homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.196.62
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Visit PubCon.com
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 135 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 135 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 > >     
Notifying Webmasters of Penalties
Googles -30 Serp Penalty
jwc2349




msg:3142436
 5:18 pm on Nov 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

According to Adam Lasnik in a post on October 20 at [groups.google.com...]

"...We really do our best to be as detailed as possible in our guidelines and our overall help docs. We also notify a huge number of Webmasters with regards to existing or upcoming penalties..."

I wonder:

1) how many out there active in these newsgroups have been notified by Google of: a) existing penalties and b) upcoming penalties

2) Since the hottest topic today appears to be the -30 serp penalty (which I have been a victim of for almost 11 months), how many out there have been notified of the reason for this specific penalty?

3) What reason did Google give you for this -30 serp penalty?

4) How many of you have actually recovered from this -30 serp penalty?

 

whitenight




msg:3149497
 11:43 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

reseller, still positioning to get link-buyers/sellers in trouble I see? cute.
-----

Adam,

Honestly, what is the percentage of webmasters who are trying to follow your ambigious guidelines vs. those looking to push the envelope or are outright black-hatters?

Sounds like you all at the 'Plex are still stuck in the "all webmasters are :cough: alledgely trying to game you" mentality.
That's really a shame. Good luck continuing to fight that battle.

And as mentioned above, as far as G's "link-buying/selling" mechanism...
You are kidding, right?

Again, the only sites I see getting penalized are the mom-and-pop sites looking to make a little extra money or trying to compete with internet "brand name" companies WHO BUY ALL THEIR LINKS.

Let's see G crack down on those "Internet 500"(SM) companies with millions of dollars invested in gaming Google before you start patting yourself on the back about your effectiveness on catching JoeBlowUniversity.edu selling a link to MomAndPopTravelPortal.com, eh?

[edited by: whitenight at 11:56 pm (utc) on Nov. 7, 2006]

reseller




msg:3149509
 11:48 pm on Nov 7, 2006 (gmt 0)

trinorthlighting

I guess I need to re-write the last line in my previous post. Here I go:

That way the friends at Google WebSpam Team show the webmasters communities that they are serious in fighting back on PR-Links sellers!

PR-Links = links which are sold mainly to boost PR values.

trinorthlighting




msg:3149549
 12:40 am on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

If google was really smart, they would stop feeding information to the little green toolbar.... Then there would not even be a PR market.... Problem solved...

tedster




msg:3149574
 12:59 am on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Any more discussion about the topic of this thread, "Notifying webmasters of Penalties? Googles -30 Serp Penalty"

1) how many out there active in these newsgroups have been notified by Google of:
a) existing penalties and
b) upcoming penalties

2) Since the hottest topic today appears to be the -30 serp penalty
(which I have been a victim of for almost 11 months), how many out
there have been notified of the reason for this specific penalty?

3) What reason did Google give you for this -30 serp penalty?

4) How many of you have actually recovered from this -30 serp penalty?


nippi




msg:3149667
 3:26 am on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

A far as I am aware, no one has ever been notified of the google +30 penalty, only notification is just before removal, not serp penalty.

My recover to 29, was shortlived, back to 31 for me.

nippi




msg:3149677
 3:36 am on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

i meant, notification only when penalty is totaly removal, not when penalty is +30, and even then, very rarely.

jetteroheller




msg:3149781
 6:42 am on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Some PR claculations.

Let's have with an average of 60 links per page.

7000 links from PR2 pages 7000 * 25 / 60
1000 links from PR3 pages 1000 * 125 / 60
50 links from PR4 pages 50 * 625 / 60

gives 5520 and from this log base 5 = 5,35
but the supported domain has only PR4.

So it seems this links are also reduced in value.

