homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.72.86
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

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >     
Site wide links have appeared what now?
How to not get penalised for someone linking to you.
stinkfoot




msg:753571
 2:37 pm on Nov 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

OK .. I have just spotted some bunch of idiots that have started using sitewide links to some of my pages.

I know for a fact that sitewide links get you and the page pointing to you penalised. I have asked nicely for this competeing webmaster to remove my links to no avail.

What do I do now?

Any ideas appreciated.

 

netscan




msg:753572
 6:38 pm on Nov 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Not true, you could never be penalized for a link to your site, if that were the case people would link to their competitors more just to watch them die. They probably won't be weighted as highly but I would not be concerned.

arubicus




msg:753573
 6:50 pm on Nov 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

You know I have no clue. You may try to take it up with their host but really there isn't much you can do unless they are ripping off content or using your tradmark in an unsightly manner.

I think now we are reaching a point where webmasters are just spinning around in circles. I mean we are so affraid to do anything with our sites or we are penalized in SE's. People ripping off content and we are penalized at the same time you share content and you can get penalized. Sites that are out of our control linking and redirecting to your site and you can get penalized. We link to the "wrong" site (regardless of content) you can get penalized. We promote off site with advertising, link promotion, etc. you can get penalized. Having the "wrong" internal link structure and you can get penalized. Other sites out of our control linking "wrong" and you can get penalized. Using black hat SEO, white hat SEO, or even no SEO and you can get penalized. Geeezzee what are we supposed to do?

Ok I will end the rant

arubicus




msg:753574
 7:08 pm on Nov 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Not true, you could never be penalized for a link to your site, if that were the case people would link to their competitors more just to watch them die. They probably won't be weighted as highly but I would not be concerned."

Never? Google states:

"There's almost nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking or have your site removed from our index."

Almost does not indicate never. I would suspect they discount incoming links.

Also keep in mind that the Google guidelines state:

"Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank"

So it depend on what Google consider this as a way to "artificially inflate PR" or to "game the system". IF THEY DO they may penalize as your site could be considered "trying to spam their index". Google reserves the RIGHT to this discression so I would not use an absolute term as "never".

Lorel




msg:753575
 7:55 pm on Nov 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would report them to Google spam report and explain you had nothing to do with it.

stinkfoot




msg:753576
 8:00 pm on Nov 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Netscan: Not true, you could never be penalized for a link to your site,

Ok but ... in my industry there were quite a few sites with sitewide links from another site that were top 10. There are NONE of these sites in the top 10 anymore. They have been knocked back to spot 900 or so in the serps from place 2 for very competative keywords.

This is not just ignoring links is it. That is a definite penalty.

arubicus




msg:753577
 8:06 pm on Nov 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

"This is not just ignoring links is it. That is a definite penalty. "

This may not be "proof" because if Google used to count the links before and then suddenly discounted the links it would appear to be a penalty. A test would be to take a junk site or blog or something and then do a couple hundred pages worth of site wide links to another site (so long as the owners are different) and see what happens. Although I wouldn't do this myself nor would I do this to another site I was just saying this as an example.

Just have to add that with this latest update who knows what it could have been.

ronin100




msg:753578
 8:21 pm on Nov 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Gentlemen/Ladies,

I have a similar thing going on but I did it myself. I have a blog and I write about what I know and that is my "niche". I write all of my own content, so no problems there.

Problem (not sure) is I put a link to my e-commerce site in the navigation bar and after 18 mos. that's a lot of links. GG used to put tons of pages in my backlinks for my website, but now they have only about 3 or 4 pages listed in my back links.

I used to write an article on a real life scenario where a product on my e-comm site would be of great help and then "text link" the product keywords to the product and GG would raise that product in the SERPS. I think those days are over?

Am I shooting myself in the foot? I love to write in my weblog but I can't see any reason at all if I can't even throw a link to my website (relevant site).

Please advise?

cleanup




msg:753579
 8:30 pm on Nov 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

What do you guys mean by site wide links?

I thought deep and varied linking was the way to go these days as it is more natural and precise?

netscan




msg:753580
 11:52 pm on Nov 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Also keep in mind that the Google guidelines state:

"Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank"

So it depend on what Google consider this as a way to "artificially inflate PR" or to "game the system". IF THEY DO they may penalize as your site could be considered "trying to spam their index". Google reserves the RIGHT to this discression so I would not use an absolute term as "never".

