tedster
msg:3322777 | 6:15 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
There's an interesting report from errorsamac in this thread:
[webmasterworld.com...] errorsamac:
I'm in the process of testing this out, but I think I have found a flaw in how Google
is counting links and/or preventing Google bombs. If you have a high PR site
(PR7 for example) and you link to a normal, non-authority, PR3 site, you can take
that site out of the SERPs for the particular keyword or phrase. I just tested it on
one of my sites that I don't care about... tedster:
...did the url you targeted go to "end of results" -- as in what people
call the "-950 penalty"? errorsamac:
Yes, I just checked and both sites are hit with the -950 penalty....
...as far as I know, there is no known way to recover from this
(other than to get good links to offset the bad links) |
|
|
trakkerguy
msg:3322821 | 6:42 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Will be interesting to hear if others can confirm - if so, hunting season will be on. But how do we know "errorsamac" is not a linkseller with a supply of PR7's he wants to unload :)
|
MrStitch
msg:3322843 | 7:11 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Prolly... Wouldn't be very fair to those that issue online press releases. For instance, the company I work for has a new product coming out that this industry has been after for a VERY long time. We finally cracked the code. When I make the press release, would I get penalized since it's very likely that some high PR sites will have my link? Sounds kinda dumb.... unless G actually didn't have the foresight to see that.
|
errorsamac
msg:3322864 | 7:20 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Another way I've done this is by getting TONS of spam links pointed at a domain with the targeted anchor text. So if your site is all about "Blue Widgets", get 1000+ spam links pointed at it with "Blue Widgets" as the anchor text. The PR7 trick seemed to work quicker than the spam links, probably because it took Google more time to find all of the spam links as compared to the PR7 link. As I mentioned in a different thread, my motive for posting this is to raise awareness in hopes that Google actually fixes the problem.
|
errorsamac
msg:3322876 | 7:28 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
MrStitch - From what I can tell, the links have to be from an off-topic website. So if you have a bunch of links from casino/pharmacy related sites pointing to your "homemade blue widgets" site, using the same or almost identical anchor text, you can take the page down in the SERPs. As far as press releases and/or news sites, I assume that they have enough trust that you won't be negatively affected.
|
TaLu
msg:3322884 | 7:34 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
So, errorsamac you say if SITE "A" with PR7 link to SITE "B" with specific keyword and less PR, Site "B" will be penalized (-950) or viceversa? Thanks.
|
tedster
msg:3322931 | 8:04 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I've also seen several cases where it looked like this was happening. I highlighted the idea here because it seems to play into the -950 phenomenon - but the 950 shows up in other cases as well. So I see this idea as a clue, not "the answer".
|
errorsamac
msg:3322949 | 8:18 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
TaLu - Yes. I bought a single PR7 link on an off-topic website and pointed it one of my pages which was previously ranked on page 1 for a few keywords. The page then saw the -950 penalty. Off-Topic Site PR7 -> My Site PR3 (page updated weekly) I have another example where I got a bunch of spam links pointed at another page (different domain) with similar anchor text and that also saw the -950 penalty. Lots of spam links (PR0+) -> My Site PR3 (page static since late 2006)
|
TaLu
msg:3322989 | 8:52 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Thanks for your reply errorsamac. About the first example I think is logic because Matt cuts say that Google declarate the war to the purchased links and the bot can identify a link in a non-topic site. But about the second example I dont know because if I want down the rank of my competition for example, and I have a lot of spam sites, I only need to point to my victim and voila! the site desapear from the well positions. Its the negative to google bombing.
|
errorsamac
msg:3322995 | 8:57 pm on Apr 26, 2007 (gmt 0) |
If Google declares war on purchased links, what is stopping you from buying off-topic links to your competitors?
|
mattg3
msg:3324093 | 5:17 pm on Apr 27, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Nothing it seems. When is a general content site off topic? IE WP?
|
errorsamac
msg:3324116 | 5:35 pm on Apr 27, 2007 (gmt 0) |
In my example, it was a "computer" related site pointing to a "widget" site (where widget has absolutely nothing to do with computers).
|
mattg3
msg:3324540 | 2:27 am on Apr 28, 2007 (gmt 0) |
well it seems I have been 950ed. :( We don't do link exchanges but have been pestered lately with gazzilions of people asking :\.
|
mattg3
msg:3324594 | 3:46 am on Apr 28, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Hmm, having read this now all. We bounce back and forth since 3 months. Mostly the 950 lasts 5 days. We had the longest stability when we did not work on the site as we were on holidays and offline business trip. This pesky penalty might be related to doing more work on our site. This utter frustration that more work seems to ALWAYS be linked to some form of penalty then frustration no work we jump back... then hope arises work back to penalty and so on. Since we have directory, videos, pictures, wiki, jobs , event calendar and so on, I have no idea really which part is the guilty one. People come still in by the by nature content poor directory, where we only allow people in by email application and if it fits to the sites theme and the fsites are worth linking to. Naturally in the wiki we have many people trying to get their site linked, which I usually revert if it's not fitting. As we are the main portal in our sector we are linked by all relevant pages, associations and unis but obviously link also back to them. This has happened organic since nearly 10 years so somewhat of a unintended reciprocal going on there obviously. < continued here; [webmasterworld.com...] > [edited by: tedster at 11:11 pm (utc) on April 29, 2007]
|
| This 194 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 194 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] ) |
|
|