When I remove now links all the day, I am today in the evening ready for my reinclusion request.

idolw




msg:3149894
 9:43 am on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

reseller,

i hope you realize that the first thing I do with the "Report link seller" button is to report you personally and all your websites.
next sites will be all my niche and niches i would like to start at...

how do you want to check it?
for instance, I exchange links with other sites in my niche. i do not offer and get links on links pages but only pages with content. links are beneficial to my users. actually, i have exchanged very visible links with my big competitors - they have cool sites and so do I. but some users may prefer theirs to mine or mine to theirs. better to share the traffic than to send them back to google serps.
so what about my website? if you see an outbound link somewhere else on a content page will this be a proof that i sell links?
please, don't make me thing this reseller guy from WebmasterWorld is 14-year old kid :)

aha, one more thing. link exchange is buying/selling links, too. just the money is link not cash ;)

if you feel cheated by those who buy/sell links, just go and buy some for your sites.

i see no reason to help anyone change the natural behaviour of linking or any other activity in people's life in a way of arbitrage.

and if they really want to change it why dont they check what they are worth?
instead of rel=nofollow why dont they ask webmasters to use rel=follow tags in links to sites they want to help/vote for? :)

reseller




msg:3149993
 11:58 am on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

idolw

reseller,

i hope you realize that the first thing I do with the "Report link seller" button is to report you personally and all your websites.
next sites will be all my niche and niches i would like to start at...

I wrote Report PR-Links Seller and not "Report link seller" as you wrote. Great difference between the two terms ;-)

We are talking about sites, usually with high PR values, selling "PR-Links" in an attempt to boost the PR values of buyers sites.

trinorthlighting




msg:3150037
 1:25 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

How about an email via the webmaster tools or a flag that a site is being penalized and reasons why..... That would be much better than reporting a link seller....

[edited by: trinorthlighting at 1:26 pm (utc) on Nov. 8, 2006]

idolw




msg:3150042
 1:26 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

how do you figure out who sells links and who sells PR?

trinorthlighting




msg:3150043
 1:28 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Exactly, and how can you determine who bought them knowing it and who bought them thinking they were advertising links? That is my point why a site who buys links should never be penalized.

reseller




msg:3150071
 1:58 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

idolw

how do you figure out who sells links and who sells PR?

Sell links for traffic/advertising use rel=nofollow

And obviously those who sell PR-Links wouldn't use rel=nofollow

Easy, no? ;-)

LunaC




msg:3150110
 2:34 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have to strongly disagree with that. rel="nofollow" was intended to combat blog spam and in other places where visitors could add links and the website owner didn't vouch for them... not as a required attribute to all outbound, non-paid-for-pr links.

So if I add links that are relevant to my sites, you're saying I should add nofollow? No, I disagree, if *I* add them then by all means allow the "link juice" to flow, that's the way of the web.

IMHO rel="nofollow" is one of the most overused, abused and misunderstood tags on the web!

reseller




msg:3150115
 2:40 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

trinorthlighting

Exactly, and how can you determine who bought them knowing it and who bought them thinking they were advertising links? That is my point why a site who buys links should never be penalized.

I'm only focusing on PR-Links sellers. They are the ones to penalize, without notifications, if/when they don't add rel=nofollow to sold links, IMO.

I.e ALL sold links should include rel=nofollow, IMO.

WW_Watcher




msg:3150123
 2:51 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

I cast my vote along with with LunaC. So this is kinda a Me-Too, off topic Post. The nofollow was created to stop uncontrolled blog spam, not for webmaster link additions.
IMHO 98% of webmasters do not even know about the new google link attribute. If a site is usefull to my visitors, I link to it, unconditionaly, or it does not get a link. If G was to consider all links without the nofollow attribute as paid links, 98% of websites would be penalized, and would be totally incorrect, not gonna happen.

Back to Watching
WW_Watcher

webdude




msg:3150133
 2:57 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

jetteroheller,

Why links from every page? I run a web developent company and I have a "developed by ..." link at the bottom of most of the home pages of sites we host and develop. I ask permission and if my client lets me, I put that tag there. I have never had any problems with this. BUT, I think it may be a problem if I went and linked thousands upon thousands of pages to my company's site. There is no need for this. Look at this from Gs point of view. If your sites are truely representing different companies or businesses, I don't think a link back to your company from every page of your client's site would look natural. I know none of my clients would let me do this. That would look like blatent linking just for the sake of manipulation. Totally not natural.

