| 11:02 am on Sep 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I would not think so, especially if it is a respectable site.
If Google penalised sites for having now links it would be far to easy to get your competitors penalised just by adding links to their sites!
| 11:35 am on Sep 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If you have an older site than no you should not get sandboxed. Be careful though if google thinks this site is not an authority site they may be suspecious and may look into spam.
However if the links are coming from a well respected site that google likes alot, then yes it should help you.
| 9:11 pm on Sep 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
funny...I thought site-wide links were a no-no and considered paid advertising and so links would be deprecated and not much use.
| 9:15 pm on Sep 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It is clear the term "Sand Box" is being referenced to more things than it really is.
Just remember what Matt Cutts said in New Orleans, it has to do with intent. What is your intent, why are you doing this, for your users or for your ranking? If it is the latter, avoid.
| 9:43 pm on Sep 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The problem with your theory is there is no possible way to determined "intent" and what is good old fashion advertising.
How can you be penalized for trying to improve your business by advertising?
Find a respectable authority site and go with it. If google does not punish them for it, how can they punish you?
| 5:49 am on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The problem with your theory |
It's not my theory, but Google's. They make the rules, not us. If you ignore what they say because it doesn't make sense, can lead you to the wrong side of the fence. I agree with you, but that doesn't do us any good as we aren't the ones making the rules.
| 6:49 am on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So it's not really your intent but what Google thinks your intent is (was).
So, the spammer is simply trying to feign an honest intent-- a virtual grifter...
But is Google justified in exterminating fake honesty along with poorly executed but genuine honesty?
Why heck I don't think that googlebot can tell a walnut from plaid necktie, we're just in the soup now...
</wc fields voice>
| 3:36 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree with cabowabo- it's intent. Site wide makes it look like paid advertising. Links are "votes" for your site. Advertising is not votes. It's paid placement. So, will not give you any credit.
| 4:21 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes you all make valid points. Think about it though. Google would open up a can of legal matter worms if they ban one site and not another for doing the same thing.
Don't let you imagation run away with things just because you heard it somewhere and it now becomes law.
It does not work that way. Again find good quality sites and get them to link to you.
Do your homework. Investigate the sites that are already using this authority site for advertising. See how they rank on Google and other engines, check their backlinks and how many our coming form this site on google backlinks counts.
Use your head and then follow it. If it makes sense and it is working for some of the others that are using them, then its a good bet that you will be fine. Just Fine!
Do your homework first.
| 4:31 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I got links from a 2.5 million page site. No problems so far, except I dissapeared from Googl.
| 4:40 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Google would open up a can of legal matter worms if they ban one site and not another for doing the same thing. |
Remember, Google has NO OBLIGATION to list ANY site.
| 4:44 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Remember, Google has NO OBLIGATION to list ANY site. |
Google has the obligation to list the White House site.
| 4:48 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Where'd you find that information? I've never seen that anywhere. That's very interesting.
| 4:51 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just made it up.
| 4:53 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
But hey, makes sense.
Suppose Google banned the White House site, that'd be like saying "we're bigger than the USA", which could be considered treason.
My point being : Google has the obligation to list many many sites or be considered a lame duck.
| 5:39 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|...considered a lame duck. |
There you go. Their only obligation to list sites is to keep users coming. Google has every right not to list a site if it thinks its not good for its users. If the users disagree en mass, they will go to another SE and Google will adjust. Legality? No. Public Relations problem? Not from one site of little importance being gone. What average joe consumer actually knows if an SE does a good job or not? They will eventually find what they are looking for. I REALLY doubt there would be a public outcry to have a site re-listed. Every non-webmaster / non-site owner that I've talked to has no clue of how listings get into the search engines, and actually have no complaints. They find what they want within afew minutes. I don't have a scientific sampling, but its good enough to make me happy with the info.
Bottom line: the only people that really notice that a site is out of the listings is the site owner. If a site is big enough to draw public attention if its gone, Google won't boot it.
|...obligation to list many many sites |
They want it so bad that they make stuff up. Hence discussions like this: [webmasterworld.com...]
I don't mean to flame you, but that's not cool. This is a site for information, not MISinformation.
| 5:54 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
100% Agreed. We the site owners are the only one's who knows when we are gone or not indexed. The rest of the internet world can care less. Unless of course we are a household name.
If Google does not think its important enough to others it will either take forever to get you out of the sandbox because its not important enough to the end user.
However if you press the issue and make your site important you will be picked up quickly and paid more attention to by google.
Now how do you obtain more attention from the spiders? I think we all know the answer to that one.
Advertising, traffic, page views, pagerank etc....How do you obtain that? LINKS!
Think of it this way. Its like a bunch a people pushing at a door that is closed shut. The more people that push on this door (links) the more pressure and attention (google spiders)it will get before it gets busted open and let loose (sanbox).
