homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.17.162.174
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
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

    
Statcounter and PR
Has this been resolved?
diggle




msg:3304422
 5:17 pm on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

Does anyone know if having Statcounter on your website may possibly affect Google rankings detrimentally? I have done a search of the subject on WW and nothing definite was forthcoming. Does anyone think they may have been affected and is there any evidence to support this?

 

bwnbwn




msg:3304477
 6:18 pm on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

No stacounter has no effect on any search engine....

crobb305




msg:3304505
 7:27 pm on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why on earth would it? I have never seen an effect, nor heard of one.

reseller




msg:3304584
 9:10 pm on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

However...

If Google discover for example that Statcounter is selling backlinks and ultimately classify the site as "Bad Neighborhood", one might expect sites linking to Statcounter to be affected.

diggle




msg:3304590
 9:22 pm on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

If Google discover for example that Statcounter is selling backlinks and ultimately classify the site as "Bad Neighborhood", one might expect sites linking to Statcounter to be affected.

Yes but "if" is speculation. IS Statcounter selling baclinks? Would G classify the site as Bad Neighbourhood? Would sites be affected?

What's the reality?

tedster




msg:3304599
 9:42 pm on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

What is the reality indeed. I've seen worry, concern and near-paranoia posted around the web about this.

The accounts of ranking trouble that I've seen always seem to be related to other Google problems, especially around major algo shifts and so on. And for everyone suspicous of statcounter, there are thousand of users seeing no problem. Logic seems to dictate that there is no problem, per se -- no systematic Google penalty or demotion or whatever.

Also it's important to differentiate between Google PageRank and Google rankings -- they are very different.

diggle




msg:3304606
 9:51 pm on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hi tedster,

PR doesn't concern me really. It's the rankings that are more important.
I suppose only Google can definitively answer this question.

selomelo




msg:3304631
 10:43 pm on Apr 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

I have statcounter from the first day for my 3 sites. Two of them are at #1 position, and the third at #2 for the target keywords, and at #1 for literally hundreds of longtails.

I still keep the statcounter code, since it really helps to quickly check visitor statistics especially during the development phase.

crobb305




msg:3304714
 2:04 am on Apr 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

Is "statcounter" being used as a general term here, or the name of a particular counter?

reseller




msg:3304785
 5:55 am on Apr 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

tedster

Logic seems to dictate that there is no problem, per se -- no systematic Google penalty or demotion or whatever.

Thats right, ted.

However, following the same logic, there are two logical explanations:

- Statcounter is not selling backlinks and there is no systematic Google penalty or demotion or whatever.

- Statcounter is selling backlinks but Google hasn't noticed that yet therefore there is no systematic Google penalty or demotion or whatever.

IMO all PR10 (and maybe PR9 too) sites should be kept under surveillance and should have annual Google health certificate or badge. That way people will have faith in the system and we would have avoided near-paranoia concern ;-)

diggle




msg:3304807
 6:47 am on Apr 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't understand. Why or how would a company that measures the hits on a website sell backlinks? From who, to who? Surely this would have been spotted before now and penalised. Are we to surmise that other stat companies might be suspected of doing the same? If that's the case, I'm sure the eagle eyes of WW would have noticed. :)

selomelo




msg:3304828
 8:02 am on Apr 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

According to a recent blogpost by Statcounter, some advertisers approached SC and "offered $$$ to include a spyware cookie on all of our member sites." They refused the offer, they claim.

High PR and/or high traffic sites naturally attracts advertisers. And if the site owner yields to such offers, the site itself can become a spammer.

reseller




msg:3304833
 8:17 am on Apr 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

selomelo

High PR and/or high traffic sites naturally attracts advertisers. And if the site owner yields to such offers, the site itself can become a spammer.

Well said!

And allow me to add:

High PR sites naturally attracts backlinks buyers interested in boosting their PageRank. And if the site owner yields to such offers, the site itself can become a spammer. ;-)

diggle




msg:3305027
 4:27 pm on Apr 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

So what are we to read into the ;-)? Are you claiming that is what Statcounter have done? If so, what is the provenance? (Or are you just generalising\theorising?)
We need specifics! ;)

tedster




msg:3305151
 8:11 pm on Apr 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

Obviously only Google could say for sure, and that kind of official statement is unlikely. However, when Matt Cutts linked to 3 stats programs in one sentence from his blog...

I have a couple questions. First, do any other metrics companies break down
browser market share? Bill Tancer or Compete, do you have any Firefox vs. IE data?
OneStat, StatCounter, or eXTReMe Tracking, whaddaya got for us?

