 302 hijack or something like that?

The question of many is yet another topic for discussion

Is that comment referring to the way I added the "m" to your message, to make it "many" as in "how many websites"? Or do you mean it's the "question of many" meaning many people?

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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