homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.21.163.227
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe and Support 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 164 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 164 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 > >     
Who is going to use the no follow in paid links? - part 2
willybfriendly




msg:3316428
 3:04 am on Apr 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

< continued from [webmasterworld.com...] >

>>>- The "nofollow" attribute was created to prevent "linkspam" in blogs, Wikis, forums, and other anyone-can-post venues. Matt Cutts has suggested that it might also be useful as a way to handle paid links that exist to drive traffic and not to manipulate PageRank. (He and his coleagues have suggested other methods as well; take your pick.)<<<

If we acdept this statement, the we must conclude that no follow was not intended to deal with people choosing to monetize their websites.

Google has a problem with their algo. It is in large part due to their dominance as a search engine. They can solve their own problem without infringinn on the right of others to make money.

I will grant that it is an intersting approach to get site owners snitching each other off when it is Google's problem. We have no obligation to assist Google in their search to maintain dominance, especially if it infringes on our ability to monetize our sites.

If Google can sell adspace, then I can damn well sell ad space. Further, I can do so according to my own policies and guidelines, not those imposed by Google.

And, if Google attempts to control my internal policies and guidelines by using their market dominance to impose what are ultimately fianancial penalties against me, well then I guess we need to start discussing unfair trade practices.

WBF

[edited by: tedster at 5:50 pm (utc) on April 20, 2007]

 

whitenight




msg:3318134
 8:43 am on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

And for all of you who think this is a brilliant idea.

Please, please, please don't come complaining when you start losing your rankings because:

A. 20-50% of your existing links don't count anymore because the site owners have put rel=nofollow on them out of fear.

B. 20-50% of your existing links don't count because those great PR7 editorial "completely natural" links were on sites that also sold a link, (or 2 or 10) to pay their site expenses and now can not pass PR to other sites.

C. 90% of the new links you now get have a rel=nofollow because the owner doesn't want to fall under G's mistaken wrath.

D. The sites who links to the sites that link to you fall under A, B, or C.

Might want to Stop & think about that for a minute....

[edited by: whitenight at 8:58 am (utc) on April 22, 2007]

Marcia




msg:3318146
 8:54 am on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

90% of the new links you now get have a rel=nofollow because the owner doesn't want to fall under G's mistaken wrath.

Unfortunately, mistaken is the Gestalt of the whole thing, the crux of the dichotomy, and the nexis.

Also - IMHO, of course:

Because people with perfectly honest, legitimate, quality sites with honest, legitimate, editorially correct and on-topic quality OBLs (yeah, even topically relevant sites legitimately worth linking to) are scared half out of their wits to link to ANYONE, no matter what. It's warped and SICK.

Some of the reasons rel=nofollow is being used on some sites and/or on some pages and/or on some links is just plain STUPID. Talk about sheep going to the slaughter, that's a perfect analogy. I can't believe the number of numbnuts who are falling for the unsubstantiated crap that's being perpetrated.

It's totally amazing how incredibly gullible some people are, who take action based on nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors and statements made by those whose rear ends suck more wind than a wind tunnel.

This announcement was made with a specific reason and target in mind, but it's being taken to unrealistic proportions based on nothing more than fear-ridden superstitions, myths and blatant misconceptionts.

[edited by: Marcia at 9:29 am (utc) on April 22, 2007]

steveb




msg:3318152
 9:29 am on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

"Paid links without rel=nofollow is nothing but an attempt to sell reputation regardless whether the backlinks buying site(s) deserve such reputaion or not."

Patent nonsense... and "nonsese" is at best. It's really bad craziness.

When some people are saying "paid links" they are seemingly only bizarrely talking about that small corner of the Internet where somebody buys a pharm link on a ballerina costume website. This however is the flea on the tail of the elephant.

In the real world, on the Internet on planet Earth, sites devoted to ballerina dancing sell ads to websites selling ballerina costumes.

Hellooooooo?

This process in the vast majority of cases has absolutely nothing to do with link pop, PR, link text variation or any other optimization tactics.

Google needs to address the issue of the pharm site buying links on a ballerina website in an attempt to spam/deceive Google into thinking the pharm site is more important than it is.

THAT is the issue. Selling on topic paid ad space is extremely seldom done for spam reasons. In the vast majority of cases it is meeting user needs with targeted services/information/products.

The main problem here is Google continues to do a terrible job understanding niche and theme. It's mindboggling that in very competitive areas some sites manage to rank based on irrelevant linking, be it ballerina ads or blog comments. The problem is Google gives weight to what has no value.

Worrying the effect on SERPS due to paid on topic advertising is like worrying about the paint on a deck chair on the Titanic. Google has far, far, far more pressing problems than that.

Google should be looking to identify things like those blocks of off-topic, unrelated ads where link pop is the entire point... but that has nothing at all to do with paid advertising, which amounts to a far greater slice of the Internet.

Google, figure out what a freaking page is about, then figure out what the variety of other pages being linked to are about, then assign a weight to the links. Don't make yet another blundering choice that makes more collateral damage than anything else because you don't make the effort to make your search engine topically better.

Marcia




msg:3318159
 10:21 am on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

The main problem here is Google continues to do a terrible job understanding niche and theme. It's mindboggling that in very competitive areas some sites manage to rank based on irrelevant linking, be it ballerina ads or blog comments. The problem is Google gives weight to what has no value.

So what's the deal, then, on phrase-based indexing, for which 5 patent applcations were publicly published?

Google should be looking to identify things like those blocks of off-topic, unrelated ads where link pop is the entire point... but that has nothing at all to do with paid advertising, which amounts to a far greater slice of the Internet.

Looking around and assessing what we see every day of the week, that is exactly, precisely the issue. What about block-level analysis, or is that patented by another search engine so it can't be used?

Google, figure out what a freaking page is about, then figure out what the variety of other pages being linked to are about, then assign a weight to the links. Don't make yet another blundering choice that makes more collateral damage than anything else because you don't make the effort to make your search engine topically better.

I find it very hard to find anything to disagree in those statements. There's a HUGE difference between relevant, on-topic, semantically related links and off-topic, completely unrelated paid links that have nothing whatsoever to do with the site.

Sweet Cognac




msg:3318206
 12:45 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's totally amazing how incredibly gullible some people are, who take action based on nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors and statements made by those whose rear ends suck more wind than a wind tunnel.

I guess I could be considered one of these people. But the word "gullible" should be changed to "desperate." Because right now I have a website that is getting zero traffic from Google. How about I just add nofollow to ALL my outgoing links, in which none are paid for, and none are reciprocal, just to see what happens? I don't think it could get any worse than it is.

rekitty




msg:3318227
 1:17 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

rekitty: This is specious at best. There's no reason to believe that sites with good content and genuine interest won't continue to rank well.

Play_Bach, Google will do everything possible to maximize its revenue from search results. This include favoring revenue (adsense sites) over quality (the local dentist site). It's a public company and its shareholders rightfully come first.

It's very clear there are scraper sites and other low quality adsense sites Google could easily identify and remove from their results. Why do you think they don't?

It's also clear that making links more difficult for the average webmaster to obtain benefits Google. Most small business sites will have no choice but to buy adwords as it becomes more difficult to rank organically,

As a public company Google rightfully and necessarily puts revenue first, even ahead of users. In fact, I believe Google has levers to control quality vs. revenue in its search results. As they become more and more dominant they continue to turn the knob toward revenue. Why wouldn't they? If Google starts to see some competition creeping up they will turn the knob back toward quality.

I can't blame Google for their actions. I'd do the same thing in their shoes. But since I'm not in their shoes, I won't be naive and pretend Google is altruistic and won't behave like a dominant revenue hungry business.

rekitty




msg:3318237
 1:52 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)


Just a couple years down the current path will result in no small sites having the means to rank on the first page. There will be nowhere for them to get links to do so.


That's a very myopic view of how sites can rank.

Really? Open your eyes a bit and you will see Google is making every standard link building technique more difficult for the average webmaster.

Ask yourself where your are links coming from? Is Google actively trying to de-value your links?

Obvious examples of Google making links more difficult to obtain:

  • Reciprocal link exchanges: Major FUD campaign from Matt with similar threats as he's made about paid links.

  • Forum and comment posts: mostly worthless now due to widespread nofollow use at Google's request.

  • Articles and press releases:far less valuable as pages are tagged as duplicate content and significantly devalued by Google.

  • Free and paid directory listings: falls under Google's initiative to have nofollow on paid and untrusted links.

  • Direct link advertisements: what this thread is all about.

Google's algorithms have always been "rich get richer" as nicely documented in the "Filthy Linking Rich" paper. What I've only recently realized is how much this helps Google's business model by forcing the average webmaster to give up on organic and buy adwords.

Actively making link development more difficult is a smart business initiative for Google. Using their market dominance to do so, however, is monopolistic.

europeforvisitors




msg:3318247
 2:20 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

As a public company Google rightfully and necessarily puts revenue first, even ahead of users. In fact, I believe Google has levers to control quality vs. revenue in its search results.

Oh, please. That's like saying "3M starts using cheaper sand in its sandpaper every time it gets another 1% of market share," or "Kellogg's has a plan to use cheap moldy corn in its cornflakes so it can report higher earnings to its stockholders."

Let's back back to the topic of paid links:

Q. Who's going to be hurt if Google manages to penalize or devalue such links?

A. Certainly not Google's users.

Let's say that your hypothetical dentist who buys paid links takes a dive in Google's SERPs. So what? There are plenty of other dentists to take his place. The average user isn't going to say "Gee, Google's SERPs aren't showing any dentists named Schmedlap here in Widgetville" or "I wonder why Dr. Bud's Web site ranks #951 for 'small-town dentists?'"

The mission of Google Search is to index content and help users find the most relevant information, as determined by Google's criteria, for specific keywords and keyphrases. If Google's criteria are based on the assumption that sites with run-of-the-mill or worse content are most likely to buy paid links (because they can't get links for other reasons), then link-buying-dentist-in-widgetville.com will have to be sacrificed for the greater good (meaning better search results for users, who won't know or care that Dr. Bud isn't getting free traffic from Google anymore).

whitenight




msg:3318252
 2:36 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

The mission of Google Search is to index content and help users find the most relevant information, as determined by Google's criteria

What a circular argument.

A. Google's mission is to make investor's money. Stop living in 1998

B. First see A. for it's primary "criteria".
By your logic, G doesn't need to rank any mom or pop website.

I can pick out your top 10 slots for any term

1. wiki
2. about.com
3. dictionary.com
4. amazon.com
5. washington post article on subject
6. yahoo directory
7. ny times article on subject
8. dmoz directory
9. (if search term can be bought) fortune 500 company selling it - who is buying links that G will never discount
10. (if search term can be bought) ebay

All of the above will be "relevant" and satisfy enough people to keep them clicking Adsense for what they are really looking for

oh yea, forget about the fact that Joe Dentist is buying links in the first place because the 10 sites above have over-inflated values according to G's algo and he couldn't even rank for his own name (although he's the best dentist in his town) before active link-getting...

[edited by: whitenight at 2:48 pm (utc) on April 22, 2007]

Play_Bach




msg:3318256
 2:39 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

> This include favoring revenue (adsense sites) over quality (the local dentist site).

rekitty: Where's the evidence? You seem obsessed with Chicken Little type scenarios regarding Google and it's practices/intentions. Without anything to back up your hyperbole it's hard to you seriously, sorry.

BTW for those keeping score, since adding nofollow to my sites on the 19th - page position, visits and revenue all significantly up!

[edited by: Play_Bach at 2:40 pm (utc) on April 22, 2007]

whitenight




msg:3318258
 2:41 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

BTW for those keeping score, since adding nofollow to my sites on the 19th - page position, visits and revenue all significantly up!

Of course, it is. You're sending more PR to your own pages.

Just wait until those linking to you get the same idea.;)

rekitty




msg:3318260
 3:04 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google should be looking to identify things like those blocks of off-topic, unrelated ads where link pop is the entire point... but that has nothing at all to do with paid advertising, which amounts to a far greater slice of the Internet.

I have very strong evidence that Google has been able to identify this type of text link ad for over a year and they no longer help with link popularity. Using common sense one can see just how easy they are to identify and de-value.

I personally continue to buy this form of advertising on relevant sites as I always have, even with no link popularity. I know it. my competitors know it. and Google knows it. They say sponsored links right on the ads. I buy them because they pay for themselves with clicks at a better price than I can get elsewhere, including adwords.

I think this is why I'm so annoyed at Matt Cutt's recent statements. If Google can already identify these paid links like these then what is his motivation for the FUD campaign about paid links?

All I know for sure is Google is being anti-competitive in scaring people away from buying a competitive form of advertising like these paid link ads. Publishers are harmed as this potential revenue stream dries up. Advertisers are harmed as a form of advertising with a potentially better ROI than adwords is eliminated from the market. I'm in the latter camp and afraid my options for advertising in the future will be limited because of Google's monopolistic behavior.

europeforvisitors




msg:3318266
 3:21 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

A. Google's mission is to make investor's money. Stop living in 1998

Every company is supposed to make money for its investors. However, well-managed companies understand the value of making products that are better than competitive products and that meet users' needs, and they don't take shortcuts to success that ultimately cheapen and weaken their product (remember Inktomi PFI)?

By your logic, G doesn't need to rank any mom or pop website.

Where do you get that idea? Many mom-and-pop Web sites are "best of breed," even in competitive categories, so Google would be foolish not to rank them. What's more, mom-and-pop Web sites can rank extremely well in Google--even for keyphrases with millions (or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions) of search results. But they don't do it with paid links; they do it by providing users--and, indirectly, search engines--with content of intrinsic value to users.

If the Google-is-evil-because-it-won't-let-me-manipulate-PageRank crowd would spend as much money on reader-oriented content as they do on questionable SEO tactics, they might be pleasantly surprised by the results.

pageoneresults




msg:3318283
 3:49 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

If the Google-is-evil-because-it-won't-let-me-manipulate-PageRank crowd would spend as much money on reader-oriented content as they do on questionable SEO tactics, they might be pleasantly surprised by the results.

That won't happen anytime soon. The method you describe above takes time, perseverance and in most instances, working capital. There is a whole generation out there that has to have it now! Too many short term thinkers running about. ;)

And, back to the topic...

Just think what would happen if 100,000 sites were to implement the nofollow attribute. What type of trickle down effect does that have on the web as a whole?

Play_Bach




msg:3318291
 4:14 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

> Just think what would happen if 100,000 sites were to implement the nofollow attribute.
> What type of trickle down effect does that have on the web as a whole?

Thanks to all the bloggers publishing away like mad, there's bound to be millions of pages already that have nofollow. My hunch is that if wasn't a positive thing, by now the search engines would have abandoned it.

whitenight




msg:3318292
 4:15 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

and they don't take shortcuts to success that ultimately cheapen and weaken their product

You mean like telling their suppliers to change their practices instead of creating a better algo that isn't dependant on 1,000,000 other individuals with separate business goals fixing their problem?
ok, gotcha. ;)

Many mom-and-pop Web sites are "best of breed," even in competitive categories, so Google would be foolish not to rank them. What's more, mom-and-pop Web sites can rank extremely well in Google-

Perhaps you missed my point so i'll let you reread pageoneresults answer and then my own.

Just think what would happen if 100,000 sites were to implement the nofollow attribute. What type of trickle down effect does that have on the web as a whole?

A. 20-50% of your existing links don't count anymore because the site owners have put rel=nofollow on them out of fear.

B. 20-50% of your existing links don't count because those great PR7 editorial "completely natural" links were on sites that also sold a link, (or 2 or 10) to pay their site expenses and now can not pass PR to other sites.

C. 90% of the new links you now get have a rel=nofollow because the owner doesn't want to fall under G's mistaken wrath.


whitenight




msg:3318299
 4:24 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

there's bound to be millions of pages already that have nofollow. My hunch is that if wasn't a positive thing, by now the search engines would have abandoned it

Last I checked, blog publishing puts rel=nofollow on user-generated comments not every link in a post, so that argument isn't relevant.

Positive for who? Making the false assumption that indeed rel=nofollow was put on all outgoing links in blog posts, what great site(s) isn't ranking right now because of it?

Will the next wikipedia or youtube never rank cause selfish and/or scared webmasters simply put rel=nofollow on every outbound link out of some veiled, unknown punishment by Google?!

europeforvisitors




msg:3318302
 4:37 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Just think what would happen if 100,000 sites were to implement the nofollow attribute. What type of trickle down effect does that have on the web as a whole?

As Play_Bach has pointed out, blogs are already doing that (and have been for some time).

Also, who's most likely to implement the "nofollow" attribute for plain-vanilla links (as opposed to publicly-contributed blog, forum, or Wiki links)? Easy: The kind of Webmaster who tries to manipulate PageRank via link exchanges and other SEO techniques, and whose links therefore aren't "organic" and don't represent genuine "votes" for the link recipients. Does it really matters to users if, say, 500 of the inbound reciprocal links to joes-widgets.com or bobs-bookings.com suddenly have "nofollow" attached to them?

Fact is, the Web will be a better place for users if paid text links can be devalued, discouraged, or even penalized by search engines. It may not be a better place for Joes-widgets.com or bobs-bookings.com, espeecially if Joe and Bob are relying on paid links to compensate for their lack of intrinsically useful content. But that's a problem for Joe and Bob, not for search engines and searchers.

whitenight




msg:3318308
 4:46 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Fact is, the Web will be a better place for users if paid text links can be devalued, discouraged, or even penalized by search engines

Ok, and what exactly is preventing Google from simply turning off the PR toolbar? Yea, yea i know, some "unknown" independent study group said 50% of people in Nowhere Town, Idaho are using Google only because of the gimmicky marketing campaign you spent millions on... got it, MC.

Or how about one of the millions of super-genius, former nuclear-physicists that works at the 'plex - that I hear so much about - create a patch that implements this without announcing it to the whole world.

Or how about creating an algo that reflects the web of today, not 3 internet generations ago?
Can someone pull Brin and Page from their winter homes in Shangri-la to write the code up for this?
Seems the ex-nuclear physicists are having trouble creating it without their brain power.

Play_Bach




msg:3318315
 5:04 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

> Last I checked, blog publishing puts rel=nofollow on user-generated comments not every link in a post, so that argument isn't relevant.

Of course it's relevant - a page is a page. All those comments get spidered like everything else. The fact of the matter is that nofollow is very much already in the system and the search engines are no doubt keenly aware of it's effectiveness or lack thereof. That they continue it's use, speaks volumes.

[edited by: Play_Bach at 5:06 pm (utc) on April 22, 2007]

whitenight




msg:3318322
 5:16 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wow, you really missed the point.

No one's arguing if nofollow is going to blow up their datacenters and pages won't be found

We're saying people like you (and others in this thread) are already implementing it for no other reasons than you don't want to anger G.

(btw - this is just as much PR manipulation as buying links...just to be clear)

According to you, those links were originally placed with the best intentions yes?
Then why are you placing nofollow on them just now?!.
Do you suddenly not vouch for them? Did they turn into via.gra and p.orn sites recently?!

I say we make it easy for poor defenseless Goog with the evil webmasters manipulating their super-complex, undecipherable algo and every site put nofollow on every outbound link.
Let's see if the "relevant" websites rank then.

ooh, ooh, i have an idea, let's rank pages according to title, meta keywords, and keyword density.. err wait..nvm...

rekitty




msg:3318328
 5:48 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

spend as much money on reader-oriented content

Doesn't work any more, sorry. Add "create great content" to the list of techniques Google has de-valued in the last year.

Google has sent half the content in the web into their supplemental index where it can't rank. This isn't because it's bad content, it's because it doesn't have enough PageRank in most cases.

Is it a coincidence they are doing this simultaneously with making PageRank more difficult to obtain? Is it a coincidence this is good for Google's advertising business? I think not.

europeforvisitors




msg:3318329
 5:54 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

We're saying people like you (and others in this thread) are already implementing it for no other reasons than you don't want to anger G.

What on earth are you talking about? I doubt if I have more than a dozen "nofollow" links (out of thousands of outbound editorial links). Like Marcia, I think it's idiotic--and, as I've warned, potentially counterproductive--to use "nofollow" for legitimate unpaid, handpicked, hand-edited links.

As for "missing the point," the participants in this thread who keep missing the point are those who think Google's search results should exist for the benefit of marketers and SEOs. Search results are intended to serve users, not Webmasters who crave traffic, and if the engineers at Google Search believe that neutralizing PageRank transfer from purchased links will help them do a better job of serving their audience, then they should be commended for making the effort.

What's more, Google's search engineers deserve credit for offering the "nofollow" option to Webmasters who claim to buy and sell links for legitimate advertising purposes and not to manipulate Google's search results.

whitenight




msg:3318331
 5:56 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Doesn't work any more, sorry. Add "create great content" to the list of techniques Google has de-valued in the last year.

Google has sent half the content in the web into their supplemental index where it can't rank

That's not entirely true rekitty.

You can spend money on adwords to get people to see your informational relevant user-focused page and then they of course will link to it (hopefully without nofollow), pulling it out of supplemental and allow you to place adsense on it so you can recoup your costs.

:)

whitenight




msg:3318333
 6:04 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

What on earth are you talking about?

First, please reread the quoted post. Which was to bach...
Then scroll up and back to the 3 or 4 other posts by Bach and others where people clearly said they were implementing/testing nofollow on their white-hat sites (which supposedly should have no issues) out of FEAR of upsetting G.

Search results are intended to serve users, not Webmasters who crave traffic, and if the engineers at Google Search believe that neutralizing PageRank transfer from purchased links will help them do a better job of serving their audience, then they should be commended for making the effort.

Now, again, go back up and reread the post to you (i quote who i'm talking to usually) where i agreed with you..

I know my sarcasm is hard to understand when read, but I gave several other options that don't depend on 1,000,000 website owners working together to fix Google's problem while potentially destroying the credibility of their stupid algo and the basics of the web community.
(and stop with the "this is the solution" nonsense... we all know people will find a way to abuse it regardless)

Just because someone thinks of a solution to overpopulation doesn't make it right or just or good.
Do a search on all the demonic "solutions" for overpopulation there are...all very "commendable" according to your logic.

[edited by: whitenight at 6:21 pm (utc) on April 22, 2007]

The Contractor




msg:3318336
 6:13 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Let's back back to the topic of paid links:

Q. Who's going to be hurt if Google manages to penalize or devalue such links?

A. Certainly not Google's users.

hmmm... I could make that argument for AdWords ads showing on Googles search results, all print ads, and those ads/commercials on TV and radio..... who would care if they all disappeared - oh, the advertisers of course.
I could say that even about your site. If it went away, how many people is it really going to affect?

You can't make blatant comments like that...hehe

[edited by: The_Contractor at 6:14 pm (utc) on April 22, 2007]

whitenight




msg:3318345
 6:42 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Here's my prediction whether you're for it or against it.

6 months from now, we'll be hearing about massive collateral damage as a large variety of "authority" sites pull a wiki and refuse to link out - affecting a number of their ancestral relatives on the link chain.(ie. mainly whitehat mom and pop sites)

Those who are serious about buying links to rank will have figured what links do count and will be buying those links quietly and effectively.(and still ranking)

G stock will be at new 3rd quarter highs as those who aren't able (or are afraid) to buy/sell relevant links will be spending that money on adwords/adsense.

I'll wait 6 months to link back to this post. ;)

lammert




msg:3318358
 7:05 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

6 months from now, we'll be hearing about massive collateral damage as a large variety of "authority" sites pull a wiki and refuse to link out

I really doubt. A large number of outgoing links are found in blogs, forums, guestbooks and large sites like wikipedia, and most of those sites changed to nofollow back in 2005. I haven't heard of a crash in rankings because of this (except for the real blackhats probably who relied solely on link spam on user writable pages).

At least 95% of the other outgoing links are on sites where either the site owner has never heard of nofollow, never heard of Matt Cutts or simple doesn't care about adding nofollow.

A subset of the links on the remaining sites may be changed in nofollow links, but I am not expecting any major shifts in the SERPs just because one Google employee in one post on his personal blog advices to put nofollow on a certain group of links. That would be too much honor for Matt.

europeforvisitors




msg:3318369
 7:44 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

6 months from now, we'll be hearing about massive collateral damage as a large variety of "authority" sites pull a wiki and refuse to link out - affecting a number of their ancestral relatives on the link chain.(ie. mainly whitehat mom and pop sites)

Unlikely, because--unlike Wikipedia--most "authority sites" don't have to worry about contributors loading up their pages with linkspam.

What's more, if Google succeeds in discouraging even some paid links, that should benefit owners of mom-and-pop sites who don't play blackhat SEO games, don't have the budgets to hire SEO firms, and understand that--for a search engine like Google--content is the product that counts.

whitenight




msg:3318371
 7:51 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

What's more, if Google succeeds in discouraging even some paid links, that should benefit owners of mom-and-pop

Ok, then i'll give my alternate prediction. :P

Absolutely nothing will change in SERPS.

Why?

Because any search term worth "bought links" is obviously a good ROI and is worth finding some other way to get it to rank.

Either way, i don't foresee any thing good coming from this whole "experiment" for mom and pop websites.

Future History may prove me wrong, but I'll point to one of my favorite examples.

In blind taste tests, Pepsi beats Coke 2 to 1 and yet Coke dominates the Cola market at around 80% vs 20%.

Anyone know why?
(hint. 99% of Coke's budget goes to this)

reseller




msg:3318373
 7:58 pm on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

lammert

A subset of the links on the remaining sites may be changed in nofollow links, but I am not expecting any major shifts in the SERPs just because one Google employee in one post on his personal blog advices to put nofollow on a certain group of links. That would be too much honor for Matt.

But Matt Cutts isn't just "one Google employee". Matt is Head of Google's spam detection team. ;-)

This 164 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 164 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 > >
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