| 2:42 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
You will notice a big boost for about 2 weeks or so... Then another algorythm will kick in and see that you amassed all of these links over night and penalize you for them. You will be put into the "sandbox" and it will last approx one year.
| 2:53 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In the current climate who knows?
Most people are just trying to get a few pages indexed properly - if you already have loads of google traffic then you have something to lose.
It is possible that it would look like link purchasing - but if it isn't to your home page then you might be ok.
| 3:12 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> what to expect next month?
probably a crash in the ranking.
| 4:28 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|You will notice a big boost for about 2 weeks or so... Then another algorythm will kick in and see that you amassed all of these links over night and penalize you for them. You will be put into the "sandbox" and it will last approx one year. |
Sweeping generalisation that's just plain wrong.
| 4:56 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|"You will notice a big boost for about 2 weeks or so... Then another algorythm will kick in and see that you amassed all of these links over night and penalize you for them. You will be put into the "sandbox" and it will last approx one year." |
Sweeping generalisation that's just plain wrong.
Agreed that is wrong. This is a guess at best and a poor one at that in my opinion. I don't think your rankings will crash either.
| 5:53 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> Sweeping generalisation that's just plain wrong.
what else can we do? polish our crystal ball even more?
| 6:20 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>>Checking Google, I saw that it has already indexed some 17,000 pages with an active text link to my site. <<<<
That is what shocks me. I can believe seeing it with Yahoo but google? They won't even show 10% of the backlinks for most and definitely not more than one for one site. Very strange.
| 8:11 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|That is what shocks me. I can believe seeing it with Yahoo but google? They won't even show 10% of the backlinks for most and definitely not more than one for one site. Very strange. |
By that, I don't mean that Google shows +17000 backlinks. What I mean is this: when I run a site:othersite.com mydomainname, it shows 17,000 results. And since mydomainname is unique, it means that Google had crawled the othersite and refreshed its index. A random check of google cache showed that this is indeed the case, i.e., there is an active textlink to my site on every page.
Anyway, this is a real-life (and somehow frightening) experiment for me. And we will see its net result by the end of next month.
By the way, my site went from #4 to #5 - 6 for my main kw combination. It is a pity that this happened simultaneously with the current "update" or whatever. At this moment, it is difficult to speculate as to what caused my site to bump up 1 point first, and then went down 3 points within 24 hours.
Next month, I will post the results here.
| 9:31 am on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have a site that gained about the same number of links a month ago. No change in traffic for me.
Earlier this year it did the same and even got 4,000 extra backlinks in Google for a month. Again no change in ranking or traffic. Normally it showed 36 backlinks in Google.
| 12:01 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I asked my colleague to remove the link and/or the ads. He kindly replaced the link by another link (to his profile page at othersite).
I thought that the sooner the links removed, the lesser my site would suffer.
I think I will not have to wait for one month or so to see the results.
| 12:30 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If these links are sitewide, chances are that Google doesn't count them at all. I had about 600 sitewide links (about 75% of the backlinks reported by Google) from some of my sites to one of my other sites. I removed them overnight by adding rel="nofollow" in the link. The rankings in Google of the specific site and the landing page where all those links pointed to didn't change one slot. Google had probably discounted these sitewide links long time ago.
| 12:54 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I really don't see what the problem is, things like this happens all the time. You get a great news break thousands of people are talking about your website loads of links.
To me its a good thing, traffic should go up due to more click throughs, you will rank slightly better for some keywords for a while.
After its all done, traffic, serps etc etc goes back to the norm.
I don't see a problem here.
| 3:17 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The big problem I see here, especially for those who are obtaining links through publishing of articles, or even other sites simply linking to your site for whatever reason.
Google I understand is only updating their SERPs about 4 times a year, so the huge time lag between Google updates could result in a huge number of new inbound links suddenly appearing all at once when they do update.
If this is true, about the only way to avoid this is to take it very slow & easy to try to keep pace with Google's infrequent updates.
| 3:21 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I really don't believe your site would suffer. It seems to me that it's been deduced before that the se's might devalue the importance of a site wide linking. However, the site giving you the links could suffer. I've always heard that it is a no-no to do a site-wide link.
| 3:22 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Webdetective, I still see no problem. This happens all the time on the internet - you should stop worrying about these things and work on marketing. SEO is very very powerful but sometimes people worry too much. Listen to the spam - "Got valium?".