You guys are waaaay too jumpy when it comes to Google. Unless this guy is on the same C class as you and you're linking back to him (or her), there is no reason for Google to suspect foul play.

On the same Google paranoia note, remember, it's about the visitors NOT the search engine. Build your site the way you see fit so that you properly convey the message as you intend your visitors to receive it and stop worrying so much. If your content is worth the traffic, they will come.

arubicus




msg:753581
 3:20 am on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

"You guys are waaaay too jumpy when it comes to Google."

"there is no reason for Google to suspect foul play."

They funky crap they have been doing lately with many of our sites...many of us have plenty of reason to be jumpy:) Just kidding.

Actually not being jumpy just pointing out that it is posible.

If you look real closely I agreed with you that they probably just discount the links. At least that is what I would do if I were them.

Newman




msg:753582
 3:29 am on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agreed with you that they probably just discount the links.

arubicus, what do you mean, all links to the site, or just those links?

steveb




msg:753583
 3:43 am on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I know for a fact that sitewide links get you and the page pointing to you penalised."

I know for a fact that you don't know what a fact is.

elgrande




msg:753584
 4:46 am on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

I know for a fact that sitewide links get you and the page pointing to you penalised.

I agree that this is not a fact.

For example, two facts are (1) that the majority of blogs have sitewide links to and from their site, and (2) many of these blogs rank well.

arubicus




msg:753585
 5:49 am on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

"arubicus, what do you mean, all links to the site, or just those links? "

Discount the run of mill links so they have no real negative effect no overly positive effect.

Lets say a site that has 70,000 pages worth of forums. Toss a site wide link on all of those pages to your site. What would happen? Will PR pass through all of those links or not? Now if PR does pass through all of those links I better get on the horn to many of the companies I know and cash in some favors for some site-wide links across 500,000+ pages with tiny little links in the footer. I know it would be unfair for small timers...but if it is ok with Google. So what would be the difference between me calling up the favors (me trying to influence PR) and some average joe with a huge forum doing it without my consent? How would G know the difference? Would G consider all links good and pass the PR or would they consider this unnatural. Would they consider this "trying to game the system"?

jaffstar




msg:753586
 6:04 am on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree, you can control who you link to, not who links to you.

Some of our large authority sites have been linked to by the most weird type of sites, can't do anyting, and we are still ok :)

glengara




msg:753587
 9:42 am on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

*I know for a fact that sitewide links get you and the page pointing to you penalised.*

IMO this can happen, but only when a site is playing other linkage games and the pattern is already pointing towards a "links scheme".

WebPixie




msg:753588
 10:02 am on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

My experience has been that the site wide links don't help or hurt much with Google while they are up. But I have had some drops in rankings after taking them down. I can in no way prove that it was the removal of the links that caused the drop in rankings. But nothing else was done to the site in that time frame.

On another issue, I no longer believe that there is no way you can be hurt by links pointing at your site. Anyone want to volunteer a site for an experiment? We could set up a thread for it and control the links pointing to the site. I have some old sites that I could site wide link to the test site. I might even have a site to use as the target actually, but I'd not want to point my side wide links at my site as it would not be a real test of someone else doing it to cause harm.

cleanup




msg:753589
 10:15 am on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

Point em at WebmasterWorld and see what happens!?....Just kidding ;)

rj87uk




msg:753590
 11:16 am on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

Point em at WebmasterWorld and see what happens!?....Just kidding

Everything is Grey, there is no Black there is no White. Each situation is different regarding links and this specific topic.

In this instance cleanup has suggested we point a Site wide link to WebmasterWorld, now nothing bad would happen to WebmasterWorld because it is a well established website, OTOH a site wide link to a new site with no credibility might have some unwanted effects such as being pushed into the sandbox/ back into the box, penalised or some other bad point against its name.

<thoughts>
Every situation is different, its like google has a scoring system too many bad points gets you a penality, too many good points gets you #1.
</thoughts>

I hope this is an informative post, I deal a lot with links with many new/old sites. Its all based on past experiences.

MarkWolk




msg:753591
 8:17 pm on Nov 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

a site wide link to a new site with no credibility might have some unwanted effects such as being pushed into the sandbox/ back into the box, penalised or some other bad point against its name
Yes, I am seeing exactly this with 3 of my newer sites for which I had organised sitewide links from older (related and on topic) sites. The 3 newer sites first acquired a good PR (3-4), then (a few days ago) the PR dropped to 0 (but the sites are still listed). Yesterday, I saw the PR returning shortly to 3-4, then dropping back to 0 again. I have removed the sitewide links. As for the older sited on which I had placed the sitewide outbound links, their PR remains unchanged.
aliszka




msg:753592
 12:58 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can assure you that sitewide links will destroy your top rank site, I know because it got me, I learned the hard way!

netscan




msg:753593
 1:09 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I can assure you that sitewide links will destroy your top rank site, I know because it got me, I learned the hard way!