By the way, these sites are not related in any way. One may sell blue widgets, and another a non-profit hobby site. None are related to web development.

trinorthlighting




msg:3150186
 3:25 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Honestly, links with no relevance should not matter if they are adverising links.

Reseller,

How can the average user tell the difference in the companies they might choose to buy links from? Most larger companies have a marketing department and they might not know all the ins and outs of PR manipulation and how links work.

That is why I keep saying that any purchased links should never be penalized, only discounted!

It would be very interesting to see google chime in here and start discussing this situation. Also, it would be interesting to see why google has not developed a system via the webmaster tools notifing webmasters of penalties. Its obvious that google is not informing anyone who has the -30 penalty.

jetteroheller




msg:3150206
 3:40 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

jetteroheller,
Why links from every page? I run a web developent company and I have a "developed by ..." link at the bottom of most of the home pages of sites we host and develop. I ask permission and if my client lets me, I put that tag there. I have never had any problems with this.

The trouble starts only at larger sites.

All my small clients sites with this links are in perfect condition.

Only the largest sites have trouble.

My own main sites and a realtor with an about 600 pages strong site.

BUT, I think it may be a problem if I went and linked thousands upon thousands of pages to my company's site. There is no need for this. Look at this from Gs point of view.

I took my from June 27th to November 6th to take this view.

It was a traditon since 2001.

trinorthlighting




msg:3150215
 3:44 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

It should not be an issue to advertise that you developed the pages. If you develop real good pages that link might bring you business if your in that field.

reseller




msg:3150314
 5:07 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

trinorthlighting

Reseller,
Most larger companies have a marketing department and they might not know all the ins and outs of PR manipulation and how links work.

That task should be assigned to a Search Engines Advisor. I guess those larger companies can afford that ;-)

Yippee




msg:3150347
 5:22 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> Let's see G crack down on those "Internet 500"(SM) companies with millions of dollars invested in gaming Google before you start patting yourself on the back about your effectiveness on catching JoeBlowUniversity.edu selling a link to MomAndPopTravelPortal.com, eh? <<

AMEN BROTHER WHITENIGHT!

Reno




msg:3150377
 5:39 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Here is what Google currently reports to a typical website via their Webmaster Tools:

HTTP errors (0)
Not found (0)
URLs not followed (0)
URLs restricted by robots.txt (1)
URLs timed out (0)
Unreachable URLs (0)

For a long time now many of us at this forum have been asking that they simply provide a fair warning when a penalty is about to be imposed -- give us 14 days to fix the problem. From my point of view, adding a couple new status report lines would do it -- something like:

Google penalty? [] NO ...[] BORDERLINE ... [] IMMINENT

Then if imminent was checked, the next line would reference the Webmaster rule which was being violated -- for example:

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

That's it. So this is what I might see:
HTTP errors (0)
Not found (0)
URLs not followed (0)
URLs restricted by robots.txt (1)
URLs timed out (0)
Unreachable URLs (0)
Google penalty? [] NO ...[] BORDERLINE ... [x] IMMINENT

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

I don't expect them to fix my pages or even tell me necessarily which page is in violation (though of course that would be tremendously useful) -- just give me a clue that trouble may be coming my way. If I don't heed the warning, then I've no one to blame.

....................................

jetteroheller




msg:3150430
 6:13 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

HTTP errors (0)
Not found (0)
URLs not followed (0)
URLs restricted by robots.txt (1)
URLs timed out (0)
Unreachable URLs (0)
Google penalty? [] NO ...[] BORDERLINE ... [x] IMMINENT
Violation: Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank

Great proposal!

This would be also an advantage for Google.

I have lost so much time with studying this forum what could be the reason for being in the filter.