I see why exactly why your worried but SERPs change and update all the time. You would have been fine if you left the links pointing to your website.
| 3:28 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| The dates that links appear can also be used to detect "spam," where owners of documents or their colleagues create links to their own document for the purpose of boosting the score assigned by a search engine. A typical, "legitimate" document attracts back links slowly. A large spike in the quantity of back links may signal a topical phenomenon (e.g., the CDC web site may develop many links quickly after an outbreak, such as SARS), or signal attempts to spam a search engine (to obtain a higher ranking and, thus, better placement in search results) by exchanging links, purchasing links, or gaining links from documents without editorial discretion on making links. Examples of documents that give links without editorial discretion include guest books, referrer logs, and "free for all" pages that let anyone add a link to a document. |
If the inbound link was a valid advertising link on a site that could generate leads for your site, why would you have it removed? Don't let the fear of inbound links scare you off like that.
Surely sitewide links are discounted. And yes, they will show up in a link command, that's normal and they typically show up in the...
|In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 00000 already displayed. |
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.
What to expect next month? Probably nothing as it will take time for Google to do it's thing. Worse case scenario? The link just doesn't count. I'd take the 17,000 site wide links of advertising and not worry about what Google is going to think of it. Unless of course there is something else going on. ;)
| 3:31 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What if the site that has these 17k links pointing to yours is relevant? Granted that buiying a link is not the best thing in the world to do, but what if by chance you get a link from a site naturally and then they decide to sell links, or have always sold links?
How will Google be able to tell the difference, further more, how can someone suffer serious drops in SERPS from off site linking?
If thats the case, wouldn't a lot of people just start buying links for their competitor sites and watch them sink?
These are hypothetical questions mind you, but there are a lot of holes in this in my opinion.
| 3:36 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you have an hour or so, read this patent application from Google...
Information retrieval based on historical data
It sheds some light on how Google may evaluate links. ;)
| 3:40 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I the world going back words in terms of marketing? I thought buying advertising to your non spam website and clean website was a good thing in terms of marketing?
Yes, Yes, Yes - We all know that google is stomping down on people buying links to increase in SERPs. So we all now know that google will not devalue your website because you bought "advertising", its more possible that google will simply just not count the "advertising" you bought in they're algos and all is well in happy pixey land once again.
|If you have an hour or so |
Nice, I think i'll check over that tonight...
[edited by: rj87uk at 3:42 pm (utc) on June 8, 2006]
| 3:41 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Let me rephrase one of my questions. Lets say that you get 1 natural link from a website that sells links. Will that affect you in a negative way?
| 3:44 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In a good way? Maybe/yes.
| 3:52 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, what scared me is not gaining some 17k IBLs overnight, but knowing that I will loose them overnight.
Today, I checked my server logs to see if I receive any traffic from that links: Zero! Yes, within a period of 7 days, my site received no visitor from that site. This is mostly due to the fact that the links appeared on irrelevant pages. Another plausible reason is that my site performs much better than the publishing site.
Currently, my site has a decent position, and drives some modest traffic from the major SEs (#1 at yahoo & MSN, and #3-6 in Google). I thought that minimal benefits (added traffic, or a minimal improvement in serps) is not worth to take the risk.
With regard to site-wide links, I am not scared of it either. Once I asked a webmaster to place a textlink to my site in the form of a thanks note for the services I delivered. She complied, generously, by placing the link in the dreamweaver template thus creating a site-wide link (the site has a home page PR6 and +500 pages). From my experience, I guess that Google may not be counting them to the full extent. But they are there, and I am happy with them. Even, I receive occasional visitors from the site.
It would be a good experiment to wait one month and see the results. But as I said above, I could not risk the site. It has a good reputation (in the eyes of SEs), and is getting better with every update.
Thank you all for the valuable comments.
| 7:34 pm on Jun 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you paid for the link, or got it for free, I don't see how Google will know. I personally think the selling of links is a scam.
I am noticing a significant increase in MSN traffic, but still getting nothing from Google.
I don't see how reciprocal links can adversely effect a site, since I know of a fellow affiliate who has exchanged hundreds of links with all kinds of unrelated sites including poker, Viagra, etc.. and he tells me he's getting plenty of traffic from Google, although his site is banned from Yahoo.
| 7:45 am on Jun 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
but the question is was there any BL update? i am seeing no change in my BL data whereas i have added good numbers of quality BL's during past couple of months
| 8:56 pm on Jun 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
When it comes to Google and how the search engine counts links everyone needs to be clear about two things: Google’s public listings of your links is intentionally disabled. All it is good for is a TRUE/FALE result, either yes we have your links or no we do not have your links. (Assuming that the results have been updated which occur infrequently, much like toolbar PageRank) Google’s internal listing of your links is perfectly fine and probably works a whole lot better than you realize. Not only does Google know what pages are linking to your pages but they can identify reciprocal links, three-way links and other cooperative linking schemes.
If you are a regular reader of Matt Cutts you will already understand this and more. If not, and you want greater insight into Google’s analytical capabilities, I suggest you visit Matt’s blog and catch-up on your reading.
| 9:21 pm on Jun 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I spend time at Mattcutts. I posted an interesting question at