Hogwash. Sitewide links from self supporting link farms will harm your site, organic sitewide links may not help, but most certainly will not hurt.

Think about it, if all it took was a simple link from 1 big player to knock off another big player... Hell, I'd do it right now.

While I cannot "assure" anyone on how exactly Google weights links, I cannot by any stretch of the imagination be led to believe that a sitewide link, or any other link, unsolicited, can lead to certain doom for the linkee. The very idea is ludicrous.

Seriously, folks, spend less time theorizing and more time constructing better more informative websites.

The more you stare at shadows, the more they seem like they're moving...

walkman




msg:753594
 1:43 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> Not true, you could never be penalized for a link to your site

he he he he

WebPixie




msg:753595
 3:14 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

If I point 10k ROS links at CNN it will not do any harm.

But what if I point 10k side wide links at your new birthday-widget site while it's still in the sandbox?

I know someone that has several sites that rank very well on money terms. She recently built a site to compete in the same market I do. I have no doubt that in a year her site will rank well. But, what if I start slamming her new sandboxed site with ROS links? Wait 30 days or so and take the first set down and throw up another 10k from new locations and then repeat. Would this prolong the sandbox? I bet it would.

This is just one example. And I'd not do anything like that, just trying to make a point.

adamxcl




msg:753596
 3:29 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

This was covered a few times today by Matt Cutts at Pubcon. He seemed to be assuring people that the paid links would not hurt, but they wouldn't help at all. He urged people to just spend the money on other things, like real content or real advertising. He called out some website owners in a site review session and told them Google can tell which links are paid for AND also who sold the links to them. Took him less than 30 seconds after having the domain name.

On the plus side, these links may help you in Yahoo and MSN. And if users start using those engines in any real numbers, you may get more traffic out of it.

netscan




msg:753597
 3:42 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>WebPixie

Right, but your example is based on conjecture. That Google penalizes a site based on inbound organic links cannot be proved without a statement from Google saying that it does and would.

Your theory is plausible, but again, it's a theory. Same as mine is.

Google does some whacked out shizznit but I just can't believe that such a scenario would be that easy.

I would also counter that it would take multiple sites with sitewide links pointing to the "victim" in the same period to make it succeed as Google could easily filter out the new links and/or make them worthless.

theBear




msg:753598
 3:46 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Webpixie in effect you are describing exactly what is going on because of the massive link churn caused by the scrapers and Google or the natural movement in the serps across the 3 major S/Es causing links to first be there and then gone or on another page.

You can read the cycles using Alexa. These cycles have been also mentioned on this forum many times.

There are other things going on but massive link churn is in fact out there and it has effects.

PS:netscan I believe the code and only the code, code is fickle it doesn't always do what you intend or wish for ;-).

walkman




msg:753599
 4:10 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> Instead of giggling to yourself silently, perhaps you have something of merit to add?

the message was actually clear. I feel bad that you didn't get it though

ronin100




msg:753600
 4:34 am on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Post#8:

I have a blog and I write about what I know and that is my "niche". I write all of my own content, so no problems there.

I put a link to my e-commerce site in the navigation bar and after 18 mos. that's a lot of links. GG used to list a lot of pages from the weblog as backlinks for my e-commerce website, but now they have only about 3 or 4 pages listed in my back links.

I write articles on real life scenarios where a product on my e-comm site would be of great help and then, a "text link" using the product keyword to the product, and GG would raise that section or page in the SERPS. I think those days are over?

Am I shooting myself in the foot? I love to write in my weblog but I can't see any reason to if I can't even throw a link to my website (relevant site).

1. Should I take the link of the side nav bar?
2. Should I strip the text links out of all the articles?
3. Should I continue to leave the weblog "stand alone" or link to it from my e-commerce site as a means of fresh content and strip the links back to the e-comm site (making it an extension of the site and not a Spam Blog?.
4. The ecomm site is [mysite.com...]
5. The weblog is [mysite.blogspot.com...]

Please offer your opinions, they very welcome!

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >
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