But it has to be the right people (links) pushing at this particular door.
| 6:20 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google has the obligation to list the White House site.
>> But you won't find White House in Google Maps :)
| 7:36 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
300000 sitewide links? Interesting sandbox experiment. Google backlinks count doesn't work, how many backlinks do you have in MSN?
What is your PR and what's PR of linking site?
All 300000 links with the same anchor text? Would sound BAAAAD...
Googlebot won't crawl all 300000 pages immediately, so it won't be an instant appearance of 300000 links. But it would be safer to add these links gradually. Is it possible to do so?
A few months ago I started adding sitewide links to two of my private sites from pages of two sites I design, and still didn't finish the job - but now over 60% of pages of these sites link to me. But I find it safer than adding it all at once.
Results? Just boosted my rankings for phrases in anchor text, still not sure about PR, waiting for toolbar update, but Rustybrick tool says for one site it will be from 3 to 4 and for the other from 4 to 10 ;)
Sometimes one link matters more. One of my pages got one edu backlink, and no other backlinks except from its own site, and become #1 for keyphrase from anchor text. I think this position wouldn't be hurt if I added thousands of other backlinks, but also I guess it wouldn't be improved either ;)
Ensure your site has other top-quality backlinks before adding 300000 links from one site. That's what I would do if I were you.
Another matter comes to my mind. Have you ever analyzed the ratio between backlinks to main page and backlinks to deep pages? Paid links and link exchanges usually link to main page, while natural links often lead to deep pages, to particular content. This would be interesting thing to think about. Maybe better in another thread, but in particular case discussed here, it would be worth thinking over to direct some of these links not to main page, but to content pages - with proper anchor text.
| 9:19 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for your time.
My client site got PR8 about 300,000 pages indexed by google, it is news site.
They would include my link footer, so it automatically appear on entire site.
My site got PR6 with 650 pages inddexed by google.
At the moment i got 3,180 google backlinks, 15,094 MSN links and 23,400 Yahoo links.
My site is over 2yrs old site.
Please advise me will improve my ranking if my client site link to my site.
Thank for all of your time.
| 10:23 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> But you won't find White House in Google Maps :)
Sure you can. Although there are definitely some 'features' missing from the WH and surrounding rooftops (for obvious reasons).
| 10:24 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
PR8 and PR6 sound good, so 2 yrs age.
What I'm concerned, it's you'll still getting thousands of links with the same anchor text... I understand they are not going to make it different on some pages as they use one footer include. Maybe it would be a bit safer, if you asked them to use a bit different anchor text that you have on backlinks from other sites? So everyone links to you "Blue widgets" and this new links would be "A Blue beautiful widgets' site"?
Still, as for backlinks count, I bet you have more backlinks in Google than in Yahoo (Google shows only a sample, and usually Gbot crawls better). So you have a nice number of backlinks.
It would be interesting to check dates of Google cache of these 300000 pages - it could indicate how often are they crawled. If they are crawled slowly, maybe Google won't notice you got so many backlinks at once.
Do you have DMOZ backlink? The risk of penalty might be smaller in such case I guess.
I think these backlinks can improve your ranking, especially for searches for phrase put in anchor text of these links, but considering the facts you wrote, there is a little risk. I guess all other backlinks you have from real authority sites should make this risk smaller.
I would try if I were you - if linking site is PR8, and has many PR7 and even more PR6 pages, you're likely get PR7 and maybe even PR8, it's worth risking. But if I decided to get this links, I'd search desperately for a few additional non site-wide links from high PR authority sites, to ensure Google you're not a spammer.
| 10:49 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
sorry for misinforming you, from now on i will only post roboticly truths to make sure i keep informing you and never ever mislead you. cool?
| 11:47 pm on Oct 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I wrote about this once before. I know of a site that advertises on a chain of online newspapers. At one time, it had 600,000 backlinks (counted by yahoo linkdomain command) from this method. For a couple months, it was nowhere to be seen in google. Then, it shot up in google and msn and yahoo as well. I guess as long as the backlinks are stable, at some point THEY will get counted and won't be considered spam. This guy's backlinks came from about 12 different newspapers. So, 600,000 links spread over only 12 ISPs (maybe). Kinda makes you think that it shouldn't be impossible to BUY YOUR WAY to the top for nearly any niche. If that's true, that's sad and a definite weakness on google and yahoo's part.
| 11:51 am on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|But is Google justified in exterminating fake honesty along with poorly executed but genuine honesty? |
It doesn't matter if they are justified or not. They are in the business of making money and giving their share holders the highest revenue model possible. It doesn't matter if we think they are right, they will do what they can to increase the average revenue per search from the current 9 cents.
If an honest site gets caught in the cross fire, it gets caught. That is my point, site owners venture into territory that could be seen as questionable and then whine when they get nailed. The "intent" test always works in my book.