There could be several more reportages on my web site where I have already photos and the material, but not the time beacus of all this hunt for the text of the 11th commandment.

idolw




msg:3150444
 6:26 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

reseller, re-read my post.

what you want is to change people's activity according to some company's guidelines, which are not natural.

people linked without any tag for ages and it worked. so why should they start using this tag now?

are you eager to start to use the kitchen as a toilet next only because some company needs you to change your routine of using toilet as a toilet to make more money?

this is what google is trying to force us to. and as i said earlier - they are not powerful enough to just add the 'follow' tag because most websites will not care about their rule and their index will $uck.

reseller




msg:3150672
 9:53 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Adam_Lasnik:

We will take action to level the playing field, however, when we see *significant patterns* of sites buying or selling links for the clear purpose of manipulating their ranking (rather than buying traffic).

I see that some of you aren't really interested in "to level the playing field" that Adam was talking about. How come?

Of course those sites owners who can afford paying big $$$ for purchasing PR-links, don't care less about "to level the playing field".

But I expect the majority of webmasters will benefit in cooperating with Google in "to level the playing field".

And I wish to ask: are those greedy PR-Links merchants worthy of Google notifying them of Penalties?

idolw




msg:3150737
 10:53 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

it is not about levelling the ground or not levelling.

it is about the way they do it. my opinion is that they should re-think their idea of nofollow tag as it is useless.

time of on-page factors getting you to #1 are gone. we all know it.

whitenight




msg:3150743
 10:57 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

And I wish to ask: are those greedy PR-Links merchants worthy of Google notifying them of Penalties?

There you go again, using words like "greedy" in a thread about Google. :)
Can we be spared the theatrics?

I don't care what Google does. But they had better do it full-tilt.

If they are going to crack down on "bought" links, start at the top and work down. Never have they had a better excuse to topple their #1 competitor from the SERPS. C-ya Yahoo.

Oh yeah, and they better crack down on affiliate links. Those are bought links as well. Bye Bye Amazon.

Then we go to the major news agency/sellers. So long NYTimes, CNN, WashingtonPost, so on, so forth.

Hmm by this time, I think those "greedy"
mom and pop webmasters/PR-sellers would get the point. Let us not worry about the potential lawsuits, as long as Reseller is happy.

---------
Honestly Reseller, learn the rules of the game and choose to play them or not. But this complaining over the playing field "not being fair"?

What world do you live in where the playing field is ever fair.

If you don't have the money to compete in your market, get creative with your marketing efforts or get out! .... or die off like the countless millions of businesses in the history of the world.

Gee, did you also actively boycott every major chain store and brand name product because somewhere along the line they used their collective strength to squeeze out a little guy?
If you do, GREAT! I commend you. You're not just crying sour grapes over YOUR particular situation. A man after my own heart.

If you don't, bleh. Again, get creative with your marketing or die. Even Amazon and Google started as "mom and pop" businesses with less than money than their competitors.

avalanche101




msg:3150760
 11:11 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

Personal slanging match over?
Yes? No? Round 2 on the way?
Way too much history here.

In answer to the question, should google notify webmasters of a penalty.
The answer is YES.
Why, because its becoming pretty obvious from posts on here that sites are getting snared through simple human error and not out of some desire to break the rules. Some do want to and are probably very successful about it and are honest enough to say they have.
Most of us do not want to break them as we want to build quality enterprises - integrity is key.
So, as an expample one poster has explained that they employed some company to add to their site and the company ended up generating duplicate pages, which snared the site. A warning before a penalty would have stopped the site going down the tubes, as I'm sure the site owner would have responded immediately. As it is they have had 9 months of oblivion.

reseller




msg:3150766
 11:20 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

whitenight

Honestly Reseller, learn the rules of the game and choose to play them or not.

Those rules of the greedy PR-Links merchants are going to kill Google one day. And those who are doing business by Google's serps all would be affected, including the majority of webmasters communities.

I agree that Google isn't equiped yet to fight back on PR-Links sellers. Google can't do it alone.

And I really can't understand the position of Google WebSpam Team on this subject. Why don't they treat PR-Links sellers the same way they treat spammers, and allow webmasters to report them!

Such reports could be dealt with manually at the begining and later use them to improve algos that identify those PR-Links merchants in order to penalize them with no mercy at all.

whitenight




msg:3150767
 11:21 pm on Nov 8, 2006 (gmt 0)

cause it cost money reseller. ;)

This 135 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 135 ( 1 2 3 [4] 5 > >
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