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/my-firefox-vs-ie-stats/ [mattcutts.com]

...he placed a rel=nofollow attribute only on the link to statcounter, and some people have made a fuss about that. But maybe Matt just felt they didn't need any more PR juice, you know? He certainly was addressing them quite amicably in his request for any browser stats they might be willing to share.

reseller




msg:3305193
 9:33 pm on Apr 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

Generally speaking.

Webmasters mostly advised to avoid having outbound links especially on their own homepages. Reason is to avoid "diluting" the PageRank of the homepage or lets say to avoid passing PR juice to other sites.

Of course you become suspicious when you see for example a high PR value site having on its homepage a list of say 15 outbound links (without rel=nofollow and neither affiliate links) under name RECOMMENDED, PARTNERS, LINKS etc..

Usually, that is the way backlinks selling for the purpose of boosting PageRank looks like!

So...

If It Walks Like A Duck And Quacks Like A Duck Its Probably A...... :-)

diggle




msg:3305442
 7:00 am on Apr 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

reseller. Thanks for that. I think I know what you're saying but if sc have a 10, they don't seem to be coming to any harm as far as Google are concerned, do they. If anything was amiss, surely they would be penalised and not websites using their services.

reseller




msg:3305452
 7:43 am on Apr 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

diggle

As selomelo mentioned correctly in his previous post, Statcounter posted on their blog on March 25th, 2007:

Folks,

A few months back, StatCounter was approached by an advertiser, offered lots of $$$, and asked to include a spyware cookie on all of our member sites…we refused on the spot.

And thats of course great.

To avoid any "misunderstanding" of Statcounter position on selling backlinks, one would expect Statcounter to post on their blog or here on this thread a statement to the effect:

Folks,

The several outbound links you see under section "RECOMMENDED" on the left side bar of our pages are not paid backlinks. To avoid any misunderstanding, we are adding rel=nofollow to all the said outbound links.

Looking forward to hearing from StatCounter!

diggle




msg:3305457
 8:00 am on Apr 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Hi reseller,
You can't miss the links but, paid for or not, do you think anyone using sc's services is in jeopardy of being penalised by Google?
And why haven't Google penalised sc?

reseller




msg:3305461
 8:18 am on Apr 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

diggle

Hi reseller,
You can't miss the links but, paid for or not, do you think anyone using sc's services is in jeopardy of being penalised by Google?

Only Google can answer that.

[edited by: tedster at 8:43 am (utc) on April 8, 2007]

diggle




msg:3306183
 12:13 pm on Apr 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Just noticed some suspicious behaviour.
There was a visit to my website which, when I looked it up linked to a search site called landing.trafficz (etc) which, when I clicked on it showed the name statcounter on the page along with various search categories.
Any ideas what is happening?

reseller




msg:3306366
 2:57 pm on Apr 9, 2007 (gmt 0)

Just a general observation.

For the first time I see AdSense spots on StatCounter pages. The spots are located under the section which list the several backlinks under name RECOMMENDED.

Maybe those AdSense spots have always been there, and its me who haven't noticed that.

Maybe StatCounter studying the possibility of substituting the list of several "RECOMMENDED" backlinks by AdSense spots in future.

Who knows.

reseller




msg:3308432
 2:39 pm on Apr 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

Another observation.

One of the backlinks under "RECOMMENDED" on StatCounter pages, belongs to a Link Exchange Network. On the top of the homepage of that particular Link Exchange Network you read:

Exchanging links with other websites is the fastest and easiest way to increase the link popularity and search engine ranking of your website.

And I thought that a site of PR10 like StatCounter would respect Google Webmaster Guidelines, which include:

Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web, as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.

Oh well...

toonarmy




msg:3308452
 2:58 pm on Apr 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

do a search on google blogs for sitemeter and have a look at what they have done, i have started to take them off my sites

diggle




msg:3308506
 3:57 pm on Apr 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

reseller. thanks for your vigilance. I have removed it just to be on the safe side.

reseller




msg:3311543
 6:09 am on Apr 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

Our kind fellow member Matt Cutts has posted on his blog recently (14th April 2007) three posts which mightbe of relevance to this thread:

How to report paid links [mattcutts.com]

Hidden links [mattcutts.com]

By the way.. [mattcutts.com]

Thanks Matt. Highly appreciated.

reseller




msg:3324688
 7:50 am on Apr 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

I see StatCounter PR has dropped from PR10 to PR9 as a result of the current PR update (28th. April 2007).

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.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved