homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.66.204
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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 139 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 139 ( 1 2 3 4 [5]     
Sell links, lose trust, drop out?
glengara




msg:3339910
 9:47 am on May 15, 2007 (gmt 0)

"Link sellers can lose trust, such as their ability to flow PageRank/anchortext." - Matt Cutts.

That mightn't be seen as a particularly serious consequence by sellers, unless of course it also applies to internal links.

For many sites the loss of internal "juice" would have some pretty serious consequences...

 

hutcheson




msg:3346003
 1:19 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

>Link "reputation" flows both internally and externally, if neither is specified....

True. But realistically speaking, it's probably beyond the capability of Google algorithms to detect that you're paying yourself for links from one page on your domain to ... another page on your domain? Especially if you pay cash, don't give yourself a receipt, and do it in an abandoned mineshaft on a moonless night.

europeforvisitors




msg:3346024
 1:30 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

But realistically speaking, it's probably beyond the capability of Google algorithms to detect that you're paying yourself for links from one page on your domain to ... another page on your domain?

I don't think Google is ever going to take action against a Webmaster for transferring cash from his left pocket to his right pocket, but what's to prevent Google from devaluing all links (external or internal) on a site whose owner has been selling links to third parties?

jakegotmail




msg:3346030
 1:35 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

but what's to prevent Google from devaluing all links (external or internal) on a site whose owner has been selling links to third parties

if done on a large, large scale, massive amounts of collateral damage.

pageoneresults




msg:3346065
 3:05 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

But what's to prevent Google from devaluing all links (external or internal) on a site whose owner has been selling links to third parties?

You have to wonder if that isn't already being done in severe instances. I'd be willing to bet that it is. ;)

jakegotmail




msg:3346078
 3:44 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I wouldnt be surprised either...

However,
severe instances
is the key here.

shallow




msg:3346093
 5:17 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

So, I'm using Text-Links ads on the home page of my site. All links relate to the content of my site. I should drop them, otherwise I'll get penalized and, as a result, lose income, etc?

glengara




msg:3346151
 8:10 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

We're just speculating on what if anything may come out from this latest "warning" on paid links, the one on reciprocals in the "Timeline" post was followed by some "disruption" IIRC....

matrix_neo




msg:3346182
 9:12 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

But, we don't and can't know for sure right now. The wind of change is blowing and something will probably shift in the near future. Adwords/Adsense is going after arbitrage but in a gradual stepwise manner. I would guess that Google's organic search will also go after the link market in a similarly gradual way. But the warning has been given, and it's time to adapt.

I completely agree expect the last line. Here I am talking about the link that editorially qualifies and a human review would have no second opinon, whether or not it is a vote, for putting such a link on my website I have no guilty feeling to pass PR. To the best of my ethics I feel absolutely right do so even though I take money for it, which I feel I deserve.

Now tell me is it time to adopt google or to express my concern and push google to come up with better strategy or clarity of thought regarding such links?

People like to game the searchengines will not have much issue with the googles current stand on paid links and they will continue, even if they threaten to identify and penalise. Because identifying paidlinks is extremely difficult when it comes individual websites and not networks. Honest webmasters like us who try to follow google's guidelines are going to be in confusion and this time with paidlinks it is a tough decision whether or not to obey google.

Pico_Train




msg:3346193
 9:28 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Sure but it's pretty easy I guess.

Obey Google. Pass PR and link juice and keep having a visited site and the ability to build sites off that one.

Disobey Google and lose juice passing and sort of successful site with no ability to build relevant sites off it.

I like my traffic...

But I'm still grumbling because I am being told what to do and I never liked that.

matrix_neo




msg:3346240
 10:50 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

But I'm still grumbling because I am being told what to do and I never liked that.

I don't mind being told, but some thing that does not make sense to me, really bothers.

wheel




msg:3346292
 11:39 am on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

>>>Honest webmasters like us who try to follow google's guidelines are going to be in confusion and this time with paidlinks it is a tough decision whether or not to obey google.

Can we lose the attitude that obeying Google=Honest webmasters? The very idea that you're 'obeying' Google should tell you something.

And there's a third option in addition to 'obey Google' or 'sell links and get penalized'. It's 'sell/buy links in a fashion that Google- or users - can't detect'. Smart people have been preaching this for years already.

reseller




msg:3346358
 12:47 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

wheel

It's 'sell/buy links in a fashion that Google- or users - can't detect'. Smart people have been preaching this for years already.

It seems links sellers are detectable, but LARGE links sellers are untouchable :-)

wheel




msg:3346404
 1:30 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've seen this said - I'm not sure why Google would care about fallout from hammering the larger text sellers.

The longer term problem is if Google pulls off the ability to devalue blatant paid links. Right now the attitude seems to be that worst case you get a link worth 0 if it gets detected. But I think it won't be long to move from that to too many 'paid' links will start hammering your trust. I fully expect this to move to an algo where paid links can hurt your rankings.

jakegotmail




msg:3346436
 1:58 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I fully expect this to move to an algo where paid links can hurt your rankings.

Bring on the sabotage.....

I hope google is smarter then doing something of this nature.

[edited by: jakegotmail at 2:35 pm (utc) on May 22, 2007]

matrix_neo




msg:3346443
 2:06 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Can we lose the attitude that obeying Google=Honest webmasters? The very idea that you're 'obeying' Google should tell you something.

I think I have already lost.

Once I lost rankings with a site that I gained with guesbook links, and recovered and doing good now. Another occation I lost ranking with another site, which is a quality unique content site but an MFA content includes categories like finance, mortgage, eduction, travel and marketing. No wonder I receive only 10% of traffic I used to. I have no complaints with google so far infact I appriciated everytime and they made me a white hat SEO.

And now one of my site is still doing good, without getting affected by folorida update, alredy pre sandbox, -30 -950 penalties and it has no non relevent receips, no over optimization, no guestbooks, forums blogs and other spam links, along with hundreds of natural links it has some paid links along with domz and yahoo both submitted by customers ;) Such a good site many have said we are the best in that industry. Will it be penalised for selling links if not now eventually?

Now I am going to trun grey and black how many will join me ;) Isn't a thing for google to be concerned? Is it not a matter of loosing trust?

I am not against devaluing paidlinks but it should be only for the paidlink that will not pass the human review.

europeforvisitors




msg:3346484
 2:41 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

People like to game the searchengines will not have much issue with the googles current stand on paid links and they will continue, even if they threaten to identify and penalise. Because identifying paidlinks is extremely difficult when it comes individual websites and not networks.

What's hard about having employees or contractors buy links from brokers or suspected link sellers? (Or even having them inquire about buying links and see what happens next?)

Sting operations can send a loud message even if only a few high-profile fish get caught in the net.

Rlilly




msg:3346527
 3:27 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

matrix_neo

Sorry for attacking you the other day. I think in your case, where you carefully select the site you are linking to, very fussy and only to quality relevant sites, you could use the example Matt Cutts is giving for "Directories". The link should pass PR even if paid for. I think Google is more interested from the examples Matt Cutts presented is sites which except any paid link even if totally un-relevant?

mattg3




msg:3346756
 6:49 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Sting operations can send a loud message even if only a few high-profile fish get caught in the net.

Death penalty doesn't prevent murder, neither will "sting operations" prevent paid links and they would cost Google a lot of money since it's millions of websites.

Google will do the age old automation, I guess and that's it.

Unless they check bank accounts, they will have to look for the words or penalise where they GUESS links are paid.

But the Goooostapo is possibly a future concept Google wants to follow, so we didn't buy our tinfoil hats in vain. ;)

matrix_neo




msg:3346825
 8:01 pm on May 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Matt Cutts is giving for "Directories". The link should pass PR even if paid for.

It does not cover all paid directories, directories are allowed just to support their idea of link based crawling. if directories are not allowed to pass PR then every webmaster have to do link spaming to get some initial PR, these days you need PR even to get indexed.

This 139 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 139 